Confirmation and Betrothal

[Fides_et_Ratio]

One obvious factor I think we're missing here is schooling... you can't get married if you have to go to college so you can get a job to actually support your family if you're called to the married life. Going to school pushes back the "ideal" marriage age it would seem...

If a guy gets married and doesn't go to college, he risks significant disadvantage in applying for jobs, not to mention salary disadvantages... if you want a more traditional marriage structure (i.e., man wins the bread, woman stays home and raises/educates the children) then you're going to need the money to be able to support yourself. And trying to get through college AND being married/raising children would be a gigantic strain on both the spouses and finances.

Plus, I don't think 14-18 year olds are as mature these days as they were in earlier times... I know I certainly wasn't mature enough to be getting married then. Heck, most of them probably shouldn't even be dating.

[Aloysius]

and in this IDEAL, the current college system is a bad idea especially insofar as it makes it seem like a necessity for everyone rather than a personal choice for a select few whose vocation is scholarly.

as regards the median marriage age in the US... those are interesting numbers. I would like to see them side by side with percentages of how many people go to colleges too... so I can blame all of this on my real archnemesis: COLLEGE!! mwahahaha

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]the current college system is a bad idea especially insofar as it makes it seem like a necessity for everyone rather than a personal choice for a select few whose vocation is scholarly.[/quote]

Going to college does not make you a 'scholar'. That title is reserved for the academic elite. Going to college means that you will actually be able to earn a decent wage when you graduate, because most good jobs require some kind of tertiary education. A sixteen-year-old boy who is working full-time in Wal-Mart will not be able to afford a house for his supposed wife or be able to finance the many other things that a family needs. Furthermore, there is nothing Catholic about turning down the opportunity of a thorough education.

I am nineteen years old and I've always been the quiet, level-headed type. When I was at high school my teachers often used to remark that I was very grown-up for my age. But even so, I certainly wasn't capable of marrying at fourteen or fifteen - physically (you're still growing at that age!), psychologically, or spiritually. With prayer and divine grace I could probably cope with marriage now, but even at nineteen the idea disturbs me a little.

[Aloysius]

"cope" with marriage ... I suppose that's what people have to do in modern marriages... "cope"

marriage is about two people growing together. therefore, it makes sense that it begin while two people are still [i]growing[/i].

again, people get confused when I start the ideal age range for thinking of marriage at the ages listed in canon law assuming that's when I think everyone should be married. it's not even a median of that age range that I'm saying, I'm saying that's the age range to begin planning, preparing, thinking about, and eventually doing a marriage... all of that within that age range. 14-20ish for girls... 16-20ish for guys.

as regards college: I am absolutely against the concept that college should be required in order to get a good job. not only do I think this has been harmful to all the kids being sent to college, and all the families struggling to pay outrageously high tuitions, but also to the college system itself which has denegrated because of the massive waves of youth, many of which should not be there, who are only doing it to get better jobs. the college system should be about education for the sake of education; learning for the sake of learning in and of itself. getting jobs should be based upon apprenticeships; learning the exact particular job you're supposed to be doing.

oh, and yeah I forgot, the only thing one can do if not going to college is work at wal-mart (or more common in this popular mythology-propaganda: mcdonald's) ... please. cannot you open your imagination to an ideal for a moment? that's all I'm discussing, an ideal. after you set your head around an ideal, you only practically do those practical things which you find closest to that ideal.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]"cope" with marriage ... I suppose that's what people have to do in modern marriages... "cope" [/quote]

You are right; 'cope' isn't a word that should be used in conjunction with marriage. The fact that I currently see marriage as a rather frightening and difficult thing - a thing to be coped with - shows that I am [i]not ready[/i] for it. I don't fully comprehend it and I will only come to comprehend it in the Lord's good time. And as a nineteen-year-old, I know that many of my peers - faithful Catholics who are trying their best to walk in the faith - feel the same way. It's unreasonable to suppose that there should be a uniform age for marriage/entry to a religious order - and unrealistic to think that there ever can be. It varies from person to person.

[quote]marriage is about two people growing together. therefore, it makes sense that it begin while two people are still growing.[/quote]

Firstly, I meant growing in the physical sense. It is not a good idea for a girl whose body is still developing to start having children. My mother was a midwife in Saudi Arabia, a country where young marriage used to be quite common (although the legal age for it is still fourteen, the average age of a Saudi bride has risen to twenty over the years) so I know that it can actually be physically damaging for the girl-mother. I can remember my mum getting very worried over one of her youngest patients, because she thought the girl would be unable to deliver the child safely - her frame was too slight and the baby turned out to be in the breach position. That happened in a very rural part of Saudi. But even in the modern areas, where there are excellent hospitals, childbirth is still dangerous for girls whose bodies simply aren't ready to take it. If you were female you might have a better understanding of the body's limits.

Secondly, marriage does mean growing together - so surely it is best to create a stable basis for it to grow from? Put two teenagers with raging hormones in the same house and you don't have a recipe for emotional stability. Put two teenagers who haven't had the chance to get a full education in the workplace and you have no guarantee of financial stability - they won't have the qualifications needed to get a well-paid job and support a family. Wait until the hormones have quietened down and the couple are able to think more rationally, wait until they have had enough life experiences to plant the seeds of responsibility, and wait until they have each had an education, and then a marriage will be able to succeed.

You hold up an 'ideal' system in which college isn't necessary to get a good job - an ideal system that currently doesn't exist and probably never will. So how can anyone take the ideal seriously? Especially as the ideal involves a person deciding, at the age of fourteen, which career path he is going to follow for the rest of his lives so he or she can be 'apprenticed' to the right person. As most well-paid jobs involve multiple skills that can't be learnt purely through observation, the scheme wouldn't work anyway.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Al,

I think I'm beginning to better understand what you mean (your latest post offered some important clarifications)... however, unless your future children chose to enter the religious life/seminary they might be at a disadvantaged considering that the majority of Catholic families are going to follow the current world model which will keep the marriage age in the late twenties. Considering maturity, I think this is a good thing for now.

I also think that, for any of them that chose the married life it would put them at a disadvantage and/or force them to acquaint themselves with much older men/women because they would be more prepared/mature than the vast majority of their age group.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1028563' date='Jul 21 2006, 09:17 PM']
the stuff about arranged marriages: that life and society used to revolve around kindship and family relationships is not something bad. mismatched ages in many cases were something bad. but that a marriage develops not because of some elected decision but because of a family arrangement which took into account politics and economics, all of which were revolving around kinship at the time, I do not think is all that horrible. I stand by my belief that any two people can have a successful and loving marriage by the grace of God and Christian virtue, they needn't hunt down the "best match" to have a good marriage and a good family.[/quote]

Al,

I had thought about this over the weekend and just remembered something: arranged marriages may be against current church teaching:

1) CCC 2230 states that "Parents should be careful not to exert pressure on their children either in the choice of a profession or in the choice of a spouse".

2) In the nuptial ceremony, couples ask if they have come of their own free will. If not, then from what I understand that is grounds for an annulment.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Norseman82

[Aloysius]

I'm not advocating arranged marriages, I'm using arranged marriages from and arranged betrothals at birth from history as a point about how a betrothal sometime in the teen years would not a bad thing.

The direction I was taking this would not be putting pressure on them in any fashion; except that the idea would include befriending other likeminded catholic families who might have kids around the same age-range so that an option would be clear and available if they wanted a betrothal.

as regards to this ideal not being taken seriously; all it is is an ideal, and once you have an ideal set you can work on any and all practical fronts to make that ideal reality. college does not have to be necessary to be financially stable. if you don't go to college, you're not necessarily going to work at mcdonald's for the rest of your life. you can start your own business, or develop a skill that is highly in demand either from a technical skill or by apprenticing a family member, friend, or aquaintance who has that skill. so my practical step as the parent would be to work as hard as possible so that there would be paths open to my children other than college. that's not that far-fetched; it would not be too hard to make sure your kids from an early age are learning all sorts of profitable skills and learning how starting a business works and all that. if they decide they want to go to college... good for them... I'm not wasting my money on it though!

again, an ideal to be worked for by practical means that will not necessarily ever perfectly exist, but can get close.

[benedictaj]

I've been watching this post with interest because I usually completely with Aloysius. However, I don't want to start a debate, but may I share my thoughts on age and marriage? (Keeping in mind I am quite old fashioned >>> traditional.) I think the best for marriage is between 18-21 for women, and 22-27 for men! At a basic level, my reasoning is that by then, generally the young man will have finished his tertiary qualifications and will have started working. He will have moved out of home and realised that he can or can't cook, that he can or can't clean and so on. By then, the young woman will hopefully be able to keep house and will be getting her education.

(IMHO, women shouldn't feel as though they 'need' an education. I enjoy studying philosophy at the moment, but I'm planning on either marrying or entering a convent as soon as I can! I want to do that sort of job -- either hubby and lots of kiddies or cloistered nun! ... Also keeping in mind I am only eighteen and have met a wonderful, amazing, incredible traditonal young man. The problem is of course, that I think he should be a priest. )

From what I can see, I think I still agree with Al, it's just that I'm not sure on the waiting for the Confirmation. Teenagers need the grace!! Anyhow, it's late so I'm off. Sorry if that was confusing.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1027427' date='Jul 19 2006, 08:31 PM']
I believe there is a minimum age governed by dioceses, meaning in most dioceses you can't get it "shortly after baptism"

I am discussing the sacrament as it is understood in the Roman Rite of the Church, i.e. the way it should be done in the Roman Rite unless you're going to switch rites. Yes, the main point is the grace of the sacrament, and that is not contingent upon the personal decision of the child. But in the Latin Tradition this is another dimension we include regarding this sacrament-- that the child now chooses to receive or not to receive this sacrament. in the Roman rite, unlike the eastern rites, this sacrament is in many ways very similar to matrimony or holy orders-- you prepare, get properly disposed, make the decision whether or not to receive the sacrament, and once you have received it you obtain a different "status" in the Church. this is the structure of confirmation in the Roman Rite.

confirmation is a sacrament that dispenses numerous graces even if the child is pressured into receiving it, but the normative preference in the Roman rite is that the child, upon confirmation, decide for himself to accept the gift of the Catholic Faith his parents gave him at baptism.

How many arranged marriages were abusive? Hard to answer, they didn't have accurate polling back then. But I believe modern polling of asiatic cultures that still do arranged marriages show that they tend to be very very healthy, contrary to the popular media culture in which every arranged marriage is something the kids must get out of to be "true to their hearts". arranged marriages were in place during the most stable and Christian times in western culture.
[/quote]

Al, the difficulty here is that a sacrament cannot be substantially different based on the Rite. All sacraments are essentially the same, regardless of the rite, and it is only the non-essential practices surrounding the sacrament that can change. As such, one cannot argue that there is a "Latin Rite" way of doing the sacrament. Yes, there are traditions, but these traditions are not essential to the faith. Given that we are speaking of "little t" traditions, it is not valid to refute Fides et Ratio merely by appealing to tradition, you need to make reasoned arguments in favor of that tradition.

I tend to agree with Era and Fides et Ratio that all of the sacraments of initiation ought to be administered simultaneously. That is how it was done in the past, it provides for a significant increase in grace for the children, and I see no compelling argument to have them split up.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Aloysius]

when did it change in the west? just curious. if it was something that was 40 yrs ago (which I'm pretty sure it's not from my understanding of confirmations prior to Vatican II consisting of rigorous study and a slap on the cheek) then I might be inclined to consider a move back. but if it's something that has organically developed in the western church's culture for hundreds of years, then I'm going to stick with the advice oft given to the eastern churches and say we should preserve our unique traditions, our unique rite, our unique culture. just as the eastern churches are encouraged to not allow latinization and westernization, we should not give over the latin rite to easternization. the cultures are different, the rites should be different.

there is no substantial difference. it is purely the exterior form of the ritual that is different. that a sacrament of initiation into the Church also be a rite of initiation into society is the way the Latin Tradition developed, and it is not a bad thing. that the rite of initiation for a society also be a sacrament: also not a bad thing. the substance of the sacrament does not change by how it is doubly viewed by society

the nearest substance difference in any sacrament between east and west is marriage; who is actually the minister of the sacrament is different (priest or couple). but confirmation administered by the bishop or a priest as the completion of baptism which gives grace and the gifts of the Holy Spirit is clearly viewed substantially the same by east and west; that we add the ritual of the candidate for confirmation making the decision for his baptismal vows on his own at confirmation where once they were made for him by others does nothing but express our emphasis in the completion of the sacrament of baptism by taking on all the promises of it of his individual free will.

[Colleen]

[quote name='memtherose' post='1030382' date='Jul 25 2006, 04:30 AM']

(IMHO, women shouldn't feel as though they 'need' an education. I enjoy studying philosophy at the moment, but I'm planning on either marrying or entering a convent as soon as I can! I want to do that sort of job -- either hubby and lots of kiddies or cloistered nun! ... Also keeping in mind I am only eighteen and have met a wonderful, amazing, incredible traditonal young man. The problem is of course, that I think he should be a priest. )[/quote]
I actually think getting an education is really important, whether one is a man or a woman. I think today people tend towards too utilitarian a view of education (that is, viewing it merely as a means to a particular job or field). I think that getting an education (esp. a college education) is important to the growth and maturity of a person. It helps in forming a person and preparing him for life. And you know, even if a woman plans to marry or be a nun, I think having an education is a great benefit. Some say she'd be wasting her money or wasting her education, but I disagree completely. An education prepares you for more than just a future job -- it prepares you for life.

Edited July 25, 2006 by Colleen

[Aloysius]

I am of the opinion that that utilitarian view of education has in many ways spoiled the modern college system; and that it might be all the more beneficial to obtain an education through private study rather than spend so much money on such expensive tuition.

But I do agree, education is important-- as education in and of itself regardless of degrees and jobs or whatnot. And I do believe women should cultivate their beautiful minds in all the finest literature and knowledge that they wish to explore. otherwise they'd just remain dull talking about shopping and prettiness and all those other girly things hahaha :

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Colleen' post='1030601' date='Jul 25 2006, 03:26 PM']
I actually think getting an education is really important, whether one is a man or a woman. I think today people tend towards too utilitarian a view of education (that is, viewing it merely as a means to a particular job or field). I think that getting an education (esp. a college education) is important to the growth and maturity of a person. It helps in forming a person and preparing him for life. And you know, even if a woman plans to marry or be a nun, I think having an education is a great benefit. Some say she'd be wasting her money or wasting her education, but I disagree completely. An education prepares you for more than just a future job -- it prepares you for life.
[/quote]
That's sort of what my mom says. I'm currently going to college and plan on continuing to earn a clinical doctorate in physical therapy. But, what I really want to do with my life is get married, have babies and home school my kids. But no matter what happens, I'll always have what I learned. And, should, God forbid, something happen to my husband, I'd still have a way to take care of my family.

Besides, school is fun!



Gosh, never thought I'd say that!

[Colleen]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1030608' date='Jul 25 2006, 04:38 PM']
I am of the opinion that that utilitarian view of education has in many ways spoiled the modern college system; and that it might be all the more beneficial to obtain an education through private study rather than spend so much money on such expensive tuition.

But I do agree, education is important-- as education in and of itself regardless of degrees and jobs or whatnot. And I do believe women should cultivate their beautiful minds in all the finest literature and knowledge that they wish to explore. otherwise they'd just remain dull talking about shopping and prettiness and all those other girly things hahaha :
[/quote]
: As a girl, I agree with your last statement.

I'm all for private study (I do plenty of it myself). But I know that I've personally learned soooo much from some of my professors that I probably would not have been able to learn on my own.