"I’m My Own Grandpa," for those few who may not know, was a signature song for country comedy artists (and Grand Ole Opry regulars) Lonzo & Oscar. It has also been recorded by others, including Grandpa Jones, and it makes a memorable appearance in the hilariously stupid movie, The Stupids (which is also remarkably clean, one of the few such comedy films).
The premise of the song is that an unusual pair of marriages result in bizarre relational implications for the character in the song, such that he is now his own grandpa (as you might suppose from the title).
The bizarre relationships that result from this pair of marriages are extensive, and now someone has now gone and done a hypertext version of the song that allows you to keep track of how all the relationships work, complete with diagrams.
With this in mind (and linking the hypertext version), a reader writes:
Would the following be considered licit… http://gean.wwco.com/grandpa/ from the Church’s perspective?
Ever one for applying theological and canonical principles to far-out, eXtreme situations (what you might call X-Canon Law and X-Theology), I’m more than happy to entertain the question.
Let’s start by looking at the opening verse of the song, which sets up the pair of marriages that results in the Me = Grandpa situation:
Now many, many years ago, when I was twenty-three,
I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be.
That’s marriage #1. We’ll refer to the groom in this song as The Singer. To keep things simple, let’s assume that this is a valid marriage and that both The Singer and The Widow are Catholic, so that they will be bound by canon law.
Now a new character enters the picture:
This widow had a grown-up daughter
Who had hair of red.
Okay, so the widow has a daughter, who we’ll creatively call The Daughter. How is she related to The Singer, and how might that affect who she can marry? Well, there are two ways you can be related to someone the become relevant in marriage situations. These are known as consanguinity and affinity.
Consanguinity occurs when you are related by blood. The song does not tell us whether any of the marriage partners are related by blood, but since the issue isn’t raised, it doesn’t seem to be relevant to the situation. We may thus set it aside and assume that The Singer is not related by blood to either The Widow or The Daughter, so issues of consanguinity don’t arise.
Affinity, however, occurs when one is related to someone by marriage. Since The Singer is married to The Widow, he is thereby related to The Daughter by affinity–which is crucial to setting up the bizarre complex of relationships that ensue. Here’s how that happens:
My father fell in love with her [the Daughter],
And soon they, too, were wed.
That’s marriage #2.
Now, absolute relational chaos ensues:
This made my dad my son-in-law
And changed my very life.
My daughter was my mother,
‘Cause she was my father’s wife.
That’s just the beginning. It gets much, much worse from there.
The key question, canonically, is can The Singer’s father (a.k.a., The Father) marry The Daughter?
At one time under Church law the answer was no. The affinity that existed between The Singer and his wife’s family was held to apply also to the rest of The Singer’s family (or at least significant portions of it). Thus The Daughter was not only reckoned as The Singer’s Step-Daughter but as The Father’s Step-Granddaughter, and he couldn’t marry her.
But then the Fourth Lateran Council happened in the year 1215, and that council decreed the following:
CANON 50
It must not be deemed reprehensible if human statutes change sometimes with the change of time, especially when urgent necessity or common interest demands it, since God himself has changed in the New Testament some things that He had decreed in the Old. Since, therefore, the prohibition against the contracting of marriage in secundo et tertio genere affinitatis ["in the second and third degree of affinity"] and that against the union of the offspring from second marriages to a relative of the first husband, frequently constitute a source of difficulty and sometimes are a cause of danger to souls, that by a cessation of the proibition the effect may cease also, we, with the approval of the holy council, revoking previous enactments in this matter, decree in the resent statute that such persons may in the future contract marriage without hindrance. . . .
So Fourth Lateran wiped out the prohibition on people marrying who were in the second and third degree of affinity.
Without dwelling on what these degrees consisted in (the concept is a little hard to explain, and it’s not relevant to current law on the matter), this would have permitted The Father to marry The Daughter.
Now let’s jump forward to current law. According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law:
Can. 109 §1. Affinity arises from a valid marriage, even if not consummated, and exists between a man and the blood relatives of the woman and between the woman and the blood relatives of the man.
Can. 1092 Affinity in the direct line in any degree invalidates a marriage.
When one puts these two canons together, one discovers who in the song can’t marry whom.
Affinity exists between The Singer and the blood relatives of The Widow, which would include The Daughter. So The Singer can’t marry anyone in a "direct line" relationship to The Widow. Those relatives are off limits to him.
The direct line is anybody you are descended from and anybody who is descended from you. It includes your grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, etc.
Since The Daughter is a blood relative of The Widow and is in her direct line, The Singer can’t marry her (should The Widow die) because of the impediment created by affinity.
Likewise, affinity applies to The Widow and her ability to marry relatives of The Singer. Since The Father is a blood relative in the direct line for The Singer, The Widow can’t marry The Father (should The Singer die).
But The Singer and The Widow are the only two people who have affinity regarding each other’s families. You’ll note that Canon 109 says, "Affinity . . . exists between a man [and his wife’s blood relatives] . . . and a woman [and her husband’s blood relatives]."
It does not say that the relatives in one family have affinity with respect to the relatives in the other family. They only have affinity with the man or the woman. Thus The Singer has affinity with The Daughter and The Father has affinity with The Widow but–and this is the important point–The Father and The Daughter DO NOT HAVE AFFINITY WITH RESPECT TO EACH OTHER.
Thus there is an old saying in canon law: Affinitas non gignit affinitatem–or "Affinity does not beget affinity."
Just because two people are in a condition of affinity, that doesn’t mean all their relatives are also mutually in this relationship.
Thus–unless there is something else blocking the validity of the marriage–it is perfectly (canonically) legitimate for The Father to marry The Daughter and set the whole cascade of relational chaos in motion.
So at least since 1215, you’ve been able to become your own grandpa.
It sounds funny, I know, but it really is so.
(By the way, kids, don’t try this at home.)
Incidentally, if you’ve never heard this delightful song, it’s available for download from iTunes. Just look up "I’m my own grandpa" or "Lonzo & Oscar."
AND THERE’S A BIG OL’ .WAV OF IT HERE (THE VERSION FROM THE STUPIDS).
BE
SURE TO CHECK OUT THE STUPIDS, TOO–YOU’LL LAUGHT TILL YOU STOP!
LYRICS, WITH HELPFUL DIAGRAMS, HERE.
Perhaps another time we can "prick that annual blister: marriage with deceased wife’s sister."
Thanks, I think, for making a wildly confusing (and incredibly funny) song even more wildly confusing, Jimmy. 8-P
Absolutely fantastic. That’s really all I can say about this post, and the link with the diagrammed relationships.
You have got too much energy…
I think I first heard this song on an old 78 played on an authentic hand-crank Victrola (though it was a venerable antique by that time).
I laughed ’till I cried.
Thanks for reminding me of it.
There was a Futurama where Fry was his own grandpa, after an escapade whilst time traveling.
Years ago I picked up in a little book store on State Circle in Annapolis, Maryland, a slim book called “Marriage to Deceased Wife’s Sister, Forbidden by God’s Law and the Law of the Church.” I didn’t buy it. It wasn’t until years after that that I heard the Gilbert and Sullivan song, and then wished mightily that I had.
I know one devout Catholic family in which the father of five small children married his deceased wife’s sister after his wife died, and had nine more children with her. The deceased wife’s sister, having raised the 14 children, was a regular at daily mass when I first became a Catholic. If this rule still applies, they must have obtained a dispensation.
Susan Peterson
Wow, that’s very strange…
Anyways, Mr. Jimmy, I was reading the new edition of the Program of Priestly Formation (found at http://www.usccb.org/vocations/), and I was wondering if you had any comments on it. I was wondering what numbers 54 and 55 mean:
Here’s the last part of 54:
“Concerning the
capacity to live the charism of celibacy, the applicant should give evidence
of having lived in continence for a sustained period of time, which would
be for at least two years before entering a priestly formation program.”
What does “continence” actually mean? Does this include all mortal sins against 6th/9th commandment?
Also, here’s number 55:
“55. Any evidence of criminal sexual activity with a minor or an inclination
toward such activity disqualifies the applicant from admission.”
What exactly is “criminal sexual activity”? Wouldn’t ALL forms of “sexual activity with a minor” disqualify the applicant?
Thanks so much for your time.
This is classic Jimmy. Awesome.
The Stupids is one of my favorite movies…own it on DVD and my best friend and I watched it *way* too many times back in our high school days.
“Two wheels. Four wheels. *Eight* wheels!”
Double cousins (for example, the children of two brothers marrying two sisters) would be invalid if affinity extended beyond the individuals (not to mention the possible questions if the two couples had married at the same ceremony).
By the way, I wasn’t raised Catholic; does this mean that marriage to your deceased wife’s sister isn’t objectively wrong, but only legally so? For instance, does it mean that the ancient Israelite custom of a man marrying (or at least providing a child to; I’m not clear if marriage is incumbent as well) his brother’s widow was not objectively wrong, but would be wrong under current canon law?
I mean, does canon law work the same way as the law in America? For instance, is the canon against marrying those one has affinity to kind of like the drinking age being 21: it was legally okay to drink when the age was 18, and not wrong to have done so once the age was raised?
Sorry if I’m dense!
What exactly is “criminal sexual activity”? Wouldn’t ALL forms of “sexual activity with a minor” disqualify the applicant?
Would you disqualify someone for having sexual intercourse with his seventeen-year-old girlfriend when he was seventeen himself?
eXtreme situations (what you might call X-Canon Law and X-Theology)
Do you think market analysis would show that canon laws and doctrines are more popular when there’s an X in the title?
it took me a while to sort it all out, but it was fun. Thanks for the humor when there are so many lousy things going on in the world! much appreciated.
That post was intense.
But can you take the train to Morrow today?
Fascinating….We often sing this song at family reunions, actually….My father & his brother married 1st cousins; no further marriages have complicated matters worse on that account.
However, it did come as something of a start, recently, when I attended a reunion on the other (maternal) side of the family with a cousin & his fiancee, when said fiancee discovered that she was related to all of us (by affinity, not blood, if I understand this correctly)…We 😉 resisted the impulse to sing.
My great-grandfather married my great-grandmother after his wife, her sister died. The relatives in Ireland actually disowned her, since it was considered incestuous. I believe they were married in the Church here in the US, however, so either there was a dispensation or the law was applied differently. Things did get patched up between the relatives, fortunately.
OK, I really do have to go to bed tonight, but as I was puttering around here, another thought struck me:
Is this the point of canon law over which Henry VIII tried to argue for an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon???
I have puzzled for many years over what on earth her previous marriage to his older brother had to do with anything….Mind you, several hundred years had passed at the time, but events following being what they were, Henry clearly was no stickler for such things…or anything else, for that matter.
But it did pop into my head: if the law prior to 1215 had been in force in his day, would British (& world) history have been changed? Or do I not understand this whole business yet???
I thought his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was illegal under the canon law of the time, but he had recieved a dispensation from the Pope. Then when he wanted to dump her he claimed the Pope should never have granted the dispensation, so the marriage had not been valid after all. The Pope said no, you got your dispensation so now you’re married, like it or not.
I guess that the gospel example that the Pharisees give Jesus when they were trying to trip him up about whose wife the widow would be in Heaven if she married the nine (or was it seven?) brothers in succession after each one of them dies, would have all been invalid? I wonder why didn’t Jesus just mention this? Or did it not apply in those days?
My brother married our eighth cousin. Every time it comes up, our grandmother (by whom we are related to my brother’s wife) says in hushed tones, “they ARE cousins, you know.” She was very disapproving of the marriage, which my sil took way too personally. It ain’t who she is, it’s what she is.
great, jimmy. in every way.
now I know why Jimmy pinched a nerve in his back and had to take the day off – all these genealogical gyrations and canonical calisthenics!
As strange as this situation sounds, I remember several years back when former Rolling Stones bassist, Bill Wyman married a woman many years his junior. Then Wyman’s son married his father’s, mother-in-law. Bill and his wife divorce, but I believe his son is still married to tha same woman, which would make for awfully tense Christmas dinners.
Whimsy, how do you keep track of eighth cousins? I scarcely know my first cousins.
Re Henry VIII: according to Antonia Fraser’s “Six Wives of Henry VIII,” Catherine’s marriage to Henry was allowed because there was serious doubt as to whether her first marriage had been consummated; she always said it had not been. It didn’t bother Henry for almost twenty years; he only developed the tender conscience after he caught sight of Anne Boleyn.
BTW as long as we’re on the subject, can anyone explain the workings of “degrees of kindred”? When I was a kid (early 1960s) we were told that marriage was forbidden to people “within the third degree of kindred,” but we were never told what it was. I assumed it meant third cousins. Anybody know?
“When I was a kid (early 1960s) we were told that marriage was forbidden to people “within the third degree of kindred,” but we were never told what it was. I assumed it meant third cousins. Anybody know?”
I share your assumption that this means third cousins, but I don’t remember where I picked it up.
According to Tina Nunnally’s introductory essays to Kristin Lavransdatter, up to the seventh degree of kindred was considered incestuous in medieval Norway.
My brother married our eighth cousin.
I found out recently my grandparents are ninth cousins. They had no idea, but they were both descended from a French couple who emigrated to Quebec in the 17th century. And in fact, I discovered that most of the French Canadian population is descended from this couple, and that the Fr. Canadian genealogical records are the best in the world, so presumably most couples with Fr. Canadian heritage on both sides would be traceably distant cousins.
I think the third degree would be second cousins. First degree would be your siblings. Second degree your first cousins. Third degree your second cousins.
Ah yes, The Catholic Encyclopedia has a nice table at the bottom of their Consanguinity showing who is covered under what degree. Scroll to bottom.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm
What would uncles and aunts be? In that case what would first cousins be?
I would think siblings, parents, and children would be first degree, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and grandchildren second degree, first cousins, great uncles, great aunts, great grandparents, and great grandchildren third degree, etc.
Hmmm…
Believe it or not, I actually DO have a friend whose widowed paternal grandfather married his widowed maternal grandmother. They got married some 20+ years after his parents had been married when both of them lost their spouses (in the same year) from cancer.
He liked to claim that his parents were “brother & sister” at parties. The fact that his family hailed originally from the West Virgina/Appalcahian Ohio area only set him up for some rather bad jokes.
Not quite the same as “I’m My Own Grampa”, but “Both my parents have the same parents” might make a comedy hit.
I wish everybody do his job like you do http://spankzilla.spazioblog.it/