Are stepsiblings permitted to marry in the Catholic Church?

[Bran_Stark]

To be clear, I’m talking about two people who have no blood relation, but the mother of one is married to the father of another.

Also, what about the reverse? Can Bob marry Sarah if Bob’s son from Bob’s deceased wife has already married Sarah’s daughter from Sarah’s previous husband?

 

[Phemie]

To be clear, I’m talking about two people who have no blood relation, but the mother of one is married to the father of another.

Also, what about the reverse? Can Bob marry Sarah if Bob’s son from Bob’s deceased wife has already married Sarah’s daughter from Sarah’s previous husband?

I’ve tried reading canons 108, 109 & 1092, 1093 & 1094 and I’m still not sure.

I know that affinity would prevent someone from marrying one of his/her step children but I can’t figure out how that affects step siblings.

 

[MaryHelp777]

To be clear, I’m talking about two people who have no blood relation, but the mother of one is married to the father of another.

Also, what about the reverse? Can Bob marry Sarah if Bob’s son from Bob’s deceased wife has already married Sarah’s daughter from Sarah’s previous husband?

Yes they can! If they are not blood-related biologically then they can get married and there is no wrong in them getting married. If they are not blood related, yes, they can get married.

 

[Casilda]

I would in the least place post the question in the Ask an Apologist forum, but definitely ask a priest and seek his counsel.

 

[1ke]

I’m not Dan. But I looked it up in the Commentary on the Code of Canon Law.

Affinity is only an impediment in the direct line under the current code. So it does not prohibit the collateral line, step siblings, from marrying.

It would only be an impediment (dispensable) if one or both of the children had been legally adopted by their respective step parent. Canon 1094 prohibits marriage in both the direct and collateral line in that case

The commentary explicitly states step siblings are not impeded from marriage, unless there is a legal adoption involved, under the commentary on canon 1094.

 

[MaryHelp777]

I’m not Dan. But I looked it up in the Commentary on the Code of Canon Law.

Affinity is only an impediment in the direct line under the current code. So it does not prohibit the collateral line, step siblings, from marrying.

It would only be an impediment (dispensable) if one or both of the children had been legally adopted by their respective step parent. Canon 1094 prohibits marriage in both the direct and collateral line in that case

The commentary explicitly states step siblings are not impeded from marriage, unless there is a legal adoption involved, under the commentary on canon 1094.

Why is there a difference in the rule between step siblings, and legal adoption, because in both cases the siblings are not blood relatives? Canon law does allow for dispensation between siblings legally adopted, but why is that dispensation needed in that situation and not between step siblings?

Just curious as to what canon law teaches about this

 

[dans0622]

1ke has given the right answer. … There are several different terms floating around (consanguinity, affinity, adoption) and the related impediments but none of them apply to a situation involving only “stepsiblings.” If the children are adopted by the new parent, then there is an impediment between them. If the children are actually half-siblings, then there is an impediment. Affinity would never apply.

Why is there a difference between a stepsibling relationship and an adoptive one? Simply because adopted children, in law, *are *the children of the parents and they *are *siblings to each other. On the other hand, to be a “stepsibling” means nothing in canon law. The term doesn’t even appear.

These days, there are many people who marry, have children, then 20 years later, divorce and enter a new marriage (at least civilly). The children of the respective Parties could be 30 years old. I don’t even think I’d bother to say that they are stepsiblings–that term seems more appropriate when we are talking about minors being raised in the same home. So, for the 30 year-old “stepsiblings”, why should the marital choices of their parents impact their own? It doesn’t and I don’t think it should.

At the same time, I think it could at least raise eyebrows if a man and woman marry after having lived in the same house, as stepsiblings, for 15 years or so…

Dan

 

[SuperLuigi]

1ke has given the right answer. … There are several different terms floating around (consanguinity, affinity, adoption) and the related impediments but none of them apply to a situation involving only “stepsiblings.” If the children are adopted by the new parent, then there is an impediment between them. If the children are actually half-siblings, then there is an impediment. Affinity would never apply.

Why is there a difference between a stepsibling relationship and an adoptive one? Simply because adopted children, in law, *are *the children of the parents and they *are *siblings to each other. On the other hand, to be a “stepsibling” means nothing in canon law. The term doesn’t even appear.

These days, there are many people who marry, have children, then 20 years later, divorce and enter a new marriage (at least civilly). The children of the respective Parties could be 30 years old. I don’t even think I’d bother to say that they are stepsiblings–that term seems more appropriate when we are talking about minors being raised in the same home. So, for the 30 year-old “stepsiblings”, why should the marital choices of their parents impact their own? It doesn’t and I don’t think it should.

At the same time, I think it could at least raise eyebrows if a man and woman marry after having lived in the same house, as stepsiblings, for 15 years or so…

Dan

So, what this claims is there is no canonical impediment, but it would just be really weird for people to see in public?

 

[dans0622]

So, what this claims is there is no canonical impediment, but it would just be really weird for people to see in public?

Hello,

Yes, there is no canonical impediment and yes, I think it could seem weird (at least in some circumstances).

I can surely imagine a “blended family” living in a neighborhood, new neighbors move in…, a few years later, Bobby and Suzie send the neighbors an announcement: they are getting married! The neighbors are aghast, thinking that Bobby and Suzie are brother and sister (but they are not). Of course, the neighbors then talk to everyone *except *Bobby and Suzie about this. It “goes viral.”

Dan

 

[tee_eff_em]

Second that! :clapping:

Yes, there is no canonical impediment and yes, I think it could seem weird (at least in some circumstances).

It is extremely weird. By my reading*, this *impedimentless *situation only occurs when the parents of otherwise unrelated children (i) validly marry and (ii) do not legally adopt each other’s children.

If the parents were *invalidly *married or merely living together, the children would be impeded by “public propriety” (Can. 1093), no? Or does *public propriety *only impede the man from marrying the woman’s children (and vice versa)?



tee
(* Who Is Not A Canon Lawyer**)
(** Obviously)

 

[dans0622]

… By my reading*, this *impedimentless *situation only occurs when the parents of otherwise unrelated children (i) validly marry and (ii) do not legally adopt each other’s children.

If the parents were *invalidly *married or merely living together, the children would be impeded by “public propriety” (Can. 1093), no? Or does *public propriety *only impede the man from marrying the woman’s children (and vice versa)?
…

Hello,

It’s funny… I was going to mention the impediment of “public propriety” as something akin to the scenario of Bobby and Suzie (the scenario in my previous post) but then I thought…well, let’s not muddy the water with yet another impediment that does *not *apply.

Anyway, it is the latter. For example: John, a Catholic, civilly marries Beth and they live together. (This is an invalid marriage–lack of form). Beth has a daughter from a previous relationship. John cannot marry the daughter. He also cannot marry Beth’s mother.

John has a son from a previous relationship. The son could marry Beth’s daughter.

Canon 1093: “The impediment of public propriety…invalidates marriage in the first degree of the direct line between the man and those related by consanguinity to the woman, and vice versa.”

Dan

 

[SyroMalankara]

The ‘public propriety’ aspect really depends on the culture and nation. In some places, none of these scenarios are that far out or considered scandalous.

 

[MaryHelp777]

Just on canon law:
An impediment means you get permission from the bishop to marry?
Curious on canon law; what impediments in this situation are dispensable (the bishop can give permission for marriage) or indispensable -permanently they cannot marry.

 

[1ke]

The ‘public propriety’ aspect really depends on the culture and nation. In some places, none of these scenarios are that far out or considered scandalous.

Public propriety has a specific meaning in canon law, it is not dependent upon culture or nation.

 

[Phemie]

Just on canon law:
An impediment means you get permission from the bishop to marry?
Curious on canon law; what impediments in this situation are dispensable (the bishop can give permission for marriage) or indispensable -permanently they cannot marry.

An impediment means that you can’t contract a valid marriage.

Some impediments such as marrying a non-baptized or marrying a first cousin can be dispensed.

Some impediments such as a previous marriage that has not been found to be null (if the spouse is still alive), a son marrying his mother or being permanently incapable of having sexual intercourse cannot be dispensed.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Impediments arising from divine law cannot be dispensed. Impediments arising from (merely) ecclesiastical law can be.