Children born of adultery

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajaffres
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s odd, because I don’t even give this much thought.

We have experienced this in our family circle. I won’t give details.

The affair resulted in a child, a divorce, and a man willing to raise another as his own.

He did a fantastic job. The child grew up loved on all fronts. No one is destroyed. There were issues as adults when the story came out. Most are resolved. The child is well aware the love from the family.

I actually know of another family I grew up with. The mother also the adulter. She tried to pass it off until the child was born. There was unavoidable clues this child was not his. Also resulted in a divorce. He also assumed responsibility for this child. Loved the child as his own. I don’t know them well enough to know if anyone is messed up do to this issue.

However, in both instances I know there are siblings that are in fact blood related that love each other very much and would NEVER give each other up.
 
And what of a man that cheats on his wife, and impregnates another woman. Perhaps She’s single. And wants him to support this child? Should a married women be expected to part with family income, perhaps enforced by way of legal action. Or should she put him away, and collect his check from here to ever after. And oh, yeah, deny him the right to see ANY of his children.

Your hostility is astounding.
I am not promoting any double standard. It is just that the OP has framed the topic as the wife cheating and producing a child by another man. What do you want me to say? That there is not horrible trauma and dysfunction that arises out of adultery?
It is the very fact that horrible trauma and dysfunction results from adultery that every effort should be made to defend the innocent spouse and the legitimate children in the relationship. They constitute the order in society which is threatened by the adulterer and his/her illegitimate progeny.

The courts and the laws of civil society do nothing to defend the innocent spouse, particularly if he is the husband. Therefore it is left to the church to defend the innocent and plead their cause.

I believe that any spouse has a right to put away the cheating spouse whether or not a child is conceived by the adulterous affair.

I am absolutely hostile to adultery. It is a vile and destructive sin. It is almost excused in our modern society and even in the church. Nor I am the “Love the sinner, hate the sin” type. I am absolutely hostile to adulterers, murderers, fornicators, aborters and all that do wickedness.

I share this hostility with Paul who said
“1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,”
I am also fervent to protect the rights of the innocent. Particularly of societies underclass, husbands and fathers, who are treated monstrously by the family courts and by popular society.
 
I am not promoting any double standard. It is just that the OP has framed the topic as the wife cheating and producing a child by another man. What do you want me to say? That there is not horrible trauma and dysfunction that arises out of adultery?
It is the very fact that horrible trauma and dysfunction results from adultery that every effort should be made to defend the innocent spouse and the legitimate children in the relationship. They constitute the order in society which is threatened by the adulterer and his/her illegitimate progeny.

The courts and the laws of civil society do nothing to defend the innocent spouse, particularly if he is the husband. Therefore it is left to the church to defend the innocent and plead their cause.

I believe that any spouse has a right to put away the cheating spouse whether or not a child is conceived by the adulterous affair.

I am absolutely hostile to adultery. It is a vile and destructive sin. It is almost excused in our modern society and even in the church. Nor I am the “Love the sinner, hate the sin” type. I am absolutely hostile to adulterers, murderers, fornicators, aborters and all that do wickedness.

I share this hostility with Paul who said

I am also fervent to protect the rights of the innocent. Particularly of societies underclass, husbands and fathers, who are treated monstrously by the family courts and by popular society.
It would seem that you are very hostile right now. Listen, please explain with what you mean the “put away” comment. What exactly do you mean?

Now, I do agree you bring up some good points. The innocent husband has no responibility to care for the illegitimate child and I don’t believe that he is any less of a real man because of that. The Church sure doesn’t advocate that he must take care of the child. His first responibility is to take care of his own children and after himself. Now if he wishes to do so, then let him do so. It is a very noble act.
 
It would seem that you are very hostile right now. Listen, please explain with what you mean the “put away” comment. What exactly do you mean?
Please go over what I said in my previous posts. I simply mean seperation and am just using the terminology which has historically been used by the church to discuss this issue.
Now, I do agree you bring up some good points. The innocent husband has no responibility to care for the illegitimate child and I don’t beleieve that he is any less of a real man because of that. The Church sure doesn’t advocate that he must take care of the child. His first responibility is to take care of his own children and after himself. Now if he wishes to do so, then let him do so. It is a very noble act.
Thanks, that is all I am saying. Simply that. Sometimes standing up passionately for the innocent and for justice can result in an appearance of hostility towards the wicked and the guilty. That is is unavoidable. It is an incredible double standard that we are allowed to be hostile to paedophiles but it is socially unacceptable to be hostile to adulterers.
 
Nor I am the “Love the sinner, hate the sin” type. I am absolutely hostile to adulterers, murderers, fornicators, aborters and all that do wickedness.

y.
Jesus never had time or forgiveness for adulters either…oh, wait…he spoke of forgiveness, didn’t he? One of those former adulters became quite a follower as I recall.
 
Jesus never had time or forgiveness for adulters either…oh, wait…he spoke of forgiveness, didn’t he? One of those former adulters became quite a follower as I recall.
Yeah. Last time I checked of these former adulters became a saint. Praise God!😃
 
Jesus never had time or forgiveness for adulters either…oh, wait…he spoke of forgiveness, didn’t he? One of those former adulters became quite a follower as I recall.
Your characterisation of me is ridiculous. Where did I ever advocate that repentant sinners should not be forgiven? Clearly if an adulterer is repentant then it will affect the decision of the cheated spouse as to whether or not to take them back.

It is God to judge in the next life the quality of that repentance.
In this life it is the decision of the cheated spouse to judge the quality of that repentance and whether or not they should be forgiven. It is not for any of us to make that judgement for them or to put them under any false sense of obligation to take the cheater back and his/her illegitimate offspring.

Even if God forgives at the confessional and at the judgement day (For which I and all of us pray) it still puts the cheated party under any obligation to take them back into their home and bed along with their strange children conceived by another man.

We must all forgive the evildoer at one level so that we don’t burn up in vengeance. However to forgive someone does not mean that the realities of illegitimate children and the breach of trust are not still there. For example in some cases of child abuse it is wise for the abused child to forgive the parent who abused them, but that forgiveness does not obligate them to then go and live in the home of the abusive parent.
 
“In old Israel Moses commanded adulterers to be stoned. That was a very good system but today we go all soft on adulterers.”

Do you really believe that? Comments like that quite frankly scare me. It’s exactly what the Taliban think, and we know how women are treated in Afghanistan. I would rather give up a religion that thinks that way.

Jesus got all soft on adulterers too in His day, since he stopped the stoning of a woman caught in adultery. I’ve always wondered why the man, who was with the woman caught in adultery, never had to face any consequences for his actions. Double standard or what?

As for children born in adultery, I would hope they aren’t faced with negative behavior from the adults in their lives. They are the innocent ones who couldn’t help what happened. They shouldn’t be made scape-goats.
 
But EasterJoy, it happens every single day! Do you really think that people choose to carry a baby when the future is so difficult no matter which direction you pick? I don’t understand why you think this is cynical when it is reality. Over 3,000 babies died just yesterday, and 3,000 more will have died by the end of the day today. People who cheat on their spouses have already overcome their marriage vows; they have shallower morals to start with.

I am not resigned to this outcome. I was at Planned Parenthood all day yesterday, trying to intervene as much as I could in their bottom line, and get women and men to turn around and not go into the clinic. Whatever their reasons are, abortion is not the answer, but society says that it is. One couple drove slowly out, the man rolled his window down and sadly took my post-abortion brochure. I told them that I was sorry, and that I am praying for them. When they drove away, I bawled my eyes out, knowing the reality that neither of them will ever forget that day. And I cried for the baby.

I am the least cynical person you will meet about abortion. It is literally all I can do just to go to Planned Parenthood to pray in sight of such a place. But I do it because our presence in prayer is one of the only things that actually turns people away.
Abortions happen every day, divorces happen every day, but with regards to the OP’s post, it is cynical to write “Well, all of this is theoretical anyway, because the most likely case is that the baby would be aborted.”

People have been committing abortion and infanticide since ancient times. If anything, abortion was less popular than infanticide, because infanticide was far safer for the mother. There were illegal abortions, but it was only because when a woman went and had an abortion against her husband’s wishes, it was considered she had committed a crime not against her child but against her husband. Ours is not the first society to regard children the chattel of their parents, then! At least now the child has a right to life at birth, something a Roman child did not have. Those days were the atmosphere in which Our Lord said, “He who welcomes a child such as this welcomes me”. Those were the days in which women were stoned for being caught in adultery. The conclusion that a woman carrying the child of adultery would hide her crime by abortion is not more foregone now than it was then.

Innocent spouses have also been known to take wayward spouses back since time immemorial, and to treat every child in their house the same. Outside of grace, there are times when there has been no hope, but there has not been a time, including now, when either the wayward spouse or the wronged spouse can simply be presumed to be immune to grace.

That is all I mean: It does not become you to write as if grace can never permeate a situation. It can, and it is worth talking about that. The discussion is not just theoretical.
 
Abortions happen every day, divorces happen every day, but with regards to the OP’s post, it is cynical to write “Well, all of this is theoretical anyway, because the most likely case is that the baby would be aborted.”

People have been committing abortion and infanticide since ancient times. If anything, abortion was less popular than infanticide, because infanticide was far safer for the mother. There were illegal abortions, but it was only because when a woman went and had an abortion against her husband’s wishes, it was considered she had committed a crime not against her child but against her husband. Ours is not the first society to regard children the chattel of their parents, then! At least now the child has a right to life at birth, something a Roman child did not have. Those days were the atmosphere in which Our Lord said, “He who welcomes a child such as this welcomes me”. Those were the days in which women were stoned for being caught in adultery. The conclusion that a woman carrying the child of adultery would hide her crime by abortion is not more foregone now than it was then.

Innocent spouses have also been known to take wayward spouses back since time immemorial, and to treat every child in their house the same. Outside of grace, there are times when there has been no hope, but there has not been a time, including now, when either the wayward spouse or the wronged spouse can simply be presumed to be immune to grace.

That is all I mean: It does not become you to write as if grace can never permeate a situation. It can, and it is worth talking about that. The discussion is not just theoretical.
Why don’t you get off Julianes back and read what she actually said? *Well, all of this is theoretical anyway, because the *most likely case is that the baby would be aborted." She has said the truth… most women who get pregnant outside of marriage, or who for some reason really want to hide it, have an abortion. In Europe where I live now, most abortions are actually given to women who already have children and who are married…
Its not cynical to point this out. And your lashing out at Juliane and exaggerating what she said does not become
you
 
What is the Church’s position on children conceived through an adulterous affair? I know adultery is not a justifiable reason for an annulment, but what happens if a spouse conceives through adultery, what should the other spouse do?
Thanks for all the responses. If I can recap all that has been said.
  1. All Children are considered innocent before God.
  2. The Church would allow the innocent spouse to separate, but would still not give an annulment.
  3. Both the adulterous spouse and the victim would not be permitted to remarry.
I was very moved by the stories that were told, Children should never have to bear this kind of sorrow.

My question was personal, but not in those terms. My mother was married at 17 and divorced at 20 because her first husband was abusive and an adulterer. They had no children. She then married my father in a Protestant Church even though they were both Catholics because they couldn’t get married in a Catholic Church. Therefore there relationship would be viewed as adulterous since she was unable to get an annulment, which would translate in both my sister and I being Children born of adultery, but in a totally different context as the ones stated previously. Shouldn’t the innocent spouse be allowed to remarry?
 
My question was personal, but not in those terms. My mother was married at 17 and divorced at 20 because her first husband was abusive and an adulterer. They had no children. She then married my father in a Protestant Church even though they were both Catholics because they couldn’t get married in a Catholic Church. Therefore there relationship would be viewed as adulterous since she was unable to get an annulment, which would translate in both my sister and I being Children born of adultery, but in a totally different context as the ones stated previously. Shouldn’t the innocent spouse be allowed to remarry?
Interesting “twist”. The adulters are actually civilly married, and the children belong to both?

I’m suprised she wasn’t able to get an annulment. Obviously, I don’t know many details. However, I try to envision just how mature an underage girl is to consent to a valid marriage. And her first wedding was in a Catholic Church? Abuse and adultery are not grounds for annullment. However, we hear more and more that priests are refusing to marry people so young because ultimately they often do have grounds for annullment.
 
My question was personal, but not in those terms. My mother was married at 17 and divorced at 20 because her first husband was abusive and an adulterer. They had no children. She then married my father in a Protestant Church even though they were both Catholics because they couldn’t get married in a Catholic Church. Therefore there relationship would be viewed as adulterous since she was unable to get an annulment, which would translate in both my sister and I being Children born of adultery, but in a totally different context as the ones stated previously. Shouldn’t the innocent spouse be allowed to remarry?
Well… I hope you have managed to see you are a child of God and He loves you regardless of your parents sins.

I am assuming in the above you mean your mom is the innocent spouse because she was abuse and cheated on. Sadly, that does NOT give her the right to remarry. The grounds for annulment are based on the circumstances when you get married. If there was a valid impediment to the marriage then yes, she can get an annulment. However, she vowed in front of God ‘For better or for worse’, sadly after being abused and cheated on the ‘for worse’ came to be. But she vowed regardless ‘til death do us part’ and no, she can not remarry

CM
 
petrel;9003382:
As for children born in adultery, I would hope they aren’t faced with negative behavior from the adults in their lives. They are the innocent ones who couldn’t help what happened. They shouldn’t be made scape-goats.
I am in total agreement they are innocent children. However, adults are human which is why if a man can not be 100% resentment free of the child, he is best to step back and not take the kid on as his own. The child is better off in a situation where he can be loved.
 
Why don’t you get off Julianes back and read what she actually said? *Well, all of this is theoretical anyway, because the **most likely case *is that the baby would be aborted." She has said the truth… most women who get pregnant outside of marriage, or who for some reason really want to hide it, have an abortion. In Europe where I live now, most abortions are actually given to women who already have children and who are married…
Its not cynical to point this out. And your lashing out at Juliane and exaggerating what she said does not become
you
Thanks GraceDK. I think this thread has unfortunately resulted in a lot of mis-communication. Perhaps the original question was too general, or the situation is too loaded - I don’t know. But I will stop responding because my previous statements didn’t add anything to the discussion.
 
Ailina;9006118:
I am in total agreement they are innocent children. However, adults are human which is why if a man can not be 100% resentment free of the child, he is best to step back and not take the kid on as his own. The child is better off in a situation where he can be loved.
Since the original poster clarified the question, I realize that my experience is not relevant. Personally, I would never regard children born in his situation as products of adultery. They are legitimate children of an invalid marriage.
I do want to respond to the above quote, however. In my experience the abuse, animosity, resentment, etc. came not from my legal father, who never treated me differently than my sisters, but fom my mother, for whom I was a tangible reminder of her sin, shame, frustration, and disappointment. Her resentment of my unusual height was bizarre, as she always insisted that I was really three or four inches shorter than I was.
I think that the sinned against husband may well be able to make peace with his decision to parent the child more easily than the sinning mother can accept and love the child. At least that is my experience.
 
Jesus never had time or forgiveness for adulters either…oh, wait…he spoke of forgiveness, didn’t he? One of those former adulters became quite a follower as I recall.
Just a quick reminder that…in case you are speaking of Saint Mary of Magdala, she herself was not an adulterer–not that we know of, anyhow. That was an error of interpretation by Pope Gregory which was officially corrected by the Vatican in '69.
 
What is the Church’s position on children conceived through an adulterous affair? I know adultery is not a justifiable reason for an annulment, but what happens if a spouse conceives through adultery, what should the other spouse do?
The Church believes that ALL children are valuable and a blessing from God regardless of the situation in which they were conceived or born.

Regarding the sins of the parents, the Church hopes that they repent, go to Confession, and do what they can to repair the situation and no longer sin.

I guess the other spouse should pray, and then um, pray some more? Honestly, I don’t know what they should do, apart from trying to be as charitable as possible, which I know is much easier said than done.
 
Why don’t you get off Julianes back and read what she actually said? *Well, all of this is theoretical anyway, because the **most likely case *is that the baby would be aborted." She has said the truth… most women who get pregnant outside of marriage, or who for some reason really want to hide it, have an abortion. In Europe where I live now, most abortions are actually given to women who already have children and who are married…
Its not cynical to point this out. And your lashing out at Juliane and exaggerating what she said does not become
you
Did you read the whole line of discussion?

Original post:
What is the Church’s position on children conceived through an adulterous affair? I know adultery is not a justifiable reason for an annulment, but what happens if a spouse conceives through adultery, what should the other spouse do?
Julianne followed suggestions that it would be best for the child if the child could be given up for adoption with this sensible post:
If there are already other children, adoption is not without problems. How can the other children feel secure, knowing that their mother is going to give away a sibling? No, the best result is for the woman to stay with her husband, and for the husband to sacrifice and be the child’s daddy. And contrary to petrels’ opinion, many men have done just that. It is actually very indicative of a man’s character to be able to love a child that is not his own. A real man can overcome his own pain and put the child first.
Her post was met with this objection:
What if the child’s real father objects to this solution? He may intend to gain legal rights to his child. What if the man the woman is married to was a wicked brute in the first place and makes the other man’s child a servant? Not all women who cheat are cheating on a saint. Just as often, they are cheating on a jerk. There are too many possible variables to make a statement that one solution is the “right one”. If we were dealing with solid individuals, the situation wouldn’t exist in the first place.
Her response to that was this
Well, all of this is theoretical anyway, because the most likely case is that the baby would be aborted.
I thought she threw in the towel in favor of the pessimistic answer too soon. The OP did not ask what was the most likely outcome, after all. The thread is about what the Church teaches the outcome ought to be! I think thought that staying on the ground of the original question is more in keeping with the reams and reams of sensible advice Juliane has given here on this forum, and I still do. That is what I meant by saying that the cynical answer did not become her…it was not in character.

It is also more in keeping with the kind of feedback that the OP solicited. If that involves admitting that there are legal issues that could pose a trial when undertaking this course of action or that, then so be it. Whoever is making a decision like this needs to consider all the practical problems that could be encountered, but they also need to know that these are not insurmountable problems.
 
Thanks for all the responses. If I can recap all that has been said.
  1. All Children are considered innocent before God.
  2. The Church would allow the innocent spouse to separate, but would still not give an annulment.
  3. Both the adulterous spouse and the victim would not be permitted to remarry.
I was very moved by the stories that were told, Children should never have to bear this kind of sorrow.

My question was personal, but not in those terms. My mother was married at 17 and divorced at 20 because her first husband was abusive and an adulterer. They had no children. She then married my father in a Protestant Church even though they were both Catholics because they couldn’t get married in a Catholic Church. Therefore there relationship would be viewed as adulterous since she was unable to get an annulment, which would translate in both my sister and I being Children born of adultery, but in a totally different context as the ones stated previously. Shouldn’t the innocent spouse be allowed to remarry?
That adultery happens after marriage does not preclude an annulment. If it were evident that adultery was intended as an option when the vows were taken, the marriage wouldn’t be valid.

If your mother was the victim of deceit–that is, if her first husband did not really intend to be faithful to her, but rather considered even as he made his wedding vows to her that adultery against her to be an option he was free to hold open for himself or that the vow to “honor” her all the days of his life was just so much flowery language that could be discarded in favor of abusing her if he liked–then her first attempt at marriage would not have been valid. In that case, justice would require she be declared free to marry your father in the Church (provided he was also justly free to marry). If she realistically knew he would cheat on her and abuse her, the attempt at marriage would have been foolish, but it still would not have been valid. (I speak theoretically, as if these facts were found upon a true investigation, not as if a marriage can be declared invalid without investigation.)

If, on the other hand, our spouses give us full consent and intend to marry us well, but then later fail us through sin, then no, unfortunately, we are not free to marry someone else, any more than we are free to remarry if they are struck by a physical illness that takes away their ability to engage in the marital act or that takes any of the other goods of marriage away from us. Although no one is required to stay in a house where peace or safety may be realistically deemed impossible, when it comes to “for better or worse”, the “worse” can be very bad, indeed. When we throw our lot in with someone and agree to marry them, we sign on for the whole thing.

In any event, you and your sister are innocent and worthy of the love of your parents, not to mention everyone else. Your mother is not in the situation of someone who has violated the trust of an innocent and loving spouse, but is more akin to the re-married woman whom Jesus spoke of:* “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’ But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery…” * Matt. 5:31-32 The Scriptures do not say that your mother would not have been committing adultery by remarriage, but that it could be that she herself was not ultimately the cause of the situation.

At any rate, it is not a good idea to try to re-paint something as something it is not in order to preserve appearances. It is better to stay in the truth, but to love people regardless of appearances. We are told not to judge as if we could judge hearts, because we rarely know the whole story. We can respond with regards to what your mother’s legal situation was, but we can’t read her heart or assign her culpability. That is for God to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top