Question marriage 1st cousins

[Annie39]

I was reading the ask an apologist thread on CA when I came across something I did not know so I thought that I’d ask a question about it. I hope that this is the correct forum.

Fr. Serpa wrote that a couple who are first cousins can receive a dispensation to marry in the Church. I can’t tell you how surprising this is due to the fact that danger lurks for their offspring. I would like to know the logic behind the dispensation.
Thanks
Annie

 

[WhatMeWorry]

If the woman is past childbearing age, then I could see why the couple could get dispensation. First cousins in my state may marry if they are over 65.

 

[Betterave]

I was reading the ask an apologist thread on CA when I came across something I did not know so I thought that I’d ask a question about it. I hope that this is the correct forum.

Fr. Serpa wrote that a couple who are first cousins can receive a dispensation to marry in the Church. I can’t tell you how surprising this is due to the fact that danger lurks for their offspring. I would like to know the logic behind the dispensation.
Thanks
Annie

Some interesting information:
cousincouples.com/?page=facts

It’s better that it be exceptional, but I don’t see any compelling reason not to allow it at all. Do you?

 

[Annie39]

Some interesting information:
cousincouples.com/?page=facts

It’s better that it be exceptional, but I don’t see any compelling reason not to allow it at all. Do you?

After writing the question I did some research and understand it now. I don’t like it really, that would mean that my unmarried son could marry my unmarried niece. I would freak out. I love them both but I don’t want to be my very wonderful niece’s mother-in-law and I don’t want my sister to be my son’s MIL. I think I’ll check to see what the state of CA has to say on the matter. ]

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I know a couple of cases where first cousins married. There were heredity problems in both cases. Even though it is not prohibited, I think it is to be avoided.

 

[thistle]

CHAPTER III : INDIVIDUAL DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS

Can. 1083 §1 A man cannot validly enter marriage before the completion of his sixteenth year of age, nor a woman before the completion of her fourteenth year.

§2 The Episcopal Conference may establish a higher age for the lawful celebration of marriage.

Can. 1084 §1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

§2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.

§3 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.

Can. 1085 §1 A person bound by the bond of a previous marriage, even if not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.

§2 Even though the previous marriage is invalid or for any reason dissolved, it is not thereby lawful to contract another marriage before the nullity or the dissolution of the previous one has been established lawfully and with certainty.

Can. 1086 §1 A marriage is invalid when one of the two persons was baptised in the catholic Church or received into it and has not by a formal act defected from it, and the other was not baptised.

§2 This impediment is not to be dispensed unless the conditions mentioned in cann. 1125 and 1126 have been fulfilled.

§3 If at the time the marriage was contracted one party was commonly understood to be baptised, or if his or her baptism was doubtful, the validity of the marriage is to be presumed in accordance with can. 1060, until it is established with certainty that one party was baptised and the other was not.

Can. 1087 Those who are in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.

Can. 1088 Those who are bound by a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute invalidly attempt marriage.

Can. 1089 No marriage can exist between a man and a woman who has been abducted, or at least detained, with a view to contracting a marriage with her, unless the woman, after she has been separated from her abductor and established in a safe and free place, chooses marriage of her own accord.

Can. 1090 §1 One who, with a view to entering marriage with a particular person, has killed that person’s spouse, or his or her own spouse, invalidly attempts this marriage.

§2 They also invalidly attempt marriage with each other who, by mutual physical or moral action, brought about the death of either’s spouse.

**Can. 1091 §1 Marriage is invalid between those related by consanguinity in all degrees of the direct line, whether ascending or descending, legitimate or natural.

§2 In the collateral line, it is invalid up to the fourth degree inclusive.

§3 The impediment of consanguinity is not multiplied.

§4 A marriage is never to be permitted if a doubt exists as to whether the parties are related by consanguinity in any degree of the direct line, or in the second degree of the collateral line.

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

Can. 1093 The impediment of public propriety arises when a couple live together after an invalid marriage, or from a notorious or public concubinage. It invalidates marriage in the first degree of the direct line between the man and those related by consanguinity to the woman, and vice versa.

Can. 1094 Those who are legally related by reason of adoption cannot validly marry each other if their relationship is in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line. **

 

[puzzleannie]

I Fr. Serpa wrote that a couple who are first cousins can receive a dispensation to marry in the Church. I can’t tell you how surprising this is due to the fact that danger lurks for their offspring. I would

do you have any scientific evidence of this claim?
in any case, even if there are cases where a dispensation may be granted, and I did not get that from Fr. Serpa’s answer, that does not mean they are always or routinely granted.
here is link to search on past answers on AAA for this question
maybe it has what you are looking for
forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=8648295

 

[Betterave]

…]

**Can. 1091 §1 Marriage is invalid between those related by consanguinity in all degrees of the direct line, whether ascending or descending, legitimate or natural. **

**§2 In the collateral line, it is invalid up to the fourth degree inclusive. **

**§3 The impediment of consanguinity is not multiplied. **

**§4 A marriage is never to be permitted if a doubt exists as to whether the parties are related by consanguinity in any degree of the direct line, or in the second degree of the collateral line. **

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

**Can. 1093 The impediment of public propriety arises when a couple live together after an invalid marriage, or from a notorious or public concubinage. It invalidates marriage in the first degree of the direct line between the man and those related by consanguinity to the woman, and vice versa. **

Can. 1094 Those who are legally related by reason of adoption cannot validly marry each other if their relationship is in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.

Interesting. Do you know what “first/second/third/fourth degree of consanguinity” means? I’m guessing first is parent/child, second is siblings, third is…?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Interesting. Do you know what “first/second/third/fourth degree of consanguinity” means? I’m guessing first is parent/child, second is siblings, third is…?

See Consanguinity (in Canon Law) In New Advent.

In calculating the degree of consanguinity special attention must be paid to three things, the line, the degree, and the stock or root. The stock, or root, is the common ancestor, or the person, male or female, from whom descend as from the nearest common bond the persons whose blood-relationship is to be determined. The degree is the distance of one person from the other in regard to blood-relationship. The line is the classified series of persons descending from the common stock through one or more generations. The line is direct when the series of persons descend one from the other, as father and son, grandfather and grandchild. The line is transverse, or collateral, when the blood-relations spring from a common stock, yet do not descend one from the other but form different branches side by side, as two brothers, two nephews. This collateral line is equal or unequal according as these persons derive equally or unequally from the same stock or root. The blood-relationship is computed according to the distance from the stock whence it is derived, and this is the rule by which the degrees or steps of consanguinity are determined.
…
…But the Canon law, in the collateral line of consanguinity, computes for marriage one series only of generations, and if the series are unequal, only the longer one. Hence the principle of canon law that in the transverse or collateral line there are as many degrees of consanguinity as there are persons in the longer series, omitting the common stock or root. If the two series are equal, the distance is the number of degrees of either from the common stock. Thus brother and sister are in the first degree, first cousins in the second degree; uncle and niece in the second degree because the niece is two degrees from the grandfather who is the common stock. Thus if Caius has two sons, Titius and Sempronius, and Sempronius has a son and grandchild, the relationship of the grandchild of Sempronius to Titius is in the third degree, because this grandchild is distant three degrees from the common stock, Caius…

 

[Warrior1979]

Basically, the prohibition against first cousins marrying is due to ecclesiastical law, meaning that it can be dispensed. Marriage in the direct line is against divine law, and cannot be dispensed.