Author Topic: Matrimony (Read 3772 times)

miserere · « **Reply #5 on:** January 23, 2007, 08:22:28 PM »

Greetings,

It was my understanding that the Fathers recommended marriage take place between 15 and 17 years of age. One would guess that maturity was higher back then, and life expectancy perhaps lower. I tried to find some references to the Fathers about this, but came up emptyhanded earlier today.

For what its worth, I'm with John Stephen. I'm 31 years old, plus I have two children due to abandonment by their mother, which creates its own set of issues in the traditional community. I don't blame people for feeling that way. Personally, I wouldn't want my children getting involved with a man who has children from a previous relationship either. Its a unique situation. Its going to take a unique young lady.

Of course, this is the wonderful thing about courtship, because traditionally, her parents get to know you as well. Still, I don't know how comfortable I would feel with someone who is less than 21 given what passes for maturity these days, even among traditional Catholics.

Peace be with you.

Christopher

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2007, 08:34:19 PM »

I am interested to know Aristotle's logical reasoning, Carolus. :)

gilbertgea · « **Reply #7 on:** January 24, 2007, 07:00:53 AM »

'Here's something I learned from Aristotle concerning marriage. In his opinion a man should marry at age 37 and a woman at age 18.'

'This is worth thinking about just because it goes agaisnt general opinions in the west that men and women should be roughly the same age if they marry. Aristotle gives, as with most things he says very logical reasons, its quite long though so I won't type it out unless this idea interests you.'

'I am interested to know Aristotle's logical reasoning, Carolus.'

I think the logic is obvious. Marriage is about children.

As a man ages, his raw, physical value increases because he has has matured mentally and has accuмulated more wealth, so he will be able to care for a family and have the mental disposition to do so. It takes a long time (especially these days) to properly afford a big, Catholic family.

As a woman ages, her raw, physical value decreases because she becomes less capable of bearing children and less physically attractive. Therefore, in order to capitalise on her 'prime', she should marry young.

Men and women, generally speaking, look at each other differently. Men generally go for looks, first, then character. Women generally are the other way around. Maybe there is some logic to that?

I dont know if I would go so far as to say 37/18... I'd probably recommend no greater difference than, say, 30/20.

Carolus Magnus · « **Reply #8 on:** January 24, 2007, 07:32:50 AM »

In making regulations about this partnership he should have regard both to the spouses themselves and to their length of life, in order that they may arrive at the right ages together at the same time, and so that the period of the father's ability to beget and that of the mother's to bear children may coincide. A period when one of the two is capable and the other not leads to mutual strife and quarrels. Next as regards the timin g of the children's successsion, there should not be too great a gap in age between fahter and children; for when then there is no good that the young can do by showing gratitude to elderly parents, and their fathers are no help to them. Nor should they be too close in age, for this causes the relationship to be strained: like contempories, people in such a position feel less respect, and the nearness in age leads to bickering in household affairs.

All these purposes can be fulfilled, or nearly so, if we pay sufficent attention to one thing. Since, generally speaking, the upper age limit for the begetting of children is for men seventy years and for women fifty, the beginning oftheir union should be at ages such that they will arrive at this stage of life simultaneosly. But the intercourse of a very young couple is not good for child-bearing. In all animals the ofspring of early unions are defective, inclined to produce females and diminuitive; so the same kind of results are bound to follow in human beings too.
Also young women have greater difficulty in giving birth and more of them die. It is also more conducive to restraint that daughters should be no longer young when their fathers bestow them in marriage, bacause it seems that women who have sɛҳuąƖ intercourse at an early age are more likely to be dissolute.

Accordingly we conclude that the appropriate age for the union is about the eighteenth year for girls and for men thethirty-seventh, with such timing, their union will take place when they are physically in their prime, and it will bring them down together at the end of procreation at exactly the right moment for both. And the childrens succesion, if births take place promptly at the expected time, will occur when they are at the beginning of their prime and their parents past their peak, the Father now approaching his seventieth year.

Carolus Magnus · « **Reply #9 on:** January 24, 2007, 07:38:22 AM »

This idea of Aristotles makes sense to me, I can't think of any negatives though I can think of other benefits on top of what Aristotle mentioned.

The only problem may be that our young women in our culture simply aren't suitable to marry at 18 but that is more a failing of our society than a failing of Aristotle in my opinion, and those who are unsuitable at 18 often stay unsuitable for the rest of their lifes.