Was I born out of wedlock?

[JD27076]

My parents, who are not Catholic, were married in the courthouse by a pastor. (Not a religious wedding.)

I know the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize a civil marriage.

So was I born out of wedlock?
Are my parents committing adultery?

Thanks.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

If your parents are not/were not Catholic at the time they married,
they are not bound by Canon Law, so therefore their marriage is valid.

So, no, you were not born out of wedlock.

 

[SMHW]

If your parents are not/were not Catholic at the time they married,
they are not bound by Canon Law, so therefore their marriage is valid.

So, no, you were not born out of wedlock.

…What Oneofthewomen said.

The Catholic Church does not recognize the power of civil authorities to validly marry *Catholics *(except with permission/dispensation from the bishop.)

So long as there were no other factors that would prevent your parents from marrying, the Church considers your parents’ marriage to be quite valid.

 

[JimG]

The Catholic Church recognizes a natural right to marriage. It recognizes most marriages as valid unless proven otherwise. It is only Catholics who are subject to Church law with respect to marriage.

 

[cjmclark]

My parents, who are not Catholic, were married in the courthouse by a pastor. (Not a religious wedding.)

I know the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize a civil marriage.

So was I born out of wedlock?
Are my parents committing adultery?

Thanks.

In addition to what the other posters have said above, legitimacy is a legal concern. As long as your parents were legally married (and they were, with a civil marriage), then no, you were not born out of wedlock.

 

[JD27076]

Thanks guys! I forgot to add. I don’t know if this will change anything.

My mom is baptized, and my dad isn’t.

Does this change anything?

Thanks!

 

[Phemie]

Thanks guys! I forgot to add. I don’t know if this will change anything.

My mom is baptized, and my dad isn’t.

Does this change anything?

Thanks!

It doesn’t change anything as far as a valid marriage is concerned.

If they were both baptized, theirs would be a sacramental marriage. Since your dad isn’t baptized, and a sacrament can’t be conferred on only half of the couple, they have a natural marriage.

 

[anp1215]

Thanks guys! I forgot to add. I don’t know if this will change anything.

My mom is baptized, and my dad isn’t.

Does this change anything?

Thanks!

No, as long as your mom wasn’t baptized Catholic or ever received into the Catholic Church.

 

[1ke]

In addition to what the other posters have said above, legitimacy is a legal concern. As long as your parents were legally married (and they were, with a civil marriage), then no, you were not born out of wedlock.

Well, not exactly. The Church does have canons pertaining to legitimacy.

But, since the OP’s parents were validly married, he is legitimate.

 

[Neofight]

Regardless of the precepts or canon of my church, the are no “illegitimate” children in the eyes of my God. All living things He creates are quite legitimate!

 

[Robertanthony]

Regardless of the precepts or canon of my church, the are no “illegitimate” children in the eyes of my God. All living things He creates are quite legitimate!

This thread reeks of spiritual haughtiness. Love/charity is the golden rule, you understood that, I’m glad you posted this.

1ke, off the top of your head, do you recall what Luke 18:11 says? Nobody uses the term “legitimate” or “illegitimate” anymore except sub saharan tribes with no electricity and running water, why on Earth did you feel you needed to bring up that term? Children born out of wedlock, do you call them by the nasty, derogatory term starting with a “b”? Call that fraternal correction.

 

[adrift]

This thread reeks of spiritual haughtiness. Love/charity is the golden rule, you understood that, I’m glad you posted this.

1ke, off the top of your head, do you recall what Luke 18:11 says? Nobody uses the term “legitimate” or “illegitimate” anymore except sub saharan tribes with no electricity and running water, why on Earth did you feel you needed to bring up that term? Children born out of wedlock, do you call them by the nasty, derogatory term starting with a “b”? Call that fraternal correction.

Fraternal correction is that Ike is not the one who brought it up. She was responding to a post from cjmclark that did. It wasn’t at all spiritual haughtiness (why did you make that judgment?) It was stating a fact. Ike said

Well, not exactly. The Church does have canons pertaining to legitimacy.

answering this

In addition to what the other posters have said above, legitimacy is a legal concern.

Ike was correct

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

I guess to your list who uses the term you must add the Catholic Church in her Canon Law.

 

[Neofight]

Perhaps we all need to be kinder to each other.

Because, the larger point all of us failed to bring up to the original poster is that being born, whether in or out of wedlock, planned or unplanned, medically induced rather than through natural conception, or product of rape or violence do not detract from God’s love and grace for any child.

Therefore we more simply and lovingly should have pointed out that the answer to the question, “was i born out of wedlock?” just doesn’t matter…only that you were born matters, and for that we all praise God!

 

[1ke]

Nobody uses the term “legitimate” or “illegitimate”

The Catholic Church does.

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

Can.* 1140 As regards canonical effects, legitimated children are equal in all things to legitimate ones unless the law has expressly provided otherwise.

why on Earth did you feel you needed to bring up that term?

I did not bring up anything. I responded to both the OP’s query and another poster’s remark.

Children born out of wedlock, do you call them by the nasty, derogatory term starting with a “b”? Call that fraternal correction.

Melodrama is unhelpful.

 

[Lapey]

Regardless of the precepts or canon of my church, the are no “illegitimate” children in the eyes of my God. All living things He creates are quite legitimate!

This thread reeks of spiritual haughtiness. Love/charity is the golden rule, you understood that, I’m glad you posted this.

1ke, off the top of your head, do you recall what Luke 18:11 says? Nobody uses the term “legitimate” or “illegitimate” anymore except sub saharan tribes with no electricity and running water, why on Earth did you feel you needed to bring up that term? Children born out of wedlock, do you call them by the nasty, derogatory term starting with a “b”? Call that fraternal correction.

Perhaps we all need to be kinder to each other.

Because, the larger point all of us failed to bring up to the original poster is that being born, whether in or out of wedlock, planned or unplanned, medically induced rather than through natural conception, or product of rape or violence do not detract from God’s love and grace for any child.

Therefore we more simply and lovingly should have pointed out that the answer to the question, “was i born out of wedlock?” just doesn’t matter…only that you were born matters, and for that we all praise God!

Why can’t we discuss topics these days without someone being offended or insulted and then someone decides to cast judgment upon the one who speaks in line with the Church and from Her Code of Canon Law? We live in sad times when we cannot hold an adult conversation without being called out for not loving or for being insensitive. Please calm down, I agree with Ike, the drama is not helpful and I’ll add that it is not charitable to anyone.

 

[Robertanthony]

The Catholic Church does.

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

Can.* 1140 As regards canonical effects, legitimated children are equal in all things to legitimate ones unless the law has expressly provided otherwise.

I did not bring up anything. I responded to both the OP’s query and another poster’s remark.

Melodrama is unhelpful.

. Don’t you understand that the label “illegitimate” carries a great deal of negative weight with it, it’s far from being a merely neutral legal term. It should be abrogated, and should be replaced by a more neutral periphrase “born out of wedlock”, or “born out of a consecrated union”. Sorry if you were brought up in an environment where the normal expression of your emotions was strictly forbidden under threats of severe bodily correction and as a result of that you’ve come to view any expression of emotions as melodramatic. I did express outrage and indignation, that is all, so in this instance melodrama is in the eyes of the beholder, and nowhere else to be found. Note to self: keep away from threads on topics such as this.

 

[SMHW]

. Don’t you understand that the label “illegitimate” carries a great deal of negative weight with it, it’s far from being a merely neutral legal term. It should be abrogated, and should be replaced by a more neutral periphrase “born out of wedlock”, or “born out of a consecrated union”. Sorry if you were brought up in an environment where the normal expression of your emotions was strictly forbidden under threats of severe bodily correction and as a result of that you’ve come to view any expression of emotions as melodramatic. I did express outrage and indignation, that is all, so in this instance melodrama is in the eyes of the beholder, and nowhere else to be found. Note to self: keep away from threads on topics such as this.

Then your issue is not with anyone here but with canon law? If so, then your outrage should be directed at canon law and not at the posters on this thread who quote it.

 

[anp1215]

Then your issue is not with anyone here but with canon law? If so, then your outrage should be directed at canon law and not at the posters on this thread who quote it.

Exactly.