You know, the whole "we're not ready to have children" is a meme almost. It's why so many non-Catholics (and Conciliar "Catholics") use birth control.

Sure, Ladislaus isn't advocating birth control of course, but he's advocating Catholic birth control instead: "stay single and take lots of cold showers in the meantime -- until you're 30, own a house, have a good career, etc."

See the problem? Both lead to the same result. Me not being born. How many of you, dear reader, would have been born if everyone INCLUDING YOUR PARENTS had followed Ladislaus' opinion on this matter?

I made this connection because I said to myself, "I'm glad my parents didn't adhere to this standard..." or "I'm glad my parents had me, despite their poverty" and then I recognized that thinking -- it's what you hear all the time in the pro-life community!

Back then, high school wasn't necessary and you could build your career in your early teens. Our society doesn't encourage early marriage when they put these boundaries.

I wanted to post the "Idiocracy - Opening scene in HD" but there is some nudity at the beginning of it, plus some mature themes (it's talking about reproduction after all)

I heard they tried to bury the "Idiocracy" movie because it hit so close to the mark.

The plot is that all the high-IQ people put off having kids, chose not to have kids, etc. while the "Clevons" of the world (IQ: 78) end up having hundreds of grandchildren. This goes on for generations, a few hundred years until -- the world is full of, and run by, idiots. Such that a man with an average IQ (100) is a rare genius by comparison.

Just want to add that getting married later in life meant I was never able to have children.  That is certainly regrettable; however, I would not have wanted to marry the wrong person at the wrong time just so I could have had children.  

I look at it this way:  although I was older, if God willed us to have a child, we would have had a child. Apparently, that wasn't His Will for us.

So, my advice would be: do not rush into a marriage or choose someone solely on the biological clock.

I wanted to post the "Idiocracy - Opening scene in HD" but there is some nudity at the beginning of it, plus some mature themes (it's talking about reproduction after all)

I heard they tried to bury the "Idiocracy" movie because it hit so close to the mark.

The plot is that all the high-IQ people put off having kids, chose not to have kids, etc. while the "Clevons" of the world (IQ: 78) end up having hundreds of grandchildren. This goes on for generations, a few hundred years until -- the world is full of, and run by, idiots. Such that a man with an average IQ (100) is a rare genius by comparison.

You know that this is a total strawman, since I advocate that women should marry younger and that men should wait until they have some financial security.  Arguing your example to absurdity, hey, why shouldn't young men and young women get married when they're 15, or 16, or, if a boy is in college, encourage him to get married during his Freshman year, instead of waiting until he's done and has a job.  So, the sooner you get married, the sooner you can start knocking out the kids.

There are many considerations of prudence that would suggest that a man wait until getting married ... while it's not the same case for women, given the traditional roles of the husband/father having to be the provider and the wife/mother to care for the children at home.  In fact, if a couple get married prematurely, say, in early college, or if an 18-year-old is flipping burgers at McDonald's, that is PRECISELY when couples are tempted to use NFP or even birth control (as per the Idiocracy example above).  Couples get married for reasons other than raising children, whether for love or romance or ... just a desire to have marital relations, and then tend to "hold off" on having children until they can "afford" to do so.

And this is why the NFP question absolutely factors in and you need to weigh in on the matter.  If a couple get married while the man is in his first year of college, so he can finish his degree and get a job, they'll go ahead and engage in marital relations while using NFP (even if they're Trad Catholics, because most Trad priests claim there's nothing wrong with this).  In that type of a scenario, it's much more appropriate to hold off on marriage until the husband/father has been established.

Certainly, if God brings a person into your life and you discern that it's His will that you marry, you would follow God's will, but it should not be encouraged for men to begin ACTIVELY courting until they're ready to take on the responsibilities of being husband and father, one of the primary duties of which is to provide for the family.  To do so would be presumption, and doing so typically entails pursuit of the secondary ends of marriage and marital relations without regard for the primary ends, which is the raising of children.

Conversely, very few fathers would encourage their daughters to be courted by men who are not positioned to care for a family.  Very often, when a man is not financially prepared, wives have to work in order to make ends meet, and that's less than idea for all involved, including the children.

Of course, that part of the movie is a slur against people with large families, implying that only uneducated idiots / morons / hillbillies have lots of children.

I didn't take it that way. They only portrayed that, for whatever reason, the only ones procreating to any great degree were those with lower IQs -- for the most part. Yes, they are portrayed as stupid, but they did manage to propagate themselves quite handily. But the movie never suggested that there weren't large families with high IQ parents at the same time -- only that they were so rare, it wasn't enough to sway the demographics to any significant degree.

And it's true! Just look at the Third World -- they all have natural-sized families, despite poverty that makes the average Food Stamps recipient look like Donald Trump by comparison. And look at all the poor people in this country living in the ghettos, Section 8 housing, "welfare queens" having 6+ children (all low IQ like their parents) while White middle-class suburban folks only have 0-2 children "to save the planet" or "for economic reasons" or "because it's the responsible thing to do".

The movie is correct -- the latter ARE stupid for being so short-sighted, and damaging the future population as a whole thanks to their own failure to have enough children.

Interconnected side topics (1) for the theologically minded and (2) for those with experience as/around young parents:

(1) Genesis 2:24 stipulates the married couple on their own rather than in an extended family household. I remember reading some catechesis from the 1950s (maybe on the SSPX online archives) that newlyweds should never allow their respective parents to influence or interfere in marital life. Given (2) below, did the political and economic implications of Rerum novarum anticipate the Fatima warnings about threats to the family? Does later and later marriage for the sake of stability in effect then capitulate, even if unwillingly, to the spread of modernism? 

(2) For women, pregnancy is safest and least physically depleting at around age 20 (all else equal in personal health and life circuмstances). For men throughout most of human history before the proliferation of so-called white-collar work, supporting and protecting a young family entailed the sort of stamina that similarly peaks during one's 20s, if not necessarily also the prudence that comes with age and experience.

It follows then that for young mothers, having grandmothers/godmothers/older aunts nearby would be an asset for help with childcare as well as practical advice, as would having grandfathers/godfathers/older uncles nearby for the young fathers, for general guidance and role models in headship. Sure, that's what proper formation is for, but it sometimes it doesn't really hit home till the young marrieds are actually living it.
Yes? No? Maybe better for an anonymous thread?