|
|
 |
Kelley
W. wrote: |
|
Hi, guys —
My sister-in-law recently informed me that she and her first
cousin are romantically involved.
They both backed it up by
saying cousins were married in the Bible therefore it is OK.
- I have
read in the Old Testament, where that happened, but where in
the New Testament does it say it is acceptable or wrong?
My husband and I are having a terribly difficult time dealing
with this and I need some ammunition of my own to try and convince
her how very wrong this is.
Kelley W.
|
| { How do we handle the conduct of my sister-in-law and first
cousin who are romantically involved? } |
Mary Ann
replied:
|
Kelly,
There is the genetic risk — any recessive defective genes have a much greater chance
of manifesting. Marriage to first cousins was made illegal at some times and places
because of this.
Also, there is a Church law against it — to such a marriage there
is a "diriment impediment" of collateral consanguinity. (Canon 1091 § 2) A diriment impediment
renders the attempted marriage invalid.
As for the state, I think some states don't
allow it, and some do.
Mary Ann Parks
|
Rob replied:
|
Kelly,
As far as I know; it is technically a crime in at least several (if not most) US
states to marry one's cousin. The scientific basis for not marrying a first cousin
is well documented. The most serious consequence involves the potential for negative
recessive genes to connect. When two people have the same grandparent, that gives
a 25% probability, provided there are any negative recessive genes around.
- What is a negative recessive gene?
As genes go, many genes can be recessive (meaning
that the protein they code for must have both chromosomes — DNA
stuff — be for the alternate or recessive form. If one
gene codes for brown eyes and the other for blue eyes,
you have brown eyes. If one gene codes for type B blood
and the other for type O blood (type O, by the way,
means that you have no extra antibodies) then you get
type B blood.
Now, blue eyes and type O blood are recessive genes,
but not harmful to the body. On the other hand, a set
of genes that coded for deformed lenses in the eyes
would render the individual blind. That would be a
negative recessive gene. Keep in mind that in many
cases, several genes may dictate the outcome of an
event, perhaps an individual would need 2, 3 or even
4 pairs of negative recessive genes in order to be
blind.
The problem with familial bloodlines is that
there is a vastly increased chance that any unknown
(or known, for that matter) genetic problems that are
latent, due to only one ancestor contributing a deformed
protein or set of proteins, will be expressed. (i.e.
both sets of bad genes will occur in the child.)
In short — if Man A has a bad gene (or several of them)
but only from one parent, his chances of meeting up
with Woman B who has the same genetic deformed gene
is usually low. On the other hand, if the same Man
A (and Woman B) have two children, the likelihood of
the children having the bad gene is 50%; however, since
Woman B does not have the bad one, the children will
be fine. If Child C and Child D go on to produce progeny
with each other — brother and sister — the chances of
a child having two bad genes is 25%. Having two bad
genes will cause the deformity, since there would be
no good gene.
For cousins, the chances of Grandchild E and Grandchild
F producing children with the deformity, assuming that
Child C and Child D married people without the bad
gene, is still 12.5%! That is 1 in 8! If one out of
every 8 children had life-limiting genetic problems,
our society would not be capable of operating. Furthermore,
there are thousands of genes (only 46 chromosomes,
but thousands of genes within those chromosomes) so
there would be a 1 in 8 chance for each and every negative
recessive to show up. |
I will grant that Jacob married his two cousins. He
was also a bigamist. That was licit at the time that
he was married. Solomon had multiple wives and concubines.
That does not mean that we are to follow their example.
Indeed, Abraham, Abram then, had Ishmael through his
wife's handmaid.
- How many people today would think that
surrogate motherhood (where the two participants engaged
in natural sexual union) would be a legitimate way for
a couple to obtain a child?
Marrying one's cousin, particularly when there are more
than six billion people on the planet,
is just plainly
irresponsible.
Rob Coutinho
|
Fr. Jonathan replied:
|
Hi, Kelley —
It is perfectly acceptable with a dispensation from the bishop.
I would add, in deference to others on the AskACatholic team that some are opposed to these unions from a genetic point of view.
Fr. Jonathan
|
Mary Ann replied:
|
Hi, Kelley —
I wanted to add to my original answer and reaffirm what Fr. Jonathan has said.
- With a dispensation from the bishop this marriage is valid. (Canons 1078ff)
- Without a dispensation, marriage to a first cousin is invalid. (Canon 1091 § 2)
The 4th degree is first cousins.
The pastoral problem here is that the couple were pursuing a relationship on their own authority and flouting any guidance or governance. Granted, they will be able to get a dispensation, but it doesn't seem as if they are going to ask for one. Considering the genetic issues that can be involved, and that in some states such a marriage is illegal, I believe, they are being imprudent also, which is another moral issue.
Hope this helps,
Mary Ann
|
|
|
|
