Marriage to Step-Daughters

[YipYupYep]

I did not know that Woody Allen was Catholic!

Its a big world full of different circumstances with no genetic link between the two.

Provided the marriage to the first wife was annulled through the proper channels or if, God forbid, the first wife had died. The way would be open to talk it out with the Pastor, the step father and the step daughter at the Pre Canna consultation Catholic couples must undergo before they can be married in a Catholic Church.

The details must have been all put on the table, the decision was made based on Church Law by the Pastor who knew the full story and they got the green light to go forward. I see no reason the to have concern.

In my judgement, they have and may enjoy all the rights and privileges of the Catholic people. What do you think?

 

[1ke]

Its a big world full of different circumstances with no genetic link between the two.

Provided the marriage to the first wife was annulled through the proper channels or if, God forbid, the first wife had died. The way would be open to talk it out with the Pastor, the step father and the step daughter at the Pre Canna consultation Catholic couples must undergo before they can be married in a Catholic Church.

The details must have been all put on the table, the decision was made based on Church Law by the Pastor who knew the full story and they got the green light to go forward. I see no reason the to have concern.

In my judgement, they have and may enjoy all the rights and privileges of the Catholic people. What do you think?

I believe that comment was intended as a joke.

Woody Allen is not a Catholic and has never been Catholic. Born of Jewish parents, raised Orthodox Jew, he is currently a non-practicing Jew who is a self-proclaimed agnostic.

 

[YipYupYep]

I believe that comment was intended as a joke

Hello there,

Yes, I knew it was a joke. Thanx for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

However, my post was not a joke. It was directed to the OP and contain my feelings and understanding of the situation.

 

[1ke]

Hello there,

Yes, I knew it was a joke. Thanx for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

However, my post was not a joke. It was directed to the OP and contain my feelings and understanding of the situation.

You make several assumptions regarding the first marriage and the second. The OP states that there was no nullity declaration of the first marriage. And, therefore, even without the issue of the step-parent/child relationship the current marriage is invalid.

If/when the first marriage were to be found invalid, then there would also be the issue of the relationship and whether or not any of the canons mentioned apply and whether or not they can be dispensed.

 

[jfhh]

Hmmm, upon further research it seems that maybe this cannot be dispensed:

C. 1078 §3. **A dispensation is never **given from the impediment of consanguinity **in the ****direct line **or in the second degree of the collateral line.

Perhaps it’s time for the *real *canon lawyers to join the discussion!

Hi. I am not an orthodox Catholic but I do know enough canon law to comment on this particular canon in isolation from any broader issue.

“consanguinity” here does not include affinity or other forms of impediment. Consanguinity in the Code of 1983 refers specifically to blood relations.

There is theological debate historically and in the present over what impediments are of “divine” or “natural” law and what are of merely “ecclesiastical” law. Some theologians have held the 2nd degree in the collateral line is against divine law (and maybe also natural law) (note that thee 1983 Code actually calculates consanguinity degrees differently than the earlier Code… so don’t go by what the old Catholic Encyclopedia says in terms of calculation of degrees; 2nd degree here would mean brother and sister). Others have held that it is only against “positive” law, i.e. in this case ecclesiastical law. When the Code was put in place, it was decided that without ruling on that issue, the Code would simply declare that dispesnations for the 2nd degree in the collateral line are not given.

In terms of the direct line, there has in history been a pope who maintained that it was only certain that the 1st degree in this was against divine law and that everything else was a matter of opinion subject to the judgment of the Holy See (i.e. the Holy See could judge whether it was against divine law or not).

I am not answering the question in the OP. I am only here clarifying what “consanguinity” refers to. Affinity and consanguinity are two distinct things.

 

[dans0622]

I am not yet a canon lawyer but I think I can give a reasonable comment or two. First, as others have said, the impediment of affinity is the one at issue here. (Obviously, if the previous marriage was not declared null, there is also the impediment of prior bond. If this is the case, the marriage is certainly invalid.) The relationship of affinity arises from a valid marriage (the first marriage in our scenario) and it exists between the man and the blood relations of the woman, and vice versa. (see canon 109). The impediement of affinity exists only in the direct line (parent to child) in any degree (for all generations).

This impediment is not of divine law and is not reserved to the Holy See (cf. c. 1078) so it can be dispensed by the “local ordinary” (meaning the diocesan bishop, vicar general, episcopal vicar). Whether or not this impediment is dispensed or not depends on the situation–no one has, strictly speaking, a “right” to a dispensation. Dispensations are favors. So, in some cases, this dispensation might be granted. In others, it might not be granted. The basic point, though, is that it **is **possible for this impediment to be dispensed.

As to the question in the original post–the sacrament of reconciliation can not “justify” any action. If this man is in an invalid marriage, the sacrament might allow him to receive Communion and return to a state of grace. But, he would still be in an invalid marriage. That can only be rectified, conclusively, by a marriage tribunal (if it is the case that he is still bound by his previous marriage) or by the bishop (if it is a matter of a convalidation of his current “marriage”).

Sorry this is so convoluted. There are several different factors that have to be addressed in order to give a somewhat complete answer.

 

[brandymmiller]

Leviticus 18:17

You shall not have intercourse with a woman and also with her daughter, nor shall you marry and have intercourse with her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; this would be shameful, because they are related to her.

 

[BamaRider]

A man marries a woman who has two children: a boy age 6 and a girl age 4. They go on to have two children of their own. Some years later he divorces his wife. After moving into a home of his own he experiences problems paying his mortgage.
To help pay the mortgage his step-daughter [now working] moves in with him.

Not too long afterwards they marry. They now have two children of their own. In a new parish they both attend Mass and take Communion. Is this consistent with Church teaching and morals? He is viewed as a pillar of the church community but can his/her actions be justified through the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

He moved his step daughter in with him then married her? That’s awesome. And I was thinking this was just gonna be another ho hum day on CAF.

 

[thistle]

No, Canon 1092 does state affinity in the direct line is an impediment. The canon of affinity applies to the step-parent/step-child if the couple were married but the stepchild was not adopted. Canon 1093 applies if the couple were not married (just living/sleeping together or something like “common law” married). And, Canon 1094 applies if legal adoption took place.

In all three canons, the direct line relationship is an impediment.

So, again, it appears this cannot be dispensed, but I leave it to a canon lawyer to state this with authority.

Can you please tell me how step children are in a direct line of the step parent (assuming they are not adopted). You keep saying the various canons apply to this but none of the canons you mention specifies anything about step children. You are coming to a conclusion without any basis as far as I can see.
Please show us exactly where those canons talk about step children coming under the definition of direct line and please don’t tell us it is implied.

 

[dans0622]

Hello Thistle,

I am not “1ke”, but I can give an answer. Here is the relevant canon which defines affinity and the canon that says it is an impediment:

Can. 109 §1. Affinity arises from a valid marriage, even if not consummated, and exists between a man and the blood relatives of the woman and between the woman and the blood relatives of the man.

§2. It is so computed that those who are blood relatives of the man are related in the same line and degree by affinity to the woman, and vice versa.

…

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

I hope that is clear enough.

Dan

 

[thistle]

Hello Thistle,

I am not “1ke”, but I can give an answer. Here is the relevant canon which defines affinity and the canon that says it is an impediment:

Can. 109 §1. Affinity arises from a valid marriage, even if not consummated, and exists between a man and the blood relatives of the woman and between the woman and the blood relatives of the man.

§2. It is so computed that those who are blood relatives of the man are related in the same line and degree by affinity to the woman, and vice versa.

…

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

I hope that is clear enough.

Dan

Thanks but I still have some confusion. Would that not also mean that if a man’s wife died then according to that canon the man could not marry his wife’s sister. The canon does not state daughters of the woman. It simply states blood relatives which would include sisters, cousins, nieces or whatever and I don’t think there is any teaching against a man marrying his dead wife’s sister or cousin.

 

[Debra_C]

What an odd situation… Since he and the step daughter are not blood relations, I don’t think there is a problem with it. Of course, he would need to have had an annulment form the first marriage. However, I would wager a guess that this situation might STILL prove to be a source of scandal to a good many people, and therefore, probably not the best plan.

 

[dans0622]

Thistle,

Canon 109 defines what affinity is and how it comes to be. But, regarding marriage, the only marriage impediment that arises from affinity concerns the “direct line.” So, the spouse’s own child(ren) or parent are the only ones who are affected by this impediment.

Thus, a man could marry a woman, she dies, then he marries her sister (or cousin or neice or aunt…). There is no canonical problem with that. But, a man marries a woman, she dies, he marries her daughter (or mother)–that is invalid.

Dan

 

[thistle]

Thistle,

Canon 109 defines what affinity is and how it comes to be. But, regarding marriage, the only marriage impediment that arises from affinity concerns the “direct line.” So, the spouse’s own child(ren) or parent are the only ones who are affected by this impediment.

Thus, a man could marry a woman, she dies, then he marries her sister (or cousin or neice or aunt…). There is no canonical problem with that. But, a man marries a woman, she dies, he marries her daughter (or mother)–that is invalid.

Dan

Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me but I have to say I’m not convinced.

 

[JPUSC]

Wow, when it comes to marital relations, people are so freaky!!

I can’t believe a stepfather would feel sexually attracted to a stepdaughter he probably knew as a youngster. Sounds like a storyline from “The OC” haha.

 

[jfhh]

I am not yet a canon lawyer but I think I can give a reasonable comment or two. First, as others have said, the impediment of affinity is the one at issue here. (Obviously, if the previous marriage was not declared null, there is also the impediment of prior bond. If this is the case, the marriage is certainly invalid.) The relationship of affinity arises from a valid marriage (the first marriage in our scenario) and it exists between the man and the blood relations of the woman, and vice versa. (see canon 109). The impediement of affinity exists only in the direct line (parent to child) in any degree (for all generations).

This impediment is not of divine law and is not reserved to the Holy See (cf. c. 1078) so it can be dispensed by the “local ordinary” (meaning the diocesan bishop, vicar general, episcopal vicar). Whether or not this impediment is dispensed or not depends on the situation–no one has, strictly speaking, a “right” to a dispensation. Dispensations are favors. So, in some cases, this dispensation might be granted. In others, it might not be granted. The basic point, though, is that it **is **possible for this impediment to be dispensed.

Thank you for confirming this for us.

Others raised the issue of adoption. Even in that case a dispensation is possible as well as you as a canon law student probably already know.

The impediment arising from an adoptive relationship is one of ecclesiastical law. The local ordinary can dispense from it as can those mentioned in canons 1079-1080 in the circumstances foreseen in those canons. Before a dispensation is granted, however, one should ascertain whether there is also a civil law impediment based on adoption.

books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&pg=PA1295&lpg=PA1295

 

[fms]

Cf. 1 Corinthians 5

*1
It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans–a man living with his father’s wife.
2
And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst.
3
I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed,
4
in the name of (our) Lord Jesus: when you have gathered together and I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus,
5
you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
6
Your boasting is not appropriate. Do you not know that a little yeast leavens all the dough?
7
Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough, inasmuch as you are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed.
8
Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people,
10
not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world.
11
But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person.
12
For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within?
13
God will judge those outside. “Purge the evil person from your midst.” *

Paul here is dealing with the incestuous union of a man with his stepmother

 

[LilyM]

Cf. 1 Corinthians 5

*1
It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans–a man living with his father’s wife.
2
And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst.
3
I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed,
4
in the name of (our) Lord Jesus: when you have gathered together and I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus,
5
you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
6
Your boasting is not appropriate. Do you not know that a little yeast leavens all the dough?
7
Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough, inasmuch as you are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed.
8
Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people,
10
not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world.
11
But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person.
12
For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within?
13
God will judge those outside. “Purge the evil person from your midst.” *

Paul here is dealing with the incestuous union of a man with his stepmother

And? It may be that the man’s father was still living and still married to the stepmother at the time - it’s not to say that it would still be incest if the father died

 

[JPUSC]

And? It may be that the man’s father was still living and still married to the stepmother at the time - it’s not to say that it would still be incest if the father died

A man marries a woman who has two children: a boy age 6 and a girl age 4. They go on to have two children of their own. Some years later he divorces his wife. After moving into a home of his own he experiences problems paying his mortgage.
To help pay the mortgage his step-daughter [now working] moves in with him.

I believe the OP implied that the man married his ex-step-daughter while his ex-wife was still alive, so this situation is very much like the one in the scripture passage.

 

[jfhh]

It is the church that authentically interprets scripture, not we.