Consanguinity

Consanguinity is the bond of relationship by blood existing between those who are descended by carnal generation from one and the same near stock. The relationship, therefore, arises from community of blood derived from a common and not too remote ancestor. That common ancestor is called the stock; the distance in descent between one person and the other is called the degree of relationship; and the series of persons who descend from the same stock is called the lie, which is direct if they descend from one another, otherwise it is collateral. The degrees are equal in the collateral line if the persons are equally distant from the common stock; otherwise they are unequal.

It is immaterial whether both parents of the common stock are the same or only one, and whether the birth be legitimate or not.

The method of computing the degrees differs somewhat in canon law from that adopted by modern English civil law, which here follows the Roman civil law. The following are the rules for reckoning the degree of relationship according to canon law, which is followed in moral theology:

(a) To find the degree of relationship in the direct line, count the persons, leaving out the common stock.

(b) In the collateral line, when the degrees are equal, count the persons in one of the lines of descent, leaving out the common stock.

(c) When the degrees are unequal, count the longer line, leaving out the common stock in the same way, and add the number of persons in the shorter line. Thus, an uncle and niece are related in the second degree, touching the first, or mixed with the first (Can. 96).

According to the English method of computation, which is also followed in most States of the Union, all the persons are counted both in the direct and collateral lines, leaving out the common stock. According to this method, an uncle and niece are in the third degree.

Consanguinity in the first degree of the direct line annuls marriage by the natural law; and in further degrees indefinitely, but more probably only by ecclesiastical law. In the collateral ‘ line it is disputed whether consanguinity in the first degree annuls marriage by the law of nature or not; it certainly does so to the third degree by ecclesiastical law.¹

This impediment, therefore, is partly of natural, partly of ecclesiastical law, and although in the more remote degrees of both the direct and collateral line it does not bind those who are not baptized, yet even among them there is a natural bond in blood relationship which after Baptism becomes a diriment impediment of marriage within the prohibited degrees. One who is baptized is subject to the laws of the Church, and cannot, without the necessary dispensation, marry a relation within the forbidden degrees, even if the latter is not baptized.

English law follows in this matter that of Leviticus, and according to its method of computation consanguinity is a diriment impediment of marriage to the third degree inclusive, but not beyond. Thus an uncle cannot marry a niece, but two cousins may marry, by English law.

¹ Council of Lat. 4 (1215); can. 1076.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VIII, Diss. II, Pt. II, Insofar as It Is a Sacrament, Particularly, Sect. III, Ch. III, Article IX. Consanguinity · Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VIII, Diss. II, Pt. II, Insofar as It Is a Sacrament, Particularly, Sect. III, Ch. III, Art. IX, § I. On Consanguinity according to Itself · Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VIII, Diss. II, Pt. II, Insofar as It Is a Sacrament, Particularly, Sect. III, Ch. III, Art. IX, § I, Scholion. Names of Blood-Relatives · Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VIII, Diss. II, Pt. II, Insofar as It Is a Sacrament, Particularly, Sect. III, Ch. III, Art. IX, § II. On Consanguinity Insofar as It Is an Impediment of Marriage

The impediment of consanguinity may be multiple from various causes, but it is only multiplied as often as the common stock is multiplied (Can. 1076, sec. 2).

(a) If two near relations marry, their offspring will be related in several different ways: [diagram in the original]. In this scheme G and H are descended from the common stock C=F, and so they are in the second degree mixed with the first in the collateral line. Both G and H are also descended from A=B through C and through F. On this account they are in the third degree of relationship. Thus there is a double relationship between them, and if a dispensation were required for G to marry H, mention should be made of this fact.

(b) Similar results will follow if two relatives marry two relatives: [diagram in the original].

In this scheme G and H are descended from both A and B, and they are in double second degree of relationship.

(c) Similarly, if one man successively marries two who are related to each other: A D=B’ ‘C+D E F G H G and H are in the second degree from the common stock D, and in the third from the common to marry his deceased wife’s sister.

Affinity

Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology

Ludovicus Wouters, C.SS.R. — 6 passages

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VIII, Diss. II, Pt. II, Insofar as It Is a Sacrament, Particularly, Sect. III, Ch. III, Article IX. Consanguinity

We shall speak first about consanguinity according to itself, then about consanguinity insofar as it is an impediment of marriage.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VIII, Diss. II, Pt. II, Insofar as It Is a Sacrament, Particularly, Sect. III, Ch. III, Art. IX, § I. On Consanguinity according to Itself

n. 791.

I. Notion. Consanguinity is nearness between persons arising from this: that by carnal generation they descend either one from the other or jointly from the same proximate stock. It is called "proximate"; for remotely all human beings descend from one Adam or Noah, and yet for that reason they are not called consanguineous. Consanguinity is computed by lines and degrees (canon 96, § 1). Therefore, so that the definition handed down may be more fully developed, three things must be attended to in consanguinity: namely stock, line, and degree.

Stock is that person from whom others proceed as from a common proximate root. Commonly the stock consists of two persons, namely parents; sometimes of one person alone, namely if someone begot offspring from several persons.
Line is a series of persons descending from the same proximate stock. A twofold line is distinguished: direct and oblique.

The direct line is a series of persons of whom one proceeds from another, either immediately or mediately. It is called descending or ascending according as the series is numbered by descending from those begetting to those begotten, or by ascending from those begotten to those begetting.

The oblique line, transverse or collateral, is a series of persons who proceed from a common proximate stock, but not one from another, as brother and sister, maternal uncle and niece. It is distinguished into equal and unequal, according as two persons are distant from the common proximate stock by an equal degree or distance, as brother and sister, or by an unequal one, as maternal uncle and niece.

Degree is the measure of distance of one person from another. But degrees are computed thus:

a) In the direct line there are as many degrees as generations, or as many persons with the stock removed (canon 96, § 2). Thus, for example, a son is distant from his father by one degree, from his grandfather by two degrees. And both civil law and ecclesiastical law follow this mode of computing degrees in the direct line. Otherwise one must speak in the collateral line.

b) In the equal collateral line there are as many degrees as generations in one tract of the line, or there are as many degrees as persons in one tract, with the stock removed. Hence, for example, two brothers are consanguineous in the first degree, two first cousins in the second degree of the equal collateral line.

c) In the unequal collateral line there are as many degrees as generations in the longer tract, or as many degrees as persons in the longer tract, with the stock removed. Thus, for example, a maternal uncle and niece are consanguineous in the second degree of the unequal collateral line.¹ Degrees are computed according to the longer series because the reason of nearness and distance of collateral blood-relatives is taken from the fact that they are united in the common proximate stock. Hence they cannot be more united among themselves than they are united with the stock. But this would occur if the computation had to be made according to the shorter series.

But so that consanguinity may be perfectly exhibited, both the nearer and the more remote degree must be indicated. This is done, for example, if there is question of a maternal uncle and niece, by saying: they are consanguineous in the second degree mixed with the first, or touching the first.

Note. Civil laws which for the direct line follow the same mode of computing as ecclesiastical law, in the collateral line compute the generations of each tract, or the persons of each tract, with the stock removed. Hence, for example, two brothers are consanguineous in the second degree, two first cousins in the fourth, a maternal uncle and niece in the third degree. This mode of computing must be attended to when there is question of civil matter, for example, of the civil effects of marriage, as of hereditary succession.

II. Division. Consanguinity is divided:

Into legitimate and illegitimate, according as it arises from conjugal copula or from illicit intercourse. But since in each case there is a natural communion of blood, this division is not attended to in order to contracting marriage.
Into full and less full. The former exists among those who have father and mother as common stock; the latter among those who have only father or mother as common stock. The former are called full siblings; the latter consanguineous or uterine, according as father alone or mother alone is their common stock. But neither is this distinction attended to with regard to the impediment.
Into agnation and cognation, according as the communion of blood is transmitted through the masculine or feminine line. Those joined in the former way are called agnates; those joined in the latter way cognates.
Into simple and multiple. The former is had when two persons have only one common stock and ascend to the stock by only one way. The latter exists when each party has a double or multiple common stock, or each or one of the parties ascends to the same stock by a double or multiple way.
Into consanguinity of the direct line and of the oblique line, as was set forth on p. 637.

III. Mode of finding the degrees. The degree of consanguinity is found by making a genealogical tree. This is done thus: if the common stock is known, write that person's name on paper, then below him here and there the names of those descending from him through each line, until you arrive at the persons whose degree of consanguinity is being sought.

If the stock is unknown, first write the names of those whose consanguinity must be detected, then above the name of each put the names of the ascendants, until you arrive at the common stock. Let the schema be:

Benedict

1 Henry Mary 1 2 Robert Rose 2 3 Peter Jacoba 3

Peter and Jacoba are consanguineous in the third degree of the equal collateral line. Peter and Rose are in the third degree of the unequal collateral line, or - so that the consanguinity may be determined in every respect - in the third degree mixed with the second, or in the third degree touching the second.

¹ An unequal degree in the collateral line is called a mixed degree.

n. 792.

IV. Multiplication of consanguinity can occur in two ways: 1° by reason of the double or multiple way by which one or the other, or each, of the blood-relatives descends from one common stock; 2° by reason of a double or multiple common stock.

Three causes of multiplication are assigned:

The first cause of multiple consanguinity between two persons is that someone among their ascendants has offspring from a person consanguineous to himself. From this cause, indeed, multiple consanguinity can follow both in the first and in the second way: in the second, namely, insofar as besides the nearer common stock there is also another, more remote, common stock, to which one ascends without each line passing through the nearer common stock.¹

Let the schema for double consanguinity with one common stock be:

Peter

    1
    2 Luke

1 Rose 1 1 (1) Mark 1 1 (2) Andrew ........ X ........ Clara 2

3 Mary

         (3) Lucius 3

1, 1 Nilus

It is asked in what degree, by how manifold a consanguinity, and by what mode of multiplication Lucius and Mary are joined. From this schema it is evident that Andrew and Clara, that is, the father and mother of Lucius, were joined to each other in the second equal degree from the common stock Peter. But hence it happens that their son Lucius is bound with Mary in the third equal degree, not by a single consanguinity, but by a double one, yet not by a consanguinity of double stock but only of one common stock.

For double consanguinity with a double common stock from the same cause, let the schema be:

Mark

1 Luke

2 Mary

Jacob 1

.......... X .......... | 3 Peter (2)

2 Paul (1)

(1) Vincent 2 | (2) Flavia 3

It is asked in what degree, by how manifold a consanguinity, and by what mode of multiplication Peter and Flavia are joined. From this schema it is evident that Paul and Mary, namely the father and mother of Peter, were joined to each other in the second equal degree from the common stock Mark. Hence it happens that their son Peter is bound with Flavia in the third equal degree, insofar as Peter descends from the common stock Mark through Mary and Luke, while Flavia descends from him through Vincent and Jacob. Yet the same persons are at the same time joined in the second equal degree from the common stock Jacob, insofar as Peter descends from the common stock Jacob through his father Paul, while Flavia descends from him through Vincent. But since Peter ascends to the more remote stock Mark not only through the nearer common stock Jacob, but also by another way, through Mary and Luke, which does not pass through that nearer stock Jacob, therefore between Peter and Flavia there is a consanguinity of double stock.

The following causes always carry with them multiplication of consanguinity by reason of double or multiple stock.

The second cause is that persons consanguineous among themselves have begotten offspring from persons consanguineous among themselves. For example:

Anthony Charles

1 Lucretia ... X ... Paul 1 1 Peter ... X ... Mary 1

2 Jacob (2) (2) Flavia 2

3 Robert (3) (3) Magdalene 3

In this schema there are two brothers, Peter and Paul, who respectively contracted marriage with Mary and Lucretia, two sisters. Hence it happens that the descendants of each of those marriages are mutually doubly consanguineous, by reason of a double common stock: namely, by reason both of Anthony, who is their grandfather or great-grandfather on the father's or grandfather's side, and of Charles, who is their grandfather or great-grandfather on the mother's or grandmother's side. And thus Jacob and Flavia are consanguineous in a double second equal degree; Robert and Magdalene in a double third equal degree.

The third cause is that someone successively had offspring from several persons consanguineous among themselves. For example:

John

1 Mary ... X ... Peter ... X ... Anna 1 | | 2 Andrew (1) (1) Robert 2 | | 3 Rosalia (2) (2) Aloysius 3

In this schema John is the father of the sisters Mary and Anna, whom Peter successively knows, and from there the others descend. Therefore Rosalia and Aloysius are doubly consanguineous: first indeed in the second equal degree of the collateral line from the common stock Peter, and then also in the third equal degree of the collateral line from the common stock John.

V. The mode of detecting every consanguinity which exists between two persons is this: let a genealogy of each be made through all ascendants, both fathers and mothers, up to the third degree inclusive. Then apply these things:

Persons who occur in each genealogy constitute, individually, the common stock of those whose consanguinity is being sought. Note, however, that a common father and mother constitute one stock.
As often as the same person recurs in the same genealogy, so often is consanguinity multiplied, because by so many ways one ascends to that stock.

¹ Cf. Holy Office, March 11, 1896, and February 24, 1899 (Collectanea Brugenses, I, p. 376, and IV, p. 422 sq.).

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VIII, Diss. II, Pt. II, Insofar as It Is a Sacrament, Particularly, Sect. III, Ch. III, Art. IX, § I, Scholion. Names of Blood-Relatives

n. 793.

There are:

I. In the direct ascending line.

Father (vader, padre, pere, father, Vater) and Mother (moeder, madre, mere, mother, Mutter).
Grandfather (grootvader, nonno or avolo, aieul or grand-pere, grandfather, Grossvater) and Grandmother (grootmoeder, nonna or avola, aieule or grand-mere, grandmother, Grossmutter).
Great-grandfather (overgrootvader, bisnonno or bisavolo, bisaieul, great-grandfather, Urgrossvater) and Great-grandmother (overgrootmoeder, bisnonna or bisavola, bisaieule, great-grandmother, Urgrossmutter).
Great-great-grandfather (bet-overgrootvader, trisnonno or trisavolo, trisaieul, grand great-grandfather, Ururgrossvater) and Great-great-grandmother (bet-overgrootmoeder, trisnonna or trisavola, trisaieule, grand great-grandmother, Ururgrossmutter).

II. In the direct descending line.

Son (zoon, figlio, fils, son, Sohn) and Daughter (dochter, figlia, fille, daughter, Tochter).
Grandson (kleinzoon, nepote, petit-fils, grandson, Enkel) and Granddaughter (kleindochter, nepote, petite-fille, granddaughter, Enkelin).
Great-grandson (achterkleinzoon, pronepote, arriere petit-fils, great-grandson, Urenkel) and Great-granddaughter (achterkleindochter, pronepote, arriere petite-fille, great-granddaughter, Urenkelin).
Great-great-grandson¹ (abnepote, bisarriere petit-fils, grand great-grandson, Ururenkel) and Great-great-granddaughter¹ (abnepote, bisarriere petite-fille, grand great-granddaughter, Ururenkelin).

III. In the equal collateral line.

Brother and sister.²
Patrueles = children of brothers (volle neven en nichten, cugini carnali, cousins germains, first cousins, Geschwisterkinder or Vettern or Basen).

Consobrini = children of sisters, as above.

Sobrini (achterneef, nipote in secondo grado, arriere neveu or petit-neveu, great-nephew, Urneffe) and Sobrinae (achternicht, nipote in secondo grado, arriere-niece or petite-niece, great-niece, Urnichte).

IV. In the unequal collateral line.

In the second degree touching the first there are:

a) On one side, namely in the first degree:

a) Paternal uncle (patruus) = father's brother (oom van vaderszijde, zio paterno, oncle paternel, paternal uncle, Onkel).

b) Paternal aunt (amita) = father's sister (tante van vaderszijde, zia paterna, tante paternelle, paternal aunt, Tante).

c) Maternal uncle (avunculus) = mother's brother (oom van moederszijde, zio materno, oncle maternel, maternal uncle, Oheim).

d) Maternal aunt (matertera) = mother's sister (tante van moederszijde, zia materna, tante maternelle, maternal aunt, Muhme).

b) On the other side, namely in the second degree:

a) Nephew (nepos) = son of a brother or sister (neef, nipote, neveu, nephew, Neffe).

b) Niece (neptis) = daughter of a brother or sister (nicht, nipote, niece, niece, Nichte).

In the third degree touching the first there are:

a) On one side, namely in the first degree:

a) Great paternal uncle (patruus magnus) = grandfather's brother (oud-oom van vaderszijde, fratello dell'avolo, grand-oncle paternel, great uncle, Grossonkel).

b) Great paternal aunt (amita magna) = grandfather's sister (oud-tante van vaderszijde, sorella dell'avolo, grand-tante paternelle, great aunt, Grosstante).

c) Great maternal uncle (avunculus magnus) = grandmother's brother (oud-oom van moederszijde, fratello dell'avola, grand-oncle maternel, grandmother's brother, Grossoheim).

d) Great maternal aunt (matertera magna) = grandmother's sister (oud-tante van moederszijde, sorella dell'avola, grand-tante maternelle, grandmother's sister, Grossmuhme).

b) On the other side, namely in the third degree:

a) Great-nephew (pronepos) = son of a nephew (achterneef, nipote in secondo grado, arriere neveu or petit-neveu, great-nephew, Urneffe).

b) Great-niece (proneptis) = daughter of a nephew (achternicht, nipote in secondo grado, arriere niece or petite-niece, great-niece, Urnichte).

¹ In Dutch it is indicated by circumlocution.

² Brothers and sisters are called: 1° full siblings, if they were born from the same father and from the same mother; 2° consanguineous, if from the same father but from a different mother; 3° uterine, if from the same mother but from a different father.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VIII, Diss. II, Pt. II, Insofar as It Is a Sacrament, Particularly, Sect. III, Ch. III, Art. IX, § II. On Consanguinity Insofar as It Is an Impediment of Marriage

n. 794.

I. The reasons for the established impediment are:

Reverence owed to blood-relatives. "Naturally a man owes a certain honor to parents, and consequently to those blood-relatives who draw their origin from the same parents from nearby... But it is manifest according to the things said above (q. 142, art. 4, and q. 151, art. 4) that in venereal acts there especially consists a certain baseness contrary to honor; whence men are ashamed concerning these things; and therefore it is unfitting that such venereal commingling should take place between such persons mutually" (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 9).
The danger of lust to be forestalled. "Persons joined by blood must live together mutually; whence if men were not kept away from venereal commingling, too much opportunity of venereal commingling would be given to human beings, and thus the souls of human beings would be made too soft by lust" (St. Thomas, loc. cit.).
Friendship to be promoted. "For while a man takes a wife from outside, all the blood-relatives of the wife are joined to him by a certain special friendship, as if they were his own blood-relatives" (St. Thomas, loc. cit.).
Physical harms to be averted from offspring. Now some judge that consanguinity by itself alone produces harmful effects;¹ others deny this,² but concede that morbid qualities, which are found in families after the manner of a certain inheritance, are transmitted more easily and in a more intense degree through marriages between blood-relatives.³

¹ According to Dr. Rillet the effects of marriages of this sort are: sterility, abortion, monstrosity, epilepsy, imbecility, deaf-mutism, paralysis, etc. According to Dr. Boudin, in the city of Berlin, out of 10,000 Catholics there are found 3 deaf-mutes, out of the same number of Protestants 6, out of the same number of Jews 27. But among the latter blood-relatives are more joined in marriage, and Protestants more than Catholics, as all know (Eschbach, op. cit., p. 100; cf. Garnier, Le Mariage, p. 81; Devey, Des dangers des mariages consanguins; De Katholiek, 1884, p. 30, 173 sq.).

² So Dr. Surbled, who for the sake of argument relates these things: "The very precise observations collected on the island of Batz, isolated off Roscoff in Brittany, whose inhabitants, almost all relatives, truly form only one same family under the same bell-tower, demonstrate without reply that consanguineous unions give a strong, robust race, remarkably fruitful and endowed with longevity" (La morale dans ses rapports avec la medecine de l'hygiene, vol. I, chap. XVI).

³ Dr. Garnier: "Consanguinity must not... be confused with heredity or the transmission of diseases, affections, and constitutional defects, apparent or hidden... This danger exists for all unions tainted by any hereditary defect, for parents transmit to their children, by generation, the morbid predispositions with which they are affected, as they do their qualities and their defects, their physical and moral resemblance. But notable differences are observed in this regard in the results. In unions between unrelated persons, the reaction of contrary, opposed elements tends to neutralize and annihilate morbid germs; all great physicians have observed this, in effect, that chronic, hereditary affections, the deformities of a family, are extinguished and disappear in successive generations through well-made crossings." (Le Mariage, article "Mariages consanguins"). Dr. Surbled: "Performed between diathetic or degenerate persons, a consanguineous union is indubitably pernicious, deplorable, and can give only bad fruits; it unites weakened, sick, deviated constitutions... The grave diseases of ancestors, constitutional diatheses, as is known, have only too manifest a tendency to be transmitted in families. Now morbid consanguinity comes to strengthen this tendency and to accumulate elements of destruction in the generations which succeed one another" (loc. cit.).

n. 795.

II. The existence and scope of the impediment are established by these things:

In the direct line of consanguinity, marriage is invalid between all ascendants and descendants, both legitimate and natural (canon 1076, § 1). With regard to natural law, consanguinity certainly diriments marriage in the first degree of the direct line, and more probably in every degree. For marriage, which introduces a certain equality, is opposed to the relation of superiority and inferiority which exists between ascendants and descendants.
In the collateral line marriage is invalid up to the third degree inclusive (canon 1076, § 2).

With regard to natural law, consanguinity beyond the first degree does not diriment marriage.¹ Concerning the first degree itself, brother and sister, there is dispute. Several judge that such marriages are invalid, apart from the necessity of propagating the human race through the sons and daughters of Adam.² But they judge thus both because such marriages obstruct the primary end of marriage, since depraved offspring are accustomed to arise from them; and because admitted validity would give occasion for lust among persons living in the same house. Others admit the contrary, or at least call the matter into doubt, and respond that the integrity of offspring pertains only accidentally to the good of the species, to which marriage is ordered; and that the other reason does not seem so urgent that from it one may conclude to defect of validity.

As to positive law, there are those who judge that marriage between brother and sister is diriment by divine positive law. Others, however, rather deny this, because the Mosaic law has been abrogated, and the evangelical law says nothing concerning it.

Corollary. Marriage between infidels who are blood-relatives, whether in the first degree of the collateral line or in a further degree than the first degree of the direct line, is doubtfully valid. Hence if each, or one or the other, is converted to the faith, the Holy See must be approached.

The impediment of consanguinity was restricted by Leo XIII³ for Indians and Negroes⁴ in Latin America and in the Philippine Islands to the second degree of the collateral line. From the declaration of August 16, 1898, this also holds for all the Antilles and the other islands of the Caribbean Sea. We judge that, from the intention of the Legislator, the aforesaid disposition is governed by the law of privilege rather than by the law of a particular law, and therefore, although it is contrary to the general law, it persists.

III. Multiplication of the impediment. Before the current Code, the impediment was multiplied as often as consanguinity itself; but now the matrimonial impediment is multiplied only as often as the common stock is multiplied, or there are as many impediments as there are common stocks (canon 1076, § 2).

IV. Dispensation. The Church cannot dispense in the first degree of the direct line, since it constitutes an impediment of natural law. It is doubtful whether she can dispense in the other degrees of the direct line and in the first degree of the collateral line. In practice, she never dispenses in the aforesaid degrees. Hence canon 1076, § 3: "Marriage is never to be permitted if there is any doubt whether the parties are consanguineous in some degree of the direct line or in the first degree of the collateral line." From this it follows: 1° it can never be permitted to anyone, for example Peter, to marry either a person with whose mother he had copula at such a time before the daughter's birth that every danger of marrying his own daughter is not excluded; or a person with whose mother his father, that is, Peter's father, had copula at such a time before the daughter's birth that every danger of marrying his own sister is not excluded.⁵ 2° A Bishop or priest who can dispense in ecclesiastical impediments in danger of death or if all things are ready for nuptials cannot dispense from these impediments. In the other degrees of the collateral line the Church dispenses if a proportionately grave cause is present.

¹ Chapter 8, de divortiis.

² In this case there is not a dispensation in the law of nature, because due order requires that the good of an inferior order yield to the good of a superior order.

³ Constitution Trans oceanum, April 18, 1897.

⁴ Who come under the name of Indians and Negroes is taught by the Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, May 24, 1898: "Under the name of Indians and Negroes, besides the Indians and Negroes themselves, are also included those who were begotten from an Indian or Negro man and a European woman, or a woman of European blood, and likewise those who were begotten from a European man and an Indian or Negro woman, and therefore are called Mixed, Mestizos, or Mulattoes, and have an absolute half of European blood. But those are not included who draw origin from Indians or Negroes only through a great-grandfather or grandmother, and who are called Quarterones, as having only a fourth part of Indian or Negro blood; and much less those who draw origin from Indians or Negroes only through a great-great-grandfather or great-great-grandmother and are commonly called Puchueles or Pucueles. Moreover, by the name of Indians and Negroes are also understood Africans, Asians, and Oceanians, provided they are not of European blood and are staying in Latin America, although they were not born there."

⁵ Pontifical Commission, June 2-3, 1918, ad 5 (A.A.S. 1918, p. 346).

Bucceroni, Institutions of Moral Theology

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 5 passages

Vol. IV, On Marriage, III. On the Impediments of Marriage

What is the impediment of consanguinity? In contracting marriage the thing must not only be possible, whence the impediments of impotence and ligamen arise; but it must also be honorable, whence, on account of reverence for joined persons, the impediments of consanguinity, affinity, and public honesty arise, and on account of reverence for religion the impediments of order and vow are had. Now these impediments partly rest on natural law, partly on canon law. Those which are constituted by canon law do not touch unbelievers. But if, having been converted to the faith, they wish to enter marriage, then the natural bond of consanguinity and affinity, which existed before baptism and certainly endures after baptism, stands in the way of marriage. C. ult. de Divort.; St. Thomas, IV Sent., d. 41, q. 1, a. 1, q. 1; Sanchez, book 7, disp. 65, n. 4.

Consanguinity is the bond of certain persons among themselves from the fact that they descend by carnal generation from one and the same nearest common stock; and therefore it arises from the unity and participation of the same blood. Three things are to be distinguished in consanguinity: namely, 1. the stock, or the person from whom others take their origin and in whom, as in one root, they come together; 2. the degree, or the measure of the distance of one person from another, which distance is counted from the stock in which they are joined; 3. the line, or series of persons descending from the same stock. The line is twofold: one is direct, and the other collateral or transverse. The former is the series of persons of whom some descend from others, either immediately, as children from parents, or mediately, as grandchildren from grandparents, or from great-grandparents, etc. The latter is the series of persons who, although they have a common stock, nevertheless do not descend from one another, such as brothers, cousins, etc. The collateral line is equal or unequal, according as the blood relatives are equally or unequally distant from the common stock, as will be explained below. Cf. 998.

Marriages between blood relatives bring grave physical inconveniences for offspring, unless the blood relatives enjoy perfect health. The inconveniences are more grave in proportion as the degree of consanguinity is nearer. Antonelli, vol. 2, p. 181 ff.

Consanguinity dirimently impedes marriage in the direct line indefinitely, Nicholas I to the Bulgarians, C. 37, 39, and by natural law at least in the first degree. At least, for the other degrees are disputed; L. 470, 1029; Sanchez, book 7, disp. 51, n. 7; Schmalzgrueber, book 4, tit. 14, n. 30. In the collateral line, it impedes up to the fourth degree. C. 8, Non debet, de Consanguin. But whether by the law of nature marriage is dirimently impeded at least in the first degree, namely between brother and sister, is controverted. Yet it seems more true that it is impeded only by canon law, from Genesis 20:12. But this is certain, that the Church has never dispensed in this degree. Benedict XIV, Const. Aestas anni, October 11, 1754; Schmalzgrueber, book 4, tit. 14, nn. 42-48; L. 470; Lugo, Responsa Moralia, book 1, disp. 40, n. 9. As regards the other degrees, according to all, marriage is dirimently impeded only by ecclesiastical law.

Indians and Blacks. In Latin America they can contract marriages within the third and fourth degrees both of consanguinity and of affinity. To the indigenous Catholics of the three Apostolic Vicariates of the Island of Madagascar an extension was granted of the privilege of the Indians and Blacks of Latin America, namely of the impediment of consanguinity and affinity restricted to the first and second degree, yet in such a way that, as long as the said privilege for Latin America endures, it should at the same time be in force for the island of Madagascar, so that both in Latin America and on the aforesaid island the duration of the privilege may be the same. Leo XIII, Const. Trans Oceanum for Latin America, April 19, 1897; Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, April 1, 1911, from the Audience of April 2, 1911.

Consanguinity dirimently impedes marriage also between those who were born only from the same father or only from the same mother; that is, between blood relatives only through the male line or only through the female line; as also between blood relatives born from illegitimate births. The reason is that diversity of father or mother, i.e. that the common stock is only the father or only the mother, or the illegitimacy of birth, does not prevent carnal consanguinity from truly existing. C. Pertuos, de Probat.

Consanguinity can arise between the same persons from a double or even multiple source, and then there is a double or multiple relationship, or impediment, to be disclosed in the petition for dispensation. This happens from the fact that among near ascending blood relatives either some have contracted marriages among themselves, or someone has contracted successively with several persons who are blood relatives among themselves, or blood relatives from one stock have contracted with blood relatives of another stock. And thus: 1. If someone marries a woman who is his blood relative, e.g., his cousin, their children are at once the children and grandchildren of each parent, and among themselves they are at once siblings and second cousins. 2. If someone marries a blood relative of his wife, e.g., her sister, the children of each wife will be among themselves at once consanguineous brothers and cousins. 3. If two brothers marry two sisters, the children proceeding from each marriage will be blood relatives among themselves in a double way, namely they are at once paternal cousins and maternal cousins. This circumstance of multiple consanguinity must necessarily be declared. Cf. De Iustis, de Dispens. matrim., book 2, chap. 3, n. 31 ff. But it must be noted that multiplicity of kinship is not caused by the fact that two persons are from the same father and mother. For the father and mother are considered as one stock.

And it is one thing to be brothers or paternal cousins, another thing to be blood relatives in a double way.

Therefore a distinction must be made between the quality and the quantity, or multitude, of the degrees of kinship. Quality is the first, second, third, fourth degree; a pure or mixed degree. Quantity is a simple, double, triple degree, etc. Trent, sess. 24, chap. 3; L. 1029; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 54.

A degree of consanguinity or affinity is called simple or mixed: 1. insofar as simple excludes the admixture of an unequal degree from the other side; and thus Titius and Titia are blood relatives in the third simple degree if they are equally distant from the stock, whether they are blood relatives from one source or from a double source. On the contrary, they are blood relatives in a mixed degree if they are unequally distant from the stock, Titius in the third degree and Titia in the fourth; and then they are called blood relatives in the fourth degree touching the third, if they are blood relatives from one source. Or again, if they are unequally distant from the stock, Titius in the third degree and Titia in the fourth, Titia in the second and Titius in the third, then they are called blood relatives in the fourth degree touching the third on the part of one contracting party, and in the third degree touching the second on the part of the other contracting party, if they are blood relatives from a double source. 2. It is called simple insofar as it excludes multiplication of the same degree from any cause whatever. 3. It can be called simple insofar as it excludes the admixture of another different impediment, e.g., consanguinities mixed with affinity. 4. Finally it is called simple insofar as inequality of degrees, multiplication of the same degree, and any other impediment whatever are excluded.

There are some who hold that in consanguinity account must be taken only of the nearer stock, Gallo, Suppetiae Evang. Praecon., vol. 4, p. 149 ff. But others hold that account must also be taken of the more remote stock when marriage has intervened in the higher degrees; since then, if this marriage had not intervened, they would still be blood relatives from the more remote stock. And thus, for example, Caius, grandson, and Caia, granddaughter, of Titius the grandfather, are blood relatives to each other in the second degree in the collateral line. These contract marriage with each other. Their grandson and granddaughter, Sempronius and Sempronia, are likewise blood relatives to each other in the second degree from the nearer stock, Caius and Caia; and they are also blood relatives in the fourth degree from the more remote stock, Titius, and that doubly, namely through the paternal and maternal line, or through Caius and Caia. The Holy Office approved this second opinion on March 11, 1896, and decreed that three impediments are to be declared, namely the impediment coming from the nearer stock, and two impediments coming from the more remote stock through the lines joined in the intermediate stock. E.M. "But lest marriage be contracted within the prohibited degrees, you must publicly prohibit it, and punish presumptuous persons by ecclesiastical severity, notwithstanding custom, which must be called corruption." C. Quod per his 5, de Consanguin. et affin.

n. 998.

What are the rules for computing the degrees of consanguinity? Three rules are assigned from Canon Law.

First Rule. In the direct line as many degrees are counted as there are persons, the stock being removed, or there are as many degrees as there are generations. Hence between father and son there is one degree, because there is one generation, or one person of the son, the father being excluded as the stock. Between grandson and grandfather two degrees are counted, because there are two generations, although three persons intervene, namely grandfather, father, and his son, or grandson with respect to the grandfather. Similarly suppose a great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather, and you will have three or four degrees.

Second Rule. In an equal collateral line there are as many degrees as there are persons on one side, the stock being removed. Hence brother and sister are in the first degree, because if the common stock or father is set aside, one person remains on each side; and since each is distant by one degree from the stock, they are also distant by one degree from each other. Likewise paternal cousins, or children of brothers, and maternal cousins, or children of sisters, are each distant by two degrees from the common stock, or from the grandfather, and therefore are blood relatives to each other in the second degree. So also must it be said of others.

Third Rule. In an unequal collateral line there are as many degrees as there are persons on the more remote side, always with the stock removed. Hence, if one is distant from the common stock by two degrees and his blood relative by three, they will be blood relatives to each other in the third degree, according to the saying: the more remote degree draws the nearer to itself. Therefore Bertha will be a blood relative in the second degree with her paternal uncle, or the brother of her father, because she is distant by two degrees from the common stock, namely from her grandfather, although the uncle himself is separated by one degree from the same stock, since he is the son of the stock, or the brother of Bertha's father. So also must judgment be made concerning any others. Therefore no impediment is present if consanguinity is in the fifth degree touching the fourth. C. Vir qui fin., de Consang. et affin.; St. Pius V, Const. Sanctissimus, March 20, 1566; Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi pastoralis, September 30, 1755.

There are as many consanguinities as there are different ways of ascending to the same stock, or to different stocks.

The rule from Civil Law is one. For computing degrees according to Roman Civil Law, the number, or sum, of all the persons in each line is taken, the stock being removed. Therefore in the direct line they are computed in the same way as canonical degrees; in the equal collateral line, the canonical degrees are doubled; in the unequal collateral line, the lesser line is doubled and the excess of the greater is added. C. 2, c. 35, q. 5; L. 1029; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 54, a. 2; Schmalzgrueber, book 4, tit. 14, nn. 15, 19, 60, 107.

It must be noted here that in an unequal transverse line, in the petition for dispensation, the nearer and more remote degree must be expressed on both one side and the other. If the nearer is kept back, "the marriages are indeed valid, but illicit, provided that the dispensation does not touch the first degree; and therefore, until declaratory letters, or, as they call them, letters perinde valere, are issued, the spouses must be separated." Holy Office, December 12, 1748. The first degree is excepted, because in that first degree the Pope does not intend to dispense unless it is expressed. St. Pius V, Const. Sanctissimus, August 20, 1566; L. 1031; Benedict XIV, Quaest. can., 183; De Iustis, book 1, chap. 4, n. 121 ff.

It must likewise be noted that according to the Austrian Civil Code, 41, 65, degrees are computed as in Roman Law; but marriage is not prohibited according to all the degrees constituted by Canon Law, which must be followed. The Spanish Civil Code, 84, 915, also follows Roman Law as regards computing degrees of consanguinity, except in marriage, in which, as regards matrimonial impediments, it follows Canon Law, except that it restricts the impediment of consanguinity from illegitimate copulation to the second degree in the collateral line. Therefore in this matter also Canon Law must be followed. For Trent changed nothing concerning this impediment with respect to the ancient Law, although it contracted affinity to the second degree. Schmalzgrueber, book 4, tit. 16, n. 9.

The French Civil Code, 161-164, 735 ff., and the Italian Civil Code, 48 ff., 59, 68, preserve the same rule of Roman Law in computing degrees of consanguinity. But as regards the impediments of marriage they depart from Canon Law, as also does the German Civil Code, 1310, 1327, 1589. But in this matter Canon Law alone is to be observed. And let this also be said for the other impediments.

n. 999.

What is understood by cognate and agnate? Cognation is nearness between persons of a different family, joined to one another through the female line. Agnation is nearness between persons born to the same family, and therefore joined to one another through the male line. Therefore persons are called cognates if they descend through the female line; they are called agnates if they descend through the male line. "Because those who are born follow the family of the father, not of the mother." Institutes, book 1, tit. 15, § 1; Schmalzgrueber, book 4, tit. 14, n. 10.

n. 1000.

Who are blood relatives in the direct line? Staying within only four degrees, above the father and below the son, they are the following, in this order, beginning from the fourth higher degree: 1. great-great-grandfather (trisavolo); 2. great-grandfather (bisavolo); 3. grandfather (nonno); 4. father (padre); 1. son (figlio); 2. grandson, granddaughter (nipote); 3. great-grandson, great-granddaughter (pronipote); 4. great-great-grandson, great-great-granddaughter (terzo nipote, terza nipote).

n. 1001.

Who are blood relatives in the transverse or collateral line? Collateral blood relatives on the father's side are: 1. propatruus, paternal great-granduncle (terzo zio paterno), brother of the great-grandfather; proamita, paternal great-grandaunt (terza zia paterna), sister of the great-grandfather; 2. patruus magnus, great-uncle on the father's side (prozio paterno), brother of the grandfather; amita magna, great-aunt on the father's side (prozia paterna), sister of the grandfather; 3. patruus, paternal uncle (zio paterno), brother of the father; amita, paternal aunt (zia paterna), sister of the father; 4. brother, sister. Brothers are called consanguineous if they have only a common father, but a different mother; uterine if they have only the mother in common and a different father; full siblings if they have a common father and mother; 5. patrueles, paternal cousins (cugini paterni), sons or daughters of the father's brother; 6. sobrini, second paternal cousins (secondi cugini paterni), sons or daughters of patrueles; 7. children of the sobrini, third paternal cousins (terzi cugini paterni).

Collateral blood relatives on the mother's side: 1. proavunculus, maternal great-granduncle (terzo zio materno), brother of the great-grandmother; promatertera, maternal great-grandaunt (terza zia materna), sister of the great-grandmother; 2. avunculus magnus, great-uncle on the mother's side (secondo zio materno), brother of the grandmother; matertera magna, great-aunt on the mother's side (seconda zia materna), sister of the grandmother; 3. avunculus, maternal uncle (zio materno); matertera, maternal aunt (zia materna), sister of the mother; 4. brother and sister; 5. consobrinus, maternal cousin (cugino materno), son of the mother's sister; amitini, paternal and maternal cousins (cugini paterni e materni), two children of whom one was born from a brother and the other from a sister; 6. sobrini, second maternal cousins (secondi cugini materni), children of consobrini; 7. children of the sobrini, third maternal cousins (terzi cugini materni). Institutes, book 3, tit. 6; L. 1 ff., de Grad. et adfin.

In the following scheme of consanguinity the various degrees and lines can be seen. Persons who are joined by a line are among themselves in the direct line; with the others they are in the collateral line. On the right side, where the brother is placed, are placed male blood relatives, and females joined through the male sex. On the left, where the sister is placed, are placed female blood relatives, and males joined through the female sex. The empty cell with the letter N is the person whose kinship is in question, and who wishes to contract marriage with another. It must be seen in which other cell this person is to be placed; and, once the proper cell has been assigned to him or her, one must ascend up to the cell in which the lines are joined, for there the stock is had. The number written in the cell indicates the degree of consanguinity, and always designates the more remote degree with respect to N.

Translated scheme of consanguinity:

| Degree | Direct line | Paternal collateral side | Maternal collateral side | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 4 above | Great-great-grandfather / great-great-grandmother | Great-grandfather's brother: propatruus; great-grandfather's sister: proamita | Great-grandmother's brother: proavunculus; great-grandmother's sister: promatertera | | 3 above | Great-grandfather / great-grandmother | Great-uncle / great-aunt on the father's side; their children | Great-uncle / great-aunt on the mother's side; their children | | 2 above | Grandfather / grandmother | Paternal uncle / paternal aunt; their children | Maternal uncle / maternal aunt; their children | | 1 above | Father / mother | Brother | Sister | | N | Person whose kinship is being examined | Paternal cousins / amitini; nephews and great-nephews through the brother | Maternal cousins / amitini; nephews and great-nephews through the sister | | 1 below | Son / daughter | Brother's children | Sister's children | | 2 below | Grandson / granddaughter | Brother's grandchildren | Sister's grandchildren | | 3 below | Great-grandson / great-granddaughter | Brother's great-grandchildren | Sister's great-grandchildren | | 4 below | Great-great-grandson / great-great-granddaughter | Their children | Their children |

Bucceroni, Cases of Conscience

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 18 passages

147. Consanguinity

Aloisius is the son of Caius and Caia from illicit intercourse. Aloisia is the daughter of Sempronius and Sempronia from likewise illicit intercourse. Caius and Sempronia, Sempronius and Caia, after the aforesaid children were born, entered marriage between themselves because of the exhortation of the parish priest, who often warned them to cease from sin and to establish an upright life. But after these marriages had been celebrated, Aloisius wishes to take Aloisia as wife. But the parish priest refuses because of the impediment of consanguinity.

It is asked: What is to be said to the case?

R. The reverend parish priest is deceived in the proposed case. For no consanguinity is present between Aloisius and Aloisia. And first, there can be no question of affinity, since Aloisius had no carnal intercourse with the blood-relatives of Aloisia, nor, vice versa, did Aloisia have carnal intercourse with the blood-relatives of Aloisius; for nothing is said about this in the exposition of the case. Now as to consanguinity, that this is absent is clear from the fact that Aloisius and Aloisia do not have a common stock. For Aloisius is the son of Caius and Caia; and Aloisia is the daughter of Sempronius and Sempronia. - I. M. 997, 1002.

Ioseph, the parish priest, is called to administer the sacraments to Emmanuel, dying, who in the house of Carmela had already lived for several years, applying himself to studies of Law. Emmanuel, seized by love for Carmela, had promised marriage to her; and, this promise having been made to her, had conceived three children from her, still living. Although Carmela is of an honorable family and of equal condition with Emmanuel, who now has the age of twenty-six years, the mother of Emmanuel always opposed the marriage, the father already being deceased. Since Ioseph found Emmanuel excellently disposed, and time was pressing, given the gravity of the illness, he celebrated the marriage before witnesses. For Emmanuel and Carmela belonged to his parish. But, once the marriage had been celebrated, Emmanuel and Carmela were found to be blood-relatives in the fourth degree in equal line. Without delay the parish priest asks for and obtains a dispensation, and proceeds to Emmanuel, so that he can convalidate the marriage. With Carmela present and with the witnesses present, the parish priest addresses Emmanuel, that he renew his consent. But Emmanuel, placed in the lethargy of agony, did nothing other than turn his eyes to the parish priest and emit a sigh several times; and after four hours he died. Immediately after his death, new investigations having been made, it appeared that Emmanuel's grandfather had been the brother of Carmela's great-grandmother. But Emmanuel's mother, hearing of the death of her son and of his marriage, contends that the marriage of the son was altogether invalid, whence she vindicates for herself the rich inheritance of the son.

It is asked: 1. Whether the parish priest acted rightly by celebrating the marriage? - 2. Whether the aforesaid marriage was valid? - 3. Whether the mother of Emmanuel is bound to restore the inheritance of the son to his widow and children?

R. To the 1st. There is no doubt that the parish priest acted rightly by celebrating the marriage. Emmanuel was duly disposed, and he was bound to repair the scandal and the damage inflicted on Carmela, by taking counsel for the good reputation and honor of Carmela, as well as for the legitimacy of the children, in the best way in which it could be done. But from the very common opinion of doctors, the damage in the case cannot conveniently be repaired except by marriage. But nothing could stand in the way of this marriage. For both were consenting spontaneously, and Carmela was of an honorable family and of equal condition. Nor could the dissent of Emmanuel's mother evidently stand in the way of the validity of the marriage, nor of its liceity, since, with the circumstances of the case attended to, it is altogether irrational, and there is question of a most grave obligation of justice to be fulfilled and of scandal to be repaired. And since Emmanuel had already exceeded the twenty-fifth year of age, that consent is no longer required even by civil law. Cf. St. Alph., l. 3, n. 641 seqq.; I. M. 920.

To the 2nd. From the circumstances of the case it is clearly apparent that Emmanuel and Carmela were ignorant of the impediment and contracted the first marriage in good faith. Therefore from this head no difficulty can arise for the invalidity of the marriage. For, since Emmanuel is said to have been duly disposed and to have entered marriage in order to satisfy his own conscience, and since the man himself is not uncultivated, so that he could have been ignorant that the impediment of consanguinity renders marriage null, it must consequently be said that Emmanuel and Carmela were ignorant of their own consanguinity. And as regards Carmela, it certainly was very much in her interest not to contract a null marriage; whence it must altogether be said that she too was wholly ignorant of the impediment.

When the impediment had been discovered, the parish priest acted wholly well by asking for a dispensation, namely so that the marriage might be convalidated. But the dispensation was altogether valid in the case. For if Emmanuel's grandfather was the brother of Carmela's great-grandmother, then the common stock is Emmanuel's great-grandfather, who at the same time is Carmela's great-great-grandfather; and therefore Emmanuel and Carmela were blood-relatives in an unequal line, that is, in the fourth degree touching the third. But from the Motu Proprio Sanctissimus of St. Pius V, Aug. 26, 1566, a dispensation obtained without mention of the nearer degree cannot be marked with the defect of subreption or obreption, provided that the nearness is not of the first degree of consanguinity or affinity; nevertheless declaratory letters upon the nearer degree are to be obtained afterward, for removing the scandals of the people, who think, on account of ignorance, that a dispensation made upon only the more remote degree is not valid. Benedict XIV, C. Etsi pastoralis, Sept. 30, 1755; St. Alph., l. 6, n. 1136; I. M. 998, 1001, 1038.

But since Emmanuel spontaneously and entirely consented to the marriage the first time, it is permitted to presume that also the second time he consented to the marriage; indeed, those acts of Emmanuel, that is, the turning of the eyes toward the parish priest and the sighs several times repeated, can and must also be held as true and sufficient expressions of consent. And although, because of the gravity of the illness, Emmanuel could not have manifested his will the second time, the nullity of the marriage does not therefore certainly follow. For from the opinion of grave theologians, the party ignorant of the impediment does not necessarily have to renew consent for a valid reintegration of the marriage. The reason is that the prior consent, although it lacked its effect because of the impediment placed by positive law, nevertheless by the law of nature was valid, since it was furnished by a person capable by the law of nature toward a person capable by the law of nature of contracting. Therefore, the impediment having been removed, the prior consent suffices, which virtually perseveres. Gury, Comp. n. 896; I. M. 1050.

Lastly, in the present matter there is not question of a marriage to be contracted, or of a marriage contracted, but of a marriage already dissolved by death, and of the effects of a marriage of this sort. Now for sustaining the value of a marriage already dissolved by the death of either or both spouses, as regards the acquired rights of the widow and children, lighter proofs suffice, as the Rota has in Decis. 668, n. 21, part. 19, tom. 2, recent. These proofs certainly are not lacking in the case.

To the 3rd. It is certainly known to all that children, although born from a condemned union, that is, procreated by those between whom marriage cannot stand, are considered not spurious nor incestuous, but simply natural as regards the right of succession, if either or both of the parents were ignorant of the diriment impediment existing between them. Rota, Decis. 325, n. 7, part. 12, recent.; Decis. 376, n. 5, part. 16, recent. But as ignorance of incest makes it so that children arisen from a condemned union are considered not incestuous but natural, in exactly the same way an irrit and invalid marriage makes children legitimate no less than a true marriage, if both or one of the spouses is in good faith. Rota, Decis. 367, n. 9, 10, 18; I. M., v. 1, n. 680. But further, the marriage in the case must be held as altogether valid. For, the marriage having first been celebrated invalidly, and a dispensation of the marriage immediately obtained, Emmanuel, stirred by the parish priest to renew consent into marriage, furnished it in the best way he could, with sighs issued several times and with a turning of the eyes toward the parish priest; whence it is established that he understood those things which were being said to him by the parish priest and agreed. Besides, there is no need here of an altogether certain demonstration, since lighter proofs ought to suffice in the case. Nor indeed, as has already been said, was renewal of consent certainly necessary in the case for revalidating the marriage, given the ignorance and good faith in which the marriage had been contracted; for that ignorance and good faith does not prevent someone from truly and sincerely consenting to marriage. It is indeed understood only with difficulty how someone sincerely consents to marriage who knows that the marriage is null. Whence consent must then be renewed. But he can consent very well who, although through error, nevertheless thinks that no diriment impediment intervenes. Hence, the impediment having been removed by dispensation, that consent produces its natural effect. But the dispensation was asked for immediately after the marriage had been celebrated; whence also ceases another reason why consent should be renewed, namely the danger lest in the intervening time the prior will had been changed. Likewise, there is no question here of living spouses, who could renew consent in order to prevent grave damages which otherwise could arise; but there is question of a union already dissolved by the death of one party, for whose validity, if renewal of consent were altogether required, grave damages, on the contrary, would follow for the widow and children. Whence the Sacred Rota, in controversies of this sort, namely when there is question of a union dissolved by the death of one of the spouses, perpetually proclaims that it is valid, even if in the revalidation a new consent had by no means intervened. Decis. 455, part. 1; Decis. 687, part. 2, recent., etc. - A. S. S., v. 26, p. 407 seqq.

Since these things are so, it is clear that, since the rights of Carmela and of the children are certain in the case, Emmanuel's mother cannot retain the inheritance of the son for herself, but must restore it entire to the children of Emmanuel and to his widow.

Franciscus and Dominica entered civil marriage; and now they have several children. But publicly they are held as truly married. Converted to God, they approach the parish priest so that they may duly be joined by the sacrament of matrimony; but secretly, lest infamy and scandal arise. While the proper investigations are being made to the aforesaid effect, a grave doubt arises whether Franciscus and Dominica are brother and sister between themselves from the illicit intercourse of Titius and Caia, whose children Franciscus and Dominica are affirmed to be by two persons whom the parish priest interrogated.

It is asked: What is to be said to the case?

R. The office of the parish priest as regards marriages to be contracted is to investigate whether some impediment stands in the way, c. 3, de Cland. Desp., and he must report it to the bishop, and meanwhile abstain from the banns. For the matter is one which pertains to the external forum. Therefore the parish priest, in the case, cannot render a definitive judgment, but must remit the business to the bishop, with the witnesses, documents, and indications having been given.

Now the office of the Ordinary is to judge from the acts and proofs whether the impediment really exists. Here even a single witness is admitted, if he is worthy of faith, Lig. 996, 997, 998, and reputation. It is necessary that the witness depose concerning the impediment under oath and from his own knowledge, excepting impediments of kinship, in which witnesses from hearsay also are admitted. Lig. 997. But the reputation must be of that place, and not only rumor, provided that this is not weakened by the oath of the blood-relatives or of the contracting parties. Lig. 999.

Therefore those two persons who depose concerning the impediment are duly to be examined; and if they are worthy of faith and not base persons, although otherwise they are not greater than every exception, the aforesaid marriage must altogether be impeded. And although the impediment appears doubtful or only probable, the marriage cannot be permitted because of the danger of scandal which lies beneath. But if those persons deserve no faith, the marriage, on the contrary, cannot be impeded for that reason. Lig. 902; I. M. 1031.

And here it must be noted that apostolic missionaries to whom, by indult, the faculty is conceded of dispensing in degrees of consanguinity not prohibited by divine law, can in no way dispense with an infidel converted to the faith upon the impediment of the first degree of consanguinity in the transverse line, so that he can marry his own sister, with whom he had entered betrothals in infidelity; for it is not permitted to presume that the Supreme Pontiffs delegated an authority which they themselves have never used. Zitelli, de Dispens. matr., Rome, 1887, p. 55.

Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)

Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J.; notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. — 57 passages

Vol. II, Treatise on Matrimony, Ch. VI, Art. II, § II, Point III. On the Impediment of Relationship

A threefold kind of relationship is distinguished, namely: first, natural; second, spiritual; third, legal. Concerning each separately.

Section I — On Natural Relationship

- Natural relationship, or consanguinity, is the bond of persons descending from the same proximate stock through carnal generation, which arises from unity and participation in the same blood.

In consanguinity three things must be distinguished, namely: first, the stock, or the person from whom others derive their origin; second, the degree, or the measure of distance of one person from another; third, the line, or a series of persons descending from the same stock.

The line is twofold: one direct and the other collateral or transverse. The former is a series of persons of whom some descend from others, either immediately, as children from parents, or mediately, as grandchildren from grandparents or great-grandparents, etc. The latter, however, is a series of persons who, although they have a common stock, nevertheless do not descend from one another, as brothers, first cousins, etc.

A collateral line is equal or unequal according as the blood relatives are equally distant from the common stock.

n. 800.

Statements. - I. Consanguinity in the direct line, at least by positive law, invalidates matrimony indefinitely in any degree whatever. This is evident from Canon law in the Response of Nicholas I to the Bulgarians, chapter 37.

n. 800.

II. Consanguinity in the collateral line invalidates matrimony through the fourth degree inclusively, and not beyond. This is established from the Fourth Lateran Council and several places of Canon law.

n. 800.

III. Consanguinity invalidates matrimony also between those who were born only of the same father or only of the same mother; likewise between blood relatives born of illegitimate unions. The reason is that diversity of father or mother, or illegitimacy, does not prevent carnal consanguinity from existing between them.

Rules for Computing Degrees of Consanguinity

- I. Rule. In the direct line, as many degrees are counted as there are persons, with the stock omitted; or there are as many degrees as there are generations. Hence between father and son there is one degree, because there is one generation, or one person of the son, with the father excluded as the stock. Between a grandson and grandfather two degrees are counted, because there are two generations, although three persons intervene, namely, the grandfather, the father, and his son, or the grandson with respect to the grandfather. Likewise posit a great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather, and you will have three or four degrees.

II. Rule. In an EQUAL collateral line, there are as many degrees as there are persons on one side, with the stock omitted. Hence a brother and sister are in the first degree, because if the common stock or father is set aside, one person remains on each side; and since each is distant by one degree from the stock, they also are distant from each other by one degree. Likewise paternal first cousins, or the children of two brothers, are each distant by two degrees from the common stock or grandfather, and therefore are blood relatives to each other in the second degree. The same must be said of others.

III. Rule. In an UNEQUAL collateral line, there are as many degrees as there are persons on the more remote side, always with the stock omitted. Hence if one is distant from the common stock by two degrees and his blood relative by three, they will be blood relatives to each other in the third degree, according to the saying: The more remote degree draws the nearer to itself. Therefore Berta will be related in the second degree to her paternal uncle, or her father's brother, because she is distant by two degrees from the common stock, namely, her grandfather, although the paternal uncle himself is separated by one degree from the same stock, since he is the son of the stock, or the brother of Berta's father. The same must be established concerning all others.

For computing degrees according to civil law, the number, or sum, of all the persons in each line is taken, with the stock omitted. Therefore in the direct line they are computed in the same manner as canonical degrees; in an equal collateral line, the canonical degrees are doubled; in an unequal collateral line, the lesser line is doubled and the excess of the greater is added.

Questions. - QUESTION 1. By what law does consanguinity in the aforesaid degrees invalidate matrimony?

Reply 1. It is certain that consanguinity in the direct line invalidates matrimony in the first degree by natural law and, more probably according to the opinion of certain Theologians ¹, indefinitely also in the other degrees. But the case, as is evident, is most remote from practice.

¹ Others, however, think differently; and omitting for now the various opinions - in Schmalzgrueber, book 4, title 14, no. 30 - which extend the force of this impediment to more or fewer degrees, there are those who, with St. Thomas, think that only the first degree renders nuptials invalid by natural law. St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 470) holds this opinion equally probable with the one which the Author reports, and several others with Schmalzgrueber (ibid., no. 31) judge it preferable to the others. But, as the Author well observes, these things contribute nothing to practice.

Reply 2. As regards the collateral line, in the first degree it more probably ² invalidates by natural law, or at least by positive divine law, since the Church never dispenses so that brothers and sisters may be joined, and infidels themselves detest nuptials of this kind; in the other degrees, according to all, it invalidates by ecclesiastical law ³, as is deduced from the practice of the Church, which dispenses from them.

² The Doctors disagree whether matrimony between brother and sister is invalid by natural law, and some call the affirmative opinion more probable, others the negative. Some contend that the Roman Pontiffs never dispensed as regards this degree, others that they sometimes dispensed. See Schmalzgrueber, book 4, title 14, nos. 45-46. And, as St. Alphonsus also observes (book 6, no. 470), St. Thomas also stands for the opinion which judges this union valid by natural law. It would indeed be useless to review the arguments of each side and the replies to the contrary reasons, which can be seen everywhere among the Doctors. See St. Alphonsus, l.c., and Schmalzgrueber, l.c., nos. 45-48. Meanwhile observe how much prejudice spontaneously flows from this against the opinion which, while denying to princes the power of establishing diriment impediments for infidel subjects, contends that natural law alone has force for them. For if this is presupposed, a matrimony contracted in infidelity between a brother and sister could not be held certainly invalid, however much it might be condemned by their laws; and since in a doubt, according to the general principle, one must stand for the validity of the matrimony, if both of them were converted to the faith they consequently could not be separated, even if that union were a scandal at once to infidels and to the faithful.

³ Hence follows a consequence of the greatest importance. For since the laws of the Church do not bind those who are not baptized, marriages contracted between infidels who are joined in these degrees of consanguinity must therefore be held valid, considering natural law; and consequently, if they are converted to the faith, they are neither to be separated nor do they need a dispensation in order to remain in the union contracted. What is said concerning the impediment of consanguinity must also be said concerning the other impediments of merely ecclesiastical law.

The Doctors disagree whether marriages which heretics enter with an impediment of merely ecclesiastical law are to be held valid. See Schmalzgrueber, book 4, title 1, nos. 378-380, who, after bringing forward the reasons of each opinion, appears to incline toward the affirmative side.

QUESTION 2. How can degrees of consanguinity be found easily?

Reply 1. If the common stock is known, write that person's name on a sheet, and below it set down the generations and names of the persons descending on this side and that until you arrive at the persons to be joined in matrimony; from this you will easily compute the degrees.

Reply 2. If the stock is unknown, proceed thus: Write in the lower part of the sheet or table the name of the bridegroom on one side and the name of the bride on the other. Then above the name of the bridegroom note the names of those blood relatives who perhaps can be the cause why some relationship exists with the bride; do the same with respect to the bride. When this notation has been made, ascend on one side and see whether they meet in a common origin or stock from which the bridegroom and bride were mediately generated. Hence, after you have found it and at the same time observed whether the spouses are in an equal or unequal line, finally apply the rules to be proposed below, and the resolution of the doubt will be evident. Let the following be an example of these things:

Great-great-grandfather: Didacus Noel

Degree	Line of the bridegroom	Line of the bride
I	Great-grandmother: Julia Noel, wife of Titius Pascal	Great-grandfather: Arthur Noel
II	Grandfather: Maevius Pascal	Grandfather: Maurus Noel
III	Father: Paulus Pascal	Father: Hector Noel
IV	Bridegroom: Petrus Pascal	Bride: Maria Noel

In this example Petrus Pascal and Maria Noel are blood relatives in the equal fourth degree. But if Maria Noel descended immediately from Maurus Noel, Arthur Noel would be her grandfather and Didacus Noel her great-grandfather, and therefore they would be blood relatives in the fourth degree, but touching the third.

n. 803.

- Another method is also indicated for recognizing degrees of relationship, namely, with a genealogical table or tree of consanguinity. Inspect the table and see in what line and in what cells you find the persons concerning whose relationship inquiry is made, and attend to how many degrees they are distant from the common stock. Example: You ask, for example, in what degree Titius the bridegroom is related by blood to Berta the bride, since you already know that the grandfather of the former was the brother of the great-grandfather of the latter. Place Titius in the middle cell N. Ascend to his grandfather; the latter's brother on the right side, in the cell where paternal uncle is marked, will be Berta's great-grandfather. Descend through his direct line by counting the grandfather, the father, and the bride herself; hence the common stock will be the one who is found in the third cell above the middle line. Thus you will count three degrees on the bridegroom's side and four on the bride's side; hence you will conclude that they are blood relatives in the fourth degree touching the third.

n. 803.

Imagine any other similar examples, placing either of the spouses in any cell, whether the middle one or one at the side, and ascending to the common stock so that from there you may descend to the other spouse; but pay no attention to the names which you find in the various cells encountered, because all of them will vary according to the cell selected, as is evident.

n. 803.

Consanguinity between the same persons can arise from a double or even multiple source, and then there is a double or multiple relationship, or an impediment to be disclosed in the petition for a dispensation. Thus, for example, if two brothers marry two women related by blood to each other, the children proceeding from each matrimony will be doubly related by blood to one another ⁴, and this circumstance must necessarily be declared.

⁴ See several examples both of doubled and of tripled consanguinity in de Justis (On Matrimonial Dispensations, book 2, chapter 6, no. 61 and following).

Note. First, persons joined by a drawn line are among themselves in the direct line and with the others in the collateral line. Second, where the lines are joined, there the stock is found.

- QUESTION 3. Who are collateral blood relatives?

Reply. They are the following:

1. On the Father's Side

PROPATRUUS, or the brother of one's great-grandfather (great-uncle).
PROAMITA, or the sister of one's great-grandfather (great-aunt).
PATRUUS MAGNUS, the brother of one's grandfather (grand-uncle).
PROAMITA, the sister of one's grandfather (grand-aunt).
PATRUUS, the brother of one's father (paternal uncle).
AMITA, the sister of one's father (paternal aunt).
PATRUELES, the children of brothers on the father's side (paternal first cousins).

2. On the Mother's Side

PROAVUNCULUS, the brother of one's great-grandmother (great-uncle).
PROMATERTERA, the sister of one's great-grandmother (great-aunt).
AVUNCULUS MAGNUS, the brother of one's grandmother (maternal grand-uncle).
MATERTERA MAGNA, the sister of one's grandmother (maternal grand-aunt).
AVUNCULUS, the brother of one's mother (maternal uncle).
MATERTERA, the sister of one's mother (maternal aunt).
CONSOBRINI, the children of brothers on the mother's side (maternal first cousins).
AMITINI, the children of brothers (first cousins).
SOBRINI, their children (children of first cousins).
NEPOTES, the children of brothers (nephews).
PRONEPOTES, their children (great-nephews).

Degrees of Consanguinity

The consanguinity tree exhibits the following persons and canonical degrees from the person marked N:

Degree	Direct ancestors	Direct descendants
1	Father and mother	Son and daughter
2	Grandfather and grandmother	Grandson and granddaughter
3	Great-grandfather and great-grandmother	Great-grandson and great-granddaughter
4	Great-great-grandfather and great-great-grandmother	Great-great-grandson and great-great-granddaughter

Degree	Ascending paternal collaterals	Ascending maternal collaterals
2	Father's brother and sister (`PATRUUS`, `AMITA`)	Mother's brother and sister (`AVUNCULUS`, `MATERTERA`)
3	Grandfather's brother and sister (`PATRUUS MAGNUS`, `AMITA MAGNA`), and their children	Grandmother's brother and sister (`AVUNCULUS MAGNUS`, `MATERTERA MAGNA`), and their children
4	Great-grandfather's brother and sister (`PROPATRUUS`, `PROAMITA`), their children and grandchildren	Great-grandmother's brother and sister (`PROAVUNCULUS`, `PROMATERTERA`), their children and grandchildren

Degree	Collaterals in and below the generation of `N`
1	Brother (`FRATER`); sister (`SOROR`)
2	Paternal and maternal first cousins (`PATRUELES`, `CONSOBRINI`, `AMITINI`); brother's children (`FRATRIS FILII`); sister's children (`SORORIS FILII`)
3	Grandchildren or nephews (`NEPOTES`); children of first cousins (`SOBRINI`); brother's grandchildren (`FRATRIS NEPOTES`); sister's grandchildren (`SORORIS NEPOTES`)
4	Great-grandchildren or great-nephews (`PRONEPOTES`); their children (`HORUM FILII`); brother's great-grandchildren (`FRATRIS PRONEPOTES`); sister's great-grandchildren (`SORORIS PRONEPOTES`)

Section II — On Spiritual Relationship

Spiritual relationship is a certain proximity which, from the statute of the Church, arises from the administration and reception of Baptism and Confirmation between certain persons determined in Canon law.

n. 805.

Principles. - I. Spiritual relationship invalidates matrimony by ecclesiastical law: first, between the minister of the Sacrament and the subject and the latter's parents; second, between the godfather or godmother and the goddaughter or godson and their parents. Thus from the Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 2, On Reformation.

n. 805.

II. Several conditions are required for sponsors to contract spiritual relationship, namely: first, that they are baptized ⁵, for otherwise they are not subject to the Church; second, that they have the use of reason, because otherwise they are not capable of the office of sponsor; third, that they were designated by the parents, or even by the Pastor in their place or in their absence ⁶; fourth, that the Baptism was valid ⁷.

⁵ For contracting the relationship, Baptism is a necessary condition as regards all. Therefore, if either the one baptizing or the parents of the baptized child are infidels, even catechumens, the relationship is not contracted by them. Consequently, both a faithful person who baptized the child of an infidel and one who received that child from the sacred font could contract matrimony, not indeed with the baptized child, but with the child's parents after they had been converted to the faith. Schmalzgrueber, book 4, title 11, nos. 62-65.

It is certain, however, that this relationship is contracted even by a heretic, whether the heretic baptizes, or holds the child at the sacred font, or another baptized person, whether heretic or Catholic, either baptizes or holds the heretic's child. The reason is that whoever has the baptismal character is capable of this relationship and is subject to the laws of the Church. Sanchez, book 7, disputation 60, no. 2; Pirhing, book 4, title 11, no. 40. Moreover, the decrees of the Sacred Congregations are already known by which it is forbidden either that a Catholic lift the children of heretics in Baptism or that a heretic be admitted to this office in the Baptism of a Catholic.

⁶ It is not actually necessary that someone be designated by the parents or by the Pastor; rather, it suffices that one who presents himself be admitted. See St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 154, and the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation in Gallemart's note to chapter 2, session 24 of the Council of Trent, no. 7, or in Rebellus at the end of book 4, part 2, section 4, no. 95. It is generally necessary, however, that someone not merely assist materially and hold the infant, but have the intention or purpose of receiving the child or exercising the office of sponsor. Nevertheless, it is not further required that the sponsor have the intention of contracting spiritual relationship, because this is a consequence in no way dependent upon the sponsor's will, but upon the statute of the Church, and therefore it is contracted even by one ignorant of it. Schmalzgrueber, book 4, title 11, no. 66.

⁷ Namely, if Baptism, which is the principal thing, does not subsist, neither can the accessory, namely, the relationship, subsist. Hence argue that if Baptism is conferred again conditionally and it is afterward discovered that the infant had previously been validly baptized, no relationship will be present. But so long as this is not established, the Church presumes the relationship. Understand this, however, when a true doubt is present, which St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 151) calls a negative doubt, namely, when no solid reason favors the validity of the prior Baptism; for if the doubt is positive, namely, if probability is present on either side, anyone can resolve the doubt as he pleases, and, as St. Alphonsus has it, l.c., matrimony can be contracted as though no impediment existed, because no certain impediment is present.

The same must be said in two other cases, namely: first, if someone through error holds one infant for another; second, if someone holds an infant in private Baptism. For since in each case the Doctors disagree - see St. Alphonsus, book 6, nos. 149 and 151 - it must finally be admitted that the matter is doubtful. But if the relationship is doubtful, the impediment also will be doubtful; and a doubtful impediment, as St. Alphonsus himself observes, no. 151, is not an impediment of matrimony.

Resolutions. - 1. A godfather and godmother can enter matrimony with each other, but not with the father or mother of the baptized person.

Those who exercise the office of godfather and godmother when the solemnities of Baptism are supplied do not contract spiritual relationship, nor do those who receive the baptized person from the sacred font merely in the name of another ⁸.

⁸ The latter point is confirmed by decrees of the Sacred Congregation, one of which Barbosa reports (Collection of Apostolic Decisions 177, no. 9), and two others Benedict XIV reports (Canonical Question 227). From another declaration of the Sacred Congregation, which Gallemart reports in the note to chapter 2, session 24 of the Council of Trent, no. 4, a man can exercise the office of proxy for a woman and conversely; in this case it is not forbidden that two men or two women actually lift the child from the sacred font.

Sponsors designated by the parents and unjustly rejected by the Pastor contract true spiritual relationship if they actually hold the infant; it is otherwise if they are justly rejected by the Pastor ⁹. - St. Ligorius, no. 154.

⁹ Although the Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 2, On the Reformation of Matrimony, decreed that only one person, either a man or a woman, or at most one man and one woman, should receive the baptized person from Baptism, nevertheless, it is established from the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation in the case of Aix, March 10, 1631 - Barbosa reports it in Collection of Apostolic Decisions 177, no. 10 - that this decree is not invalidating, provided that the third or fourth person was also designated, who will therefore contract the relationship.

A man who baptized a girl privately in a case of necessity can marry neither her nor her mother ¹⁰. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, On Baptism, no. 149.

¹⁰ The same must evidently be said of a woman who privately baptized a little boy.

More probably, however, sponsors employed in private Baptism do not appear to contract this relationship. The reason is that in the Council of Trent there is question only of those sponsors who are employed in solemn Baptism, since none are required for private Baptism. - Thus more commonly with St. Ligorius, no. 149.

…and 17 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905)

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 4 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On Matrimony

On the Impediment of Consanguinity

“We prohibit unions of blood relatives from being made, because both divine and secular laws prohibit them. For the divine laws, treating of this matter, not only cast out those who proceed from such unions but call them accursed; while the laws call such persons infamous and repel them from inheritance. Therefore We, following Our Fathers, mark them with infamy and judge them to be infamous.” First Ecumenical Lateran Council, year 1123, canon 5.

This is against the heresy of the incestuous. Those were so called who contended that the unions of relatives were not unlawful and who reckoned the degrees of consanguinity according to the norm of civil law. Against them, Leo IX in the First Roman Synod and at Rheims, Nicholas II at Rome, Alexander II at Rome in 1063 and especially at Rome in 1065, in which he issued the Decretal which is found in cause 35, question 5, chapter 2, Urban II at the Synod of Troyes, and the Second Ecumenical Lateran Council, canon 17, defend the canonical law and doctrine: “We altogether prohibit unions of blood relatives from being made; for the statutes of the holy Fathers and the sacrosanct Church of God detest incest of this kind, which, at the instigation of the enemy of the human race, has almost passed into use.” But the Fourth Lateran Council reduced the prohibited degrees to the number four.

“In the case of an intermediate stock (of the second degree) constituted by two persons who are themselves blood relatives (in the second degree), whether there exists and must be declared in the supplicatory petition for a dispensation one impediment of consanguinity, namely, only that which proceeds from this nearer intermediate stock; or whether, in addition, there are and must be declared two other impediments arising from the more remote common stock (of the fourth degree) through the lines joined in the intermediate stock.—Response. Negative to 1; affirmative to 2.” Holy Office, 11 March 1896.

“1. When two betrothed persons stand in the equal second degree of consanguinity, and their grandfather and grandmother themselves had contracted Matrimony in the second degree of consanguinity, so that the betrothed persons are also bound in the fourth degree of consanguinity, must a dispensation necessarily be sought and obtained from a triple impediment, namely, in the second and in the double fourth degree? ... 3. When two brothers married two sisters, are their offspring bound by a double or quadruple bond of consanguinity in the equal second degree?—Response. To 1: Affirmative, as in the decision of 11 March 1896.—To 3: Only by a double impediment of consanguinity in the equal second degree.” Holy Office, 22 February 1899; M. E., vol. 1, p. 53.

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 9 passages

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. X, Ch. IX, Art. III, § 9. Natural Relationship or Consanguinity

n. ¶112.

Preliminary Note. A threefold relationship is commonly distinguished: 1. natural, which is also called consanguinity or kinship; 2. spiritual, which arises from baptism and confirmation; 3. legal, which proceeds from legal adoption. Each must be treated separately.

n. 831.

831. Notion. The impediment of consanguinity (unity of blood) is the proximity of persons descending from the same proximate stock or progenitor, which invalidates matrimony within determined degrees.

Explanation. The foundation of consanguinity is a common and indeed proximate stock, from which the persons about to marry descend through carnal generation. All men indeed descend from the same first stock, namely, from Adam, but matrimony is prohibited only between persons who descend from a proximate stock within the third generation. For judging correctly concerning consanguinity insofar as it is an impediment of matrimony, three things must be considered especially: the stock, the line, and the degree.

The stock (root, trunk) is called that person (whether male or female) from whom, as from a common root, the persons about to marry (whose consanguinity is in question) descend through carnal generation (whether legitimate or illegitimate, whether mediate or immediate). Hence, for example, a grandfather is the common stock of grandchildren, a father of children, etc.

A line is called the natural series of consanguineous persons. A twofold line is distinguished: direct and collateral. A direct line is called a series of persons, one of whom descends from another, and therefore it comprises: a) ascendants, such as father, grandfather, great-grandfather (the direct ascending line); b) descendants, such as son, grandson, great-grandson (the direct descending line). - A collateral (transverse, oblique) line is a series of persons who indeed descend from one and the same stock, but not one from another; for example, brother and sister indeed descend from the same stock, namely, from the father, but the brother does not descend from the sister, and conversely the sister does not descend from the brother. If persons of the collateral line are equally distant from the common stock, as a brother and sister from their father or grandchildren from their grandfather, there is an equal collateral line; but if one person is farther from the common stock than another, for example, a brother and a female cousin, there is an unequal collateral line. (See below the tree of consanguinity.)

A degree is the measure of distance in consanguinity. Two principal methods exist for computing these degrees or this distance: the civil or Roman computation, which is commonly in force in civil laws and in the Eastern Church;¹⁸⁰ and the canonical (Germanic, Teutonic) computation, which is now in force in the Latin Church.¹⁸¹ In the direct line both computations are the same. But in the collateral line the civil computation counts the degrees or generations both on the bridegroom's side and on the bride's side, so that as many degrees are judged to be present as there are generations from both sides taken together. For example, a brother and sister are consanguineous in the second degree according to the civil computation, because there is one generation from the common stock (the father) on the brother's side, and likewise there is one generation on the sister's side. - The canonical computation, however, indeed counts the degrees or generations from each person about to marry up to the common stock, but does not join them together. Thus, for example, a brother and sister according to this computation are consanguineous in the first degree, because from both the brother and the sister to the common stock there is only one generation. - With these things premised, the following rules are given by the Code of Canon Law, can. 96, for computing degrees.

Figure 1. Tree of Consanguinity

                              Great-grandfather / Great-grandmother (3)
                    __________________________|__________________________
                   /                          |                          \
 Great paternal uncle / aunt (3)     Grandfather / Grandmother (2)     Great maternal uncle / aunt (3)
             |                    ___________|___________                    |
       Their children (3)        /           |           \             Their children (3)
                         Paternal uncle / aunt (2)  Father / Mother (1)  Maternal uncle / aunt (2)
                                  |           |           |
                    Their children (3)   Brother (1)  N  Sister (1)   Their children (3)
                                  |                       |
                           Their children (2)      Their children (2)
                                  |                       |
                          Brother's children (3)   Sister's children (3)

                                         N
                                         |
                                   Son / Daughter (1)
                                         |
                              Grandson / Granddaughter (2)
                                         |
                         Great-grandson / Great-granddaughter (3)

Rule 1. In the direct line there are as many degrees as there are generations; or, what is the same: there are as many degrees as there are persons, the stock being subtracted.

For example, between a bridegroom and his great-grandfather there are three degrees, because there are three generations, or three persons if the great-grandfather is subtracted.

Rule 2. In an equal collateral line there are as many degrees as there are generations (or persons, the stock being subtracted) computed on one side only (whether it is the bridegroom or the bride).

For example, first cousins are consanguineous in the second degree, because there are two generations up to the common stock, who is the grandfather. There are also two persons, if the grandfather is subtracted, namely, the first cousins themselves and their parents.

Names of Blood Relatives in Certain Vernacular Languages

Direct Line

Degree and Latin	German	French	English	Italian	Spanish
1. Pater	Vater	Père	Father	Padre	Padre
Mater	Mutter	Mère	Mother	Madre	Madre
2. Avus	Großvater	Aïeul	Grandfather	Nonno, Avolo	Abuelo
Avia	Großmutter	Aïeule	Grandmother	Nonna, Avola	Abuela
3. Proavus	Urgroßvater	Bisaïeul	Great-grandfather	Bisnonno, Bisavolo	Bisabuelo
Proavia	Urgroßmutter	Bisaïeule	Great-grandmother	Bisnonna, Bisavola	Bisabuela
1. Filius	Sohn	Fils	Son	Figlio	Hijo
Filia	Tochter	Fille	Daughter	Figlia	Hija
2. Nepos	Enkel	Petit-fils	Grandson	Nipote	Nieto
Neptis	Enkelin	Petite-fille	Granddaughter	Nipote	Nieta
3. Pronepos	Urenkel	Arrière-petit-fils	Great-grandson	Pronipote	Bisnieto
Proneptis	Urenkelin	Arrière-petite-fille	Great-granddaughter	Pronipote	Bisnieta

Collateral Line

Degree and Latin	German	French	English	Italian	Spanish
1. Frater	Bruder	Frère	Brother	Fratello	Hermano
Soror	Schwester	Sœur	Sister	Sorella	Hermana
2. Patruus	Onkel (Vaters Bruder)	Oncle paternel	Paternal uncle	Zio paterno	Tío carnal paterno
Amita	Tante (Vaters Schwester)	Tante paternelle	Paternal aunt	Zia paterna	Tía carnal paterna
3. Patruus maior	Großonkel (Großvaters Bruder)	Grand-oncle paternel	Great paternal uncle	Prozio paterno	Tío segundo paterno
Amita maior	Großtante (Großvaters Schwester)	Grand'tante paternelle	Great paternal aunt	Prozia paterna	Tía segunda paterna
1. Frater	Bruder	Frère	Brother	Fratello	Hermano
Soror	Schwester	Sœur	Sister	Sorella	Hermana
2. Avunculus	Oheim (Mutters Bruder)	Oncle maternel	Maternal uncle	Zio materno	Tío carnal materno
Matertera	Muhme (Mutters Schwester)	Tante maternelle	Maternal aunt	Zia materna	Tía carnal materna
3. Avunculus maior	Großoheim (Großmutters Bruder)	Grand-oncle maternel	Grandmother's brother	Prozio materno	Tío segundo materno
Matertera maior	Großmuhme (Großmutters Schwester)	Grand'tante maternelle	Grandmother's sister	Prozia materna	Tía segunda materna
1. Frater	Bruder	Frère	Brother	Fratello	Hermano
Soror	Schwester	Sœur	Sister	Sorella	Hermana
2. Fratris filii	Geschwisterkinder	Cousins germains	First cousins	Cugini primi	Primos hermanos
Sororis filii	Id.	Cousines germaines	Id.	Cugine prime	Primas hermanas
3. Fratris nepotes	Andere Geschwisterkinder	Cousins issus de germains	Second cousins	Cugini secondi	Primos segundos
Sororis nepotes	Id.	Cousines issues de germains	Id.	Cugine seconde	Primas segundas

Rule 3. In an unequal collateral line there are as many degrees as there are generations (or persons, the stock being subtracted) to be computed in the longer line.

For the adage is valid: the more remote degree draws the nearer to itself. Thus, for example, a paternal uncle and niece,¹⁸² that is, a brother's daughter, are consanguineous in the second unequal collateral degree; for the common stock is the grandfather, from whom the paternal uncle is distant by one degree, but the niece by two degrees. In petitions for dispensations both degrees must be expressed; this is commonly done in this manner: a paternal uncle and niece are consanguineous in the second degree touching the first. For finding and computing degrees more easily, the so-called "tree of consanguinity" was already delineated in the Corpus of Canon Law,¹⁸³ whose figure, slightly altered, we have given above, as also the names of blood relatives in certain vernacular languages.

¹⁸⁰ Papp-Szilagyi, Enchir. iur. eccl. orient. cath., 262.

¹⁸¹ c. 2, C. 35, q. 5.

¹⁸² Onkel und Nichte [uncle and niece].

¹⁸³ After c. 6, C. 35, q. 5.

n. 832.

832. Divisions. Consanguinity is distinguished:

a) as legitimate and illegitimate, according as generation was effected in a valid or putative matrimony, or outside matrimony. Illegitimate offspring, however, can be legitimated, as will be said below, n. 884;

b) as full (perfect) and less full (imperfect), according as consanguineous persons descend from the same two parents, or only from the same father or the same mother. - Brothers having the same father but not the same mother are called "consanguineous"; but those having the same mother but not the same father are called "uterine"; while those having the same father and the same mother are called "germane";

c) as cognation and agnation, according as consanguinity arose through the female line or mother, or through the male line¹⁸⁴ or father;

d) as simple and multiple, according as two consanguineous persons descend from one common stock, or according as several common stocks are present. Thus according to the discipline now in force.¹⁸⁵ Formerly other cases of multiple consanguinity also occurred.

Since in practice it is sometimes sufficiently difficult to discover multiple consanguinity, it is necessary to explain at somewhat greater length at least two cases of multiple consanguinity.

¹⁸⁴ In the old German law, cognates were called Spillmagen and agnates Schwertmagen.

¹⁸⁵ Code of Canon Law, can. 1076, § 2.

n. 833.

833. Multiple consanguinity. First case: if among the ascendants of two spouses members of one family celebrated marriages with members of another family, for example, two brothers of one family married two sisters of another family. In this case there are two common stocks, as is apparent from the diagram placed here. For both grandfathers of the bridegroom and both grandfathers of the bride were brothers and sisters. Hence the two persons about to marry are consanguineous in a double third degree. As is evident of itself, other similar examples can also be devised.

Figure 2. First case

Common stock                         Common stock
     |                                    |
brother ─ sister                    brother ─ sister
  |          |                        |          |
 ...        ...                      ...        ...
  |          |                        |          |
Bridegroom  Bride                  Bridegroom  Bride

Second case: if the ascendants were consanguineous and one of them successively married two consanguineous women, as is clearly seen from the diagram placed above (fig. 3). In this case there are likewise two common stocks, and the persons about to marry are consanguineous in the third and second degree.

Figure 3. Second case

Common stock
     |
consanguineous ascendants
     |
successive unions with two consanguineous women
     |
Bridegroom                         Bride

n. 834.

834. Note. When a dispensation from the impediment of consanguinity is to be requested, it must necessarily be expressed whether the consanguinity is simple or multiple; whether it is full or half-full; whether it is in the direct or in the collateral line. It is highly expedient that a diagram of consanguinity be drawn in the petition, as is shown here; indeed, in some dioceses a diagram of this kind is expressly required in every petition submitted.

Figure 4. Diagram of Consanguinity

Simon Schmitz
├── Andrew Schmitz
│   └── Paul Schmitz + Anna Meyer
│       └── Petrus Schmitz, bridegroom
└── Clara Schmitz
    └── Paul Müller + Clara Schneider
        └── Anna Müller, bride

Method of finding the degree of consanguinity. Several methods are available, of which, however, the following seems easier, clearer, and safer. If any reasonable doubt arises for the parish priest concerning the consanguinity of those about to marry, the names of the bridegroom and bride are to be written on a sheet of no very small size; then above the bridegroom's name all the names of his ascendants, and similarly above the bride's name all the names of her ascendants. Afterward the intervening generations are to be counted until the common stock is reached. The number of these generations from the common stock to the bridegroom gives the degrees of consanguinity on his side; but the number of generations from the common stock to the bride gives the degrees of consanguinity on the bride's side. If, for example, three generations are found from the common stock both on the bridegroom's side and on the bride's side, there is consanguinity in the equal third degree of the collateral line. See the diagram placed above (fig. 4). But if there are four generations from the common stock to the bridegroom and three to the bride, then the persons about to marry are consanguineous in the fourth degree of the collateral line touching the third. In this last case a dispensation is no longer necessary, because according to the adage stated above, the more remote degree draws the nearer degree to itself, and a dispensation is required only, as will be said below, if the persons about to marry are consanguineous up to and including the third degree. If multiple consanguinity is present, the degrees must be computed from each common stock, or according to the diverse paths by which ascent is made to each common stock.

n. 835.

835. Origin of the impediment of consanguinity.

From natural law itself arises the diriment impediment of consanguinity in the direct line (whether ascending or descending), and it extends not only to the first degree (between father and daughter, between mother and son), but also to all other degrees. In the first degree of the direct line, that is, between father and daughter as also between mother and son, all admit that matrimony is prohibited by natural law itself, and even barbarous peoples themselves, indeed even brute animals, are wont to recoil from a carnal union of this kind. The reason is taken both from the physical and from the moral order. For from such carnal intercourse either no offspring or weak and deformed offspring is wont to be born. Moreover, in marital and carnal union there exists equality between the contracting parties, whereas between parents and children there is not equality, but subjection and reverence due to parents. - In other degrees of the direct line matrimony is probably also prohibited by natural law because of the same reasons of physical and moral order; but several very weighty authors, such as Billuart,¹⁸⁶ Cajetan,¹⁸⁷ to whom St. Thomas¹⁸⁸ seems to favor, teach that consanguinity in the other degrees dirimes matrimony by ecclesiastical law alone. Hence, in practice, if a case should occur in which a grandfather in paganism had married his granddaughter and afterward one or the other spouse were baptized, the Holy See would have to be consulted about what must be done.
By ecclesiastical law alone the diriment impediment of consanguinity in all degrees of the collateral line arose in the New Testament. Thus the more probable opinion, concerning which Benedict XIV says: "There is no agreement among theologians whether matrimony between brother and sister is prohibited by natural, divine, or human law; certainly St. Thomas, Gonzalez, Pontius, Parisius, and Aversa acknowledge only a prohibition of positive law."¹⁸⁹ - The reason is that between a brother and sister, or other blood relatives of remoter degrees, there does not intervene such a relation of reverence and subjection as exists between parents and children. Then it is incongruous to say that immediately at the beginning of the world God established something contrary to natural law itself. But it is certain that the sons of Adam took their own germane sisters as wives. From this opinion it follows that, if in paganism a brother and sister contracted matrimony (provided the civil law of that region did not invalidate such a matrimony), and if afterward one or both spouses are baptized, their matrimony cannot by that very fact be declared invalid, but recourse must be had to the Holy See. - If it is a question of a matrimony to be contracted, the Supreme Pontiff never dispenses so that matrimony may be entered between brother and sister, or in the first degree of the collateral line, even if that consanguinity is not certain but only doubtful;¹⁹⁰ but he very rarely dispenses in the second degree touching the first, for example, so that a maternal uncle may marry his sister's daughter.^190a

¹⁸⁶ De matrim., diss. 7, a. 4, § 2, I say 3°.

¹⁸⁷ Comm. in 2, 2, q. 154, a. 9.

¹⁸⁸ The Angelic Doctor says: "In the intercourse of related persons there is something which is in itself indecent and repugnant to natural reason, as that intercourse should occur between parents and children, whose relationship is of itself and immediate; for children naturally owe honor to parents. Hence the Philosopher says that a certain horse, because it had been deceived so that it coupled with its mother, cast itself down as though from horror, because even in some animals a natural reverence toward parents is present. - But other persons, who are not joined according to themselves but by order to parents, do not have such indecency from themselves; rather, decency or indecency in this matter varies according to custom and human and divine law, because the use of venereal things, which is ordained to the common good, is subject to law. And therefore, as Augustine says: 'Intercourse between sisters and brothers, the more ancient it was under the compulsion of necessity, the more afterward it was made damnable when religion prohibited it'" (S. theol. 2, 2, q. 154, a. 9, ad 3). Similar things are found in Suppl., q. 54, a. 3. Certain older authors wittily refuted the opposite opinion, saying: If consanguinity in all degrees of the direct line dirimed matrimony by natural law itself, Adam, restored to life, could marry no woman, because all descended from him in the direct line.

¹⁸⁹ Benedict XIV, Epistle Aestas anni, n. XIII, October 11, 1757. Wernz-Vidal, Ius matr., n. 348, note 60 ff., strongly maintains that the impediment of consanguinity in the first degree of the collateral line arose from natural law. Several others, such as Sanchez, Suarez, Lugo, Noldin, etc., teach the same.

¹⁹⁰ Benedict XIV, loc. cit.; and Code of Canon Law, can. 1076, § 3.

^190a Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, August 1, 1931 (Acta Apost. Sed. XXIII, 413).

n. 836.

836. Extent of the impediment of consanguinity. According to the discipline now in force in the Latin Church, consanguinity in the collateral line dirimes matrimony up to and including the third degree; and it makes no difference whether the consanguinity arose from a legitimate or an illegitimate bed.¹⁹¹

Formerly the impediment of consanguinity in the collateral line extended to the seventh degree and, after the Fourth Lateran Council, to the fourth degree; but now, after May 19, 1918, it is restricted to the third degree. - Since, according to the adage cited repeatedly, the more remote degree draws the nearer to itself, the diriment impediment of consanguinity is no longer present if on one side of the contracting parties there are four degrees up to the common stock, although on the other side there are only two or three degrees. - The best rule to be given to the people and sufficiently easy to apply in practice for discerning whether the impediment of consanguinity is present is this:

The impediment of consanguinity is not present if the parents of those about to marry were not at least first cousins, or, what is the same: if the grandparents of those about to marry were not brothers or sisters.

¹⁹¹ Code of Canon Law, can. 1076, § 2. In the Eastern Church this impediment is valid up to the seventh degree, that is, up to the third degree according to the canonical computation. Cf. Papp-Szilagyi, loc. cit., § 107.

n. 837.

837. The suitability of the impediment of consanguinity is evident especially from a threefold reason:

The social good is greatly promoted through it. As St. Augustine bears witness,¹⁹² it is necessary that the whole human race, by the will of God and by bonds of charity extended more and more widely, grow together into one society and the city of God. But marriages, as seedbeds of charity, are means most suitable and efficacious for effecting this union, provided, however, that they are duly entered and holily preserved. But if marriages were contracted only among blood relatives, this social union would be obtained less perfectly.¹⁹³
The moral good is preserved through it. Blood relatives are wont to live together with familiar intercourse, often dwell under the same roof, and visit one another rather frequently. From this familiar intercourse great dangers to chastity could very easily arise if blood relatives were not conscious from earliest childhood that they could never enter legitimate nuptials with one another. Therefore, the impediment of consanguinity is a strong guardian of morality.
The physical good of the offspring is better obtained. For experience proves that offspring born from the matrimony of blood relatives are often weak both in mind and in body.¹⁹⁴ Certainly, if both spouses, free from every bodily defect, enjoy robust health, a danger of this kind for the offspring is sometimes absent, but this case does not always occur. Generally it is permissible to affirm that offspring born from the matrimony of blood relatives are of an inferior condition to the offspring of other marriages (other things being equal). - Since these things are so, confessors and parish priests should deter the faithful from entering marriages between blood relatives.

¹⁹² De civ. Dei, bk. 15, c. 16 (c. un., C. 35, q. 1).

¹⁹³ Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 54, a. 4.

¹⁹⁴ Hence that adage: Heirat im Blut tut selten gut [marriage within the blood seldom turns out well].

n. 838.

838. Cessation of this impediment. This impediment ceases only through a dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff, which, however, is never granted not only in consanguinity of the direct line, as probably diriming matrimony by natural law in all degrees, but also in the first degree of the collateral line, as was said. Therefore, not even in danger of death can a parish priest or confessor permit matrimony between a brother and sister.

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions

Benedict H. Merkelbach, O.P. — 45 passages

Ch. V, Article IX: Consanguinity

n. 148.

- I. Notion of consanguinity.

n. ¶6242.

a) It is the propinquity of persons of whom one descends from another, or all descend from a proximate common stock through carnal generation.

n. ¶6243.

b) Stock: the person from whom others descend.

n. ¶6244.

Line: a series of persons of whom one descends from another, or who all descend from one stock.

n. ¶6245.

Direct line: that which is constituted from persons of whom one descends from another.

n. ¶6246.

Transverse or collateral line: that which is constituted from persons who have a common stock, without one descending from another.

n. ¶6247.

Degree: the distance of one person from another in the same line.

n. ¶6248.

Equal line: when collateral persons are distant from the common stock by an equal degree.

n. ¶6249.

Unequal line: if collateral persons are distant from the common stock by a diverse degree.

n. ¶6250.

c) Concerning the manner of computing degree.

n. ¶6251.

In the direct line there are as many degrees as there are persons composing the line, the stock being removed. (Can. 96, § 2.)

n. ¶6252.

Thus a grandson is consanguineous with his grandmother in the second degree.

n. ¶6253.

In an equal collateral line there are as many degrees as there are persons in one tract of the line, the stock being removed. (ibid., § 3.)

n. ¶6254.

Thus a brother and sister are in the first degree, first cousins in the second.

n. ¶6255.

In an unequal collateral line there are as many degrees as there are persons in the tract of the line that belongs to him who is more distant from the common stock. (ibid.)

n. ¶6256.

Thus a maternal uncle with his niece is consanguineous in the second degree.

n. 149.

- II. Extension of the impediment.

n. ¶6258.

a) "§ 1. In the direct line of consanguinity matrimony is invalid between all ascendants and descendants, both legitimate and natural."

n. ¶6259.

b) "§ 2. In the collateral line it is invalid up to the third degree inclusive."

n. ¶6260.

c) "The impediment of matrimony is multiplied only as often as the common stock is multiplied." (Can. 1076.)

n. ¶6261.

Multiplication of this kind of common stock can occur in three ways:

n. ¶6262.

When the common ascendants already are consanguineous.

n. ¶6263.

For example: Arnold has two sons, Lucius and Paul. Again Lucius begot Peter and Mary, and Paul begot John. John contracted matrimony with Mary and from her begot Angela. Peter begot Andrew. Between Andrew and Angela there is a twofold impediment of consanguinity, one in the second degree from the common stock Lucius, and the other in the third degree from the common stock Arnold.

n. ¶6264.

                         ARNOLD
                            |
              -------------------------------
              |                             |
           LUCIUS                         PAUL
              |                             |
        -------------                       |
        |           |                       |
      PETER       MARY ---------------- JOHN
        |                                 |
      ANDREW                           ANGELA

n. ¶6265.

When men who are consanguineous with each other have begotten offspring from women who are consanguineous with each other.

n. ¶6266.

For example: Albert and Reginald, brothers, take in matrimony, the one Mary, the other Aloysia, sisters. From the former matrimony Louis is born, from the other Eugenia. Between Louis and Eugenia there exists a twofold impediment in the second degree of consanguinity, because they have a twofold common stock, namely the parents both of their father and of their mother.

n. ¶6267.

When someone has offspring from consanguineous persons whom he successively married.

n. ¶6268.

For example, Ambrose successively took Martha and Leopoldina, sisters, in matrimony. From the former he begot Benedict, from the other Augustine. Benedict begot Margaret and Augustine begot Leo. Between Leo and Margaret there is a twofold impediment of consanguinity, one in the second degree, the other in the third degree, because they have a twofold common stock, namely Ambrose, their grandfather, and Emmanuel, their great-grandfather.

n. ¶6269.

                         EMMANUEL
                            |
              -------------------------------
              |                             |
           MARTHA                     LEOPOLDINA
              |                             |
              --------- AMBROSE ------------
              |                             |
          BENEDICT                     AUGUSTINE
              |                             |
          MARGARET                         LEO

n. ¶6270.

d) An easy manner of detecting consanguinity.

n. ¶6271.

On separate sheets, above the names of the betrothed persons, let the names of their ascendants be written up to the third degree. If names are found common to each betrothed person, the impediment is present. Otherwise it is not.

n. 150.

- III. The law in force before the Code.

n. ¶6273.

Before the Code, i.e., before the day 19 May 1918:

n. ¶6274.

a) the impediment in the collateral line extended up to the fourth degree inclusive.

n. ¶6275.

b) The impediment was multiplied also when either one of the betrothed persons ascended to the common stock by multiple ways.

n. 151.

- IV. By what law consanguinity makes matrimony diriment.

n. ¶6277.

a) In the direct line, most certainly by natural law in the first degree; and more probably also in any degree, even more remote.

n. ¶6278.

b) In the collateral line, in the first degree, by natural law according to many, although others contradict.

n. ¶6279.

In practice: "Let matrimony never be permitted, if any doubt lies beneath whether the parties are consanguineous in any degree of the direct line or in the first degree of the collateral line." (Can. 1076, § 3.)

n. ¶6280.

c) In the collateral line beyond the first degree, no one doubts that the impediment is of merely ecclesiastical law.

…and 5 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis

Benedict Henry Merkelbach, O.P. — 38 passages

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On Matrimony, Third Part: On the Impedim…, Question Three: On Dirimen…, Art. VII, Carnal, Spiritual, and Legal

S. Th., Suppl., q. 54, 56 and 57.

n. 902.

902. Kinship (parenté; verwantschap) is here understood as the propinquity or conjunction of persons, insofar as it is impeditive of matrimony; and, by reason of its cause or origin, it is distinguished as threefold: natural or carnal, - spiritual, - and legal, according as it arises from natural generation or filiation, from spiritual generation and filiation, or from legal filiation or adoption.

903. Carnal kinship or consanguinity (parenté naturelle, consanguinité; natuurlijke- of bloedverwantschap) is the propinquity or conjunction of persons, of whom one descends from another, or all descend from the same proximate stock through carnal generation. It is founded upon communion of blood, which through natural generation from carnal copula, licit or illicit, is derived from father and mother together, or from either one. Hence matrimony is equally prohibited among cognates and agnates, uterine, consanguine, and full kin.

So that consanguinity may be well understood, one must distinguish stock, line, and degree. A stock is a person from whom others descend. A line is an ordered series of persons descending from the same stock. A degree is the measure of the distance of one person from another in the same line of consanguinity.

One line is direct, which is constituted from persons of whom one descends from another, and it is subdivided into the line of descendants, who draw origin from others, and of ascendants, from whom others arise; another is transverse, oblique, or collateral, which is constituted from persons who descend from a common stock, without, however, one proceeding from another. This latter is equal or unequal, according as the collateral persons are distant from the common stock in an equal or a diverse degree.

For computing the degree of consanguinity, the following rules from can. 96 have force in canon law:

1° In the direct line there are as many degrees as there are generations; or as many persons composing the line, the stock being removed. Thus father and son are consanguineous in the first degree, grandfather and grandson in the second.

2° In an equal collateral line there are as many degrees as there are generations in one tract of the line, or as many persons in one series, the stock being removed. Thus brother and sister are in the first degree, first cousins in the second.

3° In an unequal collateral line there are as many degrees as there are generations in the longer tract of the line, or as many persons in the more remote series, the stock being removed. Thus an uncle with his niece is consanguineous in the second degree; by others it is said: in the second degree touching the first, or the second mixed with the first. An unequal or mixed degree, according to the style of the curia, is to be expressed in the petition for dispensation.

Let it be noted that in civil law the rule has force universally: there are as many degrees as there are generations. Hence in the direct line the computation is the same as in canon law; in the collateral line it is different, so that the degrees are computed from both sides and therefore are doubled in an equal line, and in an unequal line are added to one another.

904. Principle I. In the direct line of consanguinity, matrimony is void between all ascendants and descendants, both legitimate and natural, i.e., indefinitely. - Thus can. 1076, § 1.

The reason is the reverence and subjection owed to ascendants, with which the offices of spouses do not agree; whence the impediment is of the law of nature. St. Thomas shows this thus, q. 54, a. 3:

"1° That which human nature has in its first condition is of the law of nature. But from its first condition human nature had this, that father and mother were excluded from matrimony, which is clear from what is said, Gen. II, 24: For this cause a man shall leave father and mother; which cannot be understood with respect to cohabitation, and so it must be understood with respect to the conjunction of matrimony. Therefore consanguinity impedes matrimony according to the law of nature...

"2° In matrimony that is said to be against the law of nature by which matrimony is rendered unsuitable with respect to the end to which it is ordered. But the end of matrimony per se and first is the good of offspring. This indeed is impeded by some consanguinity, namely, between father and daughter or son and mother, not indeed so that it is totally taken away, because a daughter can receive offspring from the seed of her father and together with her father nourish and instruct it, in which the good of offspring consists; but so that it is not done in a fitting manner. For it is disordered that a daughter be joined to her father by matrimony as a companion, for the sake of generating and educating offspring, when she ought through all things to be subject to her father, as proceeding from him. And therefore it is of the law of nature that father and mother be repelled from matrimony. And even more mother than father; because more is derogated from the reverence which is owed to parents if a son takes his mother than if a father takes his daughter as wife, since a wife ought in some way to be subject to her husband."

905. Principle II. In the collateral line, matrimony is void up to the third degree inclusive, yet so that the impediment of matrimony is multiplied only as often as the common stock is multiplied. - Thus can. 1076, § 2.

A threefold reason for the impediment is indicated by St. Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 9: 1. the reverence owed to parents and consequently to other consanguineous persons who draw origin from the same parents, to which the baseness inherent in venereal commingling is contrary; - 2. the restraining of concupiscence among consanguineous persons who make use of familiar association; - 3. the extension of friendship with outsiders. Cf. q. 54, a. 3. To these can be added a reason from the physical order, because harm from these unions, by force of heredity, more easily arises for the offspring.

The impediment is of ecclesiastical law, except in the first degree: namely, matrimony between brother and sister seems rather to be against natural law, not indeed primary but secondary, and against divine law.

According to present-day discipline:

1° The impediment renders matrimony void up to the 3rd degree inclusive, but not beyond, even if the more remote degree is mixed with the nearer, e.g., the fourth with the second. Hence it can be said that matrimony cannot be entered between those whose grandparents are brothers or sisters, but can be if they are distant by a more remote degree; - or, in other words, that the impediment does not extend beyond the children of first cousins, and great-grandchildren.

Formerly it urged up to the 7th degree; afterward by the Fourth Lateran Council and by Trent, sess. 24, c. 4, it was reduced to the 4th, and by the new code of law to the 3rd degree. The reason is that, as St. Thomas explains, q. 54, a. 4, formerly consanguineous persons were accustomed to dwell more in one family; but now toward more remote consanguineous persons there is almost no bond of greater friendship than toward outsiders. Hence beyond this it is useless to prohibit degrees of consanguinity, and also dangerous, because, concupiscence prevailing, men do not sufficiently observe the numerous multitude of consanguineous persons.

2° The impediment is multiplied only as often as the common stock is multiplied. Namely, from multiplied consanguinity the impediment is multiplied as often, namely, as the persons communicate in the same blood because of the multiplication of a common stock, or as often as they descend from several stocks.

Before the new code of law, consanguinity was also multiplied from the fact that either or both of the spouses descended from the common stock by a multiple way; but now only from the fact that the common stock is multiplied. This can happen in a threefold way: a) if several men consanguineous to each other have generated offspring from women consanguineous to each other; b) if someone has successively generated offspring from several persons consanguineous to each other, successively taken; c) if someone has generated offspring from a person consanguineous to himself, and the common ascendants are already consanguineous to each other. Moreover, several causes of multiple consanguinity can occur together even in one case.

906. Observations. - 1. The impediment of consanguinity, even insofar as it is established from the law of nature, is not only impedient but diriment; this is necessary so that the law may efficaciously remove from these marriages and attain its end.

Hence in an impediment which certainly or probably is of natural or divine law, the Church cannot dispense; whence can. 1076, § 3: "Let matrimony never be permitted, if there is any doubt whether the parties are consanguineous in any degree of the direct line or in the first degree of the collateral line."

In other degrees the Church can dispense; and indeed in the third degree easily, less easily in the equal second degree, and with difficulty in the second touching the first. And according to can. 1052, a dispensation is valid, even if an error concerning the degree has crept into the petition or concession, provided the degree really existing is inferior, or even if the multiplicity of the impediment in an equal or inferior degree has been kept silent.

Unbelievers, while they contract among themselves, are subject to impediments of natural and divine law, but not to impediments of ecclesiastical law. Hence marriages entered between unbelievers consanguineous in the direct line or in the first degree of the collateral line are to be held as invalid; nevertheless in practice recourse must be had to the Holy See. Marriages entered with other consanguineous persons are valid, unless the civil prince has established the impediment; if the impediment is doubtful, one must conclude for the nullity of the matrimony, in favor of the faith.

So that consanguinity may more easily be detected where the stock is unknown, above the names of the spouses there should be written the names of their ascendants up to the third degree. But if names are found common to each spouse, the impediment is present, and then the degree by which each is distant from such a common name is to be computed; otherwise the impediment is not present. - If it is present, special attention must be given to the three ways in which it is multiplied. 1

Let it be permitted to set forth the three ways schematically:

a. Consanguineous men generating offspring from consanguineous women:

                 John                         Joseph
                  |                            |
          +-------+-------+            +-------+-------+
          |               |            |               |
       Albert          Raymond       Mary           Aloysia

   Albert + Mary -> Louis
   Raymond + Aloysia -> Eugenia

Between Louis and Eugenia there exists a double impediment in the 2nd degree of consanguinity, because they have a double common stock, namely, the parents both of their father and of their mother.

b. A man generating offspring successively from several consanguineous women:

                         John
                          |
            +-------------+-------------+
            |                           |
         Martha                     Margaret
            |                           |
            +----------- Leo -----------+
            |                           |
          Peter                       Paul
            |                           |
          Mary                       Joseph

Between Joseph and Mary there is present a double impediment of consanguinity, one in the 2nd, the other in the 3rd degree, because they have a double common stock, namely Leo, their grandfather, and John, their great-grandfather.

c. A man generating offspring from a consanguineous woman, or common ascendants already consanguineous:

                         John
                          |
             +------------+------------+
             |                         |
           Luke                      Paul
             |                         |
       +-----+-----+                   |
       |           |                   |
      Leo       Eugenia             Andrew
       |           |                   |
       |           +---------+---------+
       |                     |
    Joseph                 Mary

Between Joseph and Mary there is present a double impediment of consanguinity, one in the 2nd degree, from the common stock Luke, the other in the 3rd from the common stock John.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage

Dominic Palmieri, S.J. — 78 passages

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Canons of the Apostles, in the First Three Centuries of the Church

n. ¶824.

Canon XIX. He who has married two sisters successively, or the daughter of a brother (another reading: a cousin; Ebediesu adds, or the daughter of a sister), cannot be a cleric.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Council of Agde, …, A.D. 506

n. ¶1112.

Canon LXI. (This canon seems to have been added to the canons of this council from the Council of Epaon, A.D. 517. The Synod of Cologne in A.D. 887 cites this canon from the Synod of Agde and confirms it.) Concerning incestuous unions we reserve absolutely nothing of pardon unless they have healed the adultery by separation. But those incestuous persons whom it is even deadly to designate, and who are to be counted by no name of marriage, we judge to be these. If anyone has polluted by carnal union the widow of his brother, who almost before had been a sister (cf. Canon II of Neocaesarea); if any brother has received the sister of his wife (cf. Canon LXI of Elvira, Decree XII of Siricius in the letter to the Gauls, and Canon XXVIII of Basil); if anyone has married his stepmother (cf. 1 Cor. V, 1, and Canon XXIII of Basil); if anyone has associated himself to a female cousin; if anyone is mixed with the widow or daughter of a maternal uncle (cf. the decree of Siricius in the same place, XIV), or the daughter of a paternal uncle, or with his stepdaughter (cf. Canon LXVI of Elvira), or he who has polluted by intercourse someone from his own consanguinity, or her whom a blood-relative had, or has married her as wife ... which we prohibit at the present time in such a way that we do not dissolve those things which have been instituted up to now.

n. ¶1113.

Cf. Canon IV of the second Council of Toledo below. Gratian, causa 35, question 3, canon 8, in place of the words, "if any brother has received the sister of his wife," reads: "if any brother has received his own sister as wife," which he seized upon in support of his own opinion; Schmalzg., book IV, title 14, n. 47. You see that no certain norm is handed down here for recognizing the limits of consanguinity and affinity, but that the norm itself, already known from elsewhere, is rather supposed. You see likewise that affinity is extended as far as consanguinity.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Council of Toledo, A.D. 527 or 531

n. ¶1138.

Here indeed there is not presented a distinct enumeration of the degrees of consanguinity or affinity between which it is not lawful to enter marriage; yet the formula of speaking is so general that of itself it comprehends all degrees of propinquity which are wont to be reckoned among men. Yet that the Spaniards had established some limit below which it would not be lawful to enter marriages is not permitted to be doubted by the series of generations which shortly afterward flourished in Spain, Isidore of Seville, who brings consanguinity down to the sixth generation (see below under Gregory the Great). But by a certain limit, received from the common mode of reckoning, that general formula of the Fathers of Toledo, as also of the Fathers of Agde (cf. above), was putting on a determinate sense. Cf. what we shall say after Gregory the Great.

n. ¶1139.

Likewise observe that this formula: "so far as he knows the lineaments of affinity by succession of kind" can comprehend not only consanguinity, but also affinity properly so called, and that manifoldly.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Council of Auvergne, A.D. 535

n. ¶1147.

Canon XII. If anyone has believed that the widow of his brother, the sister of his wife, his stepdaughter, his female cousin or cousin's daughter, or the widow of his paternal or maternal uncle, is to be violated by the consortship of carnal contagion, and with sacrilegious daring has broken through the authority of the divine law and the rights of nature, and to her to whom he ought to have shown the consolations of charity and pious affection, has attempted to bring force, as an enemy of his own and an assailant of chastity, let him be struck by the sentence of the apostolic constitution. And so long as he is engaged in so great a crime, let him be deprived of the Christian assembly and banquet, and at the same time of the communion of Mother Church.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Council of Orleans, A.D. 538

n. ¶1155.

Canon X. Concerning incestuous unions, let those things which have been established be kept in such a way that for those who either now come to baptism or to whom the statutes of the Fathers have not previously come to notice by priestly preaching, we believe that counsel should be given because of the newness of their conversion and faith, so that contracted unions of this sort up to now not be dissolved; but in future, that which has been forbidden concerning incestuous unions in the earlier canons is to be observed: that is, that no one shall presume to associate to himself under the name of marriage the widow of his father (that is, she who was his stepmother), the daughter of his wife (whom she, namely, had had from another husband, his stepdaughter), the widow of his brother, the sister of his wife, a female cousin or cousin's daughter, the widow of a maternal or paternal uncle. But if any have been associated in this incestuous adultery rather than in marriage, so long as they have not separated themselves, let them be repelled from ecclesiastical communion.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Council of Tours, A.D. 567

n. ¶1177.

Canon XXI. Concerning incestuous unions, however, we judge that the old statutes of the canons are not to be broken ... Therefore it has also pleased us to touch on a few things from the volumes of the books and to insert them in the canons, so that, the reading taken out from other books, it may be recited to the people in one. For thus the Lord has spoken, Lev. XVIII. 7: You shall not uncover the shame of your father and the shame of your mother ... (up to verse 20 inclusively). And likewise the sacred sentence of the laws says (Cod. Theod., concerning incestuous nuptials, law 3), which in this explanation is open to every man, learned as much as unlearned: that whoever shall join to himself in criminal nuptials either the daughter of a sister or brother, or a female cousin of a further degree, or the wife of a brother, let him be subject to this penalty, that he be separated from such consortship. Likewise another law (ibid., law 4): Whatever woman shall have accepted the husband of her sister after the death of the latter, or if anyone of the men, his wife being dead, shall join her sister to himself in other nuptials, let him know that by such consortship he is notable. Then the canons from the first Synod of Orleans, Canon XVIII, Epaon, Canon XXX, and Auvergne, Canon XII, above, are cited. They add: We strengthen in all things that which our fathers established.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Diocesan Synod of…, A.D. 590

n. ¶1195.

Canon XXXI. It is not lawful to accept as wife a female cousin, that is, one who is procreated from two brothers or from two sisters, nor may those who are born from them be associated in marriage.

n. ¶1196.

Not only the degree of first cousins, but also the next is excluded from nuptials.

Bk. XI, Epistle LXIV), A.D. 601

n. ¶1200.

Question 6. To what generation ought the faithful to be coupled in marriage with their own relatives, and whether it is lawful to be coupled in marriage with stepmothers and kinswomen.

n. ¶1201.

Response. A certain earthly law in the Roman republic permitted that the son and daughter, whether of a brother or of a sister, or of two full brothers or two sisters (paternal cousins, first cousins, cousins' daughters) be mingled. But we have learned by experience that offspring cannot grow up from such a marriage. And the sacred law (of Moses) forbids revealing the shame of your kinship. Hence it is necessary that now the third (the children of cousins) or fourth generation of the faithful ought licitly to be joined to one another. Alexander II, in his epistle to the clerics of Naples on computing the degrees of consanguinity, reads: whence it is necessary that now four or five generations be coupled to each other. For the second, which we have mentioned, must abstain entirely from each other. But to be mingled with a stepmother is a grave crime, because it is written also in the law: You shall not reveal the shame of your father. That also signifies that another thing too is implicitly called forth, namely, to the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. ... With a kinswoman (that is, the wife of a brother) also it is forbidden to be mingled; because through the prior union she has been made the flesh of the brother.

Bk. XIV, Epistle 17), A.D. 604

n. ¶1202.

"What I wrote to Augustine, bishop of the English race, to your alumnus, namely, as you remember, concerning the union of consanguinity, you should know that I wrote to him specially, and not generally to others, for the race of the Angles itself, which had recently come to the faith, lest from fear of things more austere it withdraw from the good which it had begun. Whence also every Roman city stood forth as witness for me (perhaps a synod, in which this concession was made by decree, is indicated); nor were these things commanded by me to them in that intention that, after they have been strengthened in faith by a firm root, if they have been found within their own consanguinity, they should not be separated, or that within the line of affinity (consanguinity), that is, down to the seventh generation, they should be joined. But while those neophytes are still existent, it is necessary very often first to teach them to avoid unlawful things and to instruct them by words and examples; and the things which afterward they may have done concerning such matters must reasonably and faithfully be excluded."

n. ¶1203.

The line of consanguinity is said to extend down to the seventh generation; moreover the Angles are to be joined beyond it, since the privilege has first been revoked.

n. ¶1204.

It will be useful to linger here a little, that, if it is right, we may interpret rightly the opinions of Gregory the Great (and cf. what was said in Theology XXIX, n. XIV, concerning these epistles). As regards the epistle to Augustine, Gregory makes mention of a certain earthly law, which is the law in the Code of Justinian, L. V, Tit. IV, l. 19, which either before or after Theodosius the Younger removed the law of Theodosius the Elder forbidding nuptials between cousins. Indeed, Theodosius the Great was the first of the Roman Emperors to forbid nuptials between paternal cousins and first cousins. This law indeed is not extant; nevertheless Ambrose mentions it in the epistle to Paternus, Augustine in The City of God XV.16, Aurelius Victor in the epitome of the History toward the end, and Arcadius and Honorius, sons of the same Theodosius, in the law Manente, Cod. Theod. L. III, Tit. 12, l. 3, by which law they tempered the law of their father as to the penalties. The question is whether afterward the same sons abolished the same law of their father by the law Celebrandis, by which these nuptials are permitted, which law is extant in the Code of Justinian, Book V, Title 4, and is ascribed to the same men, although it is lacking in the Theodosian code. Jacobus Sirmondus, in the diatribe On the Law Celebrandis (Works, Tom. IV), judges it more probable that this law, such as it now stands in the Code of Justinian, did not proceed from Arcadius and Honorius, both for other causes and especially because it is absent from the Theodosian code, and was unknown to Augustine, who, in the cited place, acknowledges the law of Theodosius the Elder alone as in force in his own age; and finally because, on the contrary, Honorius and Arcadius brought a law (Cod. Theod. L. III, Tit. 10, sole law, If nuptials are sought by rescript) by which, while the prohibition of nuptials between cousins remained, they nevertheless granted that the same nuptials could be sought by rescript of the Prince.

n. ¶1205.

But Jacobus Gothofredus, on Cod. Theod. L. III, Tit. 12, l. 3, judges that there is nothing for which that law Celebrandis should be denied to be theirs, to whom it is ascribed in the Code of Justinian. For he observes first generally that, when there were two or more Emperors, even if some law was founded by one alone, it was nevertheless accustomed to be inscribed and promulgated in the name and authority of all. Therefore he says: 1. the law Si nuptiae, published shortly thereafter, is from Honorius alone in the West. 2. Arcadius, however, first tempered the rigor of the paternal law by the law Manente; then, a few years later, by the law Celebrandis permitted what the Father had forbidden. Why therefore does this law Celebrandis not appear in the Theodosian code? He himself responds by asking: why does the law of Theodosius the Elder not appear there? If these things are received (for cf. Gothofredus himself in the cited place), we understand without great difficulty why Augustine in the West acknowledges the law of Theodosius the Elder as still in force; for Honorius had not abrogated it, but rather had confirmed it, permitting only that such nuptials be sought by rescript of the Prince. Cassiodorus also seems to have acknowledged this law of Honorius alone, who in Book VII of the Variarum, formula 46, asserts that the favor of joining by nuptial copulation with cousins was reserved by the prince to prudent men.

n. ¶1206.

But it is certain that before Gregory the Great, Justinian made that law Celebrandis his own, inserting it into his Code, L. V, Tit. IV, l. 19: The license of celebrating marriages among cousins has been granted by the healthfulness of this law; so that, the authority of the old law being revoked and the incentives of calumnies extinguished, marriage among cousins is held legitimate, whether they were born from two brothers, or from two sisters, or from a brother and sister; and those brought forth from that marriage are to be held legitimate and successors to their parents.

n. ¶1208.

Yet the question is more entangled: how far, among Christians in the age of Gregory, did the prohibited degrees of kinship extend? For Gregory, in the epistle to Felix, teaches that marriage is lawful only after the seventh generation. On the other hand, at the same age, Isidore, Etymologies, L. IX, c. 6, n. 29, affirms that "consanguinity has been constituted down to the sixth degree of kind" (which nevertheless, according to the interpretation of Peter Damian, does not conflict with the former; cf. below at the year 1065), "so that, just as the generation and estate of man is finished in the six ages of the world, so the propinquity of kind would be terminated by as many degrees." But the Fathers of Agde and Toledo, above, forbid marriages so long as kinship is known; but as to degrees expressly indicated, it does not appear that any degree beyond the third is expressly prohibited. Cf. Canon LXI of the Council of Agde and XXX of Epaon, the canons of the Synod of Auxerre, A.D. 590, and Canon XIV following of the Council of Paris. Theodore of Canterbury, who flourished after the middle of the following century, increases the difficulty. For among the capitula ascribed to him (cf. Spicilegium Dacherianum, Tom. IX), these are found: Chapter XIII: "In the third propinquity of the flesh, according to the Greeks it is lawful to marry, as it is written in the law (the law of Justinian permitted it also in the second degree, according to the ecclesiastical computation indeed; therefore Theodore does not appeal to this law), in the fifth according to the Romans. Nevertheless in the fourth they do not dissolve the marriage after it has been made" (the same thing was established in the middle of the eighth century by the Fathers of Vermerie and others, whom see below). "In the third propinquity it is not lawful to have the wife of another after his death." Chapter LXXXIV: "In the fifth generation they shall be joined; in the fourth, if they have been found joined, they are not to be separated; in the third, they are to be separated." Moreover Rabanus Maurus in the ninth century, in an epistle to Humbert, mention having been made of the opinion of Isidore and Gregory, prefers to both and says that there is to be followed the doctrine of Theodore, who, "walking midway between Isidore and Gregory, defined that after the fifth generation marriage already becomes lawful." But from the capitula of Theodore which are now circulated, it is rather evident that he himself thought marriage lawful after the fourth generation.

n. ¶1209.

Rabanus therefore in the ninth century knew no ecclesiastical law which forbade marriages after at least the fifth generation; indeed, not even after the fourth. For in another little work, On the Nuptials of Blood-Relatives, after the cited canons of Gregory II (which see below), he says that these are to be followed, admonishing only "that if anyone has willed to contain himself as far as the fifth or sixth or even seventh generation, he is not to be prohibited, but rather exhorted." Cf. also Decree XXX of the Council of Mainz held by the same Rabanus, A.D. 847, below. Yet in the eighth century Gregory III already, in an epistle to Boniface (which it is wonderful was hidden from Rabanus), testifies that he has decreed that each one observe his own progeny down to the seventh generation; see below. Moreover Zacharias, in the epistle to Theodore of Pavia (see below), making mention of the epistle of Gregory the Great to the Angles, admonishes that that pious Father granted it that he might impose certain light things, not graver ones, upon the rude and those newly coming to Christ. By these words Zacharias openly alludes to the epistle of the same Gregory to Felix, so that there is no reason why, any longer with Peter Coustant (in the Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, col. 416-17), who did not see the entire epistle of Zacharias to Theodore, we should doubt the authenticity of this epistle of Gregory to Felix. Zacharias moreover adds there that he wishes the people committed to the care of Theodore to observe not what was granted to the recently converted, but what those keep who from their cradles have been nourished in the Catholic Church: namely, that when they have known themselves to be of their own kinship, by all means they abstain. But since he does not declare the degrees more distinctly, Zacharias seems to understand those whom Gregory the Great, to whom Theodore of Pavia had appealed, indicated, namely down to the seventh degree.

n. ¶1210.

What therefore is to be judged? I think that in the Church this was always guarded: that, so long as certain persons had known themselves to be of their own kinship, they should abstain from marriage (which indeterminate manner of speaking Nicholas I also preferred to retain when he wrote to the Bishops of Germany, see below, as if the degrees of kinship were known from elsewhere); yet there was not among all the same way of applying this law. And at Rome indeed and in the nearest churches, in the age of Gregory the Great, and before him and afterward, the law was in force that, since after the seventh generation kinship was judged to cease, marriages were lawful only after the seventh generation. Certainly Modestinus (in Dig. L. 38, Tit. 10, l. 4) had already said: "not easily, so far as our law is concerned, when inquiry is made concerning natural kinship, does anyone exceed the seventh degree, since beyond that degree the nature of things scarcely permits the life of kinsmen to exist." Nevertheless, I judge that a universal law concerning this matter in the Church, forbidding all these marriages, whether introduced from the prescription of the Roman See or from custom imitating the Roman manner, prevailed only rather late, after the middle of the ninth century. For, as we shall see, several provincial councils of the immediately following centuries are ignorant of this law. But in the ninth century, especially as it declined toward its end, that law appears commonly received.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Council of Paris, A.D. 615

n. ¶1218.

Canon XIV. We have judged that incestuous unions are specially to be cut away from the whole Christian people, so that if anyone has believed that the widow of his brother, the sister of his wife, his stepdaughter, a female cousin, a cousin's daughter, or likewise the widow of his paternal and maternal uncle, or one given in the habit of religion, is to be violated by the consortship of marriage, let him be segregated from the grace of communion so long as he ought to abstain by most manifest separation from unlawful unions.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Roman Council of …, A.D. 721

n. ¶1259.

Canon VIII. If anyone has led a female cousin into marriage, let him be anathema.

n. ¶1261.

Cf. the following response of the same Gregory II to Boniface. It is clear that it is supposed to be known how far kinship extends; but in general marriage is forbidden between blood-relatives and affines. Yet how many degrees of kinship were reckoned can be learned both from the response of the same Gregory II to Boniface, soon to be cited, and from Isidore and Gregory the Great, above, and also from the following response of Gregory III. Cf. also Canon XI of the Council of Agde.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Epistle of the Sa…, A.D. 726

n. ¶1265.

Response I. In the first place it was read in what degree of the stock of relatives marriage is coupled. We say that indeed it was fitting that, so long as they recognize themselves as relatives by affinity, they should not approach the society of this copulation. But because tempering, and especially in so barbarous a nation (namely, the Germans), is more pleasing than the strictness of censure, it must be granted that they be joined after the fourth generation.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Epistle of Gregor…, A.D. 731

n. ¶1270.

This is the first ecclesiastical canon in which it is expressly said that the impediment of consanguinity extends down to the seventh degree. The Fathers of the second Council of Douzy, A.D. 874, attribute this decree, as if taken from the epistle of Gregory the Great to Felix, above, to that same Gregory. But the same Fathers there err not a little in other citations. If you compare this response of Gregory III to Boniface with the response of Gregory II to the same (Response I), the authenticity of each epistle being supposed, you must say one of two things: either that Gregory III abrogated the concession of the former for the Germans, or that he proposed only the general law and narrated what had been decreed in the Synod.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Epistle of the Sa…, Bishop of Pavia

n. ¶1289.

Response I. You took care to ask us whether it is lawful for a son whose father received another man's daughter from sacred baptism, that is, as spiritual father (perhaps "the spiritual father"), to take in marriage the daughter of the same (namely, other) father, which it is cruel to say, which you disclosed had happened enormously among you (namely, whether the son of him who received some woman from the sacred font could lead this woman as wife). But your fraternity well knows what the Lord commands through Moses, saying: You shall not reveal the shame of your father; for the daughter of your father is your shame. For the shame is said not to be revealed when it is commanded that one abstain from one's own consanguinity. Much more therefore does it befit us, with every occasion or argument set aside, to beware entirely, under excessive detestation, of the daughter of our spiritual father.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, Another Text of the Same Zacharias

n. ¶1297.

Vatican Codex 1343, 1.169, has these things: "These are sayings of Pope Zacharias concerning the fact that no blood-relative ought to be coupled: since it is not fitting to accept as wife the widow of a cousin or one's own female cousin, nor to hand over in marriage to one's son the daughter whom he lifts from the sacred font (cf. Response I to Theodore); because in divine knowledge he is found to be a full brother (the son of the one receiving is held as the brother of the received girl according to the rules of divine doctrine). For concerning the generation of these we speak thus: that in no way shall one accept as wife one from his own kinship, unless the seventh generation has been completed and passed. In the Acts of the Apostles, in the fourth chapter, we are admonished of this: abstain from fornication and corruption of kinship, on account of which the tradition (read: wrath of God) comes upon the sons of unbelief. Whence blessed Augustine, writing in his epistle to Constantine Augustus concerning this chapter, says: thus it is read in the book of Genesis: in six days the Lord made heaven and earth; on the seventh he rested from every work which he had completed. Thus also through six thousand years this world is enclosed; but on the seventh our Lord is to judge the age by fire.

n. ¶1300.

It follows: "That it is lawful for no one to accept a wife from his own kinship: in the coupling of the faithful we do not define the number of kinships, but we establish this, that it is lawful for no Christian to accept a wife from his own consanguinity or kinship so long as the generation is remembered and known or is recalled to memory" (from the periodical Der Katholik, July 1882).

n. ¶1301.

It is permissible to doubt whether such sayings really proceeded from Zacharias the Pontiff. For how do the former cohere with the latter? What have the Acts of the Apostles to do with the prohibited degrees of kinships? What is the epistle of Augustine? Did Augustine ever discourse in this way? What do those words mean: "this holy and great Nicene Council," with what follows?

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Roman Council und…, A.D. 743

n. ¶1304.

Canon VI. That no one shall presume to couple in marriage a female cousin, a niece, a stepmother, a brother's wife, or also one from his own kinship.

n. ¶1308.

Canon XV. We have written concerning the degrees of kinships and how any persons ought from now and hereafter to be coupled in legitimate marriage ... Our predecessor of blessed memory, Gregory, the younger Pope of this Apostolic See, on account of some illicit unions which were being made throughout this Italy, or the province of the Lombards, or in other places, having gathered a college of priests and promulgated sentence, bound them with the bond of anathema ... Nor is this to be passed over in silence: that in the parts of Germany it has long been made common, which indeed we find in no way written in the archive of our holy Church, yet we have learned from the very men asserting it from the parts of Germany, that holy Pope Gregory of blessed memory, when by divine grace he enlightened them to the Christian religion, gave them license to be coupled in the fourth generation; but this was when they were rude and to be invited to the faith. Although, as was said, it is by no means written, we do not hesitate to believe it. But, God bestowing, in past years the archbishops and kings of that province sent letters, seeking apostolic precepts: how it is lawful for them to couple marriages, and how they ought to observe. To them, as much as the Lord deigned to give, we directed precepts of admonition.

n. ¶1310.

It is asked who that younger Pope Gregory is. I think it is Gregory II. For to him is attributed the Roman Council enacted in A.D. 721 against illicit marriages, in which the Roman Pontiff Gregory, having begun the preface, among other things says: "Groaning, I say that I hear that some of the Christian people dwelling through the province of Italy sin rashly against the Catholic faith and the statutes of the Fathers, so that they presume to lead as wives women consecrated to God and to associate relatives in marriage." Moreover, the province of Italy is that part which the Lombards were holding, as is clear from history, and Zacharias himself interprets it. But Gregory III seems to have held no council concerning this matter. Therefore, although afterward by some, under the name of the younger Gregory, Gregory III would be understood, as Gratian is sometimes accustomed to do, nevertheless Zacharias, the immediate successor of this one, called Gregory II the younger Gregory in respect to Gregory the Great, who was the first.

n. ¶1315.

But there is indeed extant a response of Gregory II to Boniface, which we recited above in its place, by which a privilege is conceded to the barbarous nations converted by Boniface, restricting the degrees of kinship prohibited for marriage.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Council of Soisso…, A.D. 744

n. ¶1317.

Canon IX. We establish that no lay man shall have a woman consecrated to God as wife, nor his own relative, nor, while the husband is living, shall another accept his wife; because a husband ought not to dismiss his wife, except when the cause of fornication has been detected.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Council of Vermer…, A.D. 753

n. ¶1353.

Canon XVIII. He who remains with the female cousin of his wife shall lack his own wife and have no other. That woman whom he had may do what she wishes. The Church does not receive this.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Synodal Chapters, Given After the Preceding Synod in the City of Metz Under King Pepin

n. ¶1382.

Capitulum I. If a man has committed incest in these causes: with one consecrated to God, or with his co-mother, or with his spiritual stepmother from the font and the confirmation of the Bishop (cf. Zacharias, Response XXII), or with a mother and daughter, or the daughter of a sister, or a niece, or with a female cousin or niece (cf. Canon XXX from the Synod of Auxerre), or with a paternal aunt or maternal aunt: for these crimes let him lose his money, if he has any; and if he is unwilling to amend himself, let no one receive him nor give him food.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Council of Calchu…, A.D. 787

n. ¶1419.

Canon XV. Unjust and incestuous marriages are forbidden to all, both with handmaids of God or other illicit persons, and with relatives and blood-relatives or alien wives; and he who does such things is altogether pierced by the sword of anathema, unless, having been corrected, he comes to his senses from so nefarious a presumption and, obeying his own bishop, corrects and recalls himself to the norm of equity.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Council of Arles, A.D. 813

n. ¶1430.

Canon XI. Concerning incestuous conjunctions, just as it was instituted by the most holy Fathers, we reserve absolutely nothing of pardon, unless they have healed the adultery by separation. But those incestuous persons, not to be reckoned by the name of any marriage, whom it is even deadly to designate, we judge to be these: if anyone has violated by carnal conjunction the widow of his brother, who almost before had existed as a sister; if any brother has accepted the full sister of his wife; if anyone has led his stepmother; if anyone associates himself to his female cousin; if anyone is mingled with the widow or daughter of his maternal uncle; or is polluted by concubitus with the daughter of his paternal uncle or with his own stepdaughter; or if there is anything of this sort which is both long to note here and plunges any negligent person into the abyss of destruction.

n. ¶1431.

The canon of the Synod of Agde or of Epaon is again confirmed. Here it is read: "if anyone has accepted the full wife of his brother"; there: "if any brother [has accepted] the full sister of his wife," which reading is to be preferred. Likewise here it is read: "daughter of the father"; there: "daughter of the paternal uncle," which reading perhaps is to be retained also in this canon of Arles. The Fathers of Epaon added: "or if anyone has polluted by concubitus someone from his own consanguinity, or (her) whom a blood-relative had." That the Fathers of Arles, following the institutions of the Fathers, wished to confirm this again is indubitable from those words: "and if there is anything of this sort," etc.

Palmieri, On Christian Marriage, Appendix: Conspectus of th…, From the Second Council of…, A.D. 813

n. ¶1442.

Namely, the blood-relatives of one spouse are affines of the other.

…and 38 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium of Moral Theology

Aloysius Sabetti, S.J., and Timothy Barrett, S.J. — 10 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. II, Tr. XVIII, Ch. VI, Art. II, § II. On Impediments in Particular

n. 888.

I. - On Natural Kinship

Natural kinship, or consanguinity, is the bond of persons descending from the same nearest stock through carnal generation, or the bond which arises from participation of the same blood within certain limits.

In consanguinity three things must be distinguished, namely: 1°. the stock, or the person from whom the others draw origin; 2°. the degree, or the measure of the distance of one person from another; 3°. the line, or series of persons descending from the same stock. But the line is twofold: one direct, and the other collateral or transverse. The former is the series of persons of whom some descend from others, either immediately, as children from parents, or mediately, as grandchildren from grandparents or from great-grandparents, etc. But the latter is the series of persons who, although they have a common stock, nevertheless do not descend one from another, as brothers, cousins, etc. Besides, this is equal or unequal according as blood-relatives are equally or not equally distant from the common stock.

n. 889.

I say 1°. § 1. In the direct line of consanguinity, marriage is invalid among all ascendants and descendants, both legitimate and natural (Can. 1076), at least by positive law. - I said at least by positive law, because although it is certain that Marriage in the first degree of the direct line is null by the law of nature itself, nevertheless it is disputed among theologians whether it is dirimently invalidated by the same law in other degrees. - Cf. S. Alphonsus, de Sacram. Paenit., n. 470. - Schmalzgrueber, lib. 4, tit. 14, n. 30.

I say 2°. § 2. In the collateral line it is invalid up to the third degree inclusive, yet in such a way that the impediment of marriage is multiplied only as often as the common stock is multiplied (Can. 1076). But concerning the law of this impediment it must be said that it is from a positive ecclesiastical statute, as is deduced from the practice of the Church, which dispenses from it, except in the first degree, concerning which it is disputed whether it dirimently invalidates by ecclesiastical or natural law, or at least by positive divine law, since the Church never dispenses so that brothers and sisters may be joined, and unbelievers themselves detest nuptials of this kind. - Cf. Schmalzgrueber, loc. cit., nn. 45 and 46. - Ballerini, notes (a) and (b), p. 786.

I say 3°. § 3. Marriage is never to be permitted if there is any doubt whether the parties are blood-relatives in some degree of the direct line or in the first degree of the collateral line (Can. 1076).

n. 890.

But that the diversity of the degree of consanguinity may be computed, attention must be given to the following rules:

§ 1. Consanguinity is computed by lines and degrees.

Rule I. § 2. In the direct line, there are as many degrees as generations, or as many persons, with the stock removed (Can. 96).

Hence between father and son there is one degree, because there is one generation or one person of the son, the father being excluded as the stock. Between grandson and grandfather two degrees are counted, because there are two generations, although three persons intervene, namely grandfather, father, and his son, or grandson with respect to the grandfather. Suppose likewise great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather, and you will have three or four degrees.

Rule II. § 3. In the oblique line, if each tract is equal, there are as many degrees as generations in one tract of the line (Can. 96).

In the equal collateral line there are as many degrees as there are persons on one side, with the stock removed. Hence brother and sister are in the first degree, because if the common stock or father is set aside, one person remains on each side; and since each is distant by one degree from the stock, they also are distant from each other by one degree. Likewise paternal cousins, or the children of two brothers, are each distant by two degrees from the common stock or from the grandfather, and consequently are blood-relatives between themselves in the second degree. Thus also it must be said concerning the others.

Rule III. § 3. If the two tracts are unequal, there are as many degrees as generations in the longer tract (Can. 96).

Hence if one is distant from the common stock by two degrees and his blood-relative by three, they will be blood-relatives between themselves in the third degree, according to the saying: The more remote degree draws the nearer to itself. Therefore Bertha will be a blood-relative in the second degree with her paternal uncle, or the brother of her father, because she is distant by two degrees from the common stock, namely from her grandfather, although the paternal uncle himself is separated from the same stock by one degree, since he is the son of the stock, or the brother of Bertha's father. Thus also must it be established concerning any others.

Notice that these rules regard computation according to ecclesiastical law. But if the civil laws of some State compute differently, attention must be given to them, but only for civil effects. Cf. Kenrick, n. 153.

Questions

Question 1. How can the degrees of consanguinity easily be found?

Resp. If the common stock is known, write his name on paper, and below mark the generations and the names of the persons descending from here and there, until you come to those persons who are to be joined in wedlock; from this you will easily compute the degrees. - But if the stock is unknown, proceed thus: write in the lower part of the paper or table the name of the bridegroom on one side, and the name of the bride on the other; then above the bridegroom's name mark the names of those blood-relatives of his who perhaps can be the cause why some kinship exists with the bride; do the same with respect to the bride. When this notation has been made, ascend on one side, and see whether they come together in a common principle or stock, from whom the bridegroom and bride have been mediately begotten. Hence after you have found it, and at the same time have observed whether the betrothed are in an equal or unequal line, finally apply the rules proposed below and the resolution of the doubt will be clear. For these things let the following example stand:

                         GREAT-GRANDFATHER

PATRITIUS MURPHY

GRANDMOTHER                         GRANDFATHER
              Anna Murphy                         Petrus Murphy
              Wife of Joseph Smith

FATHER                              FATHER
              Michael Smith                       Joannes Murphy

BRIDEGROOM                          BRIDE
              Robertus Smith                      Maria Murphy

In the example Robertus Smith and Maria Murphy are blood-relatives in the third equal degree.

Another method also exists for recognizing the degrees of kinship, namely the use of the tree of consanguinity or of the genealogical table which is had on the following page. Therefore, that the whole matter may be done practically, inspect the table, and see in what line and in what cells you find the persons concerning whose kinship inquiry is made, and attend by how many degrees they are distant from the common stock.

Consanguinity between the same persons can arise from a multiple head, and then there is a double or multiple propinquity or impediment to be opened in the petition of dispensation. But this can happen when two or more common stocks concur. Thus, for example, if wives who are themselves sisters or cousins between themselves were married by two brothers or cousins, the children received from each wedlock will be joined between themselves by a double bond of consanguinity. - Cf. Scavini, lib. 3, tract. 12, n. 1012.

n. 891, Q. 2.

Question 2. Who are collateral blood-relatives?

1°. From the Father's Side

PATRUUS MAGNUS, or brother of the grandfather - grandfather's brother.

AMITA MAGNA, or sister of the grandfather - grandfather's sister.

PATRUUS, or brother of the father - father's brother, paternal uncle.

AMITA, or sister of the father - father's sister, paternal aunt.

PATRUELES, or children of brothers from the father's side - first cousins.

2°. From the Mother's Side

AVUNCULUS MAGNUS, or brother of the grandmother - grandmother's brother.

MATERTERA MAGNA, or sister of the grandmother - grandmother's sister.

Genealogical Table

                                      3
                              Great-grandfather
                              Great-grandmother

3            2             3
                 Great paternal     Grandfather    Great maternal
                 uncle/aunt         Grandmother    uncle/aunt

3          2            1            2           3
         Their children  Paternal     Father       Maternal    Their children
                         uncle/aunt   Mother       uncle/aunt

3        2          1           N           1          2        3
   Nephews   Paternal    Brother                 Sister    Cousins   Nephews
             cousins                                      maternal
             Amitini                                      Amitini

3        2                       1                    2        3
   Second    Brother's               Son/Daughter        Sister's  Second
   cousins   children                                    children  cousins

3                                2                             3
   Brother's                         Grandson                      Sister's
   grandchildren                     Granddaughter                 grandchildren

3
                              Great-grandson
                              Great-granddaughter

Notes

I. This table represents consanguineous persons up to the third degree in the direct and collateral line.

II. Persons who are joined by a tract are blood-relatives between themselves in the direct line, and with the rest in the collateral line.

III. Where the lines are joined, there the stock is had.

AVUNCULUS, or brother of the mother - mother's brother, maternal uncle.

MATERTERA, or sister of the mother - mother's sister, maternal aunt.

CONSOBRINI, or children of brothers from the mother's side - first cousins.

3°. From Each Side

AMITINI, or children of brothers - first cousins.

SOBRINI, or their children - second cousins.

NEPOTES, or children of brothers - nephews - brother's or sister's children.

PRONEPOTES, or their children - second nephews - grand nephews.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1117, n. 70.

II. - On Spiritual Kinship

Spiritual kinship is a certain propinquity which, by statute of the Church, arises from the administration and reception of Baptism among certain persons determined in canon law.

Concina, Compendium

Daniele Concina, O.P. — 1 passage

Diss. II, Chapter I — On diriment impediments

n. VII.

VII. QUESTION IV. What is the impediment of kinship? ANSWER. Kinship is threefold: natural, spiritual, and legal. Natural is called consanguinity, as it were a unity of blood: because blood-relations descend from the same stock and are as it were conjoined in it. Spiritual kinship is that affinity which is contracted from Baptism or Confirmation, and is called also co-paternity. Legal kinship arises from legal adoption, and is called adoption.

Slater, Cases II

Thomas Slater, S.J. — 8 passages

Slater, Cases II, Matrimony, 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:

n. ¶2.

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

n. ¶3.

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?

n. ¶4.

What is to be said of the case?

n. ¶5.

Solution

The first question was answered above, p. 259.

n. ¶6.

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?

n. ¶7.

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.

n. ¶8.

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.

The Casuist

Various; ed. S. Woywod, O.F.M., and J. A. McHugh, O.P. — 14 passages

Vol. II, Case XII: A Case of the Impediment of Consanguinity