Question V: On the obligation of parents toward their children

I ASSERT first, that fathers are bound to provide support to their children in grave necessity. Under the name of support come clothing, food, medicine, lodging, and all those things without which human life cannot go on, as Panormitanus teaches in cap. cum secundum de praebendis, as is clear from cap. non liceat, on the same title: Moreover, by the name of Fathers are understood those ascending along the paternal line, and likewise of the Mother.

IT IS PROVED because he who gives life ought to supply the things necessary to it. It is the common opinion, as Covarruvias shows in Epit. part. 3. cap. 8. §. 6. Azor, tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. Sylvester under the word alimenta.

Yet the Father may, for correction, restrict the support given to his son. For he is bound to provide his children with good education and discipline by fitting means. Wherefore, even if by accident he cannot go out to hear Mass, it does not matter, as Fagundez says cap. 1. num 3.

NOTE that under the name of children are included also illegitimate ones. Wherefore parents gravely sin who, being able to support their spurious children, expose them in churches and hospitals for alms. So Fagundez num. 5. Toledo lib. 5. cap. 1. Navarr. man. cap. 14.

Nor let them excuse themselves by saying that those places of the Hospitals have revenues for this end; they have them for the poor as their children. Therefore they are bound here to restitution, as Fagundez says num. 5. after Sylvester under the word Adulterium. Navarr. man. cap. 16. Rebell. p. p. de obligat. iust. lib. 3. quaest. 10.

Some add that spurious children are not bound to be dowered. So Panormitanus in cap. Pervenit, de arbitr. Vasquez de success. creatu. lib. 2. §. 10. num. 314. Molina Tom. 1. de iust. dub. 223. Fagundez num. 6. inclines to it, though he holds the opposite probable, which many follow.

The reason therefore is that the argument from support to dowry does not hold.

From what has been said it follows that fathers are bound to provide support to their children even if they contract marriage without their consent with some person. So Sanchez lib. 4. de matrim. disp. 27. Decius on the rule nuptias 30. at the end, ff. de reg. iuris, Molina lib. 2. de primog. cap. 16. Fagundez num. 10.

I ASSERT secondly, that parents are bound to provide for the right education of their children, which contains the nourishment of the mind.

THEREFORE they are bound to instruct them in the law of God; to keep daughters from shameless lovers, lest they allow them 'with stibium' etc. to adorn the face wantonly. Say the same of others under whose care they fall.

I ASSERT thirdly, that parents cannot force their children to undertake a state of life, forcing them either to Religion or to marriage; yet for marriage there can be a grave cause. Therefore the Council of Trent session 25. cap. 18. strikes with excommunication those forcing women, girls or widows, to enter Religion, or to take the habit, or to make profession.