Second cousin marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter anson859
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My parents were first cousins and got married in the Catholic Church.
Was quite a while ago, but I don’t think the rules have changed.
 
anson859 said:
Can i marry my second cousin in catholic church.?
Click to expand...
Consanguinity up to the fourth degree of the collateral line is an impediment to marriage (canon 1091.2). Consanguinity is computed by counting each person, not including the common ancestor (canon 108).

Second cousins would be the sixth degree of the collateral line. There would be no canonical impediment to contracting marriage in the Church.
 
1ke said:
Consanguinity up to the fourth degree of the collateral line is an impediment to marriage (canon 1091.2). Consanguinity is computed by counting each person, not including the common ancestor (canon 108).

Second cousins would be the sixth degree of the collateral line. There would be no canonical impediment to contracting marriage in the Church.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting. According to your calculator, should my parents as first cousins (my grandmothers were sisters) have encountered a “canonical impediment”?

Just curious, because I wouldn’t be alive.
 
So if I follow correctly, first cousins would be an impediment of consanguinity, but first cousins once removed (i.e. the child of one’s first cousin) would not be as it would be to the fifth degree.
 
Usige said:
So if I follow correctly, first cousins would be an impediment of consanguinity, but first cousins once removed (i.e. the child of one’s first cousin) would not be as it would be to the fifth degree.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. My parents were married in 1946 in Austria and they told me that they expressively asked if first cousins were allowed to marry in the Catholic Church (I don’t think they used such fancy words as you experts). As I said, my grandmothers were sisters. My parents were devout Catholics. And they were told yes, they can get married, no problem. Thanks goodness, otherwise I wouldn’t exist.

I cannot imagine that these rules have changed over time, or that they differ from country to country.

Being a child of cousins, I certainly would not have married a first cousin of mine, but more for genetic reasons (danger of inbreeding) than for Catholic Church rules.
 
Hans_W said:
That’s interesting. According to your calculator, should my parents as first cousins (my grandmothers were sisters) have encountered a “canonical impediment”?

Just curious, because I wouldn’t be alive.
Click to expand...
yes, consanguinity in the 4th degree is an impediment. And under the pre 1983 code it went further.

However, impediments in that degree of the collateral line can be dispensed, meaning the bishop gave permission in that specific case regarding your parents. The priest would have handled the paperwork with the bishop.

The second degree in the collateral line (brother/sister) is never dispensed. The direct line (parent-child-grandparent) is a divine law impediment and cannot be dispensed.
 
Hans_W said:
That’s interesting. According to your calculator, should my parents as first cousins (my grandmothers were sisters) have encountered a “canonical impediment”?

Just curious, because I wouldn’t be alive.
Click to expand...
Just because someone has a child does not mean the Church approves of the relationship. If your parents received the proper form then there will be documentation and if not then well, most people are not validly married anyway. The Church is glad you were born.
 
Hans_W said:
Very interesting. My parents were married in 1946 in Austria and they told me that they expressively asked if first cousins were allowed to marry in the Catholic Church (I don’t think they used such fancy words as you experts). As I said, my grandmothers were sisters. My parents were devout Catholics. And they were told yes, they can get married, no problem. Thanks goodness, otherwise I wouldn’t exist.

I cannot imagine that these rules have changed over time, or that they differ from country to country.

Being a child of cousins, I certainly would not have married a first cousin of mine, but more for genetic reasons (danger of inbreeding) than for Catholic Church rules.
Click to expand...
Since it is ecclesiastic law it is possible for it to change over time so I went back to my secret decoder ring for that time (i.e. the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law), and the corresponding Canon would have been 1076§2. It says:
**1917 CIC 1076§2
**In the collateral line, it is invalid up to the third degree inclusive, and the impediment against marriage is multiplied as often as the common ancestor is multiplied
Click to expand...
So if I’m following it right, under the 1917 Code marriage between first cousin would not have been an impediment. The impediment would principally applied to marriage between siblings or niece↔uncle/nephew↔aunt, etc. It looks like the current 1983 code added an additional degree (3rd ⇒ 4th). Perhaps I’m missing something with the “impediment against marriage is multiplied as often as the common ancestor is multiplied”?
 
1ke said:
yes, consanguinity in the 4th degree is an impediment. And under the pre 1983 code it went further.

However, impediments in that degree of the collateral line can be dispensed, meaning the bishop gave permission in that specific case regarding your parents. The priest would have handled the paperwork with the bishop.

The second degree in the collateral line (brother/sister) is never dispensed. The direct line (parent-child-grandparent) is a divine law impediment and cannot be dispensed.
Click to expand...
Right. Hans W’s parents probably got a dispensation.
 
Usige said:
So if I’m following it right, under the 1917 Code marriage between first cousin would not have been an impediment.
Click to expand...
The 1917 code counted degrees differently than the 1983 code.

It counted generations, not persons. First cousins would have been an impediment. But, again, dispensable.
Usige said:
Perhaps I’m missing something with the “impediment against marriage is multiplied as often as the common ancestor is multiplied”?
Click to expand...
That is because it foresaw multiple common ancestors in the calculation.
 
1ke said:
The 1917 code counted degrees differently than the 1983 code.

It counted generations, not persons. First cousins would have been an impediment. But, again, dispensable.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification, 1ke. So the 1917 code actually would have considered even second cousins as an impediment because they are within 3 generations of a common ancestor. So using the new/old roman way of calculation it would have been something closer to within the 6th degree, correct?

Sorry for the digression, just alway interested in how canonical impediments have changed over the years.
 
I’d be interested to understand the church’s reasoning in this area. Not that I’m in disagreement, but Sarah, I think, was Abraham’s half sister, was she not? We can say cultures were different, but that seems like a poor argument to me.
 
JamalChristophr said:
I’d be interested to understand the church’s reasoning in this area. Not that I’m in disagreement, but Sarah, I think, was Abraham’s half sister, was she not? We can say cultures were different, but that seems like a poor argument to me.
Click to expand...
So the Church should permit half-siblings to marry simply because it used to be done? :confused: I don’t understand your reasoning. It’s been well known for a long time that it is not wise for people who are closely related to have children with each other - see the history of royal families, where marriages were often about keeping and consolidating power more than anything, and the strange illnesses and conditions that pop up. Of course, in some times and places you really have no choice because you’re probably related to everyone in your village and you don’t go much further than that. My husband’s great-grandparents had the same last name, and nobody today is exactly clear on how closely they were related because records weren’t always kept well in “the old country.”

(By the way, IIRC, the Mosaic law did not like close relatives to marry either, including those related by marriage only and not by blood.)
 
pensmama87 said:
So the Church should permit half-siblings to marry simply because it used to be done? :confused: I don’t understand your reasoning. It’s been well known for a long time that it is not wise for people who are closely related to have children with each other - see the history of royal families, where marriages were often about keeping and consolidating power more than anything, and the strange illnesses and conditions that pop up. Of course, in some times and places you really have no choice because you’re probably related to everyone in your village and you don’t go much further than that. My husband’s great-grandparents had the same last name, and nobody today is exactly clear on how closely they were related because records weren’t always kept well in “the old country.”

(By the way, IIRC, the Mosaic law did not like close relatives to marry either, including those related by marriage only and not by blood.)
Click to expand...
You’re right. I guess I need to rid myself of the naive notion that just because a biblical patriarch did something like this in the OT, then God must have approved somehow. Muddled thinking on my part. 😊:o
 
JamalChristophr said:
You’re right. I guess I need to rid myself of the naive notion that just because a biblical patriarch did something like this in the OT, then God must have approved somehow. Muddled thinking on my part. 😊:o
Click to expand...
http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/731/d7...tell-if-being-sarcastic-or-serious-e1372a.jpg

(Biblical patriarchs did a lot of things that were expressly NOT approved of, and many things that are documented in the Bible but not approved or disapproved in the text. )

But go back farther - what about Adam and Eve’s children? Noah’s grandchildren after the Flood? Had to be some close intermarriage going on there. Under the Mosaic Law divorce was also permitted, and we know Jesus had a bit to say about that in the NT, and that’s influenced Church teaching on marriage.

Similar thing, though - back then, suitable marriage partners could be few and far between. That doesn’t mean that nowadays we should say, “If it was good enough for Abraham and Sarah, then shucks, I’ll marry my sister, too.”
 
I was being serious. I save sarcasm here for special occasions. lol
 
JamalChristophr said:
I’d be interested to understand the church’s reasoning in this area. Not that I’m in disagreement, but Sarah, I think, was Abraham’s half sister, was she not? We can say cultures were different, but that seems like a poor argument to me.
Click to expand...
It is an open question whether second degree of the collateral line is a divine law or ecclesial law impediment. I don’t believe it is a settled matter, however I do know it is not dispensed and therefore moot.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Just because someone has a child does not mean the Church approves of the relationship. If your parents received the proper form then there will be documentation and if not then well, most people are not validly married anyway. The Church is glad you were born.
Click to expand...
A very reassuring post. No, my parents never have gotten any dispensation with bishop or whatever. They just got married in the Church and had a wonderful Christian marriage and life. If they were still alive, they would be amused to learn that they haven’t been “validly married”, same as I am amused to hear that I came from an invalid marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top