Would you permit your child to attend a birthday party of an ILLEGITIMATE CHILD???

[Rand_Al_Thor]

there’s absolutly no reason why not to let them go. who cares if the child only has one parent? does that make them a bad person? no. does it make their parent a bad person? no.

 

[batteddy]

“What on earth does being “illegitimate” have to do with anything? Not to mention I despise the term illegitimate…sounds like the child isn’t really a child. Don’t punish an innocent.”

Illegitimacy is a state that truly does exist, and can make sense. But it is a LEGAL, CIVIL state…not a religious thing.

Illigitimacy ultimately has to do with inheritence. It doesn’t mean they are a bad person, or that they have some stain on their soul…it just means that they may not be their father’s legal heir.

Thomas Aquinas explains that being ILLEGITIMATE is a merely LEGAL condition (notice the root word is lex, legis: law) under Secular Law…not a spiritual thing. Though the term has become unfairly stained over the years…it is not meant as an insult:

“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.”

Aquinas goes on to explain that illegitmate children are not punished spiritually in any way:

“God confers natural goods equally on legitimate and illegitimate children.”

But he also explains how a valid civil law or custom can morally deprive them of the inheritence of their father:

“He incurs a loss by not succeeding to his father’s inheritance. Nevertheless natural sons [in Aquinas’s day] can inherit a sixth only, whereas spurious children cannot inherit any portion,”

Though, he is quick to point out that this does not excuse the parents from their duty to care for the child, even if he is not a Legal heir:

“although by natural law their parents are bound to provide for their needs. Hence it is part of a bishop’s care to compel both parents to provide for them.”

He explains by good analogy why a law saying children born out of wedlock are not necessarily legal heirs of their father is NOT punishing the child…because no one has any natural right to an inheritence, only a legal one:

“To incur a loss in this way is not a punishment. Hence we do not say that a person is punished by not succeeding to the throne through not being the king’s son. In like manner it is no punishment to an **illegitimate **child that he has no right to that which belongs to the legitimate children.”

Finally, he lists the ways a child could be legitimatized in the Middle Ages society of his day IF the father did want that child to be an heir. Again, these are LEGAL prescriptions dealing with CIVIL inheritence from the father. Nothing more, nothing less:

"An **illegitimate **child can be legitimized, not so that he be born of a legitimate intercourse, because this intercourse is a thing of the past and can never be legitimized from the moment that it was once illegitimate. But the child is said to be legitimized, in so far as the losses which an **illegitimate **child ought to incur are withdrawn by the authority of the law.

There are [were] six ways of becoming legitimate: two according to the canons (Cap. Conquestus; Cap. Tanta), namely when a man marries the woman of whom he has an unlawful child (if it were not a case of adultery), and by special indulgence and dispensation of the lord Pope. The other four ways are according to the laws: (1) If the father offer his natural son to the emperor’s court, for by this very fact the son is legitimate on account of the reputation of the court; (2) if the father designate him in his will as his legitimate heir, and the son afterwards offer the will to the emperor; (3) if there be no legitimate son and the son himself offer himself to the emperor; (4) if the father designate him as legitimate in a public document or in a document signed by three witnesses, without calling him natural."

“Illegitimate” is a perfectly fine way to describe it. Because it means “Not Legitimate” as in “Not Legal”…because they are not (or were not), civilly speaking, the legal son and heir of their father if they are born out of wedlock…

But it says nothing about them spiritually. Unlike “bastard” which is a mean term of derrogation which should be stopped…illegitimate is a perfectly precise term to use. It means that because of the Legal situation between their parents they are not necessarily legally their father’s legal heir. Thats all. Nothing more.

I think a lot of people dont understand that.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

WhiteDove:

I did give that as an option on the Poll but only two people picked it. So, your argument doesn’t hold water.

No, clearly, inspite of the fact that hetereosexual sin is a far greater threat to our children, most of whom will not ever suffer the temptation of homosexuality, the people here have a far stronger reaction to homosexual sin. They would punish a child who is already handicapped in life by growing up in a gay household. But, they have no problem with letting their child go to the party of a child whose parents are unmarried, who was born into that and still lives in that, inspite of the birth of said child.

Well then I guess your poll question should have been "Do you have a bigger problem exposing your child to a homosexual lifestyle than you do to heterosexuals living in sin?

The illegitimate child question is so vague. and then to put as an option “I would never want to hurt an innocent child”. It seems like a loaded question to me. Who would ever want to hurt an innocent child?

If you are just trying to figure out why people are offended more by some sins than they are others why not just ask the question outright?

 

[1ke]

WhiteDove:

Would you allow your child to attend the party of an ILLEGITIMATE CHILD???

What kind of idiotic question is this???

 

[Giannawannabe]

1. Illegitimacy is totally commonplace. Everyone knows someone, has a friend or reletive, or they themselves have had a child out of wedlock. Once something becomes personal like that, folks tend to soften their stance.-----Whitedove

I think the above is the main reason that parents do not want to expose their children to homosexual parents who are involved in the Gay Pride movement and are trying to “normalize” their situation to the general population. This is exactly what these “married” men wish to do----soften people’s stance on what they are doing. If a person is not comfortable sending their child into any situation, they should not do it. Why criticize people for this?

God Bless
Giannawannabe

.

 

[WhiteDove]

2) Illegitimacy is totally commonplace. Everyone knows someone, has a friend or reletive, or they themselves have had a child out of wedlock. Once something becomes personal like that, folks tend to soften their stance.-----Whitedove

I think the above is the main reason that parents do not want to expose their children to homosexual parents who are involved in the Gay Pride movement and are trying to “normalize” their situation to the general population. This is exactly what these “married” men wish to do----soften people’s stance on what they are doing. If a person is not comfortable sending their child into any situation, they should not do it. Why criticize people for this?

God Bless
Giannawannabe

.

You make a valid point there. I do think, then, that we as a society then needs to also restigmatize shacking up, abortion, out of wedlock childbirth, etc. Can this be done without hurting someone’s feelings? Probably not. But, these situations probably hurt a lot more children than gay people.

I see the gay marriage/child raising issue as merely the last stand in a war that was lost 30 years ago, with the legalization ofabortion, the sexual revolution, relaxation of divorce laws, acceptance of out of wedlock birth and fragmentation of the family. So now, picking on gay people does appear to be homophobia. We’ve slid so far down the slippery slope that there’s no way out, it appears…

 

[Ghostgirl]

Interesting. It’s somehow the kid’s fault if the parents are gay, but anything else and it’s all “It’s not the kid’s fault!” Great way to expose the hypocrisy.

 

[cathologos]

Well done, WhiteDove.

I was reading the thread (I hadn’t read the other thread…) thinking, What is the point here? Why would this question be asked?

But…It was an appropriate question, and you used it to make a very important point.

Frankly, I suspect that part of folks having different attitudes toward out-of-wedlock heterosexual liaisons and toward homosexual liaisons is the “eeewwwww!” factor – most of us can relate to heterosexual attraction and needs in a way we cannot appreciate homosexual ones (which some of us may find repulsive…).

But your point is well-taken. Our kids, our families, are more threatened by society’s cavalier attitudes toward heterosexual relationships, and toward heterosexual marriage, than by homosexual activities, or even homosexual marriage. In fact, if our society had not turned heterosexual marriage into a joke (tired of your wife? Ditch her! Get a trophy wife! etc.), we wouldn’t be discussing homosexual marriage at all. And given the utter disrespect our society shows to the institution of marriage, it’s hard to argue that allowing homosexuals the same “privileges” would make much difference. The damage is done.

 

[chevalier]

You mean you wouldn’t permit your child to attend my birthday party?

For the record, the initial post did not advocate any position, it just asked q question. It was, no doubt, a follow-up to another thread on letting the child attend a party at the home of active homosexuals (This is my dad, Daryl and this is my other dad, Daryl)

The point is, where is the line drawn? I for one would have to weight a lot of factors. If it was a case of, “This is my mom, Jane, and this is my dad, (What is his name again, Mom”) where any sort of blatant and confusing sin was being flaunted, I might not allow it. Depending on the age and closeness of the friend I might allow it but with close personal supervision, say 5 feet.

What you are describing is a party in an unmarried household rather than the birthday party of an illegitimate child where the presence of his parents is natural and even expected.

What about Catholics in good standing who have both legitimate and illegitimate children. Should they forbid the legitimate ones from going to the illegitimate ones’ parties? Or maybe no parties for the illegitimate children?

Nowadays, folks don’t want to stigmatize out of wedlock births. There are several reasons why, I believe.

1. Immoral folks want sexual freedom and don’t want anyone making them feel guilty.
2. Illegitimacy is totally commonplace. Everyone knows someone, has a friend or reletive, or they themselves have had a child out of wedlock. Once something becomes personal like that, folks tend to soften their stance.
3. Abortion is legal and moral folks know that the alternative is to kill the baby.
4. Nowadays, personal responsibilty is less important, and our culture preaches tolerance as a higher ideal, and dislikes making people feel guilty.

So whoever has a child out of wedlock is ever after immoral? The division between the moral folks and the immoral folks follows the line between those who have illegitimate children and those who don’t?

Is it a sin to “have a child out of wedlock” or to fornicate? If the former is preached by the “moral folks”, then no wonder young girls who have made a mistake are going to have abortions.

Point #3 is nonsense. Whenever you talk to a man, everyone knows the alternative is to attempt maim or kill him or at least be rude. Therefore, by your logic, you shouldn’t meet fellow men because when you are kind towards them, everyone knows you don’t have to. Also, it’s not just illegitimate children who can be aborted. So, perhaps having a child is bad because whoever looks on him will know that his parents could have had an abortion. What sort of Catholicism is that? Kathar Catolic Church?

According to point #4, I should probably feel guilty for my sinful existence. How nice.

Now let’s look into Aquinas:

But he also explains how a valid civil law or custom can morally deprive them of the inheritence of their father:
“He incurs a loss by not succeeding to his father’s inheritance. Nevertheless natural sons [in Aquinas’s day] can inherit a sixth only, whereas spurious children cannot inherit any portion,”

How can a “valid civil law or custom” “morally deprive” someone of something through no fault of his own? It’s penal means intended to punish the parents through making the children suffer. It is reasonable that illegitimate children can only inherit from their parents and not the parents’ spouses, but there is no valid “moral reason” to trim their inheritance relative to other cognates.

“To incur a loss in this way is not a punishment. Hence we do not say that a person is punished by not succeeding to the throne through not being the king’s son. In like manner it is no punishment to an illegitimate child that he has no right to that which belongs to the legitimate children.”

Another good example of Aquinas’s creative logic. To incur loss without fault by law or custom is either collective punishment (i.e. together with the parent) or a generic injustice. Next, Aquinas is trying to have us believe that the only reasonable and ever pondered way is that inheritance belongs exclusively to legitimate children. That is not so. Reducing the inheritance to legitimate children only is one of the actions that secular or religious authorities took to promote marriage, marital fidelity and premarital chastity.

Illegitimate children are presented as children that should never be there in the first place and therefore preventing them from inheritance is fixing the state of things at least partly, as in pretending that the parentage is non-existent. Here, Aquinas runs into contradiction with his other view where he states that parents still have duties towards their illegitimate children.

(continued below)

 

[chevalier]

(continued)

Another brilliant piece by Aquinas:

Finally, he lists the ways a child could be legitimatized in the Middle Ages society of his day IF the father did want that child to be an heir. Again, these are LEGAL prescriptions dealing with CIVIL inheritence from the father. Nothing more, nothing less:
"An illegitimate child can be legitimized, not so that he be born of a legitimate intercourse, because this intercourse is a thing of the past and can never be legitimized from the moment that it was once illegitimate. But the child is said to be legitimized, in so far as the losses which an illegitimate child ought to incur are withdrawn by the authority of the law

In this quote, he affirms that it’s perfectly morally sound for the father to choose if he wants the illegitimate child to be his heir or not. By this, additional power over the child is given to the father which results from his own fornication or adultery. Again the child is identified with the sin and not the father - the father is absolved and in the communion with the church, but the child is the fruit of sin. Only the father, i.e. the original sinner, can fix the situation. Yet, Aquinas claims there is no stigmatising and no punishing of the child.

If a person is not comfortable sending their child into any situation, they should not do it. Why criticize people for this?

However, I have to agree with the above. It’s the parents’ authority, within their prudential judgement, to allow or forbid the child from going somewhere. However, with authority comes responsibility. Critique is a natural consequence of a choice becoming known. So much as parents have their authority, other people are under no obligation to appreciate the choices made under that authority. Neither is there any obligation for them to remain silent.

On the ending note, my birthday comes in four days. Perhaps, to ascertain my status as one of the “moral folks”, I should advise my mother to prevent my underaged siblings from coming to my party? Am I allowed to have a birthday party, in the first place, if I want to be moral?

 

[WhiteDove]

cathologos:

Well done, WhiteDove.

I was reading the thread (I hadn’t read the other thread…) thinking, What is the point here? Why would this question be asked?

But…It was an appropriate question, and you used it to make a very important point.

Frankly, I suspect that part of folks having different attitudes toward out-of-wedlock heterosexual liaisons and toward homosexual liaisons is the “eeewwwww!” factor – most of us can relate to heterosexual attraction and needs in a way we cannot appreciate homosexual ones (which some of us may find repulsive…).

But your point is well-taken. Our kids, our families, are more threatened by society’s cavalier attitudes toward heterosexual relationships, and toward heterosexual marriage, than by homosexual activities, or even homosexual marriage. In fact, if our society had not turned heterosexual marriage into a joke (tired of your wife? Ditch her! Get a trophy wife! etc.), we wouldn’t be discussing homosexual marriage at all. And given the utter disrespect our society shows to the institution of marriage, it’s hard to argue that allowing homosexuals the same “privileges” would make much difference. The damage is done.

Hi,
I think quite a few folks on these boards don’t even remember the days when there were very few ‘illegitimate’ children. Either folks got married, or the baby was surrendered for adoption, such as I was at birth. Only ‘lower class’ people raised children that were born outside of marriage. It was a social stigma.

Were there problems back then? You betcha. But, all and all, children had better support systems in place, were more likely to grow up in a 2 parent home, and society was more stable.

Then came the late 60’s, the pill, abortion, easy divorce, and moral relativism. Now we have the shrill drumbeat against gay marriage, our final inevitable lost cause.

Frankly, I’m not any more morally offfended by gays than anyone else, including myself, who bought into modern morality at different points in my life, not realizing that I had been duped. All I can do is try and protect myself and my family from further harm. To do so tactfully, with Christian love for sinners, is a very difficult task, hence this discussion.

 

[Zooey]

You make a point…I think that my grandmother’s comment (see my post #23, above) covers it, though…

 

[Shoshana]

Well, I have a grandchild (my only) and he is born out of wedlock…most of my husband’s and my own family totally ignored him. He was born with one other cousin…and my parents spent all their time with the one and not even look at mine if we were all visiting. My grandchild was snubbed by my many holier-than-thou people in my family. My grandchild was ignored and I refused to visit with him for a very long time so my grandchild would not ‘feel’ their rejection.

Until it happened to some others…and that was a different story. My brother was googooing their own ‘illegitimate’ grandchild and yet thoroughly ignored my own. I held their baby and bought that baby a gift…but they do not remember how they treated my own. I refuse to stoop to their level of judgment…and that is exactly what it is…judgment…

Half of my grandchild’s class come from one parent families…for whatever reason. Divorce, single moms, etc, etc. How do we discern all of this. You love them ALL. WhiteDove is right…immorality has exploded and it is the children that will end up paying for the most part. It does make one cry!

Christ is risen…truly he is risen!
Shoshana

 

[K777angel]

Your question really has more to do with the marital status and lifestyle of the PARENTS and nothing to do with the child.
Afterall - if it’s the conditions under which the child was conceived - I guess a single woman who was raped and chose to give birth to and raise that baby (God bless her!) would be targeted by you.

This is a shameful question.

The fact of the matter is that all responsible parents evaluate EVERY social engagement their child is invited to attend.
I mean - there are scores of “legitimate” (in your words) children whose homes have undesirable circumstances where you would not want to allow your child to go unescorted. “Legitimate” conception or not!

 

[pnewton]

1ke:

What kind of idiotic question is this???

“Illegitimate” is not P.C. but “idiotic” is okay? This has been a very good discussion on an interesting double standard we often have in our society. If you do not like the question, do not post.

K777angel:

Afterall - if it’s the conditions under which the child was conceived - I guess a single woman who was raped and chose to give birth to and raise that baby (God bless her!) would be targeted by you.

This is a shameful question

Where,and in what post number, did WD “target” anyone? Bear in mind that asking a question is not targeting.

All of her posts have been directed at the diffence in living together, heterosexual.and living together, homosexual.

 

[NightRider]

Thank you for starting this thread, WhiteDove, because it really does expose the homophobia currently in vogue among many Catholics. I find this homophobia incredibly disturbing, because I was an “illegitimate” baby who was adopted by a married couple who ended up getting divorced because my “father” was having an affair with a divorced woman while he was married to my “mother.” After my “father” divorced my “mother,” she ended up coming out as a lesbian when I was about ten years old. So–I’ve seen every angle from having grown up with “illegitimacy” and “homosexuality.” I was discriminated against in my adoptive family for being adopted! and later I was discriminated against by childhood friends’ families for being from a *divorced *or *broken *home. And a few years later I was discriminated against for having a mother who was a *lesbian. *The truth is that most of this discrimination came from *Christian families, Catholic or other denominations. *Now what I see is children being discriminated against if their parents are *homosexuals. *It doesn’t seem to matter much anymore if the children are adopted, or born out of wedlock, or if their parents are divorced and they are being raised by a single mother or father. But they are still being discriminated against by Catholics and other Christians if their parents are homosexuals. I find the hypocrisy insufferable. I really don’t see how the sexuality of the parents is anyone’s business. Affection between people is shown at most parties! This does not mean it is *sexual *affection, for crying out loud! I am a heterosexual and my female friends and I are very affectionate toward one another. We hug each other after Mass! We might even walk out of Mass arm-in-arm! Oh, but does that mean we are *lesbians?? *Good grief! And lesbians who do live together and raise children together may show affection to one another–exactly how is such affection so different than the affection my Catholic heterosexual female friends show to one another, hmmmmmm? Children do not see this stuff the way so many adults see it. Children see *love, *they see *affection. *They do not see *sex *if adults are showing love and affection toward one another *at a party for children. *Come on, folks. It is *adults *who see *sex *in *everything, *even if it’s not even there…

 

[Pug]

WhiteDove:

You make a valid point there. I do think, then, that we as a society then needs to also restigmatize shacking up, abortion, out of wedlock childbirth, etc.

How would this re-stigma go? I’m not old enough to have ever really been fully aware of it in action. Are you saying it was a good idea to ship young pregnant girls to a different state to have their kids, or something different? Which behaviors were good and which were not, and which are myths?

 

[BlindSheep]

pnewton:

I would not even consider the circumstances of a child’s birth in making a decision, only the current moral environment.

to that!

 

[animalluvr77]

WhiteDove,
Thank You for what you have said! I don’t agree with people being homosexuals, but, I do know what it is like to be born out of wedlock and to have a birthday party and no one shows up! I wouldn’t want any child to go through that mental anguish! But I also believe that if Jesus were here on this earth would he say that it were our place to say that we should judge those homosexual/unmarried parents and not send our own children to that child’s party? No! Just sending a child to a birthday party is not going to hurt anyone, if anything it is going to make a child very, very happy and they will remember it for the rest of their lives!! If many of the other parents feel they shouldn’t send their children to this party then maybe your child will be one of the only ones there. You may have done one of the most noble things for that child by letting your child go to that party so that at least one person is there. Believe me it is not a good feeling when no one shows up for your birthday party!! And I just want to add that most of the time children don’t even notice things until you bring it to their attention! And now days you would virtually have to keep your children locked up in your home to not ever meet or be friends with people who live together without being married etc. etc. etc. It is becoming more and more of what everyone does anymore!

 

[K777angel]

The subject of the question posed by WD was the “illegitimate child”. Which the poster made a point to even capitalize!
Were the “legitimacy” of the child not in question nor relevant - the poster would have merely used the word “child” and posed different scenarios of that child’s homelife/parent/parents - and left the conception circumstances of the child OUT OF IT.
That is why the child was targeted. The poster made a point to do it. And to emphasize the fact - capitalized the word “illegitimate.”