Do priests screen for consanguinity level 4?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicRules
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That wasn’t the case. Why are you personalizing this. They knew going in, so it is a deception. It’s not like, oh my, we just found out.

What I had said to others who knew and objected, that they could have informed the Church of their concerns vs. keeping their mouths shut and badmouthing them.
 
Yes, Catholic priests are included in what I’m talking about. I’ve been doing marriages with civil effect for three years now, since I was ordained, and I never had to go to the courthouse and get licensed. Just the fact that I’m on the payroll of the Church as one of its ministers means I can witness marriages with civil effect in my state and many others.

You’d think I would know what I’m talking about since, you know, I kinda do this for a living.
 
Don’t know – I think first cousin should not be allowed by civil law also. The Catholic Church did not make up these rules arbitrarily. Rather, they took a scientific approach, which I applaud them for.
Actually geneticists are calling for states to stop forbidding these marriages because they say there is no good reason to unless there is a glaring genetic condition present.

 
Last edited:
The issue is how does the Church view the children of a marriage where no dispensation occurred and where the parents were aware. What is their status? Legit … yes no. Not civil, in the eyes of the Church.
The Church views them as people, just like the rest of us.

I am not sure, but I hope the labels like “ligit” and “illegitimate” still aren’t being used. Those labels are of no consequence in today’s world, and I don’t know how they would be of consequence in the Church, either.

I really think you need to stop worrying about this.
 
Problem is nobody really knows what their genes are at that age. 2nd cousin no increased risk, but you still want diversity. First cousin – there is still an elevated risk … zygosity.
 
Yes, Catholic priests are included in what I’m talking about. I’ve been doing marriages with civil effect for three years now, since I was ordained, and I never had to go to the courthouse and get licensed. Just the fact that I’m on the payroll of the Church as one of its ministers means I can witness marriages with civil effect in my state and many others.

You’d think I would know what I’m talking about since, you know, I kinda do this for a living.
In our province the diocese submits the name of any incoming priests, deacons, and lay people who will be witnessing marriages to the province and the province notifies them that they may do so.

One priest who moved to our province from Ontario went back to Ontario to witness his niece’s marriage. He didn’t realize that when he left Ontario his permission to witness marriages there was revoked. All hell broke loose when the paperwork was filed with that province and they discovered they weren’t married.
 
The issue is how does the Church view the children of a marriage where no dispensation occurred and where the parents were aware. What is their status? Legit … yes no. Not civil, in the eyes of the Church.
The Church does not deal with the legitimacy or illegitimacy of children.
 
I think you are in distress because of the burden on your shoulders to reveal a medical risk.

However,
  • as a lot of people have said, of course, first cousins can marry in the Church with a dispensation. There is absolutely NO reason to doubt it. It was common in the past. VERY common. Look at the History.
    For the annedocte my great grandparents were first cousins, devout Catholics and marry in the Church in the 1920’s.
  • That they have dispensation or not and the validity of their (sadly)fallen marriage is not your business…
  • Nobody is forced to get a genetic testing without wanting too. Whereas it is in order to get married, or to find some genetic mutation.
    • So assuming that some people should take tests before being allowed to be married is wrong. You cannot said they would be immoral or irresponsible. To said it, is simply an eugenistic thing.
    • as no one is obligated to have a DNA test, you can only propose. You have no obligation of results, that means your family is not obligated to do what you only proposed to them. Some people just don’t want to know. You can relieve yourself from such a burden.
    • Genetics tests to evaluate the probalities of getting an illness (cancer) is a very thing and conception of medecine. You have to be aware that in the most part of the world this is not available at all. If doing this is a good thing or not is still debated, because it is not all in black and white. Knowing something that may happen, but it is only a probablity is a burden and what to do is also another burden.
To conclude I will refer to the September 12, 1958 discourse of the Pope Pius XII, for the congress of hematology. Taking a precise genetic illness as an exemple, He said more or less
  • that we can advise against a marriage two fiancés who both carry genetic illness that can impact their offspring, but not forbid it.
  • We can advise spouses to not have children if there is such a risk, but not forbid them.
  • And if the spouses ignore the risk of the genetic illness when they married to each other, is there marriage is valid? We cannot doubt the validity of the marriage unless some circunstances provided by Canon law.
  • He also said that it is permot to make the population aware of some risks of consanguineous marriage.
  • For the reasons, he explains that the object of the marriage is the right to perform the conjugal act. And it is independant to the heredity of the children that may be born of the marriage, or even their capacity to live.
    It is here. Sorry, I haven’t found the English version.Aux participants au VIIe congrès de la Société internationale d'hématologie (12 septembre 1958) | PIE XII
 
Last edited:
For the last question,
even if the marriage is recognized by an ecclesiatical tribunal as void, the children are still recognized as legitimate.
 
40.png
CatholicRules:
The issue is how does the Church view the children of a marriage where no dispensation occurred and where the parents were aware. What is their status? Legit … yes no. Not civil, in the eyes of the Church.
The Church does not deal with the legitimacy or illegitimacy of children.
Nice thought, but yes she does.
Canons 1137, 1138, and 1139.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-i...ts/cic_lib4-cann998-1165_en.html#CHAPTER_VIII.
 
40.png
babochka:
40.png
CatholicRules:
The issue is how does the Church view the children of a marriage where no dispensation occurred and where the parents were aware. What is their status? Legit … yes no. Not civil, in the eyes of the Church.
The Church does not deal with the legitimacy or illegitimacy of children.
Nice thought, but yes she does.
Canons 1137, 1138, and 1139.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-i...ts/cic_lib4-cann998-1165_en.html#CHAPTER_VIII.
Okay, I didn’t know that. When would the legitimacy of children matter in Church law?
 
That’s right, because the ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF TORONTO, say, cancelled his license. Priests perform the marriage, not witness it. Ontario law says:

Before you get married, you need either:
Code:
a marriage licence, or
a banns form that you get from a church when you publicly announce your commitment during a divine service (a church publishes this declaration, called “the publication of banns”)
Banns cannot be published if you or your spouse has been married before. You will need to get a marriage licence.

Logic says if the Church says the marriage is invalid, then the priest, had he known, would not have signed. No sign, no civil marriage either. That is the paradox.

I’ve never heard of this BANNS stuff in ON.

SELECT first_name, last_name
FROM authorized_religious_officiants
WHERE
religious_organization = ‘Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto’
ORDER BY municipality, last_name;

There are 21,000 religious officiants all over the map, not just Catholic.

Quote:

A religious marriage is performed by a religious official of a recognized religious body who has received authorization from the Office of the Registrar General to perform marriages in Ontario.

Check the online list of authorized religious marriage officiants to ensure that your religious officiant is authorized to perform marriages in Ontario.

It varies. This dispensation stuff means bunk if it is not allowed in the state where you are marrying. No dispensation attempt will even be made.
 
40.png
Phemie:
40.png
babochka:
40.png
CatholicRules:
The issue is how does the Church view the children of a marriage where no dispensation occurred and where the parents were aware. What is their status? Legit … yes no. Not civil, in the eyes of the Church.
The Church does not deal with the legitimacy or illegitimacy of children.
Nice thought, but yes she does.
Canons 1137, 1138, and 1139.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-i...ts/cic_lib4-cann998-1165_en.html#CHAPTER_VIII.
Okay, I didn’t know that. When would the legitimacy of children matter in Church law?
Not sure that there is anything in the Church that is affected by illegitimacy but not so long ago it could keep a man out of the priesthood. I think there may still be a few countries with church law determining inheritance or right of succession.
 
Really? What state is that?
the fact that I’m on the payroll of the Church as one of its ministers means I can witness marriages with civil effect in my state and many others.

You’d think I would know what I’m talking about since, you know, I kinda do this for a living.
Pshaw! I"m not afraid to answer that, either! In my own state – Pennsylvania – Catholic priests are valid ministers of marriage by virtue of the Church’s recognition of them as priests.

What’s your point, then, Rules? 🤔
I’m oversimplifying I guess. First cousins to me means my kid marries my sister’s kid. How is that hard to catch?
Yes, you’re oversimplifying.

What if you don’t realize that you have a sister, due to a prior marriage of your parents? What if an adoption situation leads to the lack of recognition of blood relation?

Simple? Hardly.
Nice thought, but yes she does.
Canons 1137, 1138, and 1139.
When would the legitimacy of children matter in Church law?
It doesn’t.

Go one further, @Phemie, and read c.1140 – there’s no canonical effect that’s based on ‘legitimacy’. Yes, that’s a difference from the 1917 code… but that’s why they mentioned it explicitly in the 1983 CIC… 😉
Priests perform the marriage, not witness it.
Please read up on Catholic Sacramental theology. Priests witness marriage; the couple themselves ‘perform’ it.
Quote:

A religious marriage is performed by a religious official of a recognized religious body who has received authorization from the Office of the Registrar General to perform marriages in Ontario.
The fact that a governmental office in Ontario proclaims this, does not trump the teachings of the Church. 😉

(Of course, it does represent the understanding of the civil government, with respect to the civil effects of a marriage ceremony. Apples and oranges, though…)
Not sure that there is anything in the Church that is affected by illegitimacy but not so long ago it could keep a man out of the priesthood. I think there may still be a few countries with church law determining inheritance or right of succession.
The 1917 CIC was abrogated by the 1983 CIC. So… no – church law no longer determines legitimacy (although the Church has no control over how local jurisdictions make and enforce local civil law).
 
You are wrong. I married a first cousin, with dispensation, in 1970. It was no big deal…
 
Op, I think you are entitled to be angry but still you just have to… let it go. You told them, they shrugged, the Church gave the wrong dispensations, igmorance put you in a hard place. Still… you don’t have cancer do you? Maybe you never will. Is it worth to spend all this time now when you are actually fine, in bitterness and anger?
Let.It.Go.
You did the moral.thing and announced your relatives on the risks. You also have your own life to.live. Live it fully, live it well.
 
Synod of Trullan (7th century), before any screening methods, strictly forbids certain unions, one being marriage between first cousins. See Canon 54:
It seemed good to us to set it forth a little more clearly, decreeing that from this time forth he who shall marry the daughter of his father’s brother; or a father or son with a mother and daughter; or a father and son with two girls who are sisters; or a mother and daughter with two brothers; or two brothers with two sisters, fall under the canon of seven years, provided they openly separate from this unlawful union.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top