was it rape?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 14 2005, 05:22 PM']I most heartily disagree!  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?

Marriage is about raising a family and the raising and upbringing of children.  Quite frankly, the vast majority of young teenagers are not up to this task.  Despite what they might tell you,  young teenagers are far from mature emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, or financially.

Think about the children of the teenage parents!  Do you really think it would be in the best interest of children to be raised by adolescent parents?  Marriage and raising a family is a tremendous responsibility, and not one that 11-16 year olds are ready for.  I would even argue that most 18-20 year olds are better off waiting a bit.  (I certainly know I was not mature at that age!)  But certainly, kids not old enough for high-school should not be getting married and having babies! 

And I'd disagree that pubescent weddings would restore sexual morality and end the social problems listed.  I've know of plenty of people who prematurely rushed into early marriages which became messes, and later divorced and remarried.

It seems to that whoever is arguing in favor of 12 year olds getting married is not thinking logically and rationally, but romanticizing the disgusting and ignoring a lot of the hard, cold facts.

And all I can say is, however the law defines it, a 20-year-old having sex with a 12 year old is wrong!  If I was that girl's dad, I'd make sure that guy stayed hospitalized a long time!

And I think any grown man lusting after 12 year olds is a pervert.  I have no interest in 12 year old girls.  That's not "Catholic" or "medieval" or "traditionalist" or anything else - it's disgusting!
[right][snapback]723558[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well I know plenty of people who waited until they where 30 + who got devorced to whats your point, I also know people who got married as teens have 4 kids, a house, and are past thier 10th aniversery so what?



Oh and by the way strictly speaking lust itself is a perversion, so lusting after anyone makes you a pervert.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Sep 14 2005, 04:27 PM']biologically, yes, but how many 17-19 year old teen girls do you know who are emotionally, and spiritually mature enough to get married and have babies? may be if our culture was different yes, but these young women in our culture have just barely finished high school education and are experiencing the taste of freedom for the first time in their lives.  i know that in her teens if a woman has a baby, and also, if she decides to nurse the infant, that she will be less likely to get breast cancer, but she can get the same benefits if she married and had babies in her twenties.
[right][snapback]723465[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


QUite a few actually, virtually all of the successful marriages I know of where by people of 20 or lower.

[Oik]

According to the customs of the Roman Rite of the Church, the man and the woman are the ministers of the Sacrament. With that said, let's look to the Roman Rites understanding of the sanctity of marriage when it comes to Non- Catholics:

[quote]ALL marriages are presumed valid and require a declaration of nullity to be issued before one is allowed to marry in the Catholic Church -- this includes all marriages, even those involving non-Catholics.
The only exception to this is if one or both of the parties to the marriage are Catholic and they did not get married in the Catholic Church (according to Catholic Church law).

The fact of children does not affect the situation.

Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 01-15-2005[/quote]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=425299&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2005&Author=&Keyword=civil+marriage&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=49&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at="]source[/url]

[quote]LAW OF THE LAND
Man, 22, faces charges for sex with wife, 13
Despite parental consent for marriage, state continues prosecution

Posted: July 26, 2005
6:01 p.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A 22-year-old Nebraska man who married the 13-year-old girl he got pregnant is now facing criminal charges for illegally having sex with her.

Matthew Koso of Falls City could get 50 years in prison on a charge of first-degree sexual assault, even though he married the girl, who is now 14, with her parents' blessing.


"The idea ... is repugnant to me," Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning told the Associated Press.[b] "These people made the decision to send their ... 14-year-old daughter to Kansas to marry a pedophile." [/b]

He said [b]the marriage is valid, thanks to the "ridiculous" Kansas law, "but it doesn't matter. I'm not going to stand by while a grown man ... has a relationship with a 13-year-old – now 14-year-old – girl."[/b]

[/quote]

[url="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45459"]Source[/url]

Should the parents go on trial for blantantly disobeying the law? They are all acessories to the fact and cooperated in encouraging illegal behavior. They gave thier blessing!


As for criminal punishment, I don't know. This case should have a thourogh trial, it's not cut and dry.

As for punishment, I think that the law was broken. The parents are guilty, the guy and girl are guilty. They should all be prosecuted, not just the guy.

If the guy get a punishments, he should be tried according to the law of Nebraska.

Maybe they should be expelled from Nebraska and have to live in Kansas.

[son_of_angels]

The problem with today's teenage relationships is that they do not have marriage, commitment, sex (sometimes), or really anything else important in mind when a relationship is entered into. This leads to a false understanding of what is expected in a long term relationship, ergo, even women who marry at 35 don't seem to be able to hold a relationship together.

Part of this is the practice of publicly educating women, as well as young boys. This thrusts them into a society which encourages romantic involvement without consequence. Used to, if you were even as old as 25 and you courted a girl who was 15 or even 13, it was in the context of a whole family.

However, in this case it seems that the boy was indeed able to look past the fact "holy carp I impregnated a teen" and was able to see his responsibility. As long as both step up to the plate on this, I see no reason why their marriage won't proceed nicely.

What will the child be left with if the husband goes off to prison? The parents weren't able to take care of their own children. Foster parents? Often times these are more irresponsible than the parents who left them. The child has a right to HIS parents, yea, not only a right, but a responsibility.

[MichaelFilo]

What makes a woman nowadays, at the age of puberty, inable to make the same decisions that possibly her great-grandmother made at that same age? You see, those girls 150 years ago (or 100, or even 10 it seems) who got married at that age were really no different from this case. All that has changed is our view of those girls. We no longer see the young as little adults, but instead as grown up babies. Some people still marry off their daughters at a young age, and I assure you, those people don't have such messed up divorce rates and highly criminal children born to young women.

There is a debate in philosophy of what is universal to all peoples, and what is specific to culture. Looking into that a bit, one may realize how difficult it is to find anything universal when culture is such a strong force upon it's peoples. Such basic claims as men tend to have more aggressive personalities and women are more attuned to nurturing can be considered universal, until you find that one culture that breaks with that norm (and their is). What about colors, no race has ever been color blind, so it must be universal, correct? Funny thing is, some races of people only see 3; black, red, and white. What is that to say, that the very basics of what we consider universal are actually cultural (our understanding of colors, times, basic bilogical gender roles)? Hardly so, at least not to me. A theory of mine (although, I am not sure if it has been proposed, but if it hasn't, I'll make sure to publish a book about it and shock the scientific world : ) is that universal attributes do exist, but are trumped by cultural mores and convention. For instance, why is that 3 colors are seen, instead of our spectrum of colors? Because culturally, there is no need to define the rest, and so they do not recognize, but do see them. Or why is it that certain native American tribes leave the cooking to the men and the crop-growing to the women? Why is it in those tribes, the men tend to fit our stereotypes of women much better than that of men? Because culturally, they are denying a universal aspect (which is unnatural, since denying universal realities is always unnatural) for a cultural convention. To that culture, their pracitice seems normal, and to them the very nature of men and women reflect that. To us, we see that they are an anomoly when compared to the larger world-view. I see the same of today's thought on the age of marriage and children. We say it is wrong so much, we begin to believe it (and what an unholy thing to call the intentions of Joseph and Mary as wrong simply because we think so! (note, Mary probably was expecting maritial relations at her betrothal to Joseph). We even proclaim that pubescent girls are innable to decide so much that we jump in shock when we see an instance when they can and do. We quicly reffer to how we know people who's lives were ruined by being married young (and we even believe it is because of their age, not because of our socitial views on that bond which can do more damage on a couple than one may think).

On this case, fornication is always wrong and no one must remain unrepentant of it. However, I fail to see why their marriage should be looked down upon. I can't seem to see the problem in this situation at all. What is better, a single mother, an orphan, a dead child? I'd rather see a child with a mother and father rather than in any of those situations.

God bless,
Mikey

[Oik]

Final Analysis:

According to Nebraska law, the guy has commited statutory rape.
I don't know what penalty this holds. At the time, he was 20, she was 12. In the eyes of the law, he is an adult. He will be tried as one.

The parents all cooperated and to a certain extent facilitated the marriage. They are encouraging the relationship. They are accessories.


Attorney General Jon Bruning has already rasied charges. The guy pled not guilty and is out on bail. Should the case go to trial, the guy should be tried according to the law.

The case should be heard and the should be determined and settled. Whatever the court decides is legally binding.


My opinion: They sinned, they aren't ready for marriage. What else can be done? I don't know the circumstances. The parents SEEM to be behind them. I doubt the parents wanted legal action taken. They filed a restraining order, them after they found out about the pregancy, gave thier blessing for marriage.

We shouldn't have to debate cases like this in America.

Am I disgusted? Yes. The legal ramifications though, my not fit the moral ramifications. I think this is a delicate situation. The government deals with delicate situations like it deals with all things: it smashes the problem into pieces.

Its a hard question. It's a bizzare situation. Should he go to PRISON where he will become a hardened criminal? With the murderers and rapist, the criminals, and thugs? Where do we draw the line? Can we draw the line?

I am not competant enough to draw a legal conclusion. Really, it's a lose-lose situation. If he gets tried and is found guilty and goes to prison, you destroy their family. If he gets off with no punishment, it is scandalous.

From a moral perspective, I'd say it's a scandalous relationship. They have a child. That's scandalous. They are married, that's scandalous. It's also scandalous to break up their marriage and thier family.

I don't think either one of them are mature enough to be parents.

They did however, give a free will assent. They willed to be married and have a familty. They already have a child (they will probably be encouraged by thier community and their families to use contracception).

If either of them is Catholic, the marriage is invalid. If neither are, the marriage is considered valid by the church.

[Thumper]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 14 2005, 10:58 AM']I'm not saying it's a fault just a matter of argument.... I will confess to occasionally dipping into the relativist pie for retorical purposes, but not often, and only when I'm sure  I am debating with a  relativist who therefore, most likely,  won't catch me.  But this is a serious matter, pedophilia is not a trivial thing to me and I assure you I would never be defending someone I thought as a pedophile-- I think child rape should be a capital crime ( but in practice I think that would be virtually impossible to justly enforce, mores the pity) but I think that people are way to quick to dismiss the capability of your average 12 year old and way way to fast to dismiss the capability of your average 14 year old. 14 year olds fight wars and raise families all over the world, why our our children so pitiful as to be incapable of doing those same things.
[right][snapback]722899[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

DJ, I'm not trying to impute an opinion to you that you may not hold, but given your strong support of adolescents of 12-14 years of age being able to give consent to a sexual encounter with an adult, what do you think about parental notification laws for girls of the same age who are seeking an abortion? Do you think they are able to give an "informed consent" to the abortion given the maturity you believe them to have?

[Jaime]

Oh no she di'int

[skellmeyer]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 14 2005, 05:45 PM']I disagree completely for oh so many reasons

First of all Son of Angels inference (and the argument being made by others) is that they were married in a Catholic ceremony.  [/quote]

Uhh, actually that has nothing to do with it.
There is natural marriage and there is supernatural marriage.
Two unbaptized people or an unbaptized + a baptized person enter into a natural marriage. A natural marriage is normally indissoluble and carries graces with it, though not sanctifying grace. Still, the only reason such a marriage can be dissolved, even by the Church, is through the special condition of one partner wanting to enter the Catholic Church.

If two baptized people are married, they are sacramentally married. They may not realize it, but they are. They can be married in front of a justice of the peace, and it's still a valid and sacramental marriage.

Catholics must be married in front of a priest to be sacramentally married but that's only true because Catholics must obey canon law - canon law is not binding on non-Catholics because of their ignorance of the law. If two validly baptized non-Catholics get a JP marriage, get divorced and then one of them gets remarried and wants to enter the Church later, that first marriage has to be considered for annulment or the individual can't come in.

I used to be an RCIA director, so I know how the law works on this. Those two people are definitely married, unless strong cause is shown otherwise. So far, I haven't seen anything in the case that would qualify as cause for annulment.

[quote]Nowhere in the article is that mentioned nor would they be.  No priest would allow this for two reasons

1. She's a baby
B. It is no longer the practice of the Church to allow couples to marry immediately if they are pregnant.  They must wait until the birth of the baby.[/quote]

Irrelevant. If they aren't Catholic, none of those practices are binding. That's all canon law and Church procedure, which is not binding on baptized but non-Catholic people.

[quote]This is an easy case for civil annullment. 

Do not infer sacredness on what has none.  This is a case of two troubled kids.
[right][snapback]723493[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It might be an easy case for civil annullment, but it would definitely take a few months of close scrutiny for a chancery office to reach the conclusion that it wasn't a valid marriage - and the chancery office might well conclude it was.

[Jaime]

[quote]Uhh, actually that has nothing to do with it.[/quote]

Actually it has much to do with it.

If the couple does not meet the criteria for the Catholic church to be wed, (For example, if she is not of the age of consent) then the issue of grace is not pertinent. They were never married in the eyes of the Church

Want another example? Legal gay marriages.

[skellmeyer]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 14 2005, 09:44 PM']Actually it has much to do with it. 

If the couple does not meet the criteria for the Catholic church to be wed, (For example, if she is not of the age of consent) then the issue of grace is not pertinent.  They were never married in the eyes of the Church

Want another example? Legal gay marriages.
[right][snapback]723797[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Gay marriage not pertinent to this discussion.
Homosexual couples lack proper matter.
Since this discussion involves a male and a female, the matter is correct. We're just arguing over whether proper form has been observed.

For the non-Catholic baptized, proper form is being at least seven years old and exchanging vows.
For Catholic baptized, proper form has more stringent minimum age and witness requirements in addition to the exchange of vows.

Canon law does not apply to baptized non-Catholics.
Non-Catholics aren't bound by it.

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.

So, canon law prevents *Catholics* being ordained or married prior to specified ages, but it doesn't prevent *non-Catholics* from being validly ordained or married prior to specified ages.

Since virtually nobody except the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics actually have valid orders, and since none of them ordain anyone younger than about 18, the validity of orders on a young person has not generally been an issue, although Giavonni de Medici was raised to the rank of cardinal at age 14, and (according to Philip Hughes) Pope John XII was consecrated Pope at age 16.

And, as I noted before, Catholic colonial Mexico allowed twelve year olds to marry. Indeed, allowing marriage at roughly age twelve was pretty common in most civilizations around the world. The idea that you have to be older is purely an artifact of the mass-schooled industrial society.

Industrialists worked to redefine maturity so that it would start at a much later age. They invented the concept of adolescence in order to create a subclass of immature spendthrifts who would lack confidence in themselves and so be amenable to the direction of factory foreman.

There is nothing in the article which indicates that at least a natural marriage did not take place, and it's quite possible they have a sacramental marriage.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Thumper' date='Sep 14 2005, 07:41 PM']DJ, I'm not trying to impute an opinion to you that you may not hold, but given your strong support of adolescents of 12-14 years of age being able to give consent to a sexual encounter with an adult, what do you think about parental notification laws for girls of the same age who are seeking an abortion?  Do you think they are able to give an "informed consent" to the abortion given the maturity you believe them to have?
[right][snapback]723737[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think a 12 year old should be able to get married, this girl had parental consent so I don't think thats much of an issue, I don't think that anyone should be able to marry or recieve medical procedures without parental concent until the age of majority or until those disabilities are removed( such as by marriage or by the courts). I think the age of majorty should probably be 16 instead of 18 but that is a differnant arguement. To answer the specifics of your question I think that it is quite irrelevant because there is no issue at all here about her ability to give consent, if he were 16 and she 14 ( which would nhave made him 15 when they had sex ) this wouldn't be an issue at all. This has to do with age differance which is a BS cultural distinction. It is philosophicly inconsistant though that a girl can consent to abort her baby and not to sex with whomever.
As for the specifics of abortion, I do not believe in parental consent laws, I believe with out resevation that Abortion should be a capital crime, for the doctor, for the women, for the person who drove the women to the abortionist, for the person who gave herr the money etc. So there is really no way I can answer your question. I am not happy when they push through a parental consent law I think that a step back not forward, they make it palatable to the general population, and that disgust me.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='skellmeyer' date='Sep 14 2005, 10:27 PM']Gay marriage not pertinent to this discussion.
Homosexual couples lack proper matter.
Since this discussion involves a male and a female, the matter is correct. We're just arguing over whether proper form has been observed.

For the non-Catholic baptized, proper form is being at least seven years old and exchanging vows.
For Catholic baptized, proper form has more stringent minimum age and witness requirements in addition to the exchange of vows.

Canon law does not apply to baptized non-Catholics.
Non-Catholics aren't bound by it.

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.

So, canon law prevents *Catholics* being ordained or married prior to specified ages, but it doesn't prevent *non-Catholics* from being validly ordained or married prior to specified ages.

Since virtually nobody except the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics actually have valid orders, and since none of them ordain anyone younger than about 18, the validity of orders on a young person has not generally been an issue, although Giavonni de Medici was raised to the rank of cardinal at age 14, and (according to Philip Hughes) Pope John XII was consecrated Pope at age 16.

And, as I noted before, Catholic colonial Mexico allowed twelve year olds to marry. Indeed, allowing marriage at roughly age twelve was pretty common in most civilizations around the world. The idea that you have to be older is purely an artifact of the mass-schooled industrial society.

Industrialists worked to redefine maturity so that it would start at a much later age. They invented the concept of adolescence in order to create a subclass of immature spendthrifts who would lack confidence in themselves and so be amenable to the direction of factory foreman.

There is nothing in the article which indicates that at least a natural marriage did not take place, and it's quite possible they have a sacramental marriage.
[right][snapback]723911[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


While I agree with you on almost every point here, my instruction was that sacramental baptism had to be between 2 baptised Chirstians in the name of the Trinity.

[skellmeyer]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 14 2005, 11:56 PM']While I agree with you on almost every point here, my instruction was that sacramental baptism had to be between 2 baptised Chirstians in the name of the Trinity.
[right][snapback]723945[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Did you mean sacramental marriage?

Baptism can be performed by anyone, even an unbaptized unbeliever.
It simply requires (1) a liquid that is substantially water to be poured over some part of the person's body (doesn't have to be the head) at least enough so that one could consider the area in contact with the water to have been washed, (2) the invocation of the Triune name, and (3) the intention by the one performing the baptism to join the person being baptized to the Church.


Natural marriage occurs when an unbaptized man and woman exchange vows
OR
when one is unbaptized and one is baptized and they exchange vows.

Sacramental marriage for non-Catholics occurs when a baptized man and a baptized woman exchange vows. It doesn't have to be before a witness.

Sacramental marriage for Catholics not only requires both parties to be baptized, it also requires an authorized Church witness and the forms of canon law to be observed.

I've got a rather humorous story in that regard.

One of my brother-in-laws is a priest. Another was engaged to be married. He and his fiancee were sitting in the living room the night before the wedding with several members of the family, including the priest, and he suddenly decided that they should practice exchanging vows. So he said his vows, but before she began, I pointed out that since Fr. Michael was present, if she completed her vows, they would be married in that moment, since they both certainly had the intention and a Catholic priest was in the room to witness it, thus fulfilling the forms.

The woman, who was new to the Church, asked Fr. Michael, "Is that correct?" Fr. Michael just smiled, said, "Good-BYE!" and raced out of the room, to raucous laughter from everyone else.

[Aloysius]

in response to Socrates, I was critiqueing our entire culture, including the part that raises children to not be ready, including the economic part that makes it nearly impossible for them to be financially prepared, including the entire society that produces these things you cite as reasons people should not be married so young.

people were able to be mature enough in other eras, and they still are in other cultures. that is because the family raised them to be prepared by that point. that is because the society was conducive to them being able to be financially prepared at that point. Our culture transgresses natural law by not preparing our children to be ready for marriage sooner to their sexual maturity.

[hierochloe]

Yep, I'm really a 17 year old trapped in an old man's body tbh. Stunted. Stupid modern society!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 15 2005, 01:17 AM']in response to Socrates, I was critiqueing our entire culture, including the part that raises children to not be ready, including the economic part that makes it nearly impossible for them to be financially prepared, including the entire society that produces these things you cite as reasons people should not be married so young.

people were able to be mature enough in other eras, and they still are in other cultures.  that is because the family raised them to be prepared by that point.  that is because the society was conducive to them being able to be financially prepared at that point.  Our culture transgresses natural law by not preparing our children to be ready for marriage sooner to their sexual maturity.
[right][snapback]724036[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
*nods*

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 14 2005, 10:52 PM']I think a 12 year old should be able to get married, this girl had  parental consent so I don't think thats much of an issue, [right][snapback]723939[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

They gave consent AFTER she got pregnant. Prior to that they had a restraining order against the guy.

There is nothing honorable about how this particular situation went down. The man and his child bride snuck around behind her mother's back, defying a restraining order, got knocked up and then hid the pregnancy from the girl's mother. The mother gave "consent" in an effort to make the best out of a bad situation.

[picchick]

Isn't this child abuse? Children are children no matter if there parents agree or not. Children are children no matter if they love the person or not. Children at that age don't understand love in that sense. I know I didn't. Now I do but then I didn't.

[Carrie]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 14 2005, 09:55 PM']Oh no she di'int
[right][snapback]723755[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oh yes she did!