Case 16. Consanguinity

Caius, a young man, committed adultery with Bertha and with Julia while their husbands were absent. Afterwards, having reformed his morals, Caius married a most honorable woman; nevertheless, with paternal affection he always secretly cherished Mary, born of Bertha, and Titius, whom Julia bore to him. After some years, astonished, he noticed that Titius and Mary, now adults, were joined in the greatest familiarity with each other, and finally, stupefied, he heard their banns proclaimed in church, for they intended to enter marriage. After some days Caius disclosed to a confessor the secret that no one else knew and asked about his obligations. Hence it is asked:

1. What are banns, and what obligation do they induce of disclosing impediments to marriage?

2. By what law was the impediment of consanguinity introduced, and how are the degrees of consanguinity of those who derive their origin from the same father but different mothers computed?

3. What is to be said of the case?

The first question was answered above, p. 259.

2. To what law is the impediment of consanguinity due, and how are the degrees of consanguinity reckoned of those who have the same father but different mothers?

Consanguinity in the first degree of the direct line annuls marriage by natural law; in the other degrees of the direct line it annuls marriage, but more probably only by ecclesiastical law. It is disputed whether consanguinity in the first degree of the collateral line annuls marriage by natural or by ecclesiastical law; in more remote degrees of the collateral line up to the fourth inclusive it annuls marriage by ecclesiastical law.¹ It is immaterial whether both parents of the common stock are the same or only one.

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 299.

3. The case. The banns of Titius and Mary were proclaimed, they being the illegitimate children of Caius by different mothers, and so they were half-brother and halfsister. They were related therefore in the first degree of the collateral line of consanguinity, but Caius, their father, was the only person who knew of the relationship. He asked his confessor whether he was bound to do anything to stop the marriage. No, he is not bound to stop the marriage. The impediment is probably only of positive not natural law, the parties are in good faith and know nothing about it, he could not effectually intervene without betraying himself and the two women with whom he had sinned, to say nothing of the danger of spoiling the lives of the young couple.