Only a stricter impediment of age would be an objective remedy.

http://whyiamacatholic.com/SSPX/Tissier1.htm

There is no doubt that the delay of marriage today is part of the general trend towards the revolutionary goal of abolishing marriage.

A woman who wants to "settle down" because her "clock is ticking" after having lived a dissolute life, who does not offer her husband a virginal maidenhood, but instead a desperate and baggage-laden pre-menopausal demand for a child and means of support, is not at all an ideal candidate for marriage.

An unnatural delay of marriage is clearly against St. Paul's advice.

It clearly does not help to alleviate concupiscence, which means that the typical man is unable to marry a virginal bride.

It is also well known that delay of marriage on the part of a woman is very harmful to the primary end of marriage: procreation.

Many Catholic women who could find a husband when they are  young find themselves increasingly at risk of spinsterhood as they go on in their 20s.

High School and College Education of women has had disastrous effects on the chastity and fecundity of women.

It is absolute madness to suggest that Catholics should marry later to conform to these times of "immaturity."

And yet Bishop Tissier suggests the remedy of an "age impediment."  He has also suggested that the age of majority should have been raised instead of lowered!

Such a view is madness and is absolutely in concord with feminism, and absolutely in discord with Catholicism.

In the late 18th Century, when anti-Christian enlightened despotism was making its mark on Spain, there was an attempt by the state to suppress the liberties of young Catholics seeking a spouse:



As we can see, what Tissier speaks of is exactly what the anti-Christian masonic despots wanted:

Delay of marriage and parental control of marriage.

That is not Catholic.

I too think that young ladies are best settled down early in life. It is far better to have a daughter married to a Catholic Gentleman at a young age than to have her running around on the streets half undressed. St. Rita was young and married to an older man. Seems she turned out just fine.

My eldest is 11, and every moment that goes by gets more terrifying for me as she approaches her teens.

I want her to be able to see the convents but we don't have any here.

This issue is touchy, because I wonder if a discussion could even be opened about this at church...

Is it better for a girl to get to be 21 and rebel because she was forbidden to do what her evil inclinations would have her do, or is it better for her to seriously contemplate her vocation when she's young, like, starting in five minutes for my daughter?

What do you think?

  I can't remember where, but I saw an atricle by a priest-monk that said that praying for discerment should beggin as soon as one reaches the age of reason.
  It would be a great idea to know what you are to do with your life, then one can follow it and get prepared for it from teen years.

It's not pretty to see a young Trad Catholic woman in her 20s anxious to be married.  She becomes forward, she loses that charming shyness.  She wants to be married as soon as she can, and one pities the man who becomes the objective of her campaign.

Quote from: Telesphorus

According to civil and canon law, the age a girl is free to marry who she wants is 18.

Sources?

It's the 1983 Code of Canon Law, so it wouldn't apply to you.  But it does to all Catholics who adhere to Benedict XVI.

Tis another, loaded topic, but ALL trads (who know their a**es from a hole in the ground) disregard the 1983 Code, in one way or another.  Does ANY trad, for example, think it is acceptable to give the Sacraments to non-Catholics?  Uh, that would be a rather big, fat, and vigorous "NO!", but that is, like it or lump it, what the 1983 Code says.

Back to the regularly-scheduled programming...