Irregular marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter PazzoGrande
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PazzoGrande

Guest
(Forgive me for the weird questions, I’ve been watching too many soap operas)

What would the canonical rules be on marriages in these instances?
  1. Say there is a couple, the husband goes missing off a ship, is declared dead. Years pass, the wife re-marries, and the husband turns out to be alive but has amnesia. Would the second marriage be automatically nulled?
  2. Canon Law requires a dispensation for marriages with first cousins. How about first cousins once-removed (first cousin’s child)?
  3. Say there are two cousins who are not related by blood (because one is related to the other through a step-parent, let’s say). Are there any impediments toward that?
  4. Are marriages between step-siblings (who are not related by blood) permitted?
  5. Let’s say there are two half-siblings and one has a child. Can one of the half siblings marry the child, because their blood relation would actually be that of distant cousins, the equivalent of which is allowable in Canon Law.
I saw a list of couple cousins on Wikipedia and I was surprised that it’s actually common, even with royals from Catholic countries which would have had the Church’s blessing. I like understanding the systematic way Canon Law works, and these issues on the fringes are particularly interesting.

(Please cite sources too 😃 )
 
From the Code of Canon Law:
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM
Can. 1091 §1. In the direct line of consanguinity marriage is invalid between all ancestors and descendants, both legitimate and natural.
§2. In the collateral line marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree.
§3. The impediment of consanguinity is not multiplied.
§4. A marriage is never permitted if doubt exists whether the partners are related by consanguinity in any degree of the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.
Can. 1092 Affinity in the direct line in any degree invalidates a marriage.
Can. 1093 The impediment of public propriety arises from an invalid marriage after the establishment of common life or from notorious or public concubinage. It nullifies marriage in the first degree of the direct line between the man and the blood relatives of the woman, and vice versa.
Can. 1094 Those who are related in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line by a legal relationship arising from adoption cannot contract marriage together validly.

Can. 1078 §1.

§3. A dispensation is never given from the impediment of consanguinity in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.
 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07695a.htm
http://http//www.newadvent.org/cathen/07695a.htm

From The Catholic Encyclopedis…I’ll try to find a simpler explanation if these sources are too confusing.

"Finally, respect due to family and kin forms the basis of the impediment of relationship (cognatio), which occurs in five forms:
  • (a) natural relationship or community of blood (consanguinitas), which prohibits all marriages in the direct ascending or descending line in infinitum, and in the collateral line to the fourth degree or fourth generation;
  • (b) alliance or affinity (affinitas), which establishes a bond of relationship between each of the married parties and the blood relations of the other, and forbids marriage between them to the fourth degree. Such is the case when the affinity springs from conjugal relations; but as canon law considers affinity to spring also from illicit intercourse, there is an illicit affinity which annuls marriage to the second degree only;
  • (c) public decorum (honestas publica), a legal anticipation of affinity; those who will be related by the consummation of marriage are already looked upon as related when they are betrothed or have only ratified the marriage contract. This impediment is as extensive as affinity, if it springs from a reception of the Sacrament of Matrimony; if it arises solely from betrothal it extends only to the first degree;
  • (d) spiritual relationship (cognatio spiritualis). Spiritual birth has been considered as producing a kind of relationship between those who took an active part in the rites of Christian initiation, baptism, and confirmation, and marriage between them is forbidden. The impediment arising from these sacraments has been restricted by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, cap. ii, “De Ref. Matri.”);…
  • (e) Lastly there is the purely legal relationship of adoption, with the prohibitions of marriage attached to it in Roman law; the church has merely accepted and ratified them."
 
Trishie said:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07695a.htm
http://http//www.newadvent.org/cathen/07695a.htm

From The Catholic Encyclopedis…I’ll try to find a simpler explanation if these sources are too confusing.

"Finally, respect due to family and kin forms the basis of the impediment of relationship (cognatio), which occurs in five forms:
  • (a) natural relationship or community of blood (consanguinitas), which prohibits all marriages in the direct ascending or descending line in infinitum, and in the collateral line to the fourth degree or fourth generation;
  • (b) alliance or affinity (affinitas), which establishes a bond of relationship between each of the married parties and the blood relations of the other, and forbids marriage between them to the fourth degree. Such is the case when the affinity springs from conjugal relations; but as canon law considers affinity to spring also from illicit intercourse, there is an illicit affinity which annuls marriage to the second degree only;
  • (c) public decorum (honestas publica), a legal anticipation of affinity; those who will be related by the consummation of marriage are already looked upon as related when they are betrothed or have only ratified the marriage contract. This impediment is as extensive as affinity, if it springs from a reception of the Sacrament of Matrimony; if it arises solely from betrothal it extends only to the first degree;
  • (d) spiritual relationship (cognatio spiritualis). Spiritual birth has been considered as producing a kind of relationship between those who took an active part in the rites of Christian initiation, baptism, and confirmation, and marriage between them is forbidden. The impediment arising from these sacraments has been restricted by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, cap. ii, “De Ref. Matri.”);…
  • (e) Lastly there is the purely legal relationship of adoption, with the prohibitions of marriage attached to it in Roman law; the church has merely accepted and ratified them."
Click to expand...
I’m surprised that relatives by adoption and not blood are prohibited from marriage. This is interesting.

While we’re on the topic, what if there is a candidate for priesthood who was validly married, then lied about it when he became a seminarian? What if a married man is ordained after having deceived his superiors?

It certainly doesn’t invalidate the sacramental priesthood; and I doubt that the ordination would invalidate the marriage because it came before the marriage. But in such a case, how would the Vatican handle the priest? Obviously there would be things done to discipline him, but what? Would they order him to become a celibate? Isn’t that also unfair to his wife and to their kids? The priest’s family would be victims of his deception.

(Yes, this issue came to mind because of the whole Corapi thing; as horrible as that whole incident was, it is academically interesting to see how it’s handled.)
 
the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

"2388 Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them (Lev 18:7-20). St. Paul stigmatizes this especially grave offense: “It is actually reported that there is immorality among you . . . for a man is living with his father’s wife. . . . In the name of the Lord Jesus . . . you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. . . . " (1 Cor 5:1, 4-5). Incest corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality.”

“New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law” by Beal, Coriden and Green:

"Consanguinity invalidates marriage in all degrees of the direct line (father-daughter-granddaughter) and up to the fourth degree of the collateral line inclusive (first cousins). The impediment of consanguinity no longer invalidates marriages of second cousins …] Commentators agree that consanguinity in any degree of the direct line is a divine law impediment and that consanguinity in the third and fourth degrees of the collateral line is an ecclesiastical law impediment …]

The Local ordinary can dispense from the impediment in …] the fourth degree (first cousins) of the collateral line. Nevertheless, civil laws may well prohibit marriages within these degrees of consanguinity.
The 1917 code foresaw the possibility that the impediment of consanguinity could be multiplied in the collateral line when a couple shared more than one common ancestor (CIC 1076). The multiplication of the impediment necessitated multiple dispensations." (Canon 1091)

As for step relationship marriages, read the fallowing if you wish, regarding afinity
newadvent.org/cathen/01178a.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t make easy reading as the paragraphs are too long
 
The church’s Code of Canon Law recognizes impediments to marriage.

“Diriment” impediments that invalidate a marriage include consanguinity (being too closely related by blood); affinity (too closely related by marriage); bigamy; ordination to holy orders; making public perpetual vows as a religious brother or sister; abduction with the intent of marriage; or impediment of crime, which means murdering a spouse or the spouse of another, with the intention of marriage

Can. 1092 Affinity in the direct line in any degree invalidates a marriage.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3Y.HTM
 
Trishie said:
The church’s Code of Canon Law recognizes impediments to marriage.

“Diriment” impediments that invalidate a marriage include consanguinity (being too closely related by blood); affinity (too closely related by marriage); bigamy; ordination to holy orders; making public perpetual vows as a religious brother or sister; abduction with the intent of marriage; or impediment of crime, which means murdering a spouse or the spouse of another, with the intention of marriage.
Click to expand...
Fascinating. Thanks for the help.

I sure wish they’d take out all the overly-technical jargon and give it in simple language. But, hey, we’re Catholic… I guess our Latin roots are part of our charm, even when it comes to our terminology.
 
I know what you mean…I was searching for a more understandable interpretation of the sources. I’m sure others would have found it, but I didn’t stumble on it, except on sites lacking sufficient Catholic authority!
 
PazzoGrande said:
I’m surprised that relatives by adoption and not blood are prohibited from marriage. This is interesting.

While we’re on the topic, what if there is a candidate for priesthood who was validly married, then lied about it when he became a seminarian? What if a married man is ordained after having deceived his superiors?

It certainly doesn’t invalidate the sacramental priesthood; and I doubt that the ordination would invalidate the marriage because it came before the marriage. But in such a case, how would the Vatican handle the priest? Obviously there would be things done to discipline him, but what? Would they order him to become a celibate? Isn’t that also unfair to his wife and to their kids? The priest’s family would be victims of his deception.

(Yes, this issue came to mind because of the whole Corapi thing; as horrible as that whole incident was, it is academically interesting to see how it’s handled.)
Click to expand...
No it wouldn’t be valid ordination, back in a few minutes with Canon Law…

Can. 1042 The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:
1/ a man who has a wife, unless he is legitimately destined to the permanent diaconate;

Can. 1049 §1. Petitions to obtain a dispensation from irregularities or impediments must indicate all the irregularities and impediments. Nevertheless, a general dispensation is valid even for those omitted in good faith, except for the irregularities mentioned in ⇒ can. 1041, n. 4, and for others brought to the judicial forum, but not for those omitted in bad faith.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3S.HTM

Can. 1037 An unmarried candidate for the permanent diaconate and a candidate for the presbyterate are not to be admitted to the order of diaconate unless they have assumed the obligation of celibacy in the prescribed rite publicly before God and the Church or have made perpetual vows in a religious institute.

Can. 1025 §1. To confer the presbyteral or diaconal orders licitly, it is required that the candidate, having completed the period of probation according to the norm of law, is endowed in the judgment of his own bishop or of the competent major superior with the necessary qualities, is prevented by no irregularity and no impediment, and has fulfilled the prerequisites according to the norm of ⇒ cann. 1033-1039. Moreover, the documents mentioned in ⇒ can. 1050 are to be obtained and the investigation mentioned in ⇒ can. 1051 is to be completed.
 
Trishie said:
No it wouldn’t be valid ordination, back in a few minutes with Canon Law…

Can. 1042 The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:
1/ a man who has a wife, unless he is legitimately destined to the permanent diaconate;

Can. 1049 §1. Petitions to obtain a dispensation from irregularities or impediments must indicate all the irregularities and impediments. Nevertheless, a general dispensation is valid even for those omitted in good faith, except for the irregularities mentioned in ⇒ can. 1041, n. 4, and for others brought to the judicial forum, but not for those omitted in bad faith.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3S.HTM

Can. 1037 An unmarried candidate for the permanent diaconate and a candidate for the presbyterate are not to be admitted to the order of diaconate unless they have assumed the obligation of celibacy in the prescribed rite publicly before God and the Church or have made perpetual vows in a religious institute.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, these seem to be prohibitions against them being ordained, but they don’t seem to invalidations for a candidate who lied. It seems, they are impeded from receiving orders in the sense that they shouldn’t be candidates, but if they got to be ordained anyhow, it doesn’t mean it’s invalid, but just highly illicit.

Or am I mistaken on this?

(Is it a better idea if I just open up a new post about this? I can do that; it’s entirely my fault, but we sidetracked from the irregular marriage topic. I should be more careful about that, sorry. Unless the Administrator cares to edit this and put it on another thread for me? 😃 )
 
PazzoGrande said:
Fascinating. Thanks for the help.

I sure wish they’d take out all the overly-technical jargon and give it in simple language. But, hey, we’re Catholic… I guess our Latin roots are part of our charm, even when it comes to our terminology.
Click to expand...
It is not a matter of having a verbose tradition; it is a matter that this is canon law. They are legal texts, and like civil law, need to be precise, esepcially when dealing with complex issues and other matters central to the Catholic faith, including marriage.
 
Chatter163 said:
It is not a matter of having a verbose tradition; it is a matter that this is canon law. They are legal texts, and like civil law, need to be precise, esepcially when dealing with complex issues and other matters central to the Catholic faith, including marriage.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well the Latin comment I made was a joke (I always fail when I try to be charming).

I still say that legal language, civil or canon, has room for simplification. I do say this with experience – my dad was a politician and I helped with writing legislation. For example, “relatives to the fourth degree” could simply be said to be first cousins.

Although weird words with Latin roots are still awkward, like “Apologetics” and “Accidents” for the Sacred Species – words that if you judge by how most people understand them would have dfferent meanings. I think it does make a bit of a problem because these concepts which ordinary people should grasp end up being kind of intimidating. And that I say with experience as a political scientist and a Christian Studies double-major. It may make the Church look distinguished with these terms, but it also makes it inaccessible for normal folk.
 
Trishie said:
From The Catholic Encyclopedis…I’ll try to find a simpler explanation if these sources are too confusing.
  • (d) spiritual relationship (cognatio spiritualis). Spiritual birth has been considered as producing a kind of relationship between those who took an active part in the rites of Christian initiation, baptism, and confirmation, and marriage between them is forbidden. The impediment arising from these sacraments has been restricted by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, cap. ii, “De Ref. Matri.”);…
Click to expand...
You have to remember that the Catholic Encyclopedia was compiled before the 1917 Code of Canon Law and we are now dealing with the 1983 Code of Canon Law. There is no longer a prohibition of marriage between a godparent and a godchild (or between a confirmand and his/her sponsor). Remember that a spouse can be the sponsor of one requesting Baptism.
 
PazzoGrande said:
(Forgive me for the weird questions, I’ve been watching too many soap operas)

What would the canonical rules be on marriages in these instances?
  1. Say there is a couple, the husband goes missing off a ship, is declared dead. Years pass, the wife re-marries, and the husband turns out to be alive but has amnesia. Would the second marriage be automatically nulled?
    As I understand it, yes, the marriage would be considered invalid. While not forced to return to the first husband, she would have to stop living with the second husband.
  2. Canon Law requires a dispensation for marriages with first cousins. How about first cousins once-removed (first cousin’s child)?
    No
  3. Say there are two cousins who are not related by blood (because one is related to the other through a step-parent, let’s say). Are there any impediments toward that?
    No, they’re not really ‘cousins’.
  4. Are marriages between step-siblings (who are not related by blood) permitted?
    No, because of “affinity” not “consanguinity”.
  5. Let’s say there are two half-siblings and one has a child. Can one of the half siblings marry the child, because their blood relation would actually be that of distant cousins, the equivalent of which is allowable in Canon Law.
    No, they’re still considered uncle/niece or aunt/nephew.
My maternal grandmother and my paternal grandfather were half-siblings (same mom). My parents had to obtain a dispensation to get married. At first the bishop refused to grant such a dispensation but their pastor went to bat for them and eventually it was granted.

I saw a list of couple cousins on Wikipedia and I was surprised that it’s actually common, even with royals from Catholic countries which would have had the Church’s blessing. I like understanding the systematic way Canon Law works, and these issues on the fringes are particularly interesting.

(Please cite sources too 😃 )
Click to expand...
Here’s a consanguinity chart.
 
PazzoGrande said:
As I understand it, these seem to be prohibitions against them being ordained, but they don’t seem to invalidations for a candidate who lied. It seems, they are impeded from receiving orders in the sense that they shouldn’t be candidates, but if they got to be ordained anyhow, it doesn’t mean it’s invalid, but just highly illicit.

Or am I mistaken on this?
Click to expand...
Yes, you’re mistaken.

The fact that a man lies about his marital status does not change his marital status and it does not remove the impediment. If I said that I’m single does not alter that fact that I’m married. Therefore even if I told the Church I was single to try to get into seminary it wouldn’t change the fact that there’s an impediment to me being ordained as a priest. Therefore, if I got away with the lies and was ordained it would be invalid.

Lying doesn’t alter a person’s circumstances and as a result it doesn’t get rid of impediments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top