Is incest sin?

[Hello947]

Sorry if this is the wrong category (im new to this site). In the Catholic religion, is incest a sin?
But i saw something asking about this before, and a lot of people said yes, their resoning beinging that it is sex outside of marriage, so yes, a sin.
But what if you were marrried? Would it still be a sin? Or, what about just kissing? You don’t have to be married before you kiss. I understand that society does not approve, but does God?
I know after Adam and Eve, incest has to have continued for quite a while, but that was nessisary. (Adam and eves children must have done it, and then the next generation must have too, whether between cousins or siblings, or else humans would not have continued) and theres also the story of Lot,

If it is a sin, could you please tell me if it says it in the bible, and which chapter and verse its in if so. Thank you. I was just wondering.

 

[Jennifoo]

Incest is a very grave sin, marriage notwithstanding. It is an abomination before God. See Lev. 18:7-20, 1Cor.5:1, 4-5, and the CCC paragraphs 2388 & 2389. These passages should make it clear that incest is gravely sinful. God bless you, and have a happy Sunday!

 

[Hello947]

Incest is a very grave sin, marriage notwithstanding. It is an abomination before God. See Lev. 18:7-20, 1Cor.5:1, 4-5, and the CCC paragraphs 2388 & 2389. These passages should make it clear that incest is gravely sinful. God bless you, and have a happy Sunday!

Thanks, that helps a lot

 

[Pedro_1987]

The Church wouldn’t recognize an incestuous marriage, so arguing for if the couple was married is moot as they can’t be married. Pretty much the same reason homosexuals can’t be together.

 

[1ke]

Incest in the direct line is a grave offense against the divine law (meaning coming from God). Direct line means grandparent/parent/child. Any sexual intimacy between parent/child/grandparent is gravely immoral.

Incest in the collateral line (siblings, cousins, and on out) to the 3rd degree (first cousins) is a canon law impediment (meaning restricted by the Church) to valid marriage-- with the ability for the bishop to dispense the impediment. The 2nd degree (siblings) cannot be dispensed.

I suggest reading the following article:

newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm

 

[1ke]

Incest in the direct line is a grave offense against the divine law (meaning coming from God). Direct line means grandparent/parent/child. Any sexual intimacy between parent/child/grandparent is gravely immoral.

Incest in the collateral line (siblings, cousins, and on out) to the 3rd degree (first cousins) is a canon law impediment (meaning restricted by the Church) to valid marriage-- with the ability for the bishop to dispense the impediment. The 2nd degree (siblings) cannot be dispensed.

I suggest reading the following article:

newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm

Oops, that should be 3rd and 4th degree, not 2nd and 3rd.

 

[1ke]

The Church wouldn’t recognize an incestuous marriage, so arguing for if the couple was married is moot as they can’t be married.

Depends on your definition of incest.

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.

Pretty much the same reason homosexuals can’t be together.

Again, depends. In the direct line, yes, there is a divine law impediment. But in the collateral line, it is not at all the same reason.

 

[js_cat3391]

So when God told Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply, he was not ordering their children to commit sins, because the first two brother and sister who procreated together were not in the direct line, they were collateral line. I.e. peers.

As long as it was not between say a parent and child, it was not against Divine law?

and the canon laws we have today are more of conventions based on the fact that we no longer need to procreate between collateral’s?

Did I get that right?

 

[1ke]

As long as it was not between say a parent and child, it was not against Divine law?

Correct.

and the canon laws we have today are more of conventions based on the fact that we no longer need to procreate between collateral’s?

Did I get that right?

Yes. I’d say a little stronger than “convention”. Marriage between brothers and sisters would quickly produce offspring with genetic problems. And, the family bond would be marred by such intimacy in this age of sin and perversion. God knew what he was doing when he later guided the Jews and the Church to prohibit these types of marriages.