was it rape?

[Jaime]

[quote]And again, you have yet to demonstrate that a 12-year old is a child in the sense that a five-year old is or, indeed, in any other sense at all.[/quote]

How is the burden on me? The state has declared it. The Church declares it. The burden of proof is on those who disagree.

[quote]The two rectified the problem with the divine law by getting married.
If they are Catholic, they also hopefully went to confession.[/quote]

You argued before that they were most likely not bound by canon law because they were most likely not Catholic. They would not be allowed to marry in the Catholic Church because of her age.

[Socrates]

hot stuff and Mr. Kellmeyer, this debate would be a lot more meaningful if you could both be more specific in your arguments. A good place to start would be by arriving at some definition of what determines adulthood (other than just a particular age number). Is it an arbitrary age set by society? Puberty? Full physical growth? Mature brain development? Something determined spiritually?

[skellmeyer]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 17 2005, 07:52 PM']I am arguing that a teen and an adult are distinctively different.  No one has provided anything to counter that.  [/quote]

No need to counter it. It hasn't been proved to be relevant to the discussion.

[quote]And yes the interpretation can be handled differently by culture. Objectively speaking however, because of the differences between children and adults, making children into adults prior to the time that they are there, is in fact unhealthy. [/quote]

There's no evidence of that. There's lots of historical evidence against that idea. It would seem that your position is simply technologically cultured bias.

[quote]Simply stating that Piaget was a hack is an argument?  How about Ericksson and Kohlberg?  Or is this just a bias against the field of psychology in general?
[right][snapback]727617[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Bias against field psychology in general, I think.

I distinctly remember as an undergrad doing research for a paper.
I ran into two different published studies: one done in 1943 and one done in 1963. Both remarked on the fact that Japanese babies are quieter than American babies.

The 1943 study argued that this demonstrated Japanese babies are intellectually inferior because they don't interact with their environment.

The 1963 study (when the Japanese were beginning to show signs of being an economic Asian tiger) arged that Japanese babies are intellectually superior because they are intellectualizing their environment.

At that point, I realized psychology was all about telling culturally acceptable stories.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Don John']Guess that probably makes St. Joseph a pedophile also huh, because while he didn't have sex with Mary he probably intended to when he contracted marriage to her.[/quote]

What??? I would like theological proof on that, please. The Church has held the contrary view of that for 2000 years now.

[quote name='Carrie']Now, it is illegal and considered to be deviant behavior.

A grown man having sexual relations with a child under the age of 13 is considered pedophilia.[/quote]

Exactly right.

[quote name='HSMom']physical maturation for girls is getting younger and younger. A century or so ago, girls weren't fully mature until 16 or so on average. Now it's like ten! There is no way that you are going to convince me that it is right for ten year olds to be married. That's just not right no matter how you deal the cards.[/quote]

You bet.

continued.....

[Cam42]

[quote name='skellmeyer']Look, the whole idea of adolescence was created in about 1904. It didn't exist prior to that time.[/quote]

I'd like hard proof for that.

[quote name='skellmeyer']I've got a book on this coming out called "Deception: Catholic Education in America" that chronicles exactly how this mindset deceived the American bishops into developing a parochial school system that was inadvertently built to fail from its inception (www.bridegroompress.com). It will be out by the first week of October, if the index gets finished this week. I've already got raves on it from a couple of rather prominent Catholics.[/quote]

So.......what's your point?

[quote name='Socrates']Do you really, seriously think we would be better off if kids got married as soon as they reached puberty? Do you really think 12 or 13 year old kids getting married and having chidren would be a good thing for society?[/quote]

Nope and nope.

[quote name='skellmeyer']As long as someone is of the age of reason, they can theoretically receive any post-baptismal sacrament. THAT'S in canon law. Anyone of the age of reason (seven years or older) must be considered an adult in terms of sacramental reception.

The only thing that prevents a seven-year old from getting married or ordained a priest is there happens to be another canon for both marriage and holy orders that gives a minimum age requirement higher than age seven. If it weren't for that minimum age requirement, Catholic seven-year olds COULD get married. And that minimum age is a CANON LAW requirement which non-Catholics are not bound by.[/quote]

So that is a bit disjointed. First, I would like some hard proof that a seven year old can be allowed to be married. And you are contradicting yourself in this statement. You say anyone over the age of seven can be married (THAT'S in canon law), but then there is an age requirement, so which is it? The answer is that a seven year old is not allowed to marry. A seven year old cannot make that kind of decision Sacramentally or psychologically.

Back your statement up. Hard proof for the allowance of 7 year olds to marry, please.

[quote name='DJ']Only reason it is immoral today is becase the Church Says so, it is Traditional that Christians have only one wife but it is not naturally immoral.[/quote]

And the Church is infallible in matters of faith and MORALS. So it is intrinsically evil.

[quote name='Carrie']People used to regard children as "little adults" and treat them as such. With the growth of knowledge in psychological development, we now know the concept of "little adults" is simply a fallacy.[/quote]

Yes ma'am. That is true.

[quote name='skellmeyer']With the situation in question, the "experts" tell you that a twelve-year old girl is unable to contract a marriage, even though such girls were able to do exactly that for most of human history prior to industrialization.[/quote]

Hard proof please.

[quote name='skellmeyer']Now, if you want someone to be a stable, faithful adult, you would put him into a situation where he needs to be a stable, faithful adult and then help him stay stable and faithful while those pathways are consolidating. Then, when the growth spurt is over, the person is much more likely to be a stable, faithful adult. He's been reinforcing the right growth pathways during the critical growth period.[/quote]

Gee, that sounds like adolescence to me. If they were simply adults at this time, why would the new adult need help. He would be ready to handle it....oh yeah, he is not ready to accept it, he is an adolescent.

[quote]let's all welcome Catholic author Steve Kellmeyer to the phorum.[/quote]

Hello.

continued......

[Cam42]

[quote name='skellmeyer']Now, I'm not recommending she get a tractor in order to ferry her child back and forth to the doctor's office, but I am pointing out that the driving age has a certain elasticity to it when the local society feels the need is there.[/quote]

You're actually trying to equate driving a car with the psychological maturity to engage in sexual relation and marriage? I know many adults who shouldn't be married, but drive a car every day.

This is rich.....seriously.....I am laughing out loud at this one.

[quote name='skellmeyer']I'm dependent on the store manager at the SuperWalmart and the Krogers, on my doctor and dentist, on my priest. Paul talks about this in 1 Corinthians 12, I believe, and he approves.[/quote]

I am not buying that for a second.....no way is St. Paul equating the manager of Wal-Mart with one looking out for the spiritual well being of one Catholic to another.....apples to cumquats.....that different.

[quote name='skellmeyer']It was consciously created by the eugenicists of the late 1900's. They knew perfectly well that compulsory schooling through the teen years would reduce fertility by post-poning marriage. That was intended.[/quote]

You keep saying this, but you have provided no proof. Are we simply to accept this because you say it is so? I don't. No way. I want hard proof.

continued........

[Cam42]

[quote name='skellmeyer']Again, my new book "Designed to Fail: Catholic Education in America" (we just changed the title from "Deception" yesterday) describes how all of this happened. It should release within the next two to three weeks.[/quote]

Whoopty-doo....what does Catholic education have to do with statutory rape? This 20 year old guy is wrong for marrying a 12 year old girl....on so many levels.

[quote name='skellmeyer']Heck, for the upper echelons, you can't get a job until after post-doc work. That means you can't support a family until you're in your mid-30s.[/quote]

Don't tell that to my brother and sister-in-law. They just had their second child in 2004 and she just turned 30. He is 31. They are also financially set. He has a bachelors, in golf management (he is a golf-pro) and she is a stay at home mom.......oh the misery.....they own their home, they own their cars.....he is paying for college still, but that is the only major bill. Many of my friends are in this situation.....this is not as rare as it is being made out to be folks....

[quote name='Cmom']She was 12 . And we were not discussing world history, we are discussing a 12 year old raped by a 20 year old who should be in jail.
I cannot believe you would defend a rapist.[/quote]

Exactly.....

[quote name='skellmeyer']It's hard to call it a conspiracy, because it was just really a bunch of different people who saw a common solution to their diverse problems.[/quote]

That is exactly how you have portrayed this tangent. To the letter.

[quote name='Al']unless you are prepared to label most marriages throughout history as psychologically unhealthy... which would be quite an extreme statement and I don't believe St. Joseph would be too pleased about it.[/quote]

You need to prove to me that Mary was not of the age of consent. You also need to prove that Mary was an adolescent. You also forget that St. Joseph never had relations with Mary. She remained ever-virgin. Let's not forget the protoevangelium.....Mary's perpetual virginity is of utmost importance.

Psstt....we also cannot forget that simply because a person is a saint; doesn't mean that he couldn't have sinned. There are many saints who were sinners....the vast, vast majority. St. Augustine would probably be the most germaine to this particular conversation, due to his sexual sinfulness. (CAVEAT: I AM NOT SAYING THAT ST. JOSEPH DID SIN, BUT HE COULD HAVE....THERE IS NO PROOF ONE WAY OR ANOTHER)

[quote name='skellmeyer']The bishops of the late 1800's created the Catholic school system in order to keep Catholics out of the rabidly anti-Catholic public school system.[/quote]

It is actually St. John Neumann who is credited with creating Catholic schools. 1852, if memory serves, and it does. It was also done before the plenary council of Baltimore. So, I would challenge that. And I do.

continued..........

[Cam42]

[quote name='skellmeyer']That's why I've got two ringing endorsements - one from Father C. J. McCloskey of the Faith and Reason Institute (also EWTN) and the other from the leading expert in homeschooling and canon law, the Chancellor of the Diocese of La Crosse (formerly (Arch)Bishop Burke's diocese).[/quote]

What does that have to do with anything.....all I have to do is call Fr. McCloskey and I can get a "ringing endorsement" too. Actually, I can call Paul Augustin Card. Mayer and get the same......what does that have to do with anything.....it is a fallacy to tote out names like that.....it is called Ad Populum.....let's not go there....it is bad form. If you are as educated as you claim, and I have no doubt that you are, I think that you know that already.

It is not all that impressive to tote that stuff out.

[quote name='skellmeyer']As I've already pointed out in this thread, the "science" of adolescence depends on a specific "story" and the biological facts can be interpreted in quite another way (the original agrarian method of raising children) while still accounting for all the evidence.[/quote]

Hard proof. Not your opinion. I don't really care what you think. I want you to offer proofs to your position.

[quote name='skellmeyer']And again, you have yet to demonstrate that a 12-year old is a child in the sense that a five-year old is or, indeed, in any other sense at all.[/quote]

Actually he doesn't.....you have to prove the contrary to his point/points....you have not done that yet.

[quote name='skellmeyer']There's no evidence of that. There's lots of historical evidence against that idea. It would seem that your position is simply technologically cultured bias.[/quote]

I would like to see your proof of that.....now you have two proofs to provide thanks.

[quote name='skellmeyer']No need to counter it. It hasn't been proved to be relevant to the discussion.[/quote]

Are you condoning the actions of these people? Is that what you are doing?

[quote name='skellmeyer']At that point, I realized psychology was all about telling culturally acceptable stories.[/quote]

Again, your conjecture.....I would like to see hard proof to back this.


Sorry about the multiple posts, but I decided it was time to enter....by the way, the guy was wrong.....and the rest is symantics.....he broke the law, raped the girl and entering into a marriage is a bad idea.....she is not old enough nor mature enough to enter into that kind of relationship.

[Socrates]

Thanks, Cam. I've found no scholarly sources on Gatto's (rather silly) website, merely more of the same "conspiracy theory" claims (with lots of "cute" and "clever" pictures)
Making outrageous "controversial" assertions and conspiracy theories may be poor scholarship, but it's no secret in the publishing industry that they do sell copies.

Could Mr. Kellmeyer be a (oh horrors!) closet . . . CAPITALIST???

Edited September 18, 2005 by Socrates

[Cam42]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 17 2005, 11:48 PM']Thanks, Cam.  I've found no scholarly sources on Gatto's (rather silly) website, merely more of the same "conspiracy theory" claims (with lots of "cute" and "clever" pictures) 
Making outrageous "controversial" assertions  and conspiracy theories may be poor scholarship, but it's no secret in the publishing industry that they do sell copies.

Could Mr. Kellmeyer be a (oh horrors!) closet . . . CAPITALIST???
[right][snapback]728056[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Oh, I wouldn't say "closet"......I would say he is most definitely a capitalist.

But the BIG question is......."Was Jesus Christ a Sith Lord?"

Ohhhhh Paladin D.....

[Cam42]

A couple of more thoughts on Catholic education.

I think that if we look hard enough, we will find that Catholic education can be traced back at least to 1606 in Maryland. I believe it was the Jesuits who established that first bit of Catholic education. Wasn't it the Franciscans who opened a school for boys in 1718 in New Orleans, followed by the Ursulines opening a school for girls in the same city not too far after (1727)?

Incidentally when was Georgetown founded? Hmmm.....1789. By whom? John Caroll, who was the first bishop and Archbishop of Baltimore. I should know.....he is a cousin, albeit far removed.

While parochial education was formalized by Cardinal Neumann, then the Plenary council of Baltimore, which urged for every Catholic parish to form a school.

And finally what do we have in 1904 (notice the year); the formation of the NCEA. Perhaps this is where this is all leading.....a bias against the National Catholic Education Association.....perhaps not.

But it is a far cry from the banter going on here about the school structures and the theories originating in the early 1900's.....

Hooray for ex Corde Ecclesiae..... (15 August 1990)

[infinitelord1]

that is sick........i think it tells a lot about his personallity..........immature. I know i shouldnt judge him like that at all.....he may very well be a nice person. Thats no excuse to date a 12 year old when you are 20 though. Its possible but unlikely that she was a bit more mature than the average 12 year old and he was definetly more immature than theh average 20 year old........but it is wrong still.

Edited September 18, 2005 by infinitelord1

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 17 2005, 12:05 AM']

And for the record I'm not defending him at all, I have never said he didn't commit Statutory rape. But it was not Pedphilia, nor was it rape in the traditional sense of the term.

By the way she looked very hapy on the television tonight, not like a victim at all.
[right][snapback]726630[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What does a smile on her face have to do with the fact she was raped by a pedophile?
So we don't prosecute criminals if the victim isn't screaming in agony?
The guy should be in jail.

[Cam42]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Sep 18 2005, 02:32 AM']that is sick........i think it tells a lot about his personallity..........immature. I know i shouldnt judge him like that at all.....he may very well be a nice person. Thats no excuse to date a 12 year old when you are 20 though. Its possible but unlikely that she was a bit more mature than the average 12 year old and he was definetly more immature than theh average 20 year old........but it is wrong still.
[right][snapback]728251[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It is totally acceptable to judge this guy's actions. You can do that without judging his personhood.

However, I would like for you, in particular, to show how a 12 year old is mature enough to enter into a marital contract, sacramental or not. If you can't, for the sake of decency, you need to retract that statement.

Condoning a 12 year old getting married is totally unacceptable, in today's society.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 18 2005, 07:24 AM']
Condoning a 12 year old getting married is totally unacceptable, in today's society.
[right][snapback]728304[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

She wasn't 12 when she got married. I believe she was 14.


Just pointing out a fact.


Back to your regularly scheduled argument...