If the parent of an illegitimate child gets married (but not to the other biological parent) is the child still considered illegitimate in the eyes of the Catholic church?

If the parent of an illegitimate child gets married (but not to the other biological parent) is the child still considered illegitimate in the eyes of the Catholic church?

I believe that, according to canon law, the defect of illegitimacy may normatively only be cured by the marriage of the child's parents and even then is only a legal fiction, and there are some other juridical means as well.  Subsequent marriage of one parent to a non-parent does not.  As I understand it, the question of illegitimacy insofar as a human's relationship to the Church deals primarily with the question of receiving Holy Orders, though practically it does greatly affect one's relationship with others.

As I posted before in another thread - Fr. Sretenovic is far from an expert & shouldn't be posting like this on the internet.  Personalitywise he's very nice but the facts are that he grew up NO, went to a NO seminary where he was ordained, then went to an independent priest who taught him the TLM.  He himself admits that his training was deficient, yet he doesn't go to a traditional seminary for further training for some reason.  He's young & inexperienced & under the tutelage of a priest who loves being a one-liner comic in the pulpit - among all his other outside interests.
An illegitimate child will always be known as such, no matter who the mother marries.  The mother usually ended up marrying the father, but that's not the case nowadays.

For what it's worth:

[Engelbert Dollfuss] was born in Texing in Lower Austria to unmarried mother Josepha Dollfuss and her lover Joseph Weninger. The couple of peasant origin was unable to get married due to financial problems. Josepha married landowner Leopold Schmutz a few months after her son's birth, who did not adopt Engelbert however as his own child. Dollfuss, who was raised as a devout Roman Catholic, was shortly in seminary before deciding to study law at the University of Vienna and then economics at the University of Berlin.

Wikipedia

Just an example of an illegitimate boy, whose mother married someone other than the father, and who (albeit briefly) was admitted to a seminary.

For what it's worth:

Quote

[Engelbert Dollfuss] was born in Texing in Lower Austria to unmarried mother Josepha Dollfuss and her lover Joseph Weninger. The couple of peasant origin was unable to get married due to financial problems. Josepha married landowner Leopold Schmutz a few months after her son's birth, who did not adopt Engelbert however as his own child. Dollfuss, who was raised as a devout Roman Catholic, was shortly in seminary before deciding to study law at the University of Vienna and then economics at the University of Berlin.

Wikipedia

Just an example of an illegitimate boy, whose mother married someone other than the father, and who (albeit briefly) was admitted to a seminary.

promiscuity is inherent in non-whites according to some ehre at CI.....so, all is forgiven, immediately, with Dolfuss' mother, a WHITE, hence, pure person.... :kick-can:

JohnGrey, I guess maybe I should at least be thankful that I was blessed with a daughter and not a son.  That sounds horrible, but at least for a girl it won't create a direct impediment to a possible vocation.

This is so, as a religious profession does cure illegitimacy, though it would still prevent her from advancement to the rank of abbess or prioress.

I asked because on the tradition in action website, it says this:

What are the solutions for such a scandalous situation?

The first is marriage. If the woman finds another man of upright character who marries her in the Church and takes her and the child under his custody, her situation is regularized. He covers her shame with his honor and his name.


I was not sure what 'regularized' meant for the child.

The marriage would regularize her, not the child.  In entering into marriage, her role as mother is brought into harmony with the fundamental paradigm of the Christian family, and her motherhood is no longer an open confession of a prior indiscretion.

This confuses me though:

This confuses me:   http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/k011rpUnwedMothers_Stretenovic.html

“The Church, faithful to her traditional policy in favor of marriage, abandons her rigor when the person repairs the fault. It was a strong rigor, indeed, but one can verify that Canon Law, which aims at the reparation of the disorder as much as for its condemnation, is wide open and favors legitimizing [the illegitimate child] by a subsequent marriage”

This, to me, implies subsequent marriage could be to someone other than the natural father.  I might be reading it wrong.

Thorn was correct in questioning the assetions of Mr. Sretenovic (I refuse him the dignity of Father until I know that he has been properly ordained in a valid rite), given that he was formed in the spiritual sickness of the conciliar anti-church.  In fact, I find no basis for his fundamental point at all.  Even in the perfidious conciliar code of "canon law" it states:

Illegitimate children are legitimated by the subsequent valid or putative marriage of their parents or by a rescript of the Holy See.

I'm not sure why there would be thumbs down to the people who answered my question.  I wanted to know the truth.  I'm not so good at vetting reliable Traditional Catholic  resources yet, so I asked.  I am grateful for honesty, even when it is personally painful for me.  If I didn't want the truth, there are certainly other places I could go back to.

The Church's law reveals both her justice and mercy. Justice because she is not indifferent to sin, especially public sin, and mercy because she shows clemency to those who are sincerely contrite over their past offenses as opposed to those who are not.

Thank you, Nishant.