GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-02 > 1012864189
From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <>
Subject: Re: Annulment and Divorce
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 23:09:49 GMT
References: <3C5DA7CA.8CBC346E@earthlink.net>, <PDENJIDJFCOIMMNKHKHHIENECAAA.firstname.lastname@example.org>, <3C5E38A2.F9CD2F1B@interfold.com>
In message <>
"Todd A. Farmerie" <> wrote:
> Robert S Baxter wrote:
> > Annulment,according to Roman church law, does not bastardize.
> > It says there was never a marriage but since marriage was
> > presumed when children were born, the children are legitimate
> > in the eyes of the Church.
> Modern church law, or medieval? When the marriage of Alfonso IX
> and Beerenguela was annulled, it took a papal dispensation (or
> whatever) so as not to make their son Fernando illegitimate.
> Likewise I can think of several cases where annulment induced
> illegitimacy has been proposed to explain the non-succession of a
> seemingly eldest child (for example, this has been proposed for
> Geoffrey de Boulogne, son of Eustace II).
Two things here: legitimacy is needed for succession which is a civil
matter. I know the church got involved in such cases but it was also
handled by passing laws.
Secondly I cannot see how a church can have a view on illegitimacy.
Theologically, all people are equal. All can go to heaven or hell; the
prelude to their birth is nothing to do with the culpability of the
infant that is born. Theologically people are either alive or dead,
good or evil, but not legitimate or illegitimate.
Pity I no longer have access to Summa Theologica!
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
|Re: Annulment and Divorce by Tim Powys-Lybbe <>|