Consanguinity and cousin marriage

[Vouthon]

Why did the Church modify canon law in 1983 to permit marriages between second cousins, whereas before 1917 and since 1215 it had prohibited even third cousins from marrying? Prior to 1215, the use of a far more stringent counting method had raised the prohibited degrees of affinity higher still.

I personally feel that the stricter pre-1983 rulings were superior given all we now know about genetics, so I’m curious to understand why the ecclesiastical rules have been progressively relaxed since 1917. I’m aware that many people, especially the nobility and royalty, received dispensations owing to the virtual impossibility of avoiding blood relation within their exceedingly small pool of potential partners.

The Eastern Orthodox Church continues to prohibit second cousins from marrying, so far as I have been able to discern.

First and second cousin marriages were initially banned at the Council of Agde in AD 506 and the latter, as stated at the beginning of my post, has only been permitted since 1983.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’m not sure that this is accurate information.

Degrees of consanguinity I believe isn’t calculated into categories of first and second cousins, but in first degree, second degree etc.

I did know a number of second cousins that married before 1983. More like 1953.

I believe 1ke broke down how the degrees work at some point.

 

[EasterJoy]

Why did the Church modify canon law in 1983 to permit marriages between second cousins, whereas before 1917 and since 1215 it had prohibited even third cousins from marrying? Prior to 1215, the use of a far more stringent counting method had raised the prohibited degrees of affinity higher still.

I personally feel that the stricter pre-1983 rulings were superior given all we now know about genetics, so I’m curious to understand why the ecclesiastical rules have been progressively relaxed since 1917. I’m aware that many people, especially the nobility and royalty, received dispensations owing to the virtual impossibility of avoiding blood relation within their exceedingly small pool of potential partners.

The Eastern Orthodox Church continues to prohibit second cousins from marrying, so far as I have been able to discern.

First and second cousin marriages were initially banned at the Council of Agde in AD 506 and the latter, as stated at the beginning of my post, has only been permitted since 1983.

The Church has held that the prohibition against marriage where there is consanguinity in the direct line is forbidden by divine law, whereas the law forbidding the marriage of cousins is forbidden according to ecclesiastical law, not divine law. Ecclesiastical law is subject to dispensation or legislation, but there is no dispensation from divine law.

I have no idea what* documented thinking *was behind any iteration of canon law and couldn’t find someone who knew it.

 

[Vouthon]

I’m not sure that this is accurate information.

Degrees of consanguinity I believe isn’t calculated into categories of first and second cousins, but in first degree, second degree etc.

I did know a number of second cousins that married before 1983. More like 1953.

I believe 1ke broke down how the degrees work at some point.

Hi Mary,

You are correct as to the terminology but I was only using “first and second cousin” language to make it easier for those not familiar with the degrees and the calculation method to understand what the prohibited kinship amounted to.

Constitution 50 of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 limited the prohibited degrees up to the fourth degree of consanguinity and calculated it according to the canonical system, for instance, thus outlawing marriage between men and women who were related as third cousins. Prior to this, it had been as high as the sixth or seventh degree but this was eventually deemed to be impractical.

 

[Vouthon]

The Church has held that the prohibition against marriage where there is consanguinity in the direct line is forbidden by divine law, whereas the law forbidding the marriage of cousins is forbidden according to ecclesiastical law, not divine law. Ecclesiastical law is subject to dispensation or legislation, but there is no dispensation from divine law.

I have no idea what* documented thinking *was behind any iteration of canon law and couldn’t find someone who knew it.

Thanks Easter!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Hi Mary,

You are absolutely correct as to the terminology but I was only using “first and second cousin” language to make it easier for those not familiar with the degrees and the calculation method to understand what the prohibited kinship amounted to.

Constitution 50 of the Fourth Lateran Council perpetually limited the prohibited degrees up to the fourth degree of consanguinity, thus outlawing marriage between men and women who were related as third cousins. Prior to this, it had been as high as the sixth or seventh degree but this was eventually deemed to be impractical.

Fourth degree, translates into first cousin. I did find 1ke’s post thru google.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=944371

1ke is always a useful resource,

 

[Vouthon]

Fourth degree, translates into first cousin. I did find 1ke’s post thru google.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=944371

1ke is always a useful resource,

Not according to the calculation method used in the medieval church and thereafter. See the Baltimore Catechism, for instance:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-36-on-the-third-fourth-fifth-and-sixth-commandments-of-the-church/

Q. 1360. What is the meaning of the commandment not to marry within the third degree of kindred?

A. The meaning of the commandment not to marry within the third degree of kindred is that no one is allowed to marry another within the third degree of blood relationship.

Q. 1361. Who are in the third degree of blood relationship?

A. Second cousins are in the third degree of blood relationship, and persons whose relationship is nearer than second cousins are in closer degrees of kindred. It is unlawful for persons thus related to marry without a dispensation or special permission of the Church.

4th degree was third cousins according to the canonical method of calculation. In 1917, they apparently permitted those in the 4th degree (i.e. third cousins) to marry whereas they hadn’t been allowed to do so pardoning a dispensation since 1215 and then in 1983 those in the 3rd degree as well (i.e. second cousins).

The old Catholic Encyclopedia explained the prohibited degrees as they were at the beginning of the 20th century:

 

[Xantippe]

The Habsburgs really shouldn’t have been allowed the dispensations they got, just for their own good:

livescience.com/3504-inbreeding-downfall-dynasty.html

(I’m assuming that they got dispensations, because presumably uncle-niece marriage would have been forbidden by ecclesial law.)

 

[Vouthon]

The Habsburgs really shouldn’t have been allowed the dispensations they got, just for their own good:

livescience.com/3504-inbreeding-downfall-dynasty.html

(I’m assuming that they got dispensations, because presumably uncle-niece marriage would have been forbidden by ecclesial law.)

Indeed, it just goes to show what money and influence could get for you - although in the case of the Hapsburgs, they should have definitely kept within the Canon law for their own good, I agree!!

 

[Vouthon]

Here is what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say with reference to the medieval consanguinity rulings of the canon law in his Summa, quoting St. Augustine of Hippo.

After explaining that incest and sexual relations between “kindred descended from a common, close ancestor” is against "natural and instinctive feelings of honour" and that “since a man has natural affection for his own kin, were this to be charged with sexuality it would…rage with libidinousness against chastity”, he noted:

“…The third reason is that incest would prevent people widening their circle of friends. When a man takes a wife from another family he is joined in special friendship with her relations; they are to him as his own. And so Augustine writes, “The demands of charity are fulfilled by people coming together in the bonds that the various ties of friendship require, so that they may live together in a profitable and becoming amity; nor should one man have many relationships restricted to one other, but each single should go to many singly.”…”

From Jack Goody’s “The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe” [pgs. 56-8]:

**“What were the grounds for these extensive prohibitions on consanguineous marriages? The ‘Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique’ (1949) gives three general reasons that have been proposed:

“1. The moral reason, that marriage would threaten the respect and shame due to near ones.
“2. The social reason, that distant marriages enlarge the range of social relations. This common ‘anthropological’ notion was put forward by those great theologians, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, who recognised that out-marriage multiplied the ties of kinship and thus prevented villages from becoming ‘closed communities’, that is, solidary ones.
“3. The physiological reason, that the fertility of the mother or the health of the children might be endangered.

“The statements of Thomas Aquinas, which appeared in his ‘Summa Theologica‘ and was highly influential during the Middle Ages, raised a number of possible objections to consanguineous marriage…. Third, such unions would ‘prevent people widening their circle of friends’ (2 above)….**

I think its a great argument against excessive inbreeding even by today’s standards, when something like 50% of Middle Easterners, among other regions of the world, marry their cousins thereby “keeping it within the family” and then some with possible consequences for health and incidence of birth defects.

The strict consanguinity laws of medieval Catholicism (restrictive even by today’s standards) actually helped to facilitate the development of large scale, non-kin cooperation and specialization (the key to Western success), that is modern statehood essentially.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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

I’m not meaning to argue with you, Vouthon, it’s just that I did know personally a number of second cousin pairs and a few first cousin pairs. These couples would be older than my parents, so 80’s 90’s if they were still living.

I actually asked a canon lawyer reguarding some close relatives who were married in the 60s who were first cousins once removed. I was worried after reading a thread here that they hadn’t known to get a dispensation. I was assured that it was valid and no dispensation necessary.

 

[Xantippe]

Here is what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say with reference to the medieval consanguinity rulings of the canon law in his Summa, quoting St. Augustine of Hippo. After explaining that incest and sexual relations between “kindred descended from a common, close ancestor” is against "natural and instinctive feelings of honour" and that “since a man has natural affection for his own kin, were this to be charged with sexuality it would…rage with libidinousness against chastity”, he noted:

From Jack Goody’s “The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe” [pgs. 56-8]:

I think its a great argument against excessive inbreeding even by today’s standards, when something like 50% of Middle Easterners, among other regions of the world, marry their cousins thereby “keeping it within the family” and then some with some very serious consequences for health and incidence of birth defects.

I think that modern Westerners aren’t going to be as tempted as our ancestors, because our economy and political system is so different. There isn’t the same amount of temptation, because land inheritance and the preservation of family property aren’t as important, and there isn’t the need to cement internal and international alliances with marriages. Plus, unlike in the Middle East, there is much more trust toward non-family members.

I was just looking at this:

tudorqueen6.com/2013/05/03/the-hampton-court-pedigrees-the-six-wives-of-henry-viii/

A few snips:

“All of King Henry’s wives had one thing in common, they all descended from Edward I; some by his first wife Eleanor of Castile or by his second, Marguerite of France; and in some cases both!”

!!!

Antonia Fraser says:

“The wives of Henry VIII were not “closely” related or to King Henry himself. The exception would be of the first cousins Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard; Henry’s 2nd and 5th wife whom shared the same grandfather, Sir Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk by his 1st wife Elizabeth Tilney (herself the daughter of Elizabeth Cheney by her first husband Sir Philip Tilney. Elizabeth married secondly Sir John Say. Her daughter Anne would become grandmother to Queen consort Jane Seymour, thus making Queen Anne, Queen Jane, and Queen Catherine Howard second cousins).”

Basically, it was like a huge family reunion…

The main page says:

“In actuality, King Henry was closely related to two of his wives; Katherine of Aragon and his last wife, Katherine Parr. All three shared common ancestry and the ancestor Prince John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster. Thus, Katherine of Aragon was a 3rd cousin, once removed and 4th cousin (by Lancaster’s first two wives). Katherine’s lineage made her more eligible to the throne of England than her father-in-law, Henry VII.”

Alrighty then.

I have to note here that even just looking at the portraits, a number of the wives look a lot like Henry VIII.

 

[Brassring]

It’s possible some pragmatism was at play. I know a lot of people who don’t know who their third cousins are. There may have been cases of people going to the priest to request marriage, and only after some research was done was it discovered they were too closely related to get married.

 

[Phemie]

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

I’m not meaning to argue with you, Vouthon, it’s just that I did know personally a number of second cousin pairs and a few first cousin pairs. These couples would be older than my parents, so 80’s 90’s if they were still living.

I actually asked a canon lawyer reguarding some close relatives who were married in the 60s who were first cousins once removed. I was worried after reading a thread here that they hadn’t known to get a dispensation. I was assured that it was valid and no dispensation necessary.

You’re correct. My parents were half first cousins, they shared a grandmother. They were granted a dispensation to marry back in 1952. Originally the Bishop denied the request but their Pastor went to bat for them and the Bishop eventually changed his mind. I knew nothing about the back and forth between the Bishop and Pastor until shortly before my dad died. He didn’t know exactly why the petition was originally denied.

 

[Phemie]

It’s possible some pragmatism was at play. I know a lot of people who don’t know who their third cousins are. There may have been cases of people going to the priest to request marriage, and only after some research was done was it discovered they were too closely related to get married.

I’ve seen parish registers from small remote communities where almost every couple was granted a dispensation due to consanguinity. Everyone was related to everyone else and you can generally recognize the citizens of those communities at a glance.

 

[Xantippe]

I’ve seen parish registers from small remote communities where almost every couple was granted a dispensation due to consanguinity. Everyone was related to everyone else and you can generally recognize the citizens of those communities at a glance.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

In general I think where historical royalty were concerned, if the only “suitable” marriage partners were either fellow royals or high ranking nobles, that did limit the pool a lot.

Re the Habsburgs, one problem was that not only did they limit their marriage candidates to fellow royalty, they limited them to Catholic royalty, which were becoming in shorter supply than before, due to the prior conversions / defections of England, much of present-day Germany, and other kingdoms away from the Catholic Church. I suspect the Church became more willing even than before to issue dispensations in this climate, even to such eyebrow-raising combinations such as uncle-niece.

I’ve seen parish registers from small remote communities where almost every couple was granted a dispensation due to consanguinity. Everyone was related to everyone else and you can generally recognize the citizens of those communities at a glance.

I know that consanguineous marriages are also an issue in many Amish communities. Issues with very rare genetic diseases are a thing. I also recall reading of an island community that had a much higher than usual percentage of deaf people due to this.

 

[Phemie]

First cousin marriages are allowed everywhere in Canada as far as I know. The Church will grant dispensation if it’s allowed by civil law. I suspect that in my parents’ case the Bishop hesitated because my mother had a congenital condition. As far as I know it was simply congenital hip dysplasia, left untreated. Today there would be no sign of it past infancy or the toddler stage.

 

[Eliazer]

Why did the Church modify canon law in 1983 to permit marriages between second cousins, whereas before 1917 and since 1215 it had prohibited even third cousins from marrying? Prior to 1215, the use of a far more stringent counting method had raised the prohibited degrees of affinity higher still.

I personally feel that the stricter pre-1983 rulings were superior given all we now know about genetics, so I’m curious to understand why the ecclesiastical rules have been progressively relaxed since 1917. I’m aware that many people, especially the nobility and royalty, received dispensations owing to the virtual impossibility of avoiding blood relation within their exceedingly small pool of potential partners.

The Eastern Orthodox Church continues to prohibit second cousins from marrying, so far as I have been able to discern.

First and second cousin marriages were initially banned at the Council of Agde in AD 506 and the latter, as stated at the beginning of my post, has only been permitted since 1983.

Ask a priest about this he can explain in further detail.

 

[Eliazer]

Why did the Church modify canon law in 1983 to permit marriages between second cousins, whereas before 1917 and since 1215 it had prohibited even third cousins from marrying? Prior to 1215, the use of a far more stringent counting method had raised the prohibited degrees of affinity higher still.

I personally feel that the stricter pre-1983 rulings were superior given all we now know about genetics, so I’m curious to understand why the ecclesiastical rules have been progressively relaxed since 1917. I’m aware that many people, especially the nobility and royalty, received dispensations owing to the virtual impossibility of avoiding blood relation within their exceedingly small pool of potential partners.

The Eastern Orthodox Church continues to prohibit second cousins from marrying, so far as I have been able to discern.

First and second cousin marriages were initially banned at the Council of Agde in AD 506 and the latter, as stated at the beginning of my post, has only been permitted since 1983.

First we must recognize there is two books of Canon law.
One belongs to the Latin rite and the other to the eastern rite (byzantine, maronites, chaldean, syriac, syrio-Malabar, Ukrainian, ruthuanian among others.)

In the Latin rite
From the book My Catholic Faith by Most reverend Louis LaRavoire Morrow, S.T.D. Bishop of Krishnagar page 346- and part of pg. 347 says

"167. Impediments to matrimony

What are Impediments to matrimony?
Impediments to matrimony are obstacles to the validity or lawful ess of a marriage.

1. Impediments to matrimony are certain restrictions imposed by the law of God or of the Church which render a marriage contract invalid or unlawful if such restrictions are violated when entering into the marriage. In safeguarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, the church declares that certain circumstances tend to lessen or actually destroy the sacred nature of the Sacrament. Such obstacles are called “Impediments” , since they obstruct sacramental sanctity.

Whenever circumstances incompatible with the Sacrament or contract of Matrimony exist, the Church has established Impediments; other reasons, such as the general welfare of society or the protrection of the matrimonial bond may have caused the placing of impediments.

1. When Impediments exist, the Church either completely forbids the administration of the Sacrament, or requires special assurance that the dangers may be reduced as far as possible; in this latter case, a matrimonial “dispensation” is granted.
2. There are two kinds of impediments:

(a) Detriment (also called a nuking or nullifying) impediments render an attempted marriage altogether null and void, invalid. Dispensation are only rarely granted for deriment impediments. Should an attempt at marriage be made without dispensation, there is no marriage.

Such an invalid marriage must be either dissolved, or the impediment removed by a dispensation, and the marriage performed validly. If a marriage is dissolved, the contracting parties are free to marry other partners, if they so wish.

(b) Prohibitive (also called impediment or hindering) impediments render a marriage unlawful, illicit, but valid. In this case, the couple are married, though unlawfully. The marriage cannot be disolved.

Prohibitive impediments are easily dispensed. but good Catholics should prefer to comply with the wishes of the Church, which put these impediments for the good of its members."

I am not going to list all the impediments I am going to mention only in relationship to this topic according to the Latin rite

"Which are chief deriment impediments? - the chief deriment impediments are:
…
4. Blood relationship or consanguinity.

The Church forbids the Marriage of close relatives, in order to enforce the respect due to blood relations, and to increase the number of families bound together in friendship, thus promoting union among men. The prohibition also aims to prevent the birth of physically and mentally defective children, often found resulting from such marriages.

1. Close affinity. This means relationship by marriage. The survivor cannot marry the blood relations of his dead spouse.

In the direct line, as a step daughter or mother-in-law, no dispensation is granted. In the collateral line the impediment extends to the second degree, and may be dispensed.
…

1. Spiritual affinity. Without dispensation, sponsors in Baptism cannot marry their godchildren.
   A lay person cannot marry the person to whom he administered lay baptism.
2. Legal relationship. Those who by civil law are incapable of contracting a marriage by reason of legal relation arising from adoption are incapable, by Church law, of a valid marriage

The impediment partakes of natural of the Civil impediment which conditions it: it is prohibitive, where the civil impediment is prohibitive, and deriment or annulling, where the civil impediment is diriment."

But do not forget this is with regard to the Latin rite.
The eastern has their Canon laws (which are very similar, yet they have small differences) I still I cannot speak for them(eastern rite). In order for you to find more information you will need to speak to your Parish priest he will explain you the disciplines of both and historical backgrounds. Although both are of the same Church they have different disciplines in regards to some matters ( I do not know the specifics in regards to what)
But I do know that a Catholic priest can explain in further detail.

You can also ask a priest from their rite and they can also explain.

It is not that one is better than another.(since we both are the same church) however both eastern and Latin rite has different disciplines and cultural traditions. Regardless the mass and worship is the same, we have the same beliefs, same sacraments.