question regarding illegitimate children, priesthood and annulment

[BAFRIEND]

But neither is it applicable nowadays. They don't stamp "illigitimate" on birth certificates. So how in the world one can even tell is a mystery.

And I have heard just the opposite of your "if it's not specifically in the updated 1983 canon law and it is specifically in the 1917 canon law, the 1917 canon law is still applicable" when it comes to women covering their heads (the 1917 canon law says they must, but the updated 1983 says nothing--so most women don't and they aren't thought to be "in the wrong") and I believe some of the fasting laws too.

Oh, and there is a difference between annullment (civil authority) and Decree of Nullity (church authority). Children whose parents have received a Decree of Nullity are not considered illegitimate since they are the product of a natural marriage. (I know because I am such a child and my mother's Decree of Nullity was granted in 1959--back when the 1917 canon law was applicable. In her case both the marriage license and the civil divorce decree were presented to the Tribunal in the application for the Decree of Nullity.) Somehow I think the confusion between the Decree of Nullity (often called annullment) and a civil anullment could be avoided (sometimes leading to heartbreak) by calling them the proper names.

your point about absence in the 1983 canon law is mute as the 1983 canon specifically states if an issue is not specifically discussed in the 1983 then the authority is the 1917; that is what the Chruch stated in its law so your argument from selective law breaking is wrong

secondly, if a person is raped then it happened whether it becomes public or not. it is a sin, it is wrong, it offends God. so whether the issue is wrong or not or regardless of how a community or society views the issue it makes it no less a sin- that is why the Church has not waivered on its moral teachings

and the issue of annulment versus nullity really is not relevant to the topic and i dont even know why you included it

the Church holds that a child is illegitimate if the finding in the investigation for the annulment is that both parents were deceptive in the intentions of entering into the relationship

 

[JoabAnias]

The Church holds that a child is illegitimate if the finding in the investigation for the annulment is that both parents were deceptive in the intentions of entering into the relationship

Not it doesn't. The SSPX have really thrown this term for a loop.

It seems they are looking at the term all wrong.

The Church never holds any child as illegitimate for any reason what so ever in so far that;

The Church holds that a child is equally precious to God and the Church no matter how it was conceived.

First of all, illegitimacy is a (as its name suggests) legal category, and it pertains to man's law, not God's.

It is no stain on the child in God's eyes if the child was born in a valid marriage, an invalid marriage, or no marriage at all.

Illegitimacy is a purely human legal category that is used for such things as determining inheritance rights.

As a result, if a child is born in a marriage that is valid under civil law (even if it was invalid in God's eyes) then the child is legitimate.

Thus the Code of Canon Law states:
"1137. Children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate."

A marriage which was invalid under God's law but valid under man's would count as a putative marriage.

The Code also states:

"1138-1. The father is he whom a lawful marriage indicates unless (nisi) evident arguments prove otherwise.

"1138-2. Children are presumed to be legitimate if they are born at least 180 days after the celebration of the marriage or within 300 days from the date when conjugal life was terminated.

"1139. Illegitimate children are rendered legitimate through the subsequent valid or putative marriage of their parents, or through a rescript of the Holy See.

"1140. Insofar as canonical effects are concerned, legitimized children are equivalent in everything to legitimate children unless (nisi) the law expressly states otherwise."

So the only case when a child could potentially not be considered legitimate would be if it was conceived by parents who were not married even under man's law and if they never got married even putatively.

And even then, legitimacy is only used for determining inheritance rights;

It has no religious or moral significance concerning the child, who is equally precious in the eyes of God and the Church no matter how a child was conceived.

The SSPX definition of illegitimate is part in parcel why they exercise only an illegitimate ministry.

Here is a Catholic source that may be helpful:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/annulments.htm

 

[BAFRIEND]

joab- we already debated this months back and the answer that came back states that in an annulment a child is illegitimate if both parents entered the relationship dishonestly

that answer we got back was not from the 1950s either

the same argument you use is basically the same one that catholics use to justify there divorces now-a-days

 

[Gwendolyn]

It doesn't make any sense to exclude someone from any sort of religious life just because their parent(s) committed a sin. The child is innocent, and for all we know, the child was raised as a very devout Catholic. Why should he be blamed for something that happened decades ago if he is called to the priesthood?

Or, BA, are you saying that God will create illegitimate children only to discriminate against them later?

 

[JoabAnias]

joab- we already debated this months back and the answer that came back states that in an annulment a child is illegitimate if both parents entered the relationship dishonestly

that answer we got back was not from the 1950s either

the same argument you use is basically the same one that catholics use to justify there divorces now-a-days

No, not to justify a divorce even when there is no valid marriage. This argument is to justify a child and its not my argument anyway, its from the Church in her own canon.

The argument from the SSPX does harm to innocent children and spouses by unjust prejudice and bigotry.

Read my previous post carefully, the term illegitimate only applies to a child in regard to inheritance.

Even if an annulment process could prove that both parents entered a marriage dishonestly, according to canon law it doesn't matter.

Canon clearly states that a child doesn't have to be of a valid marriage for a child to be considered legitimate.

According to canon law, you could marry anyone by a justice of the peace and the child is legitimate in regard to inheritance, even if the child was already born long ago.

The term illegitimate does not apply.

As another example, only if never married would a child have problems proving rights to inheritance but these days DNA testing has all but eliminated those doubts.

Its important when using this term to note, and I repeat:

The Church never holds any child as illegitimate for any reason.

The Church holds that a child is equally precious to God and the Church no matter how it was conceived.

This is where the SSPX go wrong. What they are doing amounts to Nazi supremacy in who can be admitted to the priesthood or not. Its human prejudice that would disallow a priest his calling if his parents weren't proven to be validly married in a Catholic Church.

As we know this is not the fact of what the Church allows or even realistic for that matter. How do you suppose the SSPX applicant would get access to his divorced parents annulment records? A Catholic would not need them because they are already legitimate in the eyes of God even if their parents are only civilly married.

Make sense now?

 

[AMDG]

Not it doesn't. The SSPX have really thrown this term for a loop.

It seems they are looking at the term all wrong.

The Church never holds any child as illegitimate for any reason what so ever in so far that;

The Church holds that a child is equally precious to God and the Church no matter how it was conceived.

First of all, illegitimacy is a (as its name suggests) legal category, and it pertains to man's law, not God's.

It is no stain on the child in God's eyes if the child was born in a valid marriage, an invalid marriage, or no marriage at all.

Illegitimacy is a purely human legal category that is used for such things as determining inheritance rights.

As a result, if a child is born in a marriage that is valid under civil law (even if it was invalid in God's eyes) then the child is legitimate.


Thus the Code of Canon Law states:
"1137. Children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate."

A marriage which was invalid under God's law but valid under man's would count as a putative marriage.

The Code also states:

"1138-1. The father is he whom a lawful marriage indicates unless (nisi) evident arguments prove otherwise.

"1138-2. Children are presumed to be legitimate if they are born at least 180 days after the celebration of the marriage or within 300 days from the date when conjugal life was terminated.

"1139. Illegitimate children are rendered legitimate through the subsequent valid or putative marriage of their parents, or through a rescript of the Holy See.

"1140. Insofar as canonical effects are concerned, legitimized children are equivalent in everything to legitimate children unless (nisi) the law expressly states otherwise."

So the only case when a child could potentially not be considered legitimate would be if it was conceived by parents who were not married even under man's law and if they never got married even putatively.

And even then, legitimacy is only used for determining inheritance rights;

It has no religious or moral significance concerning the child, who is equally precious in the eyes of God and the Church no matter how a child was conceived.

The SSPX definition of illegitimate is part in parcel why they exercise only an illegitimate ministry.

Here is a Catholic source that may be helpful:
Annulments (FAQ)

BAFRIEND, it was you who said that children whose parents have an anullment are illigetimate. Most people confuse the civil anullment with the Church Decree of Nullity so my point that children of parents who have received a Decree of Nullity from the Church are not illigetimate is important.

BTW, children are God's precious gifts. When you speak of rape as being against God, it is the actions of the rape that are wrong--not the child that may result from those actions.

 

[BAFRIEND]

here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclapedia
feel freeio to enter it into a google search to find out the source
it never ceases to amaze me how opinion and feelings dominate Church objectivity

When marriage is entered into by two parties who suspect there is an impediment but make no inquiry into the truth, and it afterwards be made plain that such obstacle to validity did exist, their offspring is illigitimate, because affected ignorance is equivalent to knowledge. If, however, the doubt arise after the consummation of the marriage, children conceived before a sentence of invalidity is rendered have the standing of legitimate children. Catholic Encyclepedia, http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Irregularity

 

[JoabAnias]

here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclapedia
feel freeio to enter it into a google search to find out the source
it never ceases to amaze me how opinion and feelings dominate Church objectivity

I knew that was there before I answered you. It doesn't change my answer. It still applies only to inheritance.

That was written before 1917.

It is superseded by canon law which is from the Church and is NOT opinion or feelings.

Denial of the black and white text of canon law is the failure in objectivity.

Also I don't think you are reading the last line there which says:

"children conceived before a sentence of invalidity is rendered have the standing of legitimate children."

This is even though the marriage was not valid.

 

[BAFRIEND]

I knew that was there before I answered you. It doesn't change my answer. It still applies only to inheritance.

That was written before 1917.

It is superseded by canon law which is from the Church and is NOT opinion or feelings.

Denial of the black and white text of canon law is the failure in objectivity.

only the canon law you refer to does not exist

peoples who understand the canon of 1983 understand that canon bent over backwards to avoid negatives at all costs- leaving the tuff issues to the authority of the 1917

 

[BAFRIEND]

here is something interesting from 'irregularity' in the Catholic Encyclapedia:

Various canons were also formed concerning different details of illegitimacy, until finally a general prohibition against all spurious children being admitted to orders was enacted, on the ground that the stain of birth would be a stain on the sacred ministry. http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Irregularity

 

[JoabAnias]

only the canon law you refer to does not exist

peoples who understand the canon of 1983 understand that canon bent over backwards to avoid negatives at all costs- leaving the tuff issues to the authority of the 1917

Yes that canon does exist and has been given numerous times:

The Code of Canon Law states:
"1137. Children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate."

The new law is the law. Where is there anything that says the changes to the law are in addition to the old? Thats illogical as they would contradict. Old laws are never to fall back on as one may chose.

I think I edited before while you were posting.

Look at the last line of what you quoted above which says:

"children conceived before a sentence of invalidity is rendered have the standing of legitimate children."

This is even though the marriage was not valid. So you see a marriage does not need to be valid for a child to be legitimate as you claim it does in the SSPX's erroneous definition which is irrelevant and on who's discredited authority you base your argument. Its as if the SSPX are looking for an excuse to call someone an illegitimate person.

And to remind, as canon states, this term is only in regard to inheritance, and has no significance to a child's religious or moral standing in the Church.

Only with the SSPX will you find anything less than:

The Church holding that a child is equally precious to God and the Church no matter how it was conceived.

 

[JoabAnias]

here is something interesting from 'irregularity' in the Catholic Encyclapedia:

Where?

Give a link.

Picking two lines to fit the SSPX error is hardly context.

 

[BAFRIEND]

The new law is the law. Where is there anything that says the changes to the law are in addition to the old? Thats illogical as they would contradict. Old laws are never to fall back on as one may chose.

where is there anything that states that ?

in canon 2 of the 1983 which is the new law- it states that any issue it does not directly address falls under the authority of the previous 1917 canon

blame the Church

 

[BAFRIEND]

Where?

Give a link.

Picking two lines to fit the SSPX error is hardly context.

i stated it was from the Catholic Encyclapedia- the same exact one i previously quoted from that you said you knew about so it should be easy enouph for you to find for yourself

 

[JoabAnias]

i stated it was from the Catholic Encyclapedia- the same exact one i previously quoted from that you said you knew about so it should be easy enouph for you to find for yourself

Since you claim they are some sort of authority over the canon law of the Church, the burden of proof is on you.

One must have the courtesy to cite their sources if they expect them to be taken seriously.

 

[JoabAnias]

From the rules here:

Copyright Violations Prohibited

All quoted copyrighted material must be linked to the webpage from which it was quoted.

 

[JoabAnias]

where is there anything that states that ?

in canon 2 of the 1983 which is the new law- it states that any issue it does not directly address falls under the authority of the previous 1917 canon

blame the Church

You were already give the canon that directly addresses all children are legitimate.

So no one except perhaps the SSPX really know what your talking about with regard to old law. Its irrelevant here.

The Code of Canon Law states:

"1137. Children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate."

Have you shown anyone anything from the previous revision of canon law that contradicts this?

If you have I haven't seen it nor do I think it exists.

 

[BAFRIEND]

From the rules here:

Copyright Violations Prohibited

All quoted copyrighted material must be linked to the webpage from which it was quoted.

happy now

 

[JoabAnias]

happy now

I always was happy.

Do you need help on how to cite a source or something?

Its rather easy if your right there and have already looked it up.

I would like you to understand the SSPX interpretation of Catholic law, as you percieve it, is way off the mark though.

Are you getting this yet?

The Code of Canon Law states:
"1137. Children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate."

 

[JoabAnias]

Perhaps it would help to look at the definition of a

• PUTATIVE MARRIAGE

A marriage that is invalid but was contracted in good faith by at least one member. Until there is positive ecclesiastical proof of nullity, such a marriage has all the effects of lawful wedlock. Children of such a marriage are legitimate, and illegitimate children are legitimatized by a putative marriage. (Etym. Latin putare, to trim, cleans; to think over, consider.)