I read on an examination of conscience, that incest was a sin, but I think it is only against the canon law -some incest is natural (and in the olden days, allowable) since if it weren’t then peopling the earth from only Adam and Eve would’ve been wrong. The only wrong incest is parent-kids, but I think there’s a few other wrong couplings, does anyone know them? Also, is incest really wrong?
also are obligated to memorize (that is to remember perfectly) the Creeds or any other part of Catholic doctrine? I heard that there was no obligation, but it seems that it should be since Catholic doctrine is true and so to not remember catholicism is to not remember that which is -and that is bad since the mind is detached from reality.
Here’s an article on Consanguinity:
Important to note that the new code of canon law changes the computation. But this is a good overview of the topic.
This is the second thread you have opened on this topic.
PLEASE NOTE THAT CATHOLICS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO MEMORISE (that means learn by heart and then repeat word for word) THE CATECHISM OR CANON LAW.
To learn what the Church teaches does not mean memorise.
I would have thought you would have got that point by now. No need to ask again!
Originally Posted by fakename
(and in the olden days, allowable)
Allowable in whose mind? Incest has always been an abomination, vile and disgusting.
Douay Rheims, Mark Chapter 9: 41
41 *And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Read the article. This is correct for the direct line (parent/child). But prohibitions against siblings and other close family are not present in the beginning.
could you explain this to me?
“The civil law founded its degrees upon the number of generations, the number of degrees being equal to the number of generations; thus between brothers there are two degrees as there are two generations; between first cousins four degrees, corresponding to the four generations.”
Generally though, aren’t brothers reckoned to be of one and the same generation? That’s what confuses me -why should the two brothers in the above be considered 2 generations?
I suppose that incest really means “unnatrual coupling of family members”. Insofar as any coupling of family members today is wrong then yes, all coupling of family members is wrong. But insofar as coupling of family members within certain degrees was okay in the past, then this wasn’t even considered incest so I should’ve really said that although all incest is wrong, what morally counts as incest was different from time to time.
In reality again, some familiar couplings were eliminated by canon law even though they are natural in themselves.
This is another version of the Table: derevere.info/images/table_of_consanguinity.jpg.
Notice how the lines are only vertical and not horizontal. To find the degree of relation between people, you can only travel on those lines. Basically to find how closely related two individuals are, you have to trace the first individual up to the closest common ancestor, and then down to the second individual. So Brother and Sister are at two degrees, because Brother has to go up to Parent and then down to Sister.
Huh. They’ve changed the computation or they changed the minimum number of degrees that are acceptable?
I have some familiarity with how the Table of Consanguinity comes into play in civil law, so I am kind of curious as to how the Church treats it differently. (ie, no, I am not looking to marry a distance cousin of mine :rolleyes:).