Yeah, that tends to happen to children who die in infancy.
It shows a pathetic grasping at straws in an effort to defame a man by criticizing that a child *recedes into historical obscurity and is never heard from again*, who died in infancy. It goes to show that those looking to defame him will lie about him before even finding out the facts. If that's the best the RCC can do, they really don't have much on him.
The other issue is that Calvin was accused of sodomy, and the very Catholics who protest the loudest that an accusation is not conviction and that priests who are simply accused of pedophilia are innocent until proved guilty, are quick enough to latch on to this *tidbit* and condemn Calvin as guilty without evidence.
The same standard of judgment needs to be applied in both cases otherwise, those who apply such a double standard rightly wear the label of "hypocrite".
Accusing Calvin of sodomy is no different that accusing priests of pedophilia and if that accusation against Calvin is enough to invalidate his ministry, then the accusation against the priests is enough to invalidate their ministry.
OTOH, if a priests service in performing mass is not hindered while living in sin because his intent is pure, then Calvin's teachings and performance as a pastor cannot be hindered even if he did live in sin, of which there is no more than hearsay that that was the case. Presently we have priests who admitted that the accusations against them are true.