Avunculate Marriage in OT and Church

[grayrainbows]

Hi there, I’m not a Catholic, but I thought I might as well ask this question here, since Catholics tend to actually research theological issues…

In the Old Testament, Lev. 18 and 20 prohibit many relationships, including avunculate marriages involving a blood aunt and nephew. However, there is no prohibition against uncle-niece marriages. There is a command to not “uncover the nakedness” of your uncle by not sleeping with his wife, but it seems that the commandments were given to men and not women. If the commandments did apply to women, then a woman could not uncover her uncle’s nakedness by having intercourse with him. The prohibition against having sex with a father’s sister also mentions that “she is his flesh”, and so it could be argued that a father’s brother is also a father’s flesh.

Now, it seems that traditional Jewish interpretation of these commandments was that God did allow for uncle-niece relationships, and that these were common in Israel. So here is (are) my question(s):

1. Assuming uncle-niece relations were not forbidden, why were aunt-nephew relations forbidden?
2. Were uncle-niece relationships allowed only because of cultural reasons?
3. Apparently, uncle-niece relationships were practiced by Catholic European royalty, with papal dispensations, and dispensations have been given out even in the 20th century. Are these considered “special” dispensations, or are these considered less severe, like first cousin marriages?
4. Finally, could a dispensation be obtained for an aunt-niece marriage currently?

Thank you.

 

[JerryZ]

Hi there, I’m not a Catholic, but I thought I might as well ask this question here, since Catholics tend to actually research theological issues…

In the Old Testament, Lev. 18 and 20 prohibit many relationships, including avunculate marriages involving a blood aunt and nephew. However, there is no prohibition against uncle-niece marriages. There is a command to not “uncover the nakedness” of your uncle by not sleeping with his wife, but it seems that the commandments were given to men and not women. If the commandments did apply to women, then a woman could not uncover her uncle’s nakedness by having intercourse with him. The prohibition against having sex with a father’s sister also mentions that “she is his flesh”, and so it could be argued that a father’s brother is also a father’s flesh.

Now, it seems that traditional Jewish interpretation of these commandments was that God did allow for uncle-niece relationships, and that these were common in Israel. So here is (are) my question(s):

1. Assuming uncle-niece relations were not forbidden, why were aunt-nephew relations forbidden?
2. Were uncle-niece relationships allowed only because of cultural reasons?
3. Apparently, uncle-niece relationships were practiced by Catholic European royalty, with papal dispensations, and dispensations have been given out even in the 20th century. Are these considered “special” dispensations, or are these considered less severe, like first cousin marriages?
4. Finally, could a dispensation be obtained for an aunt-niece marriage currently?

Thank you.

Well if I understand you correctly your #4 question would be a same sex marriage right?
That would probably not be granted in any event no matter the relationship or lack thereof.

…

 

[grayrainbows]

Whoops, I meant aunt-nephew, not aunt-niece.

 

[JerryZ]

Whoops, I meant aunt-nephew, not aunt-niece.

It seems that avunculate marriage is illegal in many states of the US therefore getting a dispensation would be moot.
Not that it would be easy to obtain one. Current Canon law expresses that one cannot marry within 4 degrees of consanguinity.
Aunt-Nephew is a 3rd degree relationship in this scenario.
It is calculated that it is a worse scenario than 1st degree cousins in shared genetic material between the partners. With all the problems that this can bring forth.

For more information on this please check this webpage it might shed some extra light on the issue.

canonlawmadeeasy.com/2010/09/09/can-cousins-marry-in-the-church/

…

 

[MJJean]

I’m probably going to muck this up, so please forgive me.

I wonder if it wasn’t cultural. Ancient peoples bred and raised animals for survival. They also tried to improve their stock by careful breeding as we still do today. This means they observed which matings produced sound offspring and which did not. It’s entirely possible they assumed the same would be true for humans and that this was Natural Law direct from the Maker.

I know dog breeders who line breed (breed within the same family to cement desired traits) will commonly breed father to daughter, but not mother to son. I am not sure why.

Maybe the Jews of the time thought that in their animals sound offspring could be produced by uncle-niece pairings, but not by aunt-nephew pairings, the same must be true for humans, and this is how God designed us.

 

[grayrainbows]

It seems that avunculate marriage is illegal in many states of the US therefore getting a dispensation would be moot.
Not that it would be easy to obtain one. Current Canon law expresses that one cannot marry within 4 degrees of consanguinity.
Aunt-Nephew is a 3rd degree relationship in this scenario.
It is calculated that it is a worse scenario than 1st degree cousins in shared genetic material between the partners. With all the problems that this can bring forth.

For more information on this please check this webpage it might shed some extra light on the issue.

canonlawmadeeasy.com/2010/09/09/can-cousins-marry-in-the-church/

…

Ok, so avunculate marriages are in the third degree, and cousin marriages in the fourth degree it seems, meaning that avunculate marriages are considered worse. Thanks.

I’m probably going to muck this up, so please forgive me.

I wonder if it wasn’t cultural. Ancient peoples bred and raised animals for survival. They also tried to improve their stock by careful breeding as we still do today. This means they observed which matings produced sound offspring and which did not. It’s entirely possible they assumed the same would be true for humans and that this was Natural Law direct from the Maker.

I know dog breeders who line breed (breed within the same family to cement desired traits) will commonly breed father to daughter, but not mother to son. I am not sure why.

Maybe the Jews of the time thought that in their animals sound offspring could be produced by uncle-niece pairings, but not by aunt-nephew pairings, the same must be true for humans, and this is how God designed us.

I didn’t know that about dog breeders. But, why would it matter what the Israelites thought about marriages, since the law came from God?

What I’m still confused about is the gender imbalance. Does the Catholic Church accept this gender imbalance when giving dispensations, or does it treat both as equal? If it treats both as equal, what is the explanation for the imbalance in the first place?

 

[Gorgias]

Now, it seems that traditional Jewish interpretation of these commandments was that God did allow for uncle-niece relationships, and that these were common in Israel.

Hmm… I’m not sure that this means that they had the green light; nevertheless, it’s important to look at the Mosaic law in its entirety, and see what’s forbidden.

First of all, we have to remember that adultery is forbidden. (In that culture, one could restore a woman’s honor by marrying her after intercourse; but even so, a woman who was married was off-limits.) Fornication was likewise sinful. So, my first thought is that you’re thinking of an woman who was married to a parent’s brother, but whose husband passed away.

So, this question isn’t just about sexual relations (although that’s how it’s worded) – there’s a whole entangled question about marriage that’s involved here.

1. Assuming uncle-niece relations were not forbidden, why were aunt-nephew relations forbidden?

Because they could, in certain circumstances, lead to marriage. We’re talking “married aunt”, right, since Leviticus mentions the uncle, aren’t we?

If the uncle (the blood relative) were deceased, I’m not certain the prohibition would apply. (I’m not certain, though.)

1. Were uncle-niece relationships allowed only because of cultural reasons?

Recall that there’s a lot of cultural assumptions here. First off, we’re talking about relations leading to marriage (otherwise, we’re back in ‘fornication/adultery’ land again). That means that the man must be able to support his wife. That also means that there’s the expectation of the marriage resulting in children. From a simple practical biological standpoint, marrying someone of your parents’ age wasn’t feasible: it meant that the likelihood of having (many) children was greatly diminished.

In addition, we have to think about the implications of polygamy. A man could have many wives – so, even if married, he would still be available to marry other women. Therefore, a single niece would be a possibility, strictly speaking. However, a widowed aunt would be looking for a household where she would find safe haven for herself (and her children). A nephew-aunt marriage would be difficult on many fronts.

1. Apparently, uncle-niece relationships were practiced by Catholic European royalty, with papal dispensations, and dispensations have been given out even in the 20th century. Are these considered “special” dispensations, or are these considered less severe, like first cousin marriages?

They’re dispensations of the same type as first-cousin dispensations.

1. Finally, could a dispensation be obtained for an aunt-niece marriage currently?

Possible, strictly speaking… but highly unlikely. JerryZ’s point about civil legality is important, too – the Church won’t say “yes” to something that cannot be a civilly legal marriage.

 

[grayrainbows]

Hmm… I’m not sure that this means that they had the green light; nevertheless, it’s important to look at the Mosaic law in its entirety, and see what’s forbidden.

First of all, we have to remember that adultery is forbidden. (In that culture, one could restore a woman’s honor by marrying her after intercourse; but even so, a woman who was married was off-limits.) Fornication was likewise sinful. So, my first thought is that you’re thinking of an woman who was married to a parent’s brother, but whose husband passed away.

So, this question isn’t just about sexual relations (although that’s how it’s worded) – there’s a whole entangled question about marriage that’s involved here.

Because they could, in certain circumstances, lead to marriage. We’re talking “married aunt”, right, since Leviticus mentions the uncle, aren’t we?

If the uncle (the blood relative) were deceased, I’m not certain the prohibition would apply. (I’m not certain, though.)

1. Were uncle-niece relationships allowed only because of cultural reasons?

Recall that there’s a lot of cultural assumptions here. First off, we’re talking about relations leading to marriage (otherwise, we’re back in ‘fornication/adultery’ land again). That means that the man must be able to support his wife. That also means that there’s the expectation of the marriage resulting in children. From a simple practical biological standpoint, marrying someone of your parents’ age wasn’t feasible: it meant that the likelihood of having (many) children was greatly diminished.

In addition, we have to think about the implications of polygamy. A man could have many wives – so, even if married, he would still be available to marry other women. Therefore, a single niece would be a possibility, strictly speaking. However, a widowed aunt would be looking for a household where she would find safe haven for herself (and her children). A nephew-aunt marriage would be difficult on many fronts.

They’re dispensations of the same type as first-cousin dispensations.

Possible, strictly speaking… but highly unlikely. JerryZ’s point about civil legality is important, too – the Church won’t say “yes” to something that cannot be a civilly legal marriage.

When I say “Aunt-nephew”, I mean a man marrying the sister of his father or of his mother, which was explicitly prohibited under Torah law.

When I say “Uncle-niece”, I mean a woman marrying the brother of her father or of her mother, which was not prohibited under Torah Law.

Basically, what I’d like to know is the Church’s position on why one was allowed, but not the other. Or if the Church’s position is that uncle-niece marriages were not allowed to begin with (which doesn’t seem to be correct, given the history of European royalty).

I have heard cases in which dispensations were obtained for uncle-niece marriages. I was wondering if that was allowable for aunt-nephew marriages. The reason I am curious is because the dispensation would contradict a biblical law.

Thanks for all your answers so far!

 

[JerryZ]

Recall that there’s a lot of cultural assumptions here. First off, we’re talking about relations leading to marriage (otherwise, we’re back in ‘fornication/adultery’ land again). That means that the man must be able to support his wife. That also means that there’s the expectation of the marriage resulting in children. From a simple practical biological standpoint, marrying someone of your parents’ age wasn’t feasible: it meant that the likelihood of having (many) children was greatly diminished.

In addition, we have to think about the implications of polygamy. A man could have many wives – so, even if married, he would still be available to marry other women. Therefore, a single niece would be a possibility, strictly speaking. However, a widowed aunt would be looking for a household where she would find safe haven for herself (and her children). A nephew-aunt marriage would be difficult on many fronts.

They’re dispensations of the same type as first-cousin dispensations.

Possible, strictly speaking… but highly unlikely. JerryZ’s point about civil legality is important, too – the Church won’t say “yes” to something that cannot be a civilly legal marriage.

When I say “Aunt-nephew”, I mean a man marrying the sister of his father or of his mother, which was explicitly prohibited under Torah law.

When I say “Uncle-niece”, I mean a woman marrying the brother of her father or of her mother, which was not prohibited under Torah Law.

Basically, what I’d like to know is the Church’s position on why one was allowed, but not the other. Or if the Church’s position is that uncle-niece marriages were not allowed to begin with (which doesn’t seem to be correct, given the history of European royalty).

I have heard cases in which dispensations were obtained for uncle-niece marriages. I was wondering if that was allowable for aunt-nephew marriages. The reason I am curious is because the dispensation would contradict a biblical law.

Thanks for all your answers so far!

Perhaps the answer lies in genetics.

So the Torah law prohibit a woman from marrying a brother of her mother but not the brother of his father.

a woman egg has XX chromosomes while the man gamete has XY chromosomes.

What is relevant is where does the X chromosome of the man comes from. If it comes from the maternal side of the woman then it is the same one she carries.
By combining same bloodline X chromosomes we are increasing the chances of procreating children with genetic anomalies. Which are responsible for a host of conditions that can be life threatening especially back then.

In fact you get a 50% chance of generating girls who carry the exact same pair of XX Chromosomes and if there is a genetic anomaly bingo they would carry it and suffer from the consequences.
Remember that you have normally a 75% chance of procreating girls and of these 2/3 would have the chance that any genetic anomalies do express themselves.

A gene is activated when it is present in both the chromosomes.

…