If The Hensel Twins Were Catholic, Could They Get Married?

[Pliny]

They have many organs in common including just one set of reproductive organs.  But they are clearly two distinct persons.

 

I have seen that one of them is now engaged to be married.

 

Would the Catholic Church permit one or both of them to marry?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ice_nine]

interesting question, but also a very unique situation. How many conjoined twins both survive into adulthood and are healthy?

 

I don't know the answer but I'm curious as to what people would say.

[Spem in alium]

This is really interesting! I'm looking forward to responses. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Just going to go out on a bit of a limb here. OP mentioned that they have one set of reproductive organs between them. That indicates to me that one of them can be married, and one cannot, because one would be physically unable to consummate. So that is a canonical impediment to marriage. More difficult is determining in some non-arbitrary way which of the girls that applies to. Perhaps DNA testing could shed some light on that?

[OnlySunshine]

This is a very rare problem which is rather difficult to answer.  My answer would be that they'd probably have to remain celibate if they only have one set of reproductive organs.  Speaking vaguely, if one were to initiate relations, the partner would be having relations with both.  They'd both be pregnant, too.  There's no way to separate the two.  There is a set of conjoined Siamese twins in the 19th century (the first ever) that were married to separate women and had children (though I wouldn't want to imagine how especially since it was before current reproductive technology).  The difference between them was that they were joined at the midsection but had two distinct bodies.  Still, with their bodies joined, it would be hard to have marital relations...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_and_Eng_Bunker

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

This is a very rare problem which is rather difficult to answer.  My answer would be that they'd probably have to remain celibate if they only have one set of reproductive organs.  Speaking vaguely, if one were to initiate relations, the partner would be having relations with both.  They'd both be pregnant, too.  There's no way to separate the two.  There is a set of conjoined Siamese twins in the 19th century (the first ever) that were married to separate women and had children (though I wouldn't want to imagine how especially since it was before current reproductive technology).  The difference between them was that they were joined at the midsection but had two distinct bodies.  Still, with their bodies joined, it would be hard to have marital relations...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_and_Eng_Bunker

That is a good point. In trying to determine which of the two girls might be canonically unimpeded from marriage, it might instead make more sense to conclude that the reproductive organs belong to both girls, therefore if a man were to marry one, he would have to marry both, which is obviously not possible.

[Deus te Amat]

Instead of looking at marriage in terms of reproduction, might it be better to look at marriage in terms of the binding of souls? In that case, The twins have two minds, so it would be logical to conclude that they have two souls. I would say that, in terms of church teaching, each sister is eligible for marriage. The better question is whether or not their shared reproductive organs impedes them from consummation with their respective spouses. They have identical DNA, so any child would be both of theirs, genetically, anyway.

 

I'm not a church scholar, but if marriage is the binding of one man and one woman, and if they each have an individual soul, then it would seem that both could be married. I would not envy them their lot, though. 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I am wondering if, because of their novelty of circumstance, the church might ask them to remain celibate while the issue was discussed/debated or until some clarity was achieved. Philosophically, it is a lose lose either way you approach it. 

Edited February 16, 2014 by Deus_te_Amat

[Nihil Obstat]

Instead of looking at marriage in terms of reproduction, might it be better to look at marriage in terms of the binding of souls? In that case, The twins have two minds, so it would be logical to conclude that they have two souls. I would say that, in terms of church teaching, each sister is eligible for marriage. The better question is whether or not their shared reproductive organs impedes them from consummation with their respective spouses. They have identical DNA, so any child would be both of theirs, genetically, anyway.
 
I'm not a church scholar, but if marriage is the binding of one man and one woman, and if they each have an individual soul, then it would seem that both could be married. I would not envy them their lot, though. 
 
 
 
 
Edit: I am wondering if, because of their novelty of circumstance, the church might ask them to remain celibate while the issue was discussed/debated or until some clarity was achieved. Philosophically, it is a lose lose either way you approach it.

I think it is clear that they have two distinct souls. But I think it is equally clear that there is some form of canonical impediment related to the inability of one or both to consummate a marriage. That is a diriment impediment, which renders a marriage null.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

 

I think the first question then is which of the girls receives this impediment, or if there even is a way to tell. If there is not a way to tell, then I am kind of in the dark. But it is beyond any doubt that they could not both get married. The real question is if either of them could.

[PhuturePriest]

I think it is clear that they have two distinct souls. But I think it is equally clear that there is some form of canonical impediment related to the inability of one or both to consummate a marriage. That is a diriment impediment, which renders a marriage null.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

 

I think the first question then is which of the girls receives this impediment, or if there even is a way to tell. If there is not a way to tell, then I am kind of in the dark. But it is beyond any doubt that they could not both get married. The real question is if either of them could.

 

I actually asked my sister if they could get married a few years ago when their show first premiered. She told me she didn't think they could get married, and she gave a rather compelling argument for why. It's a shame my memory isn't good enough to remember what it was exactly, but it was probably along the lines of what you've been saying so far.

[HisChildForever]

What if the non-engaged sister realizes she is not comfortable with the relations?

 

I have other questions too though. The husband is going to share his life with not one but two people. His sister-in-law will be with him whenever he's with his wife. There's no privacy of any kind. I'd like to hear his thoughts on all of this.

[HisChildForever]

This is from April 2013, but...

 

The twins deny a rumour that Brittany has become engaged, describing it as a "dumb joke".

[CatherineM]

Oye. I think they might be able to find a priest to marry them, but it would take some serious premarital counseling. The original Siamese twins married sisters. Took turns staying in each other's house.

[CatholicCid]

I think it is clear that they have two distinct souls. But I think it is equally clear that there is some form of canonical impediment related to the inability of one or both to consummate a marriage. That is a diriment impediment, which renders a marriage null.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

 

I think the first question then is which of the girls receives this impediment, or if there even is a way to tell. If there is not a way to tell, then I am kind of in the dark. But it is beyond any doubt that they could not both get married. The real question is if either of them could.

 

This is definitely an interesting discussion in Canon Law. I would question if it is beyond a doubt whether or not they both could get married.

 

It would seem almost impossible to determine which sister could "lay claim" to their shared genitals. Given that they do quite literally share these working bodily parts, determining impotence would be quite the feat. Neither is missing the parts. Given this shared nature, it seems both can have complete conjugal intercourse, albeit at the same time. 

 

Given that, biologically, the mechanism of twinning is not understood, it becomes even dicier trying to "assign" parts to either twin.

 

I feel this would have to be one of those 'exceptions' to the law. The question would be determined on determining whether or not two individuals can have "shared" organs, which each can consider, canonically, as their own.

 

Catherine, perhaps you could ask one of your professors with speciality in Canon Law? I'm sure it's something that keeps Canonists up at night  :hehe2:

[Semper Catholic]

Lol I love this. They are about as close to a definitive miracle as it gets and yet they're denied more basic privileges because of it. More "lol wut" from phatmass.

Also "because genitals" is a joke of an argument.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Semper Catholic

[CatherineM]

My Canon Law professor this semester has her JCL and PhD in Theology so I will ask her.