Annulment and illegitimate children

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bev17243
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bev17243

Guest
I have heard this argument from anti-catholics-in case of annulment, any children from this marriage will become illegitimate because annulment means that marriage have never existed. I was told its “horrible and how can u condone it?”. How do u respond to such statements?:confused:
 
I have heard this argument from anti-catholics-in case of annulment, any children from this marriage will become illegitimate because annulment means that marriage have never existed. I was told its “horrible and how can u condone it?”. How do u respond to such statements?:confused:
My response would be that their supposition isn’t true.🤷

Luna
 
Legitimate and illegitimate are not terms used by the Church. It only matters where there is royalty and titles.
 
Ok, but can someone tell me something specific about how it isn’t true? I really don’t know much about this issue but if u do get annulment that means that marriage didn’t happen but it would appear that any kids u had would be considered illegitimate, no? Can someone explain to me how this issue is approached? :confused:
 
I have heard this argument from anti-catholics-in case of annulment, any children from this marriage will become illegitimate because annulment means that marriage have never existed. I was told its “horrible and how can u condone it?”. How do u respond to such statements?:confused:
People that want to take an opposing viewpoint will use whatever definition they wish to use to make their point. The couple prior to the annulment have a putative marriage, where at least one of the spouses entered into the marriage in good faith. The children’s legitimacy is not dependent on the state of the marriage.

There were issues in the past regarding this particular subject, such as if one wanted to become a priest. That is not longer part of Canon Law.
 
Ok, but can someone tell me something specific about how it isn’t true? I really don’t know much about this issue but if u do get annulment that means that marriage didn’t happen but it would appear that any kids u had would be considered illegitimate, no? Can someone explain to me how this issue is approached? :confused:
Children are legitimate if they are born to a couple who are legally married. A declaration of nullity does not claim that the legal marriage never happened. Rather it is a statement that the Sacramental (or natural) marriage never happened.

Just as you can be divorced civilly but still married Sacramentally, you can get a declaration of nullity that does not erase the fact that there was a legitimate civil marriage at the time the children are born.
 
Ok, but can someone tell me something specific about how it isn’t true? I really don’t know much about this issue but if u do get annulment that means that marriage didn’t happen but it would appear that any kids u had would be considered illegitimate, no? Can someone explain to me how this issue is approached? :confused:
A decree of nullity by the Tribunal has no effect on the legal, civil aspect of the marriage. Remember, a marriage (I refer to the U.S.) also requires that a license be issued by the state, and that a civil divorce is required before a decree of nullity can be sought. You don’t regard the children of divorced parents as “illegitimate”, do you?

A decree of nullity simply states that the elements of a valid sacramental marriage were missing from the beginning. This has nothing to do with the civil or legal aspects of marriage - children, inheritance, property, etc. Here is a link with good explanations of the nullity process: americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac1002.asp

“The parents, now divorced, presumably once obtained a civil license and entered upon a legal marriage. Children from that union are, therefore, their legitimate offspring. Legitimate means legal. The civil divorce and the Church annulment do not alter this situation.”
 
I have heard this argument from anti-catholics-in case of annulment, any children from this marriage will become illegitimate because annulment means that marriage have never existed. I was told its “horrible and how can u condone it?”. How do u respond to such statements?:confused:
You may politely tell these people that they do not know what they are talking about. In canon law, an attempt at marriage later proven null is still recognized as having been putative while it was being attempted in good faith by at least one party. If children are born to a putative marriage, the children are still legitimate when investigation finds the attempt at marriage was null.

To be specific, refer them to these, especially Can. 1061 §3 and Can. 1137:

**Can. 1061 §1. **A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

**§2. **After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.

**§3. **An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

If you have further questions, post on the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, as they have real experts posting there.
 
I believe there is no such thing as illigitimate children, only illigitimate parents.
 
I have heard this argument from anti-catholics-in case of annulment, any children from this marriage will become illegitimate because annulment means that marriage have never existed. I was told its “horrible and how can u condone it?”. How do u respond to such statements?:confused:
In condoning “it”, what is “it”?
Calling children illegitimate?
Giving an annulment?
 
In condoning “it”, what is “it”?
Calling children illegitimate?
Giving an annulment?
Their argument was-“Catholics declare marriage never existed that makes children illegitimate, these poor children, how can they(Catholics) pretend that it never happened?divorce is so much kinder”. I am repeating this persons exact words here:shrug:
 
Their argument was-“Catholics declare marriage never existed that makes children illegitimate, these poor children, how can they(Catholics) pretend that it never happened?divorce is so much kinder”. I am repeating this persons exact words here:shrug:
The Church clearly teaches just the opposite:

Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

So, your friend’s argument is completely spurious.
 
Legitimate and illegitimate are not terms used by the Church. It only matters where there is royalty and titles.
That is not totally correct. Canon Law defines when children are legitimate:
Can. 1138 §1. The father is he whom a lawful marriage indicates unless clear evidence proves the contrary.
§2. Children born at least 180 days after the day when the marriage was celebrated or within 300 days from the day of the dissolution of conjugal life are presumed to be legitimate.
Can. 1139 Illegitimate children are legitimated by the subsequent valid or putative marriage of their parents or by a rescript of the Holy See.
It may not mean much in the regular course of life but it’s still important enough that there are canons about it and legitimacy depends on a valid or putative marriage.
 
I have heard this argument from anti-catholics-in case of annulment, any children from this marriage will become illegitimate because annulment means that marriage have never existed. I was told its “horrible and how can u condone it?”. How do u respond to such statements?:confused:
Ask your friend: if annulments are so horrible, why does state law allow them? How does he as a citizen condone them?

I believe that every single state has laws allowing for decrees of nullity of marriage – just like the Catholic Church does. Why? Because sometimes you need a piece of paper to show that what looks like – but in fact is not – a real marriage ceremony was not.

Shotgun marriage? Every state allows an annulment.
Bigamous marriage? Every state allows an annulment.
Marriage where one spouse is really gay and didn’t really mean it? Every state allows an annulment.
Marriage by two people drunk out of their minds so they can’t form the proper intent? Every state allows an annulment.
Marriage by a person who can’t understand what marriage is? Every state allows an annulment.

Even if they’ve had six children in the ten years since the marriage ceremony.

And no one ever cries about all the children supposedly made illegitimate when it happens.
 
I have heard this argument from anti-catholics-in case of annulment, any children from this marriage will become illegitimate because annulment means that marriage have never existed. I was told its “horrible and how can u condone it?”. How do u respond to such statements?:confused:
That’s an old, old rumour that’s totally wrong:

Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

There is nothing to believe or disbelieve in canon 1137, it is the law on the books. To refuse to believe that would be like to see a statute on the book of laws of the State of X and refuse to believe that that statute is the law.

What’s putative marriage?

Canon 1061 §3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

Basically, a child would be illegitimate if it resulted from the intercourse of two people being certain that they are not validly married to each other.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM
 
Children are legitimate if they are born to a couple who are legally married. A declaration of nullity does not claim that the legal marriage never happened. Rather it is a statement that the Sacramental (or natural) marriage never happened.

Just as you can be divorced civilly but still married Sacramentally, you can get a declaration of nullity that does not erase the fact that there was a legitimate civil marriage at the time the children are born.
This is incorrect. The legitimacy of children is determined based on whether or not a PUTATIVE marriage existed, wherein at least one party celebrated the marriage in good faith (believing it to be a valid marriage).

As an example: Jane is a catholic who converts to diddly doo (a make believe religion for this exercise). Jane travels to the country of boppy. In boppy, she meets and man who also practices diddly doo and they get married. Boppy has no formof legal marriage, it is purely a “religious rite”. They have a child. Jane returns, however, to the roots of her faith and seeks an annulment because diddly doo is obviously an evil religion her “husband” won’t give up. Their child is legitimate because, even though no law ever recognized her marriage, THEY both believed at the time that their marriage was in effect, and therefore it was putative.
 
Legitimate and illegitimate are not terms used by the Church. It only matters where there is royalty and titles.
Not to be contrary, but legitimate and illegitimate are CERTAINLY terms used by the church as regards children. They are, in fact, codified in Canon Law.
 
Not to be contrary, but legitimate and illegitimate are CERTAINLY terms used by the church as regards children. They are, in fact, codified in Canon Law.
As is the answer to the OP’s question, which is that children born of a putative marriage are legitimate, and that no later Church finding will ever change that.

Either parent can tell when the child is born whether or not a putative marriage exists, as it requires good faith only on the part of one party. The other parent could secretly be a four-time-over bigamist, and according to canon law the child would still be legitimate, because of the good faith of just one parent’s marriage vows.
 
As is the answer to the OP’s question, which is that children born of a putative marriage are legitimate, and that no later Church finding will ever change that.

Either parent can tell when the child is born whether or not a putative marriage exists, as it requires good faith only on the part of one party. The other parent could secretly be a four-time-over bigamist, and according to canon law the child would still be legitimate, because of the good faith of just one parent’s marriage vows.
For Catholics a putative marriage must be one believed to be valid according to the Church. It has been said in Canon Law commentary, that the marriage of a Catholic outside the Church without a dispensation is not a putative marriage regardless of what the parties ‘believe’.
 
For Catholics a putative marriage must be one believed to be valid according to the Church. It has been said in Canon Law commentary, that the marriage of a Catholic outside the Church without a dispensation is not a putative marriage regardless of what the parties ‘believe’.
I am not saying that two Catholics have a putative marriage if they took their vows when they knew (or should have known) that they were not validly married because their attempt at marriage was clearly in violation of canon law. That is usually not what people mean when they say that an annulment is sad because it “makes the children illegitimate.” In that former case, the parties know (or ought to know) quite well they are not considered married by the Church, and have no reason to feign surprise later when this is made official by a decree of nullity. I don’t think that is what the OP means.

I am saying that a Catholic who finds her spouse divorcing her and getting an annulment because her spouse married her in bad faith does not have the added devastation of having her children made illegitimate under canon law by a decree of nullity. Rather, if only one spouse attempted the marriage in good faith, the marriage was putative and the children were and always will be legitimate in the legal sense (for whatever that is worth).

I say, “for whatever that is worth” because the point is nearly moot, excepting from the obvious standpoint of how the parents ought to be living their lives. Whether you were conceived out of fidelity or infidelity to the laws of God does not make any difference in your standing in the Church, although it once did. It does not, for instance, bar a young man from holy orders, as did before canon law was changed in 1983.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top