I guess poor Aquinas isn’t going to get rest, but after all, he did write what he wrote, claiming to be right. So…
When attempting to refute the concept of illegitimacy as a reasonable principle under secular law you say, “To incur loss without fault by law or custom is either collective punishment (i.e. together with the parent) or a generic injustice.”
But the child really “loses” nothing…because they never had it in the first place. No one has a natural right to inheritence…
Following that logic, we can say that no one has a natural right to tax exemption nor an obligation to pay, therefore there’s no moral problem making commoners pay 60% flat tax and exempt nobles. Why not?
Inheritance is of the relatives. Illegitimacy is a condition which specifically
excludes from inheritance. That’s because the union between the parents of the illegitimate children is deemed ungodly and therefore it isn’t regarded proper for the child to inherit from the father. The children are products of sin and products of sin had better be hidden from public view because all they remind of is shame.
Like Aquinas said, we cannot really say that the king’s second son is being “punished” just because he does not get to inherit the throne like his older brother, who is the legal heir under the laws of sucession.
The bastard son may well be the even older brother and the reason why he is excluded is that he is a bastard. The general condition is that the oldest one inherits. However, illegitimate ones are excluded. The exclusion of illegitimate heirs was a gradual process, intensifying over time, and the time of Aquinas wasn’t the peek of it. There was no starting condition of “the oldest legitimate son inherits”. Illegitimacy was developed as an excluding condition.
Are you suggesting that illegitimate children should take their father’s last name? Would they even want that?
Why not? Are you suggesting that they don’t have the right to? Throughout history, there are many instances of illegitimate children bearing fathers’ names, although still being barred from succession.
As for wanting, I know people who wanted and people who didn’t want. Fathers who insisted on giving the name, mothers who insisted on fathers giving the name. Things like that happen.
In this era, where DNA testing is available, I see no reason whatsoever why people should be denied their fathers’ names. In fact, in my country, the father is not even asked and no court proceding is required. Act of birth with the father’s surname is all you need. Inheritance is the same, by the way.
But perhaps you are going to say that the whole process is, in fact and of its nature, legitimatisation.
How about a thread entitled, “Would you permit your child to attend a birthday party of a LEGITIMATISED CHILD???”, then?
People who shack up own up to their children. In all official documents, they are included as parents. In most civilised jurisdictions, illegitimate children inherit all the same as legitimate ones, if parentage is established. So are the children actually still illegitimate?
Next, if legitimacy is merely a legal distinction in the law of inheritance, what the heck does it matter when deciding if to allow the child to visit the birthday party of such a child? I don’t see anything. Anything, apart from stigmatising the child as the fruit of sin.
But just because something is stigmatized unjustly does not mean that it is a bad condition in and of itself which must be abolished.
Your whole sentence contracts to: “unjust doesn’t mean bad”. How is that point of view Catholic? Whatever is unjust is wrong and bad. If all iniquity (as in wrongful act) is sinful, how can “unjust stigmatisation” be anything else than wrong? Or what do you mean by “bad”? Convenience or inconvenience is non-issue when we are talking morals.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath-water here…the existence of the state of illegitimacy makes legal sense.
What exactly sense does it make if the parentage is established?
