Are there rules about marryiing w/in your own family?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MyAngels
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MyAngels

Guest
My Catholic niece married a young man that converted to Catholicism. She married him not really loving him. She has a lot of medical problems. And she wanted to get married to have children. She stated their were some instances of verbal and physical abuse. This marriage ended within a relatively short time. It was annulled.

Now she is marrying a Catholic cousin. Both sides of the wedding guests would be related in some way. How many times removed can someone marry within their own family? I assume it has been reviewed by the priest that will marry them.
 
Depends on what their exact relationship is - I know there are cultures where even fairly distant relations are called ‘cousin’.

If they are first cousins (meaning one of the bride’s parents is biological brother or sister of one of the groom’s parents), then, if my understanding is correct, they may not be married under Canon law.

Canon 1078 §3. A dispensation [meaning permission to marry] is never given from the impediment of consanguinity in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.

My understanding is that ‘consanguinity in the direct line’ refers to parents attempting to marry their own children, grandparents their grandchildren and siblings or half-siblings attempting to marry each other. And that the ‘second degree of the collateral line’ includes first cousins who attempt to marry each other and aunts or uncles attempting to marry nieces or nephews.

If they are more distantly related, they may need to seek a dispensation to marry, which I think is usually required to be granted by Rome. I don’t know that you can necessarily assume that the priest knows they are related, they may not themselves be aware of the need to inform him of their relationship. It’s worth checking.

Quite apart from the canon law considerations, first cousins who marry each other greatly increase the risk for all sorts of diseases and medical conditions in their children. For that reason alone it is highly inadvisable that they marry.
 
MyAngels said:
My Catholic niece married a young man that converted to Catholicism. She married him not really loving him. She has a lot of medical problems. And she wanted to get married to have children. She stated their were some instances of verbal and physical abuse. This marriage ended within a relatively short time. It was annulled.

Now she is marrying a Catholic cousin. Both sides of the wedding guests would be related in some way. How many times removed can someone marry within their own family? I assume it has been reviewed by the priest that will marry them.
Click to expand...
According to Wikipedia, “In Roman Catholicism, all marriages more distant than first-cousin marriages are allowed, and first-cousin marriages can be contracted with a dispensation,” with a citation given to “John P. Beal, James A. Coriden and Thomas J. Green. New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000. 1293.” Where that dispensation has to come from, I’m not sure, but I would expect at least from the diocesan level.
 
MarkThompson said:
According to Wikipedia, “In Roman Catholicism, all marriages more distant than first-cousin marriages are allowed, and first-cousin marriages can be contracted with a dispensation,” with a citation given to “John P. Beal, James A. Coriden and Thomas J. Green. New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000. 1293.” Where that dispensation has to come from, I’m not sure, but I would expect at least from the diocesan level.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia is unreliable, and that really sounds like it directly contradicts the Code of Canon Law. Can we get a canon lawyer in to give us an opinion?
 
LilyM said:
Wikipedia is unreliable, and that really sounds like it directly contradicts the Code of Canon Law. Can we get a canon lawyer in to give us an opinion?
Click to expand...
Actually, I think the issue is that you’ve misunderstood what the second degree of collateral consanguinity is. Modern Canon law reckons collateral consanguinity by one degree for each step up and down the family tree that’s necessary to connect two people through a common ancestor. Thus first cousins are collaterally related in the fourth degree: One degree from Alice to her parent, another degree up to Alice’s grandparent, a third degree back down to Alice’s uncle or aunt, and a fourth degree down again to Bob, Alice’s first cousin. Thus brother and sister are collaterally related in the second degree and can never marry, while uncle and niece or aunt and nephew are related in the third degree, and the impediment can be dispensed. If you can read this page, it ought to give you the answers.
 
MarkThompson said:
Actually, I think the issue is that you’ve misunderstood what the second degree of collateral consanguinity is. Modern Canon law reckons collateral consanguinity by one degree for each step up and down the family tree that’s necessary to connect two people through a common ancestor. Thus first cousins are collaterally related in the fourth degree: One degree from Alice to her parent, another degree up to Alice’s grandparent, a third degree back down to Alice’s uncle or aunt, and a fourth degree down again to Bob, Alice’s first cousin. Thus brother and sister are collaterally related in the second degree and can never marry, while uncle and niece or aunt and nephew are related in the third degree, and the impediment can be dispensed. If you can read this page, it ought to give you the answers.
Click to expand...
That’s probably the case, as I was reading the Catholic Encyclopedia which was written pre the new Canon Law code.

The apologist, I have to say, seems to imply that even consanguinity in the direct line can be dispensed from, so his answer is inaccurate in that regard.
 
LilyM said:
That’s probably the case, as I was reading the Catholic Encyclopedia which was written pre the new Canon Law code.

The apologist, I have to say, seems to imply that even consanguinity in the direct line can be dispensed from, so his answer is inaccurate in that regard.
Click to expand...
Yes, although he was answering a question about cousins, so he might not have been picking his words super carefully when he said that the impediment “may be dispensed.” And I think collateral consanguinity used to be reckoned differently – just one step for each level to reach the common ancestor from the most distant of the two relatives. That was a worse and less accurate system, since it reckons me and my second cousin to be related in the third degree, but also me and my great-uncle or -aunt (my second cousin’s grandparent) to be equally related in the third degree, even though my second cousin has only one-quarter of the family blood that her grandparent has.
 
What if one of those cousins was adopted from a totally unrelated family? Would that matter, even if they were first cousins, or does canon law not distinguish between biological and adopted cousins? (not that I’m trying to make the question more difficult…:D)
 
bluerose said:
What if one of those cousins was adopted from a totally unrelated family? Would that matter, even if they were first cousins, or does canon law not distinguish between biological and adopted cousins? (not that I’m trying to make the question more difficult…:D)
Click to expand...
It doesn’t distinguish between children and adopted children, so I doubt it would make the distinction. The point is more about the inappropritateness of combining certain familial relationships with marriage, rather than the emphasis being on the mere biological connection.
 
Can. 110 Children who have been adopted according to the norm of civil law are considered the children of the person or persons who have adopted them.
 
LilyM said:
It doesn’t distinguish between children and adopted children, so I doubt it would make the distinction. The point is more about the inappropritateness of combining certain familial relationships with marriage, rather than the emphasis being on the mere biological connection.
Click to expand...
Hi LilyM,

For what it’s worth, I agree with your observation about “the point” of rules regarding consanguinity. But, canon law does make a distinction about relationships arising because of adoption: “c. 1094 Those who are legally related by reason of adoption cannot validly marry each other if their relationship is in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.” So, an “adopted cousin” is fair game as far as marriage goes.

MyAngels: your question has been correctly answered. See c. 108 on the notion of consanguinity and how it is calculated. See c. 1091 on the impediment.

Dan
 
Thank you all for your comments.

My mother-in-law (grandmother to my niece) commented to me that it was acceptable if you were three times removed.

I will review the section on the Canon Law. And also ask how the lineage runs.
 
One should also remember “Civil Law”. And that varies from state to state and country to country. “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”.
 
torch621 said:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=52744&highlight=first+cousins

This answer here seems to indicate that first cousins may in fact receive a dispensation. But, we’re talking about the current Code of Canon Law. I’m not sure what the 1917 Code would say.

The St. Joseph Foundation might also be able to help.
Click to expand...
I know that the 1917 code was amended over the years so I don’t know what it said on the topic originally but in 1952 my parents received a dispensation to marry and they shared a grandmother. Mom’s grandfather & Dad’s grandfather married the same woman.
 
LilyM said:
That’s probably the case, as I was reading the Catholic Encyclopedia which was written pre the new Canon Law code.
Click to expand...
re: the CE article: what the modern Canon law uses is what the article calls the “computatio Romana civilis”, while what the 1917 Code used was the “computatio Germanica” (or what was called the computatio Germanica) described more in detail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top