Can someone please tell me if my kids are considered bastards in the Church's eyes?

[Island_Oak]

I am a divorced & remarried Catholic. My first marriage was annulled and my second validated by the Church. I have 3 kids resulting from that marriage. Someone had the unmitigated gall to call them bastards!!! She said it is bc I had my first marriage annulled. Please tell me this is not true.

A horrible and hateful thing to say. Avoiding this petty person in the future is my best advice.

 

[JMJDevotee]

Has someone claimed a priest has made such statement?

(Priests are just as susceptible to fall into sin as any of us – And they have farther to fall! But I don’t know why you mention this here and now!?)

tee

A priest did not say that to me, however a friend has told me

"my inlaws are Catholic, and one of their children had a marriage annulled.

the offspring from that annulled marriage are, and always be, considered bastards in the eyes of the Catholic church.

it’s ugly, but it’s true.

a friend of mine has left the catholic church because she’s not allowed to participate in the eucharist…hasnt been allowed since her husband divorced her 26 years ago.

she’s joined an episcopal church because she isnt treated like a leper there.
it’s sad that catholicism puts more importance on it’s own rules than the people they are there to edify.

never had a relationship since that marriage ended 26 years ago.

and, she refused to get the marriage annulled, because, you guessed it, her children didnt want to be labelled ‘bastards’ for the rest of their lives.

this friend is very serious about her faith and is even considering becoming a nun. church is a huge part of her life.

and, in all fairness, it’s not just catholicism that runs people off with their silly rules. i just wanted to amend that statement."

 

[Tantum_ergo]

JMJ, if your friend was divorced and is not in a state of mortal sin, meaning she has not married another person without an annulment, there is no reason she cannot receive communion in the Catholic church.

Further, her children are not, and never would be, considered as illegitimate if she is granted a decree of nullity. I know. I have three children, my husband wanted the divorce, I petitioned for an annulment after I found out the truth. Like your friend, I had been told by (hopefully) well meaning but very uninformed clergy and laity that a divorce meant that I could not receive the sacrament. LIke your friend, I was told the horror stories of illegitimacy. Like your friend, I began to find acceptance, and even considered joining, a Protestant church.

By the grace of God and the correct information which is found on places like Vatican.va, Catholic Answers, and EWTN, I found out the truth. I returned to the sacrament which I had always been eligible for, being in a state of grace, and petitioned for the decree which I received and which in no way affects my childrens’ status.

I found out that the Church’s rules are neither silly nor vindictive, though individual people may be both or either, or simply misinformed though possibly well intentioned.

I will pray that your friend returns.

As you noted, it is not really the rules which estrange. It’s easy to blame the people, but even that is not truly correct to do. The truth can be found and it is our responsibility to try to do so. It is so easy to feel anger at the Church when something that we are responsible for causes us pain. That’s why people who really are in a state of sin would rather blame the Church’s ‘pettiness’. It is even easier when we are truly in a situation where we are innocent and we know we are being treated unfairly.

Thankfully, in my case, and possibly your friend’s, innocence triumphs. Had it been that I had remarried after divorce, while I would have been saddened at being refused the sacrament, I would not have blamed “the Church” for refusing; I would have blamed myself for putting myself in a position where I knew I was doing wrong. When we put our own wants (not our needs, but our wants) ahead of God, we ‘reap what we sow.’

When we are truly in a case where our misfortune is due to the fault of others, the only option then is to be thankful that we can ‘set things right’ and to look onward, not backward, letting the hurt go and concentrating on forgiveness.

 

[tee_eff_em]

What Tantum ergo said.

JMJ, if your friend was divorced and is not in a state of mortal sin, meaning she has not married another person without an annulment, there is no reason she cannot receive communion in the Catholic church.

Further, her children are not, and never would be, considered as illegitimate if she is granted a decree of nullity.

And I still don’t understand why you are dragging priests (ill-informed and un-pastoral they may be) into this? I do not doubt such a priest or priests exist, but no one has brought them up here?

Don’t priests today have enough troubles without being maligned in this hypothetical way?


tee

 

[Barca]

Hi,

I am new to the site and wanted to get some feedback on my situation which may be a more extreme case.

My first Catholic marriage was annulled and i fell in love with a married man who brought me the wonderful gift of two boys after doctors told me that i would never be able to have children.

I would like to know how the church views my two boys.

I hope i am not offending anyone by asking this question so directly

Thank you.

 

[stbruno]

**16. If a declaration of nullity is given, does it mean the children are illegitimate?
**No. Legitimacy is a creation of the law, so people are legitimate if a law says they are legitimate. Church law specifically provides (c 1137) that even if a marriage is declared null, the children born of the marriage are still considered legitimate.

That’s canon law…
www.familyministries.org

 

[Barca]

Hi,

I am new to the site and wanted to get some feedback on my situation which I have been struggling with and may be an extreme case.

My first Catholic marriage was annulled and i fell in love with a married man who brought me the wonderful gift of two boys after doctors told me that i would never be able to have children.

I would like to know how the church views my two boys.

I hope i am not offending anyone by asking this question so directly

Thank you.

 

[Newbie2]

I am a divorced & remarried Catholic. My first marriage was annulled and my second validated by the Church. I have 3 kids resulting from that marriage. Someone had the unmitigated gall to call them bastards!!! She said it is bc I had my first marriage annulled. Please tell me this is not true.

This is not true, but I wouldn’t say the same for the person who called them such.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

The church views your boys as wonderful human beings. As do
we as Catholics!

 

[Ruthie]

Oh, Barca, {{{hug}}}

What Tex said is true.

But you… I’m worried. If you’re still involved with this married man, then you are in mortal sin. I fear for your soul! No man is worth losing heaven over.

PM me if you want. I care.

Ruthie

 

[tee_eff_em]

My first Catholic marriage was annulled and i fell in love with a married man who brought me the wonderful gift of two boys after doctors told me that i would never be able to have children.

I would like to know how the church views my two boys.

To be frank: It is difficult to say from an armchair reading of canon law. Canon law admits to the existence of legitimate, legitimated, and *illegitimate *children, but only positively defines the first two categories.

However, whether your children would be judged legitimate, legitimated, or illegitimate, it would appear that the repercussions due to canon law are precisely: zero.

Exactly four canons deal with the legitimacy of children, 1137-1140 – You can read them for yourself here. No other canons mention legitimacy of birth, which is why I say there are no canonical consequences.

Don’t worry about it.

tee
Not A Canon Lawyer

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I am a divorced & remarried Catholic. My first marriage was annulled and my second validated by the Church. I have 3 kids resulting from that marriage. Someone had the unmitigated gall to call them bastards!!! She said it is bc I had my first marriage annulled. Please tell me this is not true.

It’s not true!

 

[EasterJoy]

To be frank: It is difficult to say from an armchair reading of canon law. Canon law admits to the existence of legitimate, legitimated, and *illegitimate *children, but only positively defines the first two categories.

However, whether your children would be judged legitimate, legitimated, or illegitimate, it would appear that the repercussions due to canon law are precisely: zero.

Exactly four canons deal with the legitimacy of children, 1137-1140 – You can read them for yourself here. No other canons mention legitimacy of birth, which is why I say there are no canonical consequences.

Don’t worry about it.

tee
Not A Canon Lawyer

Although people try to make the question of legitimacy about the inherent worth of the children–which would be an outrage, as all of us are equally precious to God–as far as I know it is only about the children’s right to inherit a title, a throne, or a family name, that kind of thing, isn’t it? This was a time and circumstance when marriages were also a political unions, with civil consequences. The laws of legitimacy basically protected royal families from having their biological grandchildren’s rights usurped by the other children of unfaithful in-laws. Likewise, laws that did not recognize marriages that Catholics contracted outside the Church as valid. These kind of laws were meant to prevent wars. (I am not saying that similar laws didn’t exist before the Christian era, only mentioning why the Church would recognize a marriage between two Christians, except when one party was a Catholic who had married outside the Church without permission.)

Is this true, or have I been misinformed?

In the United States, a child’s name, including surname, is what his or her parents decide it will be. Isn’t it true then, that except for someone in a Catholic monarchy that still has a line of legal succession–like the Princess of Monoco, for instance–the whole concept has entirely lost its importance? I can’t think of another context in which bringing up a person’s “legitimacy” or trying to apply it would be even remotely charitable.

 

[neillennon]

Personally i would tend to agree with Easter Joy.

Marriage is the ideal and the best way to raise kids.

But being born out of wedlock and your legal status has absolutely no bearing on the worth of the child as a person.

God created us all equal.

 

[EasterJoy]

Personally i would tend to agree with Easter Joy.

Marriage is the ideal and the best way to raise kids.

But being born out of wedlock and your legal status has absolutely no bearing on the worth of the child as a person.

God created us all equal.

Exactly. It is a matter of inheritance. The times when inheritance matters refer to Catholic canon law are rare.

Not entirely extinct, though:
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n24_v29/ai_13685886
“The three children of Princess Caroline of Monaco have been made legitimate in the eyes of the church by a decision signed by Pope John Paul II…Although illegitimacy had no effect on a child’s standing in the church, under Monaco’s laws a child who is illegitimate according to church law is ineligible for royal succession.” (from the National Catholic Reporter)

 

[tee_eff_em]

Although people try to make the question of legitimacy about the inherent worth of the children–which would be an outrage, as all of us are equally precious to God–as far as I know it is only about the children’s right to inherit a title, a throne, or a family name, that kind of thing, isn’t it? This was a time and circumstance when marriages were also a political unions, with civil consequences. The laws of legitimacy basically protected royal families from having their biological grandchildren’s rights usurped by the other children of unfaithful in-laws. Likewise, laws that did not recognize marriages that Catholics contracted outside the Church as valid. These kind of laws were meant to prevent wars. (I am not saying that similar laws didn’t exist before the Christian era, only mentioning why the Church would recognize a marriage between two Christians, except when one party was a Catholic who had married outside the Church without permission.)

Is this true, or have I been misinformed?

I am not even sure why the code addresses the issue, except for psychological reasons? (Or perhaps for such rare cases as you note later)

As recently as the 1917 code, I believe a man of illegitimate birth was impeded from receiving Holy Orders, but that is no longer the case under the 1983 code.

tee

 

[EasterJoy]

I am not even sure why the code addresses the issue, except for psychological reasons? (Or perhaps for such rare cases as you note later)

As recently as the 1917 code, I believe a man of illegitimate birth was impeded from receiving Holy Orders, but that is no longer the case under the 1983 code.

tee

I think that is it…the principality of Monaco and perhaps some other little principality or a last will and testament here and there, refer to it.

I don’t think the Church has an interest in putting any more psychological luggage onto children born outside of marriage than the children’s circumstances already do.