That's what I was thinking. What I was thinking was "I would avoid commiting that crime, because I dont know how I could ever believe even God forgives me for doing that. How can I ever think of myself having done that, and then go on, and be okay. Because I think i would think, God forgave me, ut I just cant get around all this." But now, I think something surpassed even that. I have heard some people who commit this, and talking actually about it, and told about when it happens in a show, and it gave me nightmares. It is just so horrible.
@@alonzoharris9049he said Moses did evil things which he did and it's ok to accept humans aren't always perfect and sometimes they make bad decisions.
Mary was noble and selfless and *wanted* to help in God's plan. And an all good, all loving God would never force pregnancy on her like that in the first place.
Mohammed marrying and having sex with a minor is just one of the questionable things about his character. He expelled the jewish town of Bani Nadir in Arabia, he stole their wealth and enslaved their women. At the jewish Arabian town of Bani Kaybar he and his army invaded, here he ordered the beheading of 900 jews. At the Arabian jewish town of Bani Qurayza he killed the citizens and husband/family of jewish 17yo newly married Safiyah, he took her as a slave then he forced her to marry him, he was 60yo . Mohammed had 65 campaigns of war all successful, in one of those campaigns he wiped out the Jews of Medina in Arabia. Yet he is declared the perfect example of a human being.
As Creator of life itself, God has sovereignty over it. We did nothing to earn the gift of our lives, and therefore we can’t blame God for willing its end. It is true that he gives life, but it also belongs to his divine prerogative to take life. He does this every time someone dies naturally or unnaturally. God’s will for a person to die in no way contradicts his divine goodness. God’s choice to cease imparting his causal power in keeping a person alive is nothing more than God’s choice to not will all the good that he could have caused, since for the person to remain alive would be a good. And since to not will some good is not the same as willing evil (e.g., it’s not evil that God could have willed more sparrows than he did), God’s choice to no longer will a person to live is not to will evil. Therefore, God’s choice to no longer will a person to live is not contrary to his goodness. So, God’s choice to cease willing the life of the firstborn males in Egypt in no way contradicts his divine nature.
@@alonzoharris9049 I don't know what you mean! But for us Christian our model is our lord and saviour Jesus Christ. He is God and perfect human. As a human he showed everything other than SIN. Yet, Muslims see Muhammad as their role model.
@@bestfansyes his a human like as and the best model this argument you got many many people answered on it to the point it become ridiculous when ever they brought Islam this is there only argument which is soo stupid
Maybe evangelical Protestantism, but iirc, Anglicanism and Lutheranism aren't opposed to it, and the Reformers all believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, I think.
Even in ancient times, there were people who recognized that child or teen marriage was less than ideal. I can't remember which Roman historian it was (maybe Tacitus) writing about the customs of the Germanic tribes, he noted that they tended to marry in their early twenties, as opposed to the mid-teen marriages common in the Greco-Roman world, and spoke favourably about this practice as being more suited to preserving the health and vitality of women.
My sister went into puberty at two years old. Not many people know about precocious puberty or how intense the medication is, especially for a baby. It was really hard on my family but I'm so glad they caught it and took care of my baby sister so well!
OMG.I Most it was desbastading.I never new that a child so young go through this.I believe to live the children alone to enjoy their childhood.Thouse Muslims should stop destroying the youth of the childhood.
Not to mention Allah calls Muhammad the pattern of conduct for all times. Muslims will resort to tuquoque fallacy to try to alleviate the embarassment of his practices, but it falls short since Islams claim is that Muhamamad is to be followed, which is what the Sunnah is for. Muhammad is supposed to be the seal of the prophets, the final messenger and great pattern of conduct until the end times. Yet, Child marriage is just one of the issues you will encounter when looking at the conduct of Muhammad. You will see wife beating which is also endorsed by the Quran, sex slavery, torture for going against Islam. Theres a plethora of other things which make Islam a flawed and poor man made religion, but forsure this one is pretty bad.
@@alonzoharris9049 Aquinas is not a prophet or Jesus. Muhammad is pattern of conduct until end times. The issue is not child marriage as under 18 bafoon, its 9 years and even younger that Islam endorses. Daniel haqiqatu said you can marry a baby 🤣. Where in the Quran does it say when a child reaches puberty?
@@alonzoharris9049 I also seek a quote from Aquinas Aquinas had really stupid opinions on some things, though he undeniably had a BRILLIANT mind. Anyway SOURCE??
@@Keith-qj5dp could you explain why you bring that up at this point? I am not justifying those immoral actions, I'm just asking why you thought that it would be relevant here?
Jesus Christ needed me to see this video as I am in RCIA and was feeling attacked by Protestants on Marian dogma. Thank you so much Trent. God bless you! You are a light on this dark earth. I will pray for you and your family!!!
I'm not sure what constitutes and attack by other protestants? Hope it wasn't too bad. I'm protestant too, and also don't agree w/ Catholic theology about Mary. However, Catholics are brethren and if you're drawing closer to God by becoming Catholic, then God bless and keep you.
I was always conflicted about Mary being young teen It felt wrong but I think what you said makes perfect sense Thank you so much for tackling such important issues I was born catholic and it seems like I still know so litlle and need to undertand what I stand for...
@@charko4191 Though, as someone who's spent more time in the past three years learning about the faith than I ever did in previous decades, I can tell you this: there's literally nothing stopping you from learning.
@@shaunsteele6926 No, they weren't. Adults go to war, even seventeen year olds can squeak by even when that is rare, but not "young teens". Typically, you couldn't even go to war if you weren't married and didn't have children.
Very heavy topic and you handled with great care, Trent. I had never even considered many of these uncomfortable questions and it's a blessing to have these responses in advance so I don't have a theological crisis one day later on. 😊
This is one of his best videos. The way he elegantly ties it all together with the immaculate conception was masterful. And that this can be used both as a refutation of islam and Protestantism, while also a defense of the immaculate conception is Catholic apologetic art.
He doesn't need to, check out Sam Shamoun (hands down the best Christian apologist against Islam alive) who is currently not affiliated to any Church but is very sympathetic to the RC and Orthodox Churches. There's also Christian Prince and David Wood but them being Protestants, be wary of that.
Islam is easy to refute, just ask them if they believe Jesus died crucified or not ? If they say yes, means that they contradict their own Quran, surah an nisa 157 :"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-" Yusuf Ali translation, but if they say no, they will be against historical evidences about the death and crucifixion of Jesus !
@@anthonytan7134 Well did you read the verse or are you just willfully ignorant?? It clearly states that it appeared to them that he was crucified but he was not.
@@notkingali1798Jesus WAS crucified. If that's the Quran, then Mohammad got some Docetist bullshit whispered to him. Those nutjobs were the only ones that argued such a weird thing. Which is completely nuts, as the Docetists claimed the crucifixion was a deception only to harmonize the event with their belief that Jesus was 100% God and 0% man. Which is against Islam. What the heck?
It's so astonishing to see the difficult and seemingly strange teachings of the 19th-20th century popes continually vindicated in prophetic ways. The protection of the Holy Spirit is incredible.
@WeaponOfChoice I'm not sure who this imaginary "evil one" is, but I know that the Catholic Church has inflicted more harm and disseminated more falsehoods than any other human institution in the last 2,000 years.
@@highroller-jq3ix _”Widespread sexual ab*U*S*e*s cases in Southern Baptist churches were reported by the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News on February 10, 2019. The report found roughly 380 clergy, lay leaders and volunteers had faced allegations of sexual misconduct, leaving behind over 700 victims[1] since 1998. The extent of misconduct is further complicated by work within the Southern Baptist Convention to move sex offenders to other communities and resist attempts to address the culture of abuse[1]”._ [1] Downen, Robert; Olsen, Lise; Tedesco, John (February 10, 2019). Houston Chronicle. Retrieved February 11, 2019. In my country there were A LOT of cases of r*a*p*e of male/ female adolescents and even adult vulnerable women by pastors in Pentecostal churches from 2020 to 2022 during the pandemics. Just search online in Portuguese, please. An article was written in the Washington Post in May 31th 2018 (search it online) called “The epidemic of denial about sexual a/b/u/s/e in the evangelical church”. The morbid cultural anti-Catholicism in your country (specially due to the secular media’s anti-Catholicism too, specially embraced by fanatical low-church Protestants) maybe make you people blinded over this issue. More so, search for an article called “Evangelicals ‘worse’ than Catholics on sexual abuse” by Bob Allen (October 10, 2013): _“A Liberty University law professor and grandson of Billy Graham has told reporters that he thinks evangelicals are worse than Catholics when it comes to responding to sexual abuse by clergy”._ Well, it is all there, my friend. It doesn’t get to mainstream and to Protestant media, but it’s everywhere. Hatred and ideological anti-Catholicism by secular media on the USA, as predictable, was only instrumentalized by hateful Protestants to detract - one step further - the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Our Lord built upon Peter, the apostle.
It might be worth bearing in mind that marriage is a sacrament and a valid sacrament has a matter, a form and an intention. The little girl in the video was not giving her consent, therefore she did not have the intention required. In contrast, the Blessed Virgin Mary agreed to go along with God's plan.
I don't think this is a bad method. It is good to be able to show that you understand a position you don't hold well enough to base an argument off of it. Especially if it is an argument your opponent does hold. "See, even this thing which you believe points to my position." It is actually a good argument technique to use. Example: Say I'm arguing with a liberal atheist over rather or not the first Century Christian sources (New Testament) are reliable documents. I might argue from Critical Theory, which suggests that we should give special attention and credibility to marginalized groups. And since we know that Christianity was highly persecuted in the first Century (or rather, first few Centuries), then that means we should give more charity to their writings than we do the writings against them. If the liberal atheist disagrees, then he is going against the foundations of Critical Theory, but if he agrees, then he's giving more credit to Christianity than he's comfortable. "Well, you don't believe in Critical Theory" wouldn't be an acceptable escape-answer, because he leaves his cognitive dissonance hanging. He could argue from the abuses of Christian history, to which I could reply that none of those abuses happened yet when these sources in question were being written. They (the Church-fathers and apostles) did not do these abuses, but were abused in this way, so their credibility must be upheld according to Critical Theory. The fact that Daniel used evolution to argue for young marriages without believing in evolution is not the problem. The problems with his argument are these: 1.) Daniel was using evolution to argue why men would find 14 year old girls desirable in a debate where he is defending the right to marry girls 10 years old and younger. 2.) Michael's position is not that it is evolutionary beneficial to wait until 18+, but rather that it is immoral and damaging to young girls to be married so young. 3.) Michael could respond that desire doesn't equate to right. Even if a man desires a 14 year old girl, that doesn't mean he has a right to a 14 year old girl. 4.) Michael could respond by arguing for a Christian morality of dying to the flesh, -that we should do what's morally right rather than fulfill our desires.
There's child marriage and then there's child marriage. One shouldn't be very offensive even if it is imprudent and would have to be forced today: two pre pubescent teenagers were married for the purpose of property but usually wouldn't even live together or consummate the marriage until years later. This kind of thing between two children is what would happen in Spain or Southern Italy, etc. Then there's the version defended by Islam which is some dirty old man marrying a pre pubescent girl. Polygamy also goes hand in hand with pedopholia, one of the reasons the response to Mormonism was so violent
I need to register the ideas in my head for copyright cuz this is the 2nd time Trent has done a video that i planned to do something similar🫠 dude is 2 steps ahead everytime.
@Trent you and @Michael Jones should do a video together about this topic please. Thanks for your hard work and studies. GOD BLESS your family and you. Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
This is random, but I have been walking around my neighborhood praying the Rosary and I hope it helps get rid of crime especially disgusting crimes like pedo and pedo unions. >w
The Blessed Virgin Mary was age 14 at the time of the Annunciation and 15 at Nativity. And *14 was the normal age for girls to marry* in first century Judea. Mary was already betrothed (legally married) to Joseph at Annunciation. Pagan Roman Empire set girls' minimum age for marriage at age 12.
14 is also the minimum age for Girls to be married in Canon Law. IMPORTANT: Canon Law also says that local laws that increase the age by a few years supersede this.
@@Joker22593 Thanks for the info! That's good to know that Canon Law supports the different social standards in different parts of the world. That way, the RCC can work in poor, primitive regions as well as more modern, advanced regions.
By that logic if it’s okay for 14 year olds to get married because that was the culture then Muslims can say it’s was the culture too that’s why Muhammad had sex with 9 year old Aisha
Trent, I am Catholic apologist (for some eastern european language area), with focus on criticising islam and similar false views. In video there is claim "marrige can be consumated when child reaches puberty". It is actually not true (Maybe Haqiqatjou sounded like that, but he never used those words), because muslims differ puberty and physical strength. To them, it is not matter of puberty at all (Aisha was neither in puberty in 6 nor 9), but: physical strength. In other words, if child would be not torn apart by sexual intercourse, then sexual intercourse is okay. Hanafi Fiqh says clearly that "The permissibility of consummating a marriage with a girl is based on her physical strength and not on her age". I won't put link from this source because RU-vid would remove my commet, but you can find that if you Google by question: "What is the minimum age for a girl for her to consumate her marriage with her husband? Is it puberty?" by Shaykh Ebrahim Desai, on IslamQA org site (one of the most popular islamic sites in the world). You would find that answer. Also, IslamQA info (probably most popular islamic site in the world) says this: "Marriage to a young girl before she reaches puberty is permissible according to sharee’ah, and it was narrated that there was scholarly consensus on this point". That is because in Quran and islam, there is something called "iddah", that is, waiting period before woman can have sex before remarrying. As you can see, since that also aplies to children (because Quran it states: "and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature)"), that means also that children can have sexual intercourse in islam since they are ones who are still immature. Later, at the end in same source they say "to marry a minor girl does not imply that it is permissible to have intercourse with her, rather the husband should not have intercourse with her until she becomes able for that", but we found in frist source what that means in islam; and that is precisely they wouldn't want to write word puberty, since they know it is not matter of puberty. Not age. But physical strength. So in other words, if muslim concludes his "wife" is strong enough by age of 7, that applies for having intercourse with her. No real age limit. Of course, today's liberal muslims like to sugar coat these true teachings of islam, but that is called taqiyya in islam (trying to conceal the truth). But that is hypocristy. I would like to get more into dismantling islam, Trent. Maybe commenting on classich fiqh books, like Reliance of the Traveller. You would find there terrible teachings where of course sexual intercourse with children is approved. That is all in shariah law. God bless you dear Trent.
"In video there is claim 'marriage can be consummated when child reaches puberty'. It is actually not true" Well, it is true, that guy professes that, others muslims may not. There is disagreement about that, sure, but that does not mean that it's not true that some muslims do hold that position. We should always take great care with generalizations.
I can handle almost anything, but this episode`s topic made queasy. I am very happy I have heard those arguments regarding the Blessed Mother before. And I am very glad to see even these have an answer. God bless you Mr.Trent Horn. Through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Mother of God, in the Most Holy Name of Jesus Christ, our Blessed Lord and Savior. Amen! Immaculate Hearts of Jesus and Mary, I place my trust in you. Amen.
Thank you, Trent! May God keep blessing you and your beautiful family and the Holy Spirit taking you to the wholeness of the Truth to help others like me :)
We need to pray for the conversion of all Mohammadans so that these atrocities will stop taking place. We need the Blessed Virgin Mary to go in there and civilize these people. And yes, I am calling them barbaric. No apologies. Many of these little girls end up pregnant at 10, 11, 12, 13 years old when their bodies are not fully developed yet and the babies conceived take a toll on their bodies, unable to bear them, they are literally torn apart as the baby comes out, many babies and the little girl mothers die in the process, the ones who survive are scared for ever, physically and spiritually. What do their Mohammadan captors do? They shame them for being incapable of producing babies. It is barbaric.
Was Mary not around the same age Muslim woman get married the Catholic Church till this day allow 14 year old girls to get married no matter how old the guy is why don’t u call them out too.
@princessc660 The issue is that that allowance of letting girls get married at 14 is not written in stone, it is changeable and can be te written. Now, in the Christian world, if any man tries to marry a 14 year old girl, he goes to prison, it doesn't matter what the antiquated tradition was. But for you Muslims, it's different. You won't change that teaching because it comes from Mohammad, whom.you obey as if he were a god. You guys can't change it, you are stuck with it. But we Catholics, we can change it, and have done so in the fact that we allow the law to supetscede that antiquated / outdated belief.
I have had much interest in this subject for decades. I'm 74 now. I was a secondary-school teacher for 31 years. I have to say I saw many years ago a continual rise in immaturity among the young. Each decade seemed worse than the previous. I would say a mature teen girl, and guy, is rare to find now. I think we all know people now in their fifties who think and live like teens. And I believe this constant "readjusting" to solve this problem, such as increasing the legal marriage ages, is only a slippery slope. No doubt many marriages now are done immaturily, but what is needed are solutions such as increasing maturity back to the teen years. One big solution, I am convinced, is to stop the American/modern belief that everyone should go through an academic, secondary education. I believe academics is not for everyone once the teen years are reached. Those who would do better learning a trade need to separate to trade schools.
I'm literally in love with you for this response. We act as though the system we have devised with our own hands is that of nature itself: proper and inviolable. I think it condemnable to act as though the way that men lived throughout history was barbaric, whereas our society now is basically how we should be living. The ages of 16 and 14 for marriage (for men and women respectively) is in utter agreement with nature and should be continued. I've never understood why we set it at 18 in America, it seems so arbitrary. Thats not when your brain fully develops or when you're capable of having kids (not just that you began puberty, but that you are physically fit for it), nor are you more or less capable a year before or a year after, the difference between a 17, 18, 19, and 20 year old is very very slim. But we act like its such a huge deal, legally speaking. It also has caused (if not caused, added to) the issue of teen pregnancy and abortion and what not. If its been the case basically forever that you get married young and have kids and a family, and we arbitrarily change that, why wouldn't we expect people to go against the societally imposed standard? We tried so hard for decades to stop teenagers from doing it and getting pregnant, but it was basically lame from its first step. Long story short, we should go back to the 800's, I'm not even joking. I hate modernity
@@CatholicCarlismEnjoyer no clue. That's just what's in canon law, so that's what I went with. Maybe because women develop sooner than men, and puberty lasts longer for dudes.
I mean, a couple of days later, Mary uttered a praise that shows she is at least of the intellectual level of a fully gifted psalmist. That's what we do know for sure.
Mary would have been around 15, not a "child" by anyone's cultural standards but our own in the last 50 years or so. In Jewish tradition you're an adult at the age of 13.
I remember watching CNN's segment and thinking they could have offered the girl's father ten times what that old, perverse man gave to buy her. Did no one speak up for the child? How could any human being allow that to happen? They could've stopped her father, but then I guess they wouldn't have gotten the story they were after.
Lmao. I was born in Japan and l can probably explain that. Let's say you're American, and visit Japan for a news story. You see that porn of underage girls, loli porn, is a billion dollar industry. That horrifies you. So you stop a man on the street, who is about to buy a porn game or comic about a little girl. And you pay gim 10 times as much not to buy it, to try and prevent such things from happening. But that was totally futile lol. After you guys part ways he will just continue to buy it. Or buy another similar one. It's already legal and popular. It isnt going anywhere so stopping one example in one moment isn't gonna do anything lol. In the case of CNN they care about the concept of child marriage, not that particular girl. If they paid the dad off as soon as they part ways he will just sell her again and it wouldn't even do anything lmao
Lmao. I was born in Japan and l can probably explain that. Let's say you're American, and visit Japan for a news story. You see that porn of underage girls, loli porn, is a billion dollar industry. That horrifies you. So you stop a man on the street, who is about to buy a porn game or comic about a little girl. And you pay him 10 times as much not to buy it, to try and prevent such things from happening. But that was totally futile lol. After you guys part ways he will just continue to buy it. Or buy another similar one. It's already legal and popular. It isnt going anywhere so stopping one example in one moment isn't gonna do anything lol. In the case of CNN they care about the concept of child marriage, not that particular girl. If they paid the dad off as soon as they part ways he will just sell her again and it wouldn't even do anything lmao
Wow, this video gave me a new insight into Mary and how to refute Christians who do not believe the Lord had a reason to make Mary to be conceived without sin, to be the most blessed of woman, and to be a sinless human. Any normal woman may have said yes to the conception of the Lord, having fear in the back of her mind, if she said no to the Lord. The power structure of authority asking a mere human to conceive the Lord may have been perceived as over bearing and not an act of pure freewill; but not for our Lady who always had perfect love for our Lord and would do anything out of that perfect love. For her not to have been perfect would have put into question her 'yes' to the Lord. Its just another great consideration to keep in the apologetics satchel when discussing our beloved Mother Mary. Thanks!
that was fairly normal for the time and culture. Women were not expected to go to school or obtain "careers", so by 15 they were ready for marriage and family life.
@@shaunsteele6926 By that logic if it’s okay for 14 year olds to get married because that was the culture then Muslims can say it’s was the culture too that’s why Muhammad had sex with 9 year old Aisha
I aggree.That story of Joseph being chosen because his staff flowered is just a legend. There is a reason why the "Book of James" was not included in the Bible! It's full of silly stories about baby Jesus. Mary as 15 and Joseph as 30 sounds perfect.In those days, a Jewish man was not supposed to marry until he got a job and could support his wife.
As a Protestant, I am not militantly against the Immaculate Conception, I am just merely unconvinced. I mostly don't like the implication that sex is somehow dirty, or bad, since sex is a gift God gave humanity and the very first command.
The implication without the immaculate conception is that Mary had to have some fear in if she said no. And the same way a boss cannot impregnant a worker (even in a non sexually way) because there’s a power imbalance, that would make Mary not free to say No. Without immaculate conception, Mary is not truly free to say yes to God. You should rewatch this video. Because I too was skeptical of the necessity of this concept. But after understanding that God would never put a woman in a position where she is only saying yes to pregnancy because she fears of what happens if she says no. I love this argument.
@@dooley5983 There are numerous ways God could complete that, and where scripture is silent we ought to be as well. Perhaps immaculate conception is true. Who knows. But scripture does not tell us that, and so we don't have the right to say it does.
@@dokidelta1175 you should watch Trent’s video on the NT canon. In it, he goes through how none of ten of the earliest church fathers refer to the NT as “divine scripture”. Jesus didn’t establish a book on this earth. He established a Church, and that church gave us the Bible you read to today. The Bible is inerrant, but the Biblebitself doesn’t claim to be the only source of inerrancy. It says to adhere to the scripture AND the oral traditions passed down. I also agree that God could have done it many ways, but do you have a more compelling way than the immaculate conception ?
I like hearing the opponents to certain Catholic teachings, because it gives a good medium for a great explanation and examples of what the Church actually teaches and how certain dogmas came to be and the reasoning behind them.
In Luke 1:28 the angel Gabriel says to Mary: ”blessed art thou among WOMEN”. Also, Luke 1:36 “And behold thy COUSIN Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son IN HER OLD AGE” Compare this with Mark 5:41 “ Taking her by the hand, Jesus said, “Talitha koum!” which means, “LITTLE GIRL, I say to you, get up!” Immediately THE GIRL got up and began to walk around. SHE WAS TWELVE YEARS OLD” And Luke 2:42-43 “And when he was TWELVE YEARS OLD, they going up into Jerusalem…when they returned, THE CHILD Jesus remained in Jerusalem” It is clear in scripture that twelve-year-olds are considered “children” and Mary would not have been referred to as a “Woman” at the annunciation (by the angel nor later, by Elizabeth) if she was a child of twelve. Elizabeth, Mary’s cousin, was “advanced in age”, the same word “probebēkuia” as used for the prophetess Anna in Luke 2:36-37, where it says she was eighty-four years old. It seems unlikely that there would be such a huge age gap to be cousins if Mary was so young. Also, consider the many visions and apparitions of Mary holding baby Jesus. Not one says that the “child” Mary or “young girl” Mary was holding baby Jesus, it’s always “lady”.
The fact that Mary was 13 or 14 during a time period when general life expectancy was much lower AND children (by our standards) would have already entered the adult workforce and been considered adults is not even remotely in the same ballpark as prepubescent children being married without consent. We also know that Mary consented and understood what she was consenting to. The same absolutely cannot be said about a 6yo, which would never have been considered an adult in any of the cultures at any portion of history.
That was my thinking as well. In those days, living to an old age wasn’t necessarily rare but it was uncommon enough that those who did make it to the elder stage were given a lot of respect and reverence. I think it’s too easy for us to think under 18 as “too young” when really it’s society that’s kind of led to that since we live much longer and in greater comfort. Not justifying treating obviously young children (say 4-10) as adults is the way to go, but I do think we do a disservice to teens like 14-17 by still treating them like kids and then expect them to be adult-like and mature as soon as they hit 18.
it had nothing to do with life expectancy, a healthy adult back then could live into their 60s-70s just like today. Women married in their teens because they were not expected to do anything else in life but marry and bear children. Best to get started as soon as they were physically able.
If you are a grown man and attracted to a 14 year old shape, (Small, flat breasts, very narrow waist, narrow hips, visible ribs, legs much longer than back, long legs and arms for body, ect.) This shows somthing very wrong with you. As a 35 years old or so, you should be attracted to a woman's body. (Full breasts, wider hips, muscular arms, legs, waist, and shoulders, average proportions, ect.)
Christians must dress modestly and live wholesome lives of purity with our families walking peacefully together in public and then muslims might be curious and drawn to Catholicism.
Another difference I thought of- in Christianity we don't literally recreate biblical life. For example our men don't buy crosses and nail themselves to them to imitate Jesus. Rather, if we have cancer for example, we might think- "I have found my cross. " similarly Mary's example of virginity can often be an inspiration that is mind over body.That's why Mary's age is generally not an issue for us. In islam they actually imitate their prophet in many ways. In my view they misappropriate our Bible this way. Our Bible is not meant to be imitated literally including Mary's age at pregnancy.
@@basharalassad6854 9 year old being sold off to a 50 year old man. She obviously doesn't have any say and doesn't want to go with him, it's sickening.
@@PhantomRed13 Before 1917 the church allowed 12-year-old girls and 14-year-old boys to get married to someone no matter how much older. A 12-year-old is only 3 years older than Aisha when she had sex with Muhammad at 53. According to the church, it would been okay if she was 12 with a 53-year-old. Even though Aisha didn't have a period yet she could have had a period at 9. A 9 and 12-year-old are still going through puberty. That is hypocritical to say it's not okay for a 9-year-old but it's okay for a 12-year-old. Even though the church raised the minimum to 14 for girls and 16 for boys they still have no age restriction. Meaning a 14-year-old and a 50-year-old could marry. Even if it doesn't happen often the problem is the church allows it to.
These things are always interesting to me as an atheist. Muslims try to bring up Mary when defending Aisha, but they have no response when speaking to an Atheist who believes neither was right. Before anyone attacks 18 or so as an arbitrary number, it is an age that society has more or less agreed upon, in which we believe the person has reasonable mental faculties to be treated as an adult. For those who might try to attack my views on abortion, I am pro-life because I believe all biological life begins at conception. I also don’t believe teens or kids can decide their genders.
You never did circle back to WHY God chose a 12/13 yo Mary instead of when she was older But absolutely great video, & I learned a lot about the Doctrine surrounding Mary!
And what about female genital mutilation? Also, fourteen years old is a lot different than nine years old. Marriage should always be consentual, in any case.
So it’s okay for a 14 year old to marry a 53 year old if chooses but not a 9 year old if chooses and before 1917 canon age for girls was 12 that’s a 3 year difference so Catholics are no better when it comes to child marriage stop being hypocritical
@@Justas399 You are taking away from her greatness, which is an attack on her. You mean just like Sola Scriptura which isnt in scripture? Holy Tradition says "hi" btw.
@@shaunsteele6926 No she couldn’t have, Our Lady was not the son of God, she was not God incarnate…she was not the Logos or the second person of the Holy Trinity. It’s not the sinlessness of Christ, it was that sacrifice of the son, both fully human and fully divine. The sacrifice of God himself, not of his Mother.
@@basharalassad6854 if you used an inch of brain that you lost, you would not have put that shit. Christianity does not trade marriage. It's placed as a sacrament.
@@illyrian9976 Nope, arranged marriage literally was commonplace up until modernity. This obsession with consent only came from the feminists in the 20s.
Thanks, Trent! You've given me much to think and pray about. I accept the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, and I have often thought of it as God's way of "stacking the deck" against Satan. It was God's way of insuring that Mary would say yes to the plan of salvation while also preserving her free will. However, I had never heard it said that God would not have been "displeased in any way" (13:50) if she had said no. That is a new point for me to contemplate. But then what would have happened if she HAD said no? I suppose that God would have either created another woman immaculately or He would have found another way to save mankind (?) I have a hard time believing that God would have given up on the project altogether if Mary had said no, but I suppose that would have been His prerogative to do so.
"But then what would have happened if she HAD said no?" The problem with that is that we are at pure speculation at this point, there is no way we can possibly know for sure what could have happened. We can only speculate a couple of hypothesis and check which one sounds more plausible.
I believe that God gave Mary the gift of the immaculate conception because he knew she would be the one to freely say yes in any possible circumstance.
God made Mary without sin and with perfect love for him and neighbor. Since she had perfect love for him, she would always want to please the Lord. Since the Lord is outside of time, although Mary had free will to say 'no', the Lord knew she would choose 'yes. Therefore the Lord did not have to be concerned about a hypothetical 'no' scenario.
@@Patrick_Bard I guess you're right. It doesn't really help us to dwell on "what if's". My point was not just for sheer speculation, but to understand the doctrines better.
When you are without sin then your will is perfectly aligned with God’s will. That’s why even if you CAN, you DON’T WANT to say no since you and God want the same thing.
1. Your response implies that no one other than Mary had ever consensually obeyed God. Anyone who responds to God could be scared of punishment or doing so out of desperation for a reward. 2. How does her sinlessness also give omniscience such that she could _know_ that God would not be displeased by a no? 3. You've asserted, rather than argued that God would not be displeased by Mary saying no. Why wouldn't He be? Is it because she would know that we must submit to God whether we like it or not because He's good?? That defeats the need to have such special knowledge at all anyway since it is not the knowledge that makes it permissible, but God's goodness that does. Also, _everyone_ has that knowledge. 4. "As with any nonconsensual impregnation, consent's absence in this case would entail an assault that would be sexual in nature." Proof? Where is there an "assault"? How could this be sexual if there is no sex? 5. "[C]onsented-to impregnation signals an unparalleled relationship with God that can fittingly be called spousal." Where on earth do you get that? Where's the proof? When did the marriage occur? Isn't God a polygamist since Joseph married her? Or maybe they got a divorce? But doesn't that violate God's commands concerning divorce? You respond, saying, "Luke 1:35 uses spousal imagery" and then quoted two passages in which I detected no spousal imagery at all.
@elizabethbennett3930 I agree that the age of consent should also have been raised to 18. It was a missed opportunity by parliament. I would like Scotland and NI to raise the age as well,but it is unlikely in the case of Scotland, and it is possible that it may be 17 in Northern Ireland in order to be the same as the south.
Hmm, the only thing I kind of question,Trent, is the authority figure relationship argument. Is that a modern view of it? Biblically, becoming pregnant is always shown as a blessing; in fact, barrenness is the curse. I just don’t see the support for someone potentially saying yes solely out of fear of God’s punishment. I see the support for acting out of fear of God’s punishment more generally but when it comes to pregnancy it just seems everyone is eager to say yes 😊 I’m interested in that other guy’s argument for this though. I’m thinking people might say something like “Well in Scripture people who do have original sin do far more risky, sacrificial things and we don’t assume they are doing it merely out of fear of God’s punishment” 🤔🤔
I thought the same thing. It’s not coercion if merely a power imbalance. This view very modern and frees anyone from bad judgment calls. Take Trent’s example of a poor woman having sex with a rich man for money as the man being coercive. That would mean every prostitute is then coerced and therefore a victim of every John they encounter. That’s not the case. Integrity is a virtue and it may cause us to sacrifice. If someone offers a million dollars for you to break away with virtue, sacrifice is necessary. We are all free to make choices either towards God or away
Muslims say dont judge Muhammad by the staandards of today, yet Muhammad cant even pass his own standards when his own daughter is involved. And remember Fatima is 8 years older than Aisha wet when Abu Bakr wanted to marry Fatimah, Muhammad said "No, she is too young". 😂 Narrated 'Abdullah bin Buraidah: It was narrated from 'Abdullah bin Buraidah that his father said: "Abu Bakr and 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, proposed marriage to Fatimah but the Messenger of Allah said: 'She is young.' (إِنَّهَا صَغِيرَةٌ, inna-haa sagheera) Then 'Ali proposed marriage to her and he married her to him." Sunan an-Nasa'i 26:3223
There has been some recent comprehensive study on this matter of child marriage. The first big misconception that most people seems to have is, young girls always getting married to old dudes. But the actual percentage of this is only around 10/15% of total child marriages. 85/90% of child marriages happens between similar ages girls and boys (usually teenagers)
@SeaSide I used to feel disturbed about these numbers and percentages. But now I can see it, when your everyday concern is about the very next meal and basic survival goods, i don't think it matters that much when or who you are marrying.
17:07 Trent I can envision a protestant response that a grace given to Mary is necessary for the incarnation through to be through Mary's womb, but that the immaculate conception of Mary is not necessary or the only form the grace could take.
@Nathan Bustamante how and why do you say this? Before or after or both when God said to all of the plants you are free to eat except from that tree in the middle. If you do eat from it you shall surely die?
@@danielhaas9469 I don't know what you're asking. Are you saying that because God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree that everything he does isbtherefore necessary? I'm very confused.
@Nathan Bustamante you said he could have saved us without becoming man, how do you know this? Since God told Adam that if he ate of the tree he would surely die. What I am asking is could God have changed his mind after the fall in saving is people or before the fall?
I think it would behoove us to remember that morality involves more than consent, so a variety of things are wrong not just because a person's ability to consent is somehow compromised, but because of a more fundamental issue. The "age of consent" for any given thing is a prudential judgment, not based on any solid science that draws a precise threshold by age. "Maturity" is a complex, multifaceted concept. We can't say when precisely someone reaches sexual maturity since maturation is a gradual process. Nor can we say when someone reaches intellectual maturity, for the same reason. These phenomena do exist, they're just not precise enough for a legal code to consider them. Instead, laws (including moral laws) use heuristics to approximate what is right. They reflect the Sorites paradox: the fact that people, when asked, can't give a precise moment when a person becomes an adult, but they can say with certainty that a 1-year-old is not an adult, and that a 30-year-old is. The reason the Church has lost ground on so many issues of sexual morality has something to do with secular liberal democracies' tendency to conceptualize sexual crimes purely in terms of consent. Secular liberal democracies began as an effort to prevent bloodshed between protestant factions that could not resolve their disputes otherwise. Instead of settling matters in the Church (whose authority they denied, of course), they resolved to simply "agree to disagree," and that became the foundation of the political zeitgeist of the early modern period, culminating in the French and American revolutions, where large countries with citizens of many different persuasions ended up subject to the same polity. Given the significant disagreement between factions on all kinds of matters, and the desire to remove religion from governance, lest any particular religion be unfairly favored, European nations increasingly removed social and moral codes perceived as too particular. And that's how we ended up with consent-based morality, which is essentially traditional Christian morality that's been systematically stripped of things that people disagreed over at one point or another. And now, people can't even agree on the boundaries of consent, so perhaps eventually we'll be left with no morality at all. Anyway, my point here is that Catholic arguments about sexual morality in secular liberal democracies might as well be in a foreign language-say, Pig Latin. It's funny I was recommended this video, just after watching your recent video about "h0m0ph0b*a," since the reason our arguments about sexual morality are typically received as hateful bigotry and prejudice is not simply out of malice, but because of a genuine inability to comprehend how anyone could object to something that is consented to by all parties involved. It doesn't even cross their mind that morality might have some content other than consent and harm. And arguments based solely on consent are weak and blurry. If we say marrying a child is wrong because a child can't consent, it's natural for someone to point out that children can use language for all sorts of other purposes, so clearly they can consent. At this point, the goalposts are usually moved. The issue is not that children can't consent; it's that children lack the mental acuity to give _informed_ consent. But children can be informed of all sorts of other things. If they couldn't, why would we bother sending them to school? So the goalposts need to be moved yet again. Children lack the long-sightedness to understand how the action in question will impact their lives. But if that's such a problem, what about all the other things kids do that will drastically affect their lives? Indeed, if all this is true, then western retributivist justice must have serious doubts about the permissibility of punishing children for anything they do, since this seems to entirely preclude moral culpability on the mainstream definition. And it would also be reasonable for people to point out there are many other things that might impair one's ability to consent, far more drastically than mere childhood. If the only problem for children is that they can't foresee the outcomes of their actions, or they simply make bad decisions, then the same can apply to many different sorts of adults, or indeed _all_ adults in certain "compromised" situations. This is where we got the notion that adults can't consent while intoxicated, or in the event of a power imbalance. And what about an adult who consents to something and has quite ordinary faculties, but they are simply _mistaken_ about the future consequences of that action? This is clearly an intractable issue. This logic simply does not admit of the kind of hard-and-fast rules that a legal code demands. Which seems to defeat the purpose of consent-based morality in explaining our objection to child marriage. Instead, we should simply admit that we object to child marriage because it's a disgusting violation of the child's innocence and purity. That argument only sounds irrational to people who've been brainwashed by secular liberal democracies into denying their instinctive moral foundations. It's the same reason "h0m0ph0b*a" sounds irrational to the same sorts of people: the moral concepts of purity, and its opposite, degradation (or desecration), have been systematically removed from official discourse on ethics and law for several generations, so that people increasingly cannot understand the laws of past generations and insist on repealing them. That's why sexual degeneracy after sexual degeneracy is decriminalized with every successive generation. People simply lack the moral language to understand the laws of their ancestors, so they assume their ancestors were just insane, backwards people. It doesn't cross their mind that maybe _they_ and not their ancestors are deficient in some way, because the secular intelligentsia (and increasingly, often the religious leaders as well) is engaged in the same iconoclastic endeavor to scrub everything but harm and consent from the law and social mores. If we don't have the courage to stand on our rock-solid but embattled moral foundations (sanctity, authority, loyalty, and honor), then they will become irrelevant in our discourse, and we (Catholics) will simply acquiesce to the culture. Instead, they will be left to be defended in our own countries by immigrants belonging to other faiths, who haven't yet installed the consent-based morality patch. And they'll either overthrow secular liberalism (which would not be surprising, given how frail and sickly it appears as of late, versus how vigorous faiths like Islam are), or else acquiesce just like us. And then, children will be allowed to marry too early, either on the basis of traditional Islamic law, or on the basis of tolerance, which already is clearly moving in the direction of decriminalizing all forms of sexual impropriety (see e.g. the "minor-attracted persons" discourse, and similar discourse relating to inc3st and a variety of other degrading fetishes in the radical "studies" departments). In summary, I don't see much likelihood of our standards on this matter being vindicated if we continue to defend them solely in terms of consent.
By the way, if you do argue that Islam is immoral for permitting child marriages, even though consummation is not permitted until puberty, then you need to explain why the Church is not immoral for permitting arranged marriages of adults, and for prohibiting divorce. I can easily explain them in terms of the other moral foundations I uphold, but it seems considerably more difficult on consent-based morality. If the issue in the case of children is simply that 9-year-olds can't consent to a marriage, then surely it's equally immoral for a family to require their daughter to marry a particular person she did not choose. And it might also be fair for someone to say this logic leads to accepting divorce, since you could consent to the marriage initially, but cease to consent after realizing it's not what you thought it would be. In this case, you could certainly argue that you were not able to give _informed_ consent, because you did not know the marriage would be as dissatisfying as it turned out to be. If you were informed it would be that way, you wouldn't have given consent; and if it turned out the way you thought it would be, you wouldn't wish for a divorce anyway. But the Catholic Church (and indeed, Jesus) insists that divorce is wrong, so clearly the morality of divorce does not boil down to consent. I think a lot of this also has to do with the individualism of our culture. Feudal societies did not see individuals as constructing their own identities; they saw individuals as being essentially born into a set of roles (family, community, feudal relationships, subjecthood to a sovereign, etc.) that defined them. We impose our own individualistic perspectives onto people of the past, like serfs, seeing it as a great injustice that people could be tied to the land and had no right to leave their assigned role. But then, kings were born into royalty, and knights into knighthood. Feudal society was constructed around these kinds of vassal-lord relationships, and it was not some great injustice, it was just the way society was ordered then. I raise this issue of feudalism because arranged marriages existed in Europe in this context, and insofar as they both violate an individual's right to choose their own marriage, it is analogous to child marriage (and indeed, child marriages are and were most often a subset of arranged marriages). And in the other societies in which arranged/child marriages have existed, collectivistic, group-oriented cultures of honor similar to medieval Europe's have predominated. Arranged marriages are expressions of the idea that individuals are subordinate to their families. While individuals could have individual rights & duties, they also had duties, which often related to the rights of their family, of their community, and of their country (or lord). Your duties can often be seen as the rights of another person. If you have a duty to care for your parents in old age, then that means your parents have a right to your care. Similarly, a child's duty to marry whomever his or her parents choose can be seen as the parent's right to the performance of this duty. And it can even be "reframed" (as by modern individualists) as the unjust _absence_ of an individual right to marry whomever you please. But you could apply that logic to _any_ duty, because to have a duty simply means to lack a right to not fulfill it. Otherwise, it's not a duty. What about the duty of a knight to his lord, in furtherance of the defense of the peasants who support him? Is it not an injustice to him that he's expected to fight to protect his country? Hopefully this shows the fallaciousness of modern ethics - and this is the same ethics that presumes to judge Islam for its "backwardness" (relative not to Catholicism, mind you, but to secular liberal democracy).
@Kev Burner I know that, and he said he didn't hold to a particular denomination. He still explained his position in an interview, and he said what you said in his interview.
I asked my Muslim boss if he was getting ready to marry off his 7 year old daughter. Not that I wanted him to do that but that I wanted him to consider the faults in his false religion. He wasn't too happy with me after that
I've always said that marriage is just another word for slavery in Islam. Those who have muslim relatives know what I'm talking about. A woman rarely has any say in marriage. And when she is married, she can not say no to sex, or physical labor around the house. She can also be beaten and even killed for not obeying or doing a poor job. It's textbook definition of slavery, with a touch of sexual slavery and human trafficking if we are to be precise. I'm not sure why would anybody be so shocked with these new debates about child marriage in Islam. They are already treating the physically weaker women as disposable sex objects and free labor. Why would they treat children any better, they can not defend themselves any better then women can. Also, I'm glad I'm not Catholic. Saying Mary could've been 13 or 14 is absolutely ridiculous, I'm glad I can just dismiss that as human traditions that are in error. We do not know how old was Mary, plain and simply. And we DO know, that God is good and loving. So no, Mary certainly wasn't a child or an early teen when she gave birth. God constructed female bodies himself. He knew when it's safe for them to give birth both from physiological and psychological perspective. Also, can't see how the dogma of immaculate conception helps at all. Obviously, Mary can freely say yes or no to God even with the disparity of authority. We do not KNOW if she felt confident that she could say no, but certainly, we also do not have any information to the contrary of that. So, once again, we know God is good and loving, and lack information, so there is no reason to judge God as an old pervert. We can be sure Mary ACTUALLY gave God her consent, because we can trust God. We do not need a man-made dogma to establish this. Mary called God her savior. She made burnt offerings for her sins. She doubted Jesus along his siblings, to the point of Jesus calling others her mother rather then her. She disobeyed Jesus during wedding ceremony. Not to mention Bible clearly says, children aside, that ALL of humans are sinful and need Jesus's sacrifice! And the only human who is ever listed as an exception who was not touched by sin is Jesus himself. Please dear Catholics, stop explaining away plain passages like those Jehova-witness style, "oh BUT it can also mean this or that". Mary was certainly showed to be a regular human just like every one of us and the amount of unusual explanations you have to use to force Catholic dogma into these texts alone should tell you something is simply not right and your Church may be simply trying to hard to cover its past hyper-mariological traditions. Catholic Church already proved they are willing to even twist Scripture itself in order to make her SEEM more important and holy than she is (talking about the vulgate author changing the "stepping on serpent" thing) and if you look at the pre-Vatican II mariology you'll quickly notice that marian theology in Catholicism was simply running completely criticism-free for centuries.
Boy, there's a lot wrong here. Just to pick one, the sin offerings that that Mary made after giving birth to Jesus were for a mother and her child. Either this offering proves that both Mary and Jesus had sin, or it doesn't prove either of them did.
I am pretty sure the age (specifically or generally) at which Mary is believed to have had Jesus is not a Catholic doctrine at all. However, the historical customs around marriage in Judaism from the first century AD are usually the evidence put forth to suggest that Mary might have only been a teenager when she was betrothed to Joseph. It’s a historical argument, that some if not most Catholics ascribe to, but it’s not a Catholic thing.
@@brittoncain5090 Just how obviously wrong can you be bro... It's really not that hard 😆 MARY made offerings for Jesus's sin. Not Jesus. She was simply wrong to make them for him, that's all there is to it. Because she didn't understand that Jesus is sinless and that he is God. John's gospel is all you need for proof, when Jesus was 12 and told her about obeying God the Father she had no clue what he was talking about. Once again, the fact that you are trained not to see Mary as a regular person but as a hyper-holy superperson of some kind makes you misjudge the simplest passages. It's not that hard bruh. Cheers!
@@keithmokry8066 I never said it was doctrine. I said it was tradition. Which it is. And also, we have very limited knowledge about first century marriage customs, most certainly not enough to guarantee what Mary's age was. We may have SOME data about SOME girls being wed at 12 or whatever, but you can also find plenty of girls who get married that age today, no? And certainly, that says nothing about our modern customs. Just saying - the fact is, we do not know Mary's age, and we do know that God, who is good, and loving chose her at a moment he decided was proper. So there is no reason at all to suggest she was 13 other than unfounded speculation that can be dismissed with just a shake of a head. There is no reason to explain yourself if there is no proof anybody can present against you.
@@mitromney You said Mary made offerings for her HER sins. I showed you why this point isn't a valid critique, and now that I have you've tried to change the subject. You're wrong about Mary, she is everything the Church teaches she is.
I heard that Mary was given the grace, the same grace we received from Jesus. But that she received it before anyone else. Which is why Gabriel told her, "Mary full of Grace...." I can't remember who proposed it. Dr Brandt Pitre, maybe?
i never knew that, there is legal child marriage in the US.. mind you it depends what you deem a child i suppose... i was married when i was 17, to a girl who was 16.. same old story, let the hormones play its part, pregnant, so you do the right thing... i didnt regard us as children though, we were both working, i was a coal miner, so thats not what i call a child.. a child is under the age of 12, and then we get teenagers, which are young adults, but not fully adult yet.. so does depend on your definition of a child, and who they are marrying, even a person of 18, marrying a 55 year old is a bit weird in my book...
