Children born of adultery

[petrel]

QUOTE=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.

Please make sure your quote tags are correct. I did not say the words attributed to me. I think Ailina must have said them

 

[petrel]

A child who is born out of an affair is by definition “illegitimate”. He/she is absolutely the product of an adulterous relationship, that is an undeniable fact. In a less politically correct age they were called something else, which was once a regular word to describe the stigmitised child of adultery. Now of course we cannot use that word, and now the situation has become so absurd that even to call them illegitimate is also frowned upon.

I contend that stigmatising illegitimate children and their adulterous or fornicating parents is an essential pillar of society, so that everyone will fear and will curb their lusts and order their lives in order to be accepted into respectable society. The breakdown of these stigmas may appear to be a mercy to the spurned, but it is ruinous of society as a whole. In fact it does not even serve the illegitimate child who can take the shame of his/her stigma and resolve to live a chaste life in order to spare his own children the same fate. Whereas if he/she is told that everything is fine and dandy and normal about the circumstances of his/her birth then he/she will quite likely perpetuate the sin of their parent/s to their own ruination and the further ruin of society.

Th permissiveness of this modern world has advanced to such outrageous extremes as to require a redefinition of what “family” means with all kinds of “blending” going on to such an extent that the traditional family unit is almost completely gone, and horrendous confusion reigns in our homes, communities, society and nation.

 

[GraceDK]

A child who is born out of an affair is by definition “illegitimate”. He/she is absolutely the product of an adulterous relationship, that is an undeniable fact. In a less politically correct age they were called something else, which was once a regular word to describe the stigmitised child of adultery. Now of course we cannot use that word, and now the situation has become so absurd that even to call them illegitimate is also frowned upon.

I contend that stigmatising illegitimate children and their adulterous or fornicating parents is an essential pillar of society, so that everyone will fear and will curb their lusts and order their lives in order to be accepted into respectable society. The breakdown of these stigmas may appear to be a mercy to the spurned, but it is ruinous of society as a whole. In fact it does not even serve the illegitimate child who can take the shame of his/her stigma and resolve to live a chaste life in order to spare his own children the same fate. Whereas if he/she is told that everything is fine and dandy and normal about the circumstances of his/her birth then he/she will quite likely perpetuate the sin of their parent/s to their own ruination and the further ruin of society.

Th permissiveness of this modern world has advanced to such outrageous extremes as to require a redefinition of what “family” means with all kinds of “blending” going on to such an extent that the traditional family unit is almost completely gone, and horrendous confusion reigns in our homes, communities, society and nation.

I agree that it should be socially unacceptable behaviour to have sex outside of marriage or commit adultery. It should be known by all as a very shameful thing and it should be known that character and virtue are tied together… however, we live in a world where a lot of good and decent people are actually living in sin, and where the culture and media in no way gives the impression that eg. men who fornicate lack integrity and character.
Here I am not talking about adultery. I believe there is a consensus still among all good people that adultery is just vile. But many young people today think they are living good and healthy lives, as long as they take love very seriously and are faithful to their partner. I believe also God sees these virtues where they exist…

We cannot change the times, but start evangelising among ourselves. Its the Holy Spirit that changes hearts and gives people the wisdom and power to change their lives. WE need not talk about those outside… we can start with our own lives. Even on CAF you see how many Catholics who struggle with purity.

Stigmatizing children is a no-no. There is no such thing as illegitemate children… only illegitimate parents who made poor choices.

 

[severus68]

I agree that it should be socially unacceptable behaviour to have sex outside of marriage or commit adultery. It should be known by all as a very shameful thing and it should be known that character and virtue are tied together… however, we live in a world where a lot of good and decent people are actually living in sin, and where the culture and media in no way gives the impression that eg. men who fornicate lack integrity and character.
Here I am not talking about adultery. I believe there is a consensus still among all good people that adultery is just vile. But many young people today think they are living good and healthy lives, as long as they take love very seriously and are faithful to their partner. I believe also God sees these virtues where they exist…

We cannot change the times, but start evangelising among ourselves. Its the Holy Spirit that changes hearts and gives people the wisdom and power to change their lives. WE need not talk about those outside… we can start with our own lives. Even on CAF you see how many Catholics who struggle with purity.

Stigmatizing children is a no-no. There is no such thing as illegitemate children… only illegitimate parents who made poor choices.

Great post Grace. Yes, there are no illegitimate children, just children who are precious to God.

 

[ajaffres]

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, 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.

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.

It was a long time ago and my mother has died at a young age, so I cannot go and ask her. The only thing I know is that she was able to get a LEGAL annulment, but not one from the Catholic Church. It seems to me that annulments were more difficult to receive in those days, or perhaps she was not aware that she could even try to get one. Many were married at 16-17-18 in those days. It was my father’s first marriage, he has been a widower now for over 20 years and has never remarried. My sister and I never knew she had been married before until we were adults. But now that I look back, I remember that she never went up for communion.

 

[petrel]

I agree that it should be socially unacceptable behaviour to have sex outside of marriage or commit adultery. It should be known by all as a very shameful thing and it should be known that character and virtue are tied together… however, we live in a world where a lot of good and decent people are actually living in sin, and where the culture and media in no way gives the impression that eg. men who fornicate lack integrity and character.
Here I am not talking about adultery. I believe there is a consensus still among all good people that adultery is just vile. But many young people today think they are living good and healthy lives, as long as they take love very seriously and are faithful to their partner. I believe also God sees these virtues where they exist…

Good and decent people do not live in sin. That is a contradiction of terms.
In the book of Acts the apostle said that in times gone by God might have winked at these indiscretions during the times of ignorance. But now since Christ he commands all men everywhere to repent. Acts 17 This society has turned its back on knowledge and run after fornication. How will such a society not be judged? God is not mocked.

And worse. Our own Catholic sons and daughters are rushing to fornicate at an astonishing rate, so much so that we as parents are excusing them because we love them. This is false love though. We should being raging with anger against them and reminding them of the fires of hell instead of all this coochy coo that is going on. How shall they know the fear of God and his judgements if we do not instill it in them and teach them?

As Christ said “What good is salt if it has lost its savour?” Our young people, by and large, are no different to their peers in society. In fact our adults are no different to their peers in society. Adultery amongst Catholics is basically no different to the wider community. Isn’t the church supposed to be holy?

What an empty boast we have when we proudly proclaim one, holy, apostolic, catholic church. Well holy we are no longer. Not in this land anyway. And the Lord will judge his people. Judgement begins at the house of God.

We cannot change the times, but start evangelising among ourselves. Its the Holy Spirit that changes hearts and gives people the wisdom and power to change their lives. WE need not talk about those outside… we can start with our own lives. Even on CAF you see how many Catholics who struggle with purity.

Stigmatizing children is a no-no. There is no such thing as illegitemate children… only illegitimate parents who made poor choices.

“We need not talk about those outside”. Incredible that is the whole mission of the church. Go in to all the world and preach the gospel

Incredible that the church has fallen so far that it can no longer evangelise to the sinners preaching repentance. What a hollow message that is when we ourselves are not responding to the Holy Spirit and bringing forth fruits of purity and repentance.

We are supposed to be a light to the world, but now we struggle to light our own halls.

I am not having a go at you, I am just lamenting the sad state of affairs in the society but moreso the church which should know so much better.

Part of this apathy is the tolerance and acceptance we extend to brothers and sisters in the church who claim to be Christian and yet commit grave sins. The apostle commands us to not associate with such people. In the early church a Christian would be prevented from receiving the sacraments for years and have to face a lengthy period of very public penance after having committed such a horrendous sin as adultery. And yet now we have adulterers receiving the sacrament in a state of mortal sin committing grevious sacriledge.

And the innocent spouse of the adulterer is told to be loving and merciful and accept this unholy individual back into their bed and to bring all their illegitimate children with them back into the house.

Such horrendous scandal wrought upon the household of God. But I hear the cries of outrage. The adulterer must be forgiven, the consequences of his sin must be ameliorated. This just shows how far gone we are. Accepting of outrageous sins like fornication, birth control and adultery as if they are a norm that God will turn a blind eye to when we should be lamenting at the destruction of Jerusalem. Because if the church does not judge itself then we will fall into the hands of the living God who will certainly judge us.

Therefore we must expel the immoral brother and not associate with him.
Here is the Word of the Lord
"1 Cor 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: "

“Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?”

“deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”

"I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. "

“Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”

 

[Catholic90]

Children are not illegitimate. ALL children should be welcomed, regardless the circumstances of their conception and birth.

Stigmatizing such children should certainly not be a “pillar” of society.

 

[petrel]

As I indicated in previous posts the LORD forgives sin in some cases, but not in all cases. In cases where a man is very wicked and unrepentant he certainly does visit the father’s sins upon the children.

Ex 34: Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

This is called generational sin whereby a child of an alcoholic is more likely to be an alcoholic. This is why the stigma of illegitimacy is very important in society as a prod for a child not to repeat the sins of his father or mother.

The Bible is not at all gracious towards illegitimate children. Your notion of the “life spring” of illegitimate children is not in the scripture. I will show you what is.
And I am going to use the tamest most watered down version of the scripture I can find so as not to injure the sensibilities of a politically correct audience.

"Deuteronomy 23:2 ESV “No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord.

"Hebrews 12:8 ESV If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

And if the Bible is not acceptable then we have Summa Theologica
newadvent.org/summa/5068.htm
In answer to the question
“Article 1. Whether children born out of true marriage are illegitimate?”
St. Thomas answers "Children are of four conditions. Some are natural and legitimate, for instance those who are born of a true and lawful marriage; some are natural and illegitimate, as those who are born of fornication; some are legitimate and not natural, as adopted children; some are neither legitimate nor natural; such are those born of adultery or incest, for these are born not only against the positive law, but against the express natural law. Hence we must grant that some children are illegitimate.

That’s kind of sad for those who are born of adulterers. They are not only illegitimate, but unnatural as well.

In answer to Article 2. Whether children should suffer any loss through being illegitimate?
St. Thomas replies
Reply to Objection 2. Illegitimate intercourse is contrary to the law, not as an act of the generative power, but as proceeding from a wicked will. Hence an illegitimate son incurs a loss, not in those things which come to him by his natural origin, but in those things which are dependent on the will for being done or possessed.

 

[Eleanor61]

This conversation has become rather heated, and I can see how some would view it as uncharitable. But in a realistic sense I must agree with petrel, though perhaps I would be less confrontational, and possibly therefore less accurate.
As an illegitimate and unnatural child, I would say that my own background was the definitive reason for choosing to practice my religion seriously, marry and raise children in the faith, and keep the stain of sin as much at bay in their lives and ours as has been possible. We have failed in some ways, as human brings will, but we have built a wholesome environment and a strong example of a faithful marriage for them.
My husband comes from a household where there was alcoholism and infidelity, although his mother was the faithful spouse. We were married very young, but we had deliberately set out to have a family life and marriage as different fom our parents as possible. In this we have, with the help of God’s grace, succeeded.

 

[EasterJoy]

It was a long time ago and my mother has died at a young age, so I cannot go and ask her. The only thing I know is that she was able to get a LEGAL annulment, but not one from the Catholic Church. It seems to me that annulments were more difficult to receive in those days, or perhaps she was not aware that she could even try to get one. Many were married at 16-17-18 in those days. It was my father’s first marriage, he has been a widower now for over 20 years and has never remarried. My sister and I never knew she had been married before until we were adults. But now that I look back, I remember that she never went up for communion.

I think you would do well to go and talk to a priest, whether or not you practice the Catholic faith yourself. It was the intention of your mother to live faithfully according to the laws of the Church. It is entirely possible that she could have obtained a decree of nulllity and had her marriage convalidated before she died, but these issues are not investigated after the marriage is over due to the death of either of the spouses.

That is because regardless of the legal status of your mother’s marriages, you do not have to be established as a legitimate person. The whole issue of legitimacy had to do with rights to inherit, not a child’s standing as a human being before God! Think about it: if her marriage had been convalidated, you might have retroactively been made legitimate in the legal sense, yet the matter is not open after she was dead. Would justice be denied to you because she had died? No. If the matter reflected on you, it would be open for investigation even after she died. As it is, the matter only had to do with her and her first husband and how they ought to have been living their lives while they were alive, so it is now closed to the concern of human courts, even the courts of the Church.

It is possible that your mother was disobedient to the demands of justice, but it is also possible that, for whatever reason, justice was denied to her, instead. We won’t know until the Last Judgment. In the meantime we can be pleased that she is in the hands of the Just Judge, the Judge who is her Advocate, and not in the hands of a blind law.

Your mother spent her lifetime suffering for her situation. Don’t let her suffering be handed down to you. Rejoice, rather, in all the ways she was faithful and loving to you and your family. Pray for her soul, of course–who does not want someone offering prayers for them after they die?–but do not fear because her soul is in the hands of God.

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s kind of sad for those who are born of adulterers. They are not only illegitimate, but unnatural as well.

These are legal terms that describe a legal status, not states of being! An adopted person is not “unnatural” in any ultimate sense, but rather is not the child of his or her parents via the natural route. Obviously, the child is *someone’s *natural child in the biological sense…he or she did not generate spontaneously from the elements! Likewise, a child not born under the laws of marriage was denied some rights in the time when rights were given primarily due to heredity.

This whole legal problem came about because some people would willfully have children outside of marriage and then attempt to use the parent’s influence to give the child a position that laws of heredity would not permit. For instance, if a rich man could not give his child a noble title, he could use his influence to wrangle a position in the Church for the child. The temptation of wealthy or influential adulterers to commit adultery and then use nepotism to place the children they fathered is why all these legal terms came up. In other words, the goal was to avoid scandal, not because the children resulting from adultery ever deserved to be punished or made into second-class citizens.

 

[EasterJoy]

Good and decent people do not live in sin. That is a contradiction of terms.

If good and decent people do not sin, then who among us is “good and decent”? Please, we’ve all read the story of the woman caught in adultery, haven’t we? It was her sin alone that was condemned by the Lord.

Abba Theodore said, 'If you are temperate, do not judge the fornicator, for you would then transgress the law just as much; He who said, “Do not commit fornication,” also said, “Do not judge.” (Sayings of the Desert Fathers)

 

[Allegra]

In fact it does not even serve the illegitimate child who can take the shame of his/her stigma and resolve to live a chaste life in order to spare his own children the same fate. Whereas if he/she is told that everything is fine and dandy and normal about the circumstances of his/her birth then he/she will quite likely perpetuate the sin of their parent/s to their own ruination and the further ruin of society.

.

A child in this unfortunate situation does not need to be shamed in order to know that things are not “fine and dandy”. Do you think they don’t feel the lack of a family? Do you think they don’t morn the loss of the missing parent, especially if they know that parent has other children that are part of his or her life?

 

[Imryl]

This is called generational sin whereby a child of an alcoholic is more likely to be an alcoholic. This is why the stigma of illegitimacy is very important in society as a prod for a child not to repeat the sins of his father or mother.

There is no such thing as “generational sin”. You’ve just used a phrase that was drummed up by a protestant minster some time in the mid-1900’s.

As to St. Aquinas. Nothing you’ve quoted supports your position on how one ought to treat childen born of an illicit relationship between adults. Please do not attempt to use Aquinas to advance your ideology that is quite foriegn to traditional Catholic thought on the dignity of the human person.

If you’d like to ask a well known Thomist about St. Aquinas’s position on this topic, rather then imputing your own meaning on Aquinas’s words and using that to support your assertions, you can PM me and I will provide his name and email to you. He is very responsive.

I’m sure he’d address this generational sin topic with you as well.

 

[chevalier]

St. Thomas Aquinas was not the author of the Supplement, that one was completed after his death, by a disciple, based on St. Thomas’s notes and the sermons of Peter Lombard. Anyway, the logic is somewhat circular because it goes like this:

Question: Should illegitimate children suffer any loss etc.
Answer: Yeah, they should because it doesn’t belong to them etc.

In essence: it shouldn’t belong to them because it doesn’t belong to them. There may be some common sense to the argumentation but the logical structure is not particularly strong.

Also:

Secondly, because something is not due to him, which might have been due otherwise, and thus an illegitimate son incurs a twofold loss. First because he is excluded from legitimate acts such as offices and dignities, which require a certain respectability in those who perform them.

I am presuming that the author refers to others’ inability to respect such people. But I content that no one is less worthy of respect just because he is not the product of a legitimate union. He just loses a heckton in the eyes of people for whom lineage is everything, along with a stable and strong, integrated extend family, which functions basically like a tribe.

There is no way of intentionally inflicting stigma and shame on illegitimate children, for the good of society, without denying the principle that evil must not be done in order to achieve good.

A child who is born out of an affair is by definition “illegitimate”. He/she is absolutely the product of an adulterous relationship, that is an undeniable fact. In a less politically correct age they were called something else, which was once a regular word to describe the stigmitised child of adultery. Now of course we cannot use that word, and now the situation has become so absurd that even to call them illegitimate is also frowned upon.

Let me help you: insulting people is frowned upon. Neither you nor anybody else has the right to invoke illegitimacy to put shame on a person (just because somebody is a bastard doesn’t mean you have the right to refer to him as such, especially in a derogatory way). Not any more than you or anybody else would have the right to laugh at a hunchback or a person with harelip.

For the record, please do not presume that I disagree with you on other things. A man has no obligation to raise his wife’s children conceived in voluntary adultery, let alone cover up and become the legal father, give the surname etc. It is a question of charity, not right, except that the wife has the obligation to support the child and devote her time to it, which inconveniences the husband but which he has no right to prevent (if she has debts she has to pay them, if she has e.g. needy nephews or nieces, she also has to etc., same with a child that’s not her husband’s, even if the product of adulter). If there were any sin for him in refusing to do so, I believe it would consist in e.g. not being able to open himself to a level of charity that he should be able to achieve. But people shouldn’t go soft on the adulteress and hard on the cheated husband (who’s likely in shock upon learning the news).

 

[EasterJoy]

For instance, if a rich man could not give his child a noble title, he could use his influence to wrangle a position in the Church for the child. The temptation of wealthy or influential adulterers to commit adultery and then use nepotism to place the children they fathered is why all these legal terms came up. In other words, the goal was to avoid scandal, not because the children resulting from adultery ever deserved to be punished or made into second-class citizens.

It was also a widespread problem that priests and bishops would father children out of wedlock and then use their influence to get their sons into the priesthood and even into the episcopate. We can only imagine the scandals that resulted from that! Canon law barring men of illegitimate birth from holy orders were intended to prevent this. As the ebbing secular power of the priesthood and episcopate largely removes this as a particular temptation in our times, illegitimacy of birth was removed as an impediment to holy orders in 1983.

 

[chevalier]

It was also a widespread problem that priests and bishops would father children out of wedlock and then use their influence to get their sons into the priesthood and even into the episcopate. We can only imagine the scandals that resulted from that! Canon law barring men of illegitimate birth from holy orders were intended to prevent this.

Possibly but allow me to point out that that’s not perfectly consistent with stated reasons as far as the morality of discrimination against bastards goes.

To develop on the nobility etc. thread. Actually, at least in some parts of Europe, to be a regular burgher one needed legitimate birth. Nobility didn’t always require that per se (even if illegitimacy reduced or prevented inheritance) but the burgher estate did.

 

[EasterJoy]

Possibly but allow me to point out that that’s not perfectly consistent with stated reasons as far as the morality of discrimination against bastards goes.

To develop on the nobility etc. thread. Actually, at least in some parts of Europe, to be a regular burgher one needed legitimate birth. Nobility didn’t always require that per se (even if illegitimacy reduced or prevented inheritance) but the burgher estate did.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that making illegimate birth an impediment to Holy Orders (or any other office) was the best possible solution to the problem of nepotism by clergy who weren’t remaining celibate (or burghers who were engaging in adultery or fornication). I’m not saying there was a legitimate reason to make these distinctions, only that serious reasons did exist. Whether the other consequences of making such a distinction were foreseen or not, there were other consequences.

It is kind of like the problem in our own time of what to do when the heads of a family refuse to work to support their children. You can’t just let the poor children starve, but if you simply supply money to the family and you don’t address the issue that no one will work, that causes problems for the kids down the line, too. There isn’t a really “good” simple answer.

 

[ajaffres]

I did not expect my question to turn out so heated. Thanks to everyone for your honest responses.

 

[chevalier]

I don’t think anyone is arguing that making illegimate birth an impediment to Holy Orders (or any other office) was the best possible solution to the problem of nepotism by clergy who weren’t remaining celibate (or burghers who were engaging in adultery or fornication). I’m not saying there was a legitimate reason to make these distinctions, only that serious reasons did exist. Whether the other consequences of making such a distinction were foreseen or not, there were other consequences.

The Pope could always dispense somebody he deemed acceptable anyway. The real problem was for nobility titles or even actual nobility itself. Things were a bit more flexible in the middle ages but got worse later on. Kings granted their bastards the same coats of arms they had, just with the baton rouge, and gave them dukedoms anyway, just maybe sometimes less than that, even without legitimatising. For the smaller people it was worse.

People just got the idea that those born out of wedlock were somehow tainted. More so by their birth than their parents by the sin.