You can rationalize pedophlia anyway you want to, it's still pedophlia.
Sorry to step into your conversation with another member but I did want to clarify something- both partially agreeing with you and partially pointing out some information.
You're taking this to automatically mean the Vatican endorses pedophilia- but this is not what this is about. For instance, a 12 year old and a 16 year old getting married 500 years ago or what not. That's not pedophilia- that is two young people from a different time and place mutually consenting to marriage and sex. Or perhaps being a legal adult under the law and of marital age. So in that respect, I wanted to point that out to you. In those days, it was very normal for teens/preteens to marry due to harsh conditions and short life spans.
On the other hand, I do have issues with unions like, perhaps, a 12 year old child and a 60 year old adult getting married. In my honest opinion, religion, culture, or another time period doesn't make it acceptable. That is grotesque to me because that child is not being used for a life companion to build a life together on equal ground. In those types of unions, the child is often taken advantage of as a sex object and possession.
But preteens and teens marrying each other was the standard. Or perhaps a 16 year old marrying a 20 or 22 year old. In those times and places, you were considered an adult whereas in our time you would still be a child.
Does that make any sense? Having the age of 12 be a legal adult does not mean they were to be married at that age to someone 40 years their senior. For instance, even the aristocracy often became betrothed when both individuals were still children. Think of it like the ages of 12 and 13 in Judaism and a bar (boy)and bat (girl) mitzvah. It just means they were presented as coming of age- not that 'Hey! Now you're eligible to be married off to the old codger living down the street whether you like it or not.'
[edit on 10/28/2009 by AshleyD]
