Any bastard children here?

What kind of a question is that?  I'm not, but even if I were, that would be no reflection on me --- my parents, yes, me, no.


These days, if a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock, everyone --- including myself --- is just happy that she brings the child to term and doesn't have an abortion!  Having to hide out in shame, "go visit Aunt So-and-so out of state", and live a lie about what actually happened, isn't even a thing anymore, and thank God for that.  Some modern social changes are actually an improvement over past practices.


At one time, illegitimacy made a man irregular for holy orders, but this isn't in the 1983 CIC, and unless we are sedevacantists, the 1983 CIC is our code of canon law, like it or not.  Here is a recent article on the subject (yes, from a post-V2 website):


https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2016/07/21/illegitimate-man-barred-priesthood/

The Church wasn't wrong or in darkness when She considered illegitimacy to be an impediment to the Priesthood.

THIS^^^.  And the irregularity was easily dispensed with for a worthy candidate.  Nevertheless, it is perfectly right and fitting for the Church to affirm in countless ways that children are only rightly born to those united in marriage and that anything else is sin and it's bad.

Similarly, with the stigma that used to be attached to unwed mothers.  Now society has lifted all shame attached to committing sin, and these courageous fornicators are celebrated for merely not having abortions.  They almost flip it around by suggesting that fornication is a cause for celebration.

Another similar criticism of the Church is about the teaching that those who commit ѕυιcιdє have little hope of salvation through the refusal of Christian burial.  Oh, how cruel to those loved ones left behind.  Really?  Can we even begin to know how many depressed people fought off the temptation to ѕυιcιdє for this reason, the thought that their suffering would only be worse, and would last forever, if they killed themselves?  There are undoubtedly countless souls who were saved by this "cruelty" of the Church.  When I was a young Novus Ordo altar boy, I served at the funeral of a ѕυιcιdє.  All the priest talked about how his sufferings were now over and how he's in a better place.  If I believe that sermon and then hit some very difficult times in life, some great suffering, hey, that would motivate me to commit ѕυιcιdє so I too could go to that "better place".

Similarly, how many young ladies avoided temptations to fornication due to social stigma which would be attached to it?

How many people condemn God for "cruelty" for allowing one or another suffering in life and lose the faith?  All because we think we know better.

The Church wasn't wrong or in darkness when She considered illegitimacy to be an impediment to the Priesthood. And Vatican II wasn't more enlightened when it removed illegitimacy as an impediment.

The Latin term is "spure". It's where we get the word "spurious" from.

One forms his concept of God's paternity from HIS OWN EARTHLY FATHER. Ergo, not having a father causes one to be damaged goods in this area. It's hard -- no, impossible -- to properly form an idea of God's loving, tender paternity when you have never been loved, protected, guided, and lovingly chastised by a father -- who of course must also be present in your life.

A male cousin of mine was illegitimate; he was like a best friend (at least for me) when I was a teenager. We both attended the Tridentine Mass at an independent chapel every single week; and often during the week as well. However, he did end up falling away from the Faith in his early 20's and is currently running away from God. I can't help but wonder what role his lack of earthly father played in his apostasy. He never even knew who his father was. His mother didn't know!

Saying "being a bastard doesn't matter" is basically the same Feminist modern error that says men are spurious, or not necessary. Or that children don't always need both a mother AND a father.

Being damaged goods doesn't mean you're evil or headed for damnation. A women who has been raped is also damaged goods. Such is also not her fault. But does it not do permanent damage to a woman, emotionally and psychologically? Everyone agrees that it does.

The Church merely acknowledged the truth that such a man was damaged goods by default.

I agree with most of what you say here, Matthew. I suggest, however that the expession "damaged goods" is not fitting for human beings. By deleting the superfluous word "goods" you will have the same sense, without the dehumanisation of the person.

Technically? My parents were in a relationship, but had me unmarried and wed when I was four or something. It's a pretty common thing in Hispanic culture.

They didn't marry in the Church, though

That is also pretty much the norm in African American culture.  When I worked and was forced by my employer to participate in the United Way, I earmarked part of my donation to a community initiative that promoted active and involved African American fatherhood.  (I am European American, or what is commonly called "white".  The initiative was theoretically pan-racial, but as a practical matter it was an outreach to black fathers.  African Americans stick together and provide mutual assistance and encouragement in a way that European Americans, regrettably, do not.)

That was me.  This deselect function for anonymous posts is a pain in the dupa.

My parents were married in the Catholic Church when they had me.

Whew... and here I was, thinking to myself, "Self, this can not be true.  There is no way poche can be both a bastard and a 'hero member,' arguably the best and most prolific poster here on CathInfo."  

Thank you for putting my mind at ease and setting the record straight!

That was a joke, obviously alluding to the secondary meaning of bastard, i.e. a scoundrel.

See meaning 2.a. above.