Annulment and illegitimate children

[Phemie]

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.

I agree.

My post was as much to promethius’s post as to yours. His scenario does not compute as Jane is still Catholic and is still required to marry according to Canon Law. Converting to diddly doo and marrying a man who is also diddly doo in a diddly doo ceremony does not a putative marriage make regardless of what Jane and her new diddly doo partner believe.

 

[EasterJoy]

I agree.

My post was as much to promethius’s post as to yours. His scenario does not compute as Jane is still Catholic and is still required to marry according to Canon Law. Converting to diddly doo and marrying a man who is also diddly doo in a diddly doo ceremony does not a putative marriage make regardless of what Jane and her new diddly doo partner believe.

Not to be too silly, but provided that the diddly do partner was free to marry in the eyes of the Church and is marrying fully in accordance with the laws of his denomination, the marriage is putative and the children legitimate, even though only the husband gave valid consent. It is only Jane who knowingly gave flawed consent, since she alone chose to ignore the laws that govern the marriages of Catholics. After all, the children of a natural but non-sacramental marriage are still legimate, and this would be the case of all the children born of diddly do couples married in the land of boppy. Children are not illegitimate in the legal sense unless both of their parents knew when they were conceived that the relationship that produced the child was not a legitimate marriage.

Now, if Jane met some other Catholic ex-patriate in boppy and they married in diddly-do, then the marriage would not be putative, because both Jane and her Catholic husband are bound to follow the laws of the Church, and they both knowingly chose to do otherwise. They’re not married in the eyes of the Church, they are bound to do so, and they both bound to know that.

 

[promethius]

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’.

Phooey on that. I put no credence by any commentary which directly contradicts the plain meaning of a canon.

When Canon law states that: **§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.

Even Jane’s consent would render the marriage putative if, according to her belief at the time, she TRULY believed that diddly doo was the right religion, and, for example, that her baptism was merely a dunking in water with no grace obtained. While there is no means by which she could validly be married in such a circumstance, regardless she would celebrate her marraige in good (diddly doo) faith, and thus the marriage would be putative anyway (making any children resulting thereof legitimate).

You misunderstand if you think being putative has any effect on or derives any effect from validity. The putative nature of a marriage is a legal term to declare that parties which celebrate in good faith are not guilty before secular “anti-fornication laws” where they exist, and that children are regarded as legitimate so as not to be subject to unfair laws.

Twisting the words of the canon around due to uncited “sources” of “commentary” is hardly convincing to me…

 

[promethius]

Now, if Jane met some other Catholic ex-patriate in boppy and they married in diddly-do, then the marriage would not be putative, because both Jane and her Catholic husband are bound to follow the laws of the Church, and they both knowingly chose to do otherwise. They’re not married in the eyes of the Church, they are bound to do so, and they both bound to know that.

That is not true. The Canon does no require that parties KNOW that they are not in violation of Catholic teachings, it ONLY requires that at least one party celebrated their marriage in good faith, in fact believing that by their tenets they WERE married.

Whether or not a sacramental marriage took place has no impact on whether or not there existed a putative marriage.

 

[EasterJoy]

Phooey on that. I put no credence by any commentary which directly contradicts the plain meaning of a canon.

When Canon law states that: **§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.

Even Jane’s consent would render the marriage putative if, according to her belief at the time, she TRULY believed that diddly doo was the right religion, and, for example, that her baptism was merely a dunking in water with no grace obtained. While there is no means by which she could validly be married in such a circumstance, regardless she would celebrate her marraige in good (diddly doo) faith, and thus the marriage would be putative anyway (making any children resulting thereof legitimate).

You misunderstand if you think being putative has any effect on or derives any effect from validity. The putative nature of a marriage is a legal term to declare that parties which celebrate in good faith are not guilty before secular “anti-fornication laws” where they exist, and that children are regarded as legitimate so as not to be subject to unfair laws.

Twisting the words of the canon around due to uncited “sources” of “commentary” is hardly convincing to me…

Thanks for the clarification. I meant that if Jane and her Catholic husband fly to boppy, go through a diddly do marriage, and let everyone on boppy think they’re married, but know that they aren’t married because they weren’t married in the Church, they aren’t even putatively married.

Conversely, Jane could have come in and given her consent in rotten nasty bad faith with one foot out the door, and if her husband made his vows in good faith, the diddly do marriage would still be putative, and the children would still be legitimate.

The question of where, on Jane’s journey of faith, she went from “knowing” she was Catholic to “losing the knowledge” by becoming an apostate and erring into the religion of diddly do is beyond my pay grade. I say this as someone who left the Church and came back: You can leave and still know very well what you’re doing, even as you tell yourself you know otherwise. I’ll concede the possibility as plausible, do not get me wrong, but I also have enough experience to know that rationalization can also offer fool’s cover.

I do not know why I am spending time on this, since of all the considerations surrounding such a marriage, putting a label on the children one way or the other could hardly be less important. It is nice to get the label of “legitimate”, but what you want is for Mom and Dad to be sacramentally married and to raise you a Catholic.

 

[Bev17243]

this certainly has been interesting discussion. To clarify, what I meant was-if both parties are Catholic and get their marriage annulled, would the children considered illlegitimate? From what it appears, it really depends on each individual case?I’m not refering to civil laws and civil divorces, we all know that children would still be considered legitimate in case of civil divorce.
So if at least one party entered a marriage in good faith, would children still considered legitimate? Am I understanding this correctly?
The reason am I asking is I heard this objection time and time again"well, annulment means marriage never happened ergo children are illegitimate".

 

[joanofarc2008]

In the end what does the title really mean anyway? Do we really have children running around on the playground yelling, “You’re illegitimate!!!” And how many of us have a chance to marry into the royal family anyway and how many of us would really want to?

 

[EasterJoy]

this certainly has been interesting discussion. To clarify, what I meant was-if both parties are Catholic and get their marriage annulled, would the children considered illlegitimate? From what it appears, it really depends on each individual case?I’m not refering to civil laws and civil divorces, we all know that children would still be considered legitimate in case of civil divorce.
So if at least one party entered a marriage in good faith, would children still considered legitimate? Am I understanding this correctly?
The reason am I asking is I heard this objection time and time again"well, annulment means marriage never happened ergo children are illegitimate".

In spite of my harsh judgement on rotten-consent Jane and her deceitful co-conspirator who were taking the boppy folks as fools, if either of the parties reasonably thought the marriage was real and not a sham, the resulting children are legitimate in the legal sense, for what that is worth.

 

[EasterJoy]

In the end what does the title really mean anyway? Do we really have children running around on the playground yelling, “You’re illegitimate!!!” And how many of us have a chance to marry into the royal family anyway and how many of us would really want to?

As far as I know, it hasn’t had a legal application since the impediment was erased that prevented men of illegitimate birth from Holy Orders. That was 1983.

Is this an issue anywhere in the Church itself? Anyone?
(I mean, I don’t care what laws of Monaco currently bind the royal family there…they may be the only persons on earth who still have a dog in this fight.)

 

[joanofarc2008]

As far as I know, it hasn’t had a legal application since the impediment was erased that prevented men of illegitimate birth from Holy Orders. That was 1983.

Is this an issue anywhere in the Church itself? Anyone?
(I mean, I don’t care what laws of Monaco currently bind the royal family there…they may be the only persons on earth who still have a dog in this fight.)

Not marrying into that family - currently - I don’t know - do they have any young, single, attractive, Catholic princes? Notice I didn’t have to say rich.

 

[Bev17243]

In the end what does the title really mean anyway? Do we really have children running around on the playground yelling, “You’re illegitimate!!!” And how many of us have a chance to marry into the royal family anyway and how many of us would really want to?

the reason I am asking is that the next time I get this thrown at me"annulment=illegimate children=bad Catholic church", I would like a better asnwer than “geez, technically I guess that 's true”.

 

[dans0622]

Phooey on that. I put no credence by any commentary which directly contradicts the plain meaning of a canon.

When Canon law states that: **§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. …

Hello promethius,

Actually, “Phemie” and whatever commentary she was referring to are correct. In volume 41 of the Acts of the Apostolic See, p. 158, you’ll find this authentic interpretation:

RESPONSA AD PROPOSITA DUBIA
…
II - De matrimonio putativo

D. An sub verbo « celebratum » can. 1015 § 4 intelligi debeat dumtaxat
matrimonium coram Ecclesia celebratum.
R. Affirmative.
Datum Romae, e Civitate Vaticana, die 26 Ianuarii anno 1949.

M. Card. MASSIMI, Praeses. vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2041%20%5B1949%5D%20-%20ocr.pdf

Basically, the question is: whether the verb “celebrated” in c. 1015.4 (in the 1983 Code, 1061.3) must be understood (to mean) only a marriage celebrated before the Church. Answer: yes. So, when a party to a marriage is Catholic, the marriage must be “celebrated before the Church,” i.e., in accord with the requirements of canonical form. If a Catholic totally disregards canonical form, that attempted marriage is not even putative as far as the Church is concerned. This interpretation was made on the 1917 Code but it still applies today since the 1983 Code is the same, as far as how a putative marriage is defined.

Thanks for your time.

Dan

 

[1ke]

the reason I am asking is that the next time I get this thrown at me"annulment=illegimate children=bad Catholic church", I would like a better asnwer than “geez, technically I guess that 's true”.

Well, now you can answer, “geez, that is entirely false.”

 

[chevalier]

In the end what does the title really mean anyway? Do we really have children running around on the playground yelling, “You’re illegitimate!!!” And how many of us have a chance to marry into the royal family anyway and how many of us would really want to?

William the Conqueror…

 

[EasterJoy]

the reason I am asking is that the next time I get this thrown at me"annulment=illegimate children=bad Catholic church", I would like a better asnwer than “geez, technically I guess that 's true”.

It isn’t true. Most Catholics whose marriage are found null had a putative marriage.

You can explain it this way:

Let us say that Princess Diana had married with the intention that she would be true to Prince Charles. Let us say, though, that she found out only after their two kids arrived that he was not only unfaithful but had never intended to be faithful. Rather, let us say that when he made his vows he fully intended to continue his illicit relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles. (He has of course never said this, so I have no way of knowing it, but let’s just say for illustration’s sake that this was true.) In that case, the marriage would clearly be found null, because Charles would have been deceitful when he made his vows. Diana, on the other hand, made her vows with the full intention to be faithful. Even if she was not faithful, her consent made the marriage putative. For that reason, their children would be legally legitimate, under the Catholic way of looking at it, even though the marriage ended in divorce and would probably have been found null.

Let’s say a couple married without the maturity or emotional capacity to keep their promises. The marriage is putative because the couple made their vows not without the belief that they were really marrying for life, but without the capacity to do it. Their marriage is putative. If either party is, without deceit to themselves or others, under the impression that they engage in the marital act within the bonds of a legitimate marriage, the children will be legitimate. That is going to be most marriages, even the ones that end in divorce.

 

[Bev17243]

It isn’t true. Most Catholics whose marriage are found null had a putative marriage.

You can explain it this way:

Let us say that Princess Diana had married with the intention that she would be true to Prince Charles. Let us say, though, that she found out only after their two kids arrived that he was not only unfaithful but had never intended to be faithful. Rather, let us say that when he made his vows he fully intended to continue his illicit relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles. (He has of course never said this, so I have no way of knowing it, but let’s just say for illustration’s sake that this was true.) In that case, the marriage would clearly be found null, because Charles would have been deceitful when he made his vows. Diana, on the other hand, made her vows with the full intention to be faithful. Even if she was not faithful, her consent made the marriage putative. For that reason, their children would be legally legitimate, under the Catholic way of looking at it, even though the marriage ended in divorce and would probably have been found null.

Let’s say a couple married without the maturity or emotional capacity to keep their promises. The marriage is putative because the couple made their vows not without the belief that they were really marrying for life, but without the capacity to do it. Their marriage is putative. If either party is, without deceit to themselves or others, under the impression that they engage in the marital act within the bonds of a legitimate marriage, the children will be legitimate. That is going to be most marriages, even the ones that end in divorce.

ah, I see, thanks for clarifying it:thumbsup:

 

[joanofarc2008]

the reason I am asking is that the next time I get this thrown at me"annulment=illegimate children=bad Catholic church", I would like a better asnwer than “geez, technically I guess that 's true”.

I understand that but I am saying that my answer of what does legitimacy matter - are the kids going to be royalty may work - really ask them what legitimacy means - challenge it.

 

[Godfollower]

The only reason Canon Law addresses “legitimacy” of children is that some countries that have concordats with the Holy See leave legitimacy to the Church – so the Church has said, “Relax! If it was a putative marriage, you’re still legitimate!” – which translates into some countries’ civil law as making the kids still able to inherit properyt under that country’s law.

But, from the Church’s perspective, “illegitimate child” is an oxymoron; there’s no such thing. If you’re called to the priesthood or whatever, whether your parents celebrated the Sacrament of Matrimony properly is irrelevant.

All children are equal before the Lord – and therefore before the Church.

 

[EasterJoy]

If you’re called to the priesthood…whether your parents celebrated the Sacrament of Matrimony properly is irrelevant.

Still, that was not true before 1983, and some people do not know that canon law has been changed. It’s not that there would be a stampede into the seminary if this were more widely known, because there are probably more people who don’t know that it was ever true. Having said that, I don’t doubt that there is a memory that this was a substantial fact about a person.