It's called affinity, and per canon law, it invalidates a marriage. So really she was in an invalid marriage and was not terribly pleased to hear that.
So if the first couple had a kid, then the duke couldn't have married her? But if they didn't, he could have? Trying to read the law on this, it's very confusing with all these. Especially if "affinity does not beget affinity" which is what this seems to cover? Thanks for weighing in.
but in the old days, if your widowed sister in law had no children, you were supposed to marry her to give your deceased brother a child? Hoping Ed or JD can comment on this too. thanks for bearing with me so far!
Yes, that was the law in the Old Testament and brothers were sometimes punished for not marrying their brother's widow and raising up children for their brother. But I do not think anyone would support a return to where a man has to marry his brother's widow or where a widow has to marry her husband's brother, and it really needs to go all the way in one direction or the other. Either a woman should view her brother-in-law as a spare husband or as a brother. The Church's canon law has stuck with brother.
Incidentally, this was why Henry VIII split off from the Catholic Church. His brother Arthur died at age 15, a few months after marrying the 15 year old Catherine. She said that the marriage was never consummated, but, just in case it had been, the pope gave a dispensation from affinity for Henry to marry her. Later, when he wanted to divorce Catherine, he claimed that he never should have married his brother's widow and that the pope had been wrong to give the dispensation. But the pope could not admit that he had been wrong in the middle of the Protestant Reformation. So Henry declared that he was the head of the Church in England and then he annulled his own marriage on the basis that he never should have married his brother's widow.
It's not a matter of having children, but the fact that she married her brother-in-law: it's a kind of relationship incest basically (and incest also results in an invalid marriage). The particular canon in today's law is Canon 1092: "Affinity in the direct line in any degree invalidates a marriage."
You can see something similar to this in the 1917 Code: you weren't allowed to marry your opposite-sex godparent due to the spiritual relationship you had. It was a kind of spiritual incest.
A priest and/or a canonist could explain it better than I have, but that's naturally the gist of it.
I think that the general absolution thing could be developed with a proper theology. We have absolution at the beginning of Mass, but it has always been the practice that it removes venial sins but not mortal sins, but it would remove mortal sins if the Church said it did. It would have to be understood that:
1. This does not remove the obligation to confess sins, but it serves as a more frequent absolution in between confessions.
2. It does not apply to people who are in habitual sin, such as someone married outside the Church or a mafia hitman or abortionist.
I am not sure that this is a good idea, but I think that it is a good discussion for the Church to have. Would it result in a holier Church or in a more functionalist Church where people do not go to Confession and do not even have imperfect contrition but just keep committing sins and receiving cheap grace?
Look, most people who turn up to Mass are doing exactly that already. The challenge is how to get them back to the confessional. I’ve heard of an excellent initiative in a Texas parish that when preparing children for first reconciliation does family penance services only. They do a couple of sessions with the parents, emphasising how important it is for their kids to see them go. Totally transforming the parish one family at a time, which would be the first step to having a sensible discussion on general absolution. 😊
The stars of Hollywood and other influencers, are in general ignorant of world events. They say what will garner them the most hits or boost their ratings.
There are more blind guides and blind fools in Hollywood than those running Chinese "re-education" camps.
Sadly, people are foolish enough to listen and follow them, not realizing that these Hollywood folks care nothing for them, to Hollywood they are only worth the money spent by them on the trash they pedal.
It was Joe Stalin who said, I don't care who has the most votes. I care about who counts the votes.
How is marrying your brother's widow immoral? doesn't that imply your brother is dead??
It's called affinity, and per canon law, it invalidates a marriage. So really she was in an invalid marriage and was not terribly pleased to hear that.
So if the first couple had a kid, then the duke couldn't have married her? But if they didn't, he could have? Trying to read the law on this, it's very confusing with all these. Especially if "affinity does not beget affinity" which is what this seems to cover? Thanks for weighing in.
but, I guess this was under the old law too. But I guess I'm asking more for present day law
Your brother's wife is your sister-in-law. Therefore she is your sister. You cannot marry your sister.
Affinity does not beget affinity means that you can marry her sister, even though she is your sister's sister.
but in the old days, if your widowed sister in law had no children, you were supposed to marry her to give your deceased brother a child? Hoping Ed or JD can comment on this too. thanks for bearing with me so far!
Yes, that was the law in the Old Testament and brothers were sometimes punished for not marrying their brother's widow and raising up children for their brother. But I do not think anyone would support a return to where a man has to marry his brother's widow or where a widow has to marry her husband's brother, and it really needs to go all the way in one direction or the other. Either a woman should view her brother-in-law as a spare husband or as a brother. The Church's canon law has stuck with brother.
Incidentally, this was why Henry VIII split off from the Catholic Church. His brother Arthur died at age 15, a few months after marrying the 15 year old Catherine. She said that the marriage was never consummated, but, just in case it had been, the pope gave a dispensation from affinity for Henry to marry her. Later, when he wanted to divorce Catherine, he claimed that he never should have married his brother's widow and that the pope had been wrong to give the dispensation. But the pope could not admit that he had been wrong in the middle of the Protestant Reformation. So Henry declared that he was the head of the Church in England and then he annulled his own marriage on the basis that he never should have married his brother's widow.
It's not a matter of having children, but the fact that she married her brother-in-law: it's a kind of relationship incest basically (and incest also results in an invalid marriage). The particular canon in today's law is Canon 1092: "Affinity in the direct line in any degree invalidates a marriage."
You can see something similar to this in the 1917 Code: you weren't allowed to marry your opposite-sex godparent due to the spiritual relationship you had. It was a kind of spiritual incest.
A priest and/or a canonist could explain it better than I have, but that's naturally the gist of it.
I think that the general absolution thing could be developed with a proper theology. We have absolution at the beginning of Mass, but it has always been the practice that it removes venial sins but not mortal sins, but it would remove mortal sins if the Church said it did. It would have to be understood that:
1. This does not remove the obligation to confess sins, but it serves as a more frequent absolution in between confessions.
2. It does not apply to people who are in habitual sin, such as someone married outside the Church or a mafia hitman or abortionist.
I am not sure that this is a good idea, but I think that it is a good discussion for the Church to have. Would it result in a holier Church or in a more functionalist Church where people do not go to Confession and do not even have imperfect contrition but just keep committing sins and receiving cheap grace?
Look, most people who turn up to Mass are doing exactly that already. The challenge is how to get them back to the confessional. I’ve heard of an excellent initiative in a Texas parish that when preparing children for first reconciliation does family penance services only. They do a couple of sessions with the parents, emphasising how important it is for their kids to see them go. Totally transforming the parish one family at a time, which would be the first step to having a sensible discussion on general absolution. 😊
The stars of Hollywood and other influencers, are in general ignorant of world events. They say what will garner them the most hits or boost their ratings.
There are more blind guides and blind fools in Hollywood than those running Chinese "re-education" camps.
Sadly, people are foolish enough to listen and follow them, not realizing that these Hollywood folks care nothing for them, to Hollywood they are only worth the money spent by them on the trash they pedal.