Title XI: On Spiritual Kinship

Latin source headnote: The sons of two coparents, through neither of whom coparenthood was reached, lawfully contract, unless custom is opposed; but they are separated if coparenthood was contracted through either or both of them. This the chapter says together with the chapter “Concerning This,” below under the same title.

Alexander III, to the Archbishop of Salerno.

But as to whether sons or daughters begotten before or after coparenthood can be joined to one another, canons contrary to one another are found according to the customs of different places. And although the first canon issued concerning this prohibits those born after coparenthood from being joined to one another, nevertheless another canon issued later appears to correct the first, by which it is established that, whether they were begotten before or after coparenthood, they can be joined together, with the sole exception of that person through whom coparenthood is reached. Whence it appears more tolerable to us that observance ought to be according to the later canon, unless the custom of the church, which would generate scandal, is known to be otherwise.

Latin source headnote: Coparenthood supervening between spouses, knowingly or unknowingly, does not dissolve the marriage.

The same, to the same.

Because you wished to consult us whether, if a man or woman knowingly or unknowingly received his or her child from the sacred font, they ought to be separated from each other on account of this and joined to others, we respond to your consultation in this manner: although it is generally established that they ought to be separated, nevertheless certain persons, thinking more humanely and rather, have established otherwise. Therefore, it appears to us that, whether they did this from ignorance or malice, they are not to be separated from each other, nor ought either to withhold the debt from the other, unless they can be induced to observe continence; because, if it was done from ignorance, ignorance appears to excuse them, but if from malice, their fraud or deceit ought not to patronize them.

Latin source headnote: The sons of two coparents, through neither of whom coparenthood was reached, lawfully contract marriage with one another; nevertheless, if a custom exists that impedes and dissolves such marriages, the custom of the place is to be observed. This the chapter says according to the more common understanding, by touching upon the intent of the chapter.

The same, to the Bishop of Vigilia.

Concerning that which your fraternity asked of us about the sons of two coparents, we respond that, if they are such sons through either or both of whom the parents came to coparenthood, you are by no means to permit them to be joined, and do not postpone separating them from one another by pontifical authority if they are joined. But if coparenthood was reached through neither of them, concerning these we wish you to inquire into and more diligently imitate the custom of your metropolitan church or of other surrounding churches, in such a way indeed that, if the custom of the same church is not to permit a marriage to be made between them, nor one made to have the strength of firmness, you likewise do not permit a marriage of this kind to be made in the church committed to you; and, if you find any thus joined, do not omit separating them from one another according to the custom of the same churches. But if custom has it that such marriages are permitted and sustained, you will be able to dissemble this in your church in such a way that you do not appear to furnish your assent, because, just as it is grave to contemn the ancient custom of surrounding churches concerning these matters, so too it appears graver if, on account of it, you grant your assent to marriages of this kind, since in this way it could be taken as an example.

Latin source headnote: Between the father of the baptized person and the wife of the person lifting the baptized person, previously known by him, coparenthood is contracted that is effective for dissolving marriage.

Clement III.

Martin took Bertha as wife; Lothair joined Teberga to himself, and he received the son of Bertha and Martin from the sacred font. But after L. and B. were taken from their midst, M. contracted with the aforesaid T.; your fraternity asks us whether such persons are to be separated from each other. But we have considered that this response should be made to your consultation: since according to the word of the Lord man and woman are made one flesh through marriage, it is clear that Teberga cannot be joined matrimonially to Martin, who had been her coparent, since Teberga herself is known to have been one flesh with him. [Concerning another matter, etc. (Compare chapter 5, On One Who Knew, IV. 13.) Given at the Lateran.]

Latin source headnote: Coparenthood contracted through catechism impedes a marriage to be contracted, but does not dissolve one contracted.

The same.

After marriage was contracted between P. de Rigale and A. his wife, as the complaint of the same P. disclosed to us, when they had lived together for two years and the aforementioned P. had received a son from the same wife, certain blood relatives of the same A., wishing her to be separated from her husband, objected against the marriage, asserting that the same A., at the first nourishment of consecrated salt, held a son of a former concubine of P. himself when he was first led into the church; and on account of this, coming to your presence, they said that she ought to be separated from her husband by your judgment. But your fraternity, as we received, without hearing the case, prohibited carnal commerce to them, forbidding P. himself to seek the debt from his wife. But if it were established to the Church that the things we have said were true, nevertheless the contracted marriage would not for that reason be dissolved, and this matter would indeed scarcely bring an impediment to contracting marriage. Therefore, through apostolic writings We order your discretion to firmly enjoin upon the aforesaid P. by our authority that he treat the aforementioned A. as his own wife with marital affection and lawfully demand and pay the carnal debt from and to her, whether, as was said above, it is established that A. herself did this before marriage was contracted with P. or afterward; provided, nevertheless, that, if she did this in fraud for the purpose of separating the marriage, she receive penance for her presumption, with the marriage remaining in its firmness.

Latin source headnote: Between the father of the baptized person and the person lifting or holding the baptized person, spiritual kinship is contracted that is valid for impeding and dissolving a marriage contracted afterward.

Innocent III, to the Bishop and Archdeacon of Lincoln.

Coming to the Apostolic See, C., an Englishman by nation, explained to us that, when formerly, constituted in adolescence, he had adhered to a certain woman whom a certain other man had known before, by the counsel of his mother it was done that the same woman lifted from the sacred font a certain boy whom he himself had received from another unmarried woman, in order to destroy the suspicion and infamy of each. But afterward, when he burned more vehemently with love for her, without the counsel of his friends he betrothed her secretly. And when he could not beget offspring from her and endured most grave rebukes from his father, turning over in his mind that he had transgressed in betrothing her, having dismissed her, he set out for Jerusalem for the sake of prayer. But when the same man, returning from the lands across the sea, found that she had received offspring from another, he was unwilling to adhere to her; but on account of the adultery which she appeared thus to have committed, having dismissed her altogether, he transferred himself to a distant region and, finally coming to the city of Gubbio, matrimonially joined to himself there a certain woman with suitable land and a fitting dowry, from whom he confessed that he had received offspring. On this account through apostolic writings We order your discretion that you investigate the truth concerning these matters more diligently and, if it is established that the woman H. lifted the son of the aforesaid man from the sacred font before he betrothed her as wife, you solemnize a separation between them, with appeal set aside, faithfully explaining to us the course of the matter through your letters so that, once the truth is known, we may be able to decree whether he can lawfully remain with the second woman. [Given near Civita Castellana, on the eighth day before the Ides of October. 1198.]

Latin source headnote: If the sons of two coparents, through one of whom coparenthood was reached, contract marriage, they are separated, and those who know the impediment at the time of the contract are bound to denounce it.

The same, to Master S., Canon of Hereford.

Your discretion led you to consult us whether one born before coparenthood can in the course of time matrimonially join to himself the daughter of his coparent, male or female, and, if he contracted with her and remained together with her for several years, whether they ought afterward to be separated, and whether those conscious of such a marriage are bound to accuse it in public. Concerning this we respond to your discretion in this manner: persons of this kind cannot contract marriage and, if they have contracted, by the rigor of law can be separated from one another; and those who knew of the contract ought to announce it to the Church. [Given at the Lateran, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of April. 1202.]

Latin source headnote: Spiritual kinship arises between a baptized person and the son of the person baptizing, impeding and dissolving a marriage to be contracted between them. This the chapter says.

Gregory IX. From your letters we received that, when the woman M. sought Alan as husband before the official of Canterbury, and had proved through suitable witnesses that she was affianced by him and carnally known, when at last the depositions of the said witnesses had been published, the same A. proposed by way of exception that he could not have her as wife because the father of the same woman, who had been a priest, baptized him. But when the same official, not admitting an exception of this kind, rendered a definitive sentence against him, and he appealed to the Apostolic See, we order that, if it is so, you absolve the same A. in this matter from the prosecution of the woman herself, imposing perpetual silence upon the same woman.