Question II: What reverence is to be shown to parents

I ASSERT first, that children are bound not to hurl insults, or to inflict grave injuries upon their parents. It is the common opinion, with D. Bonaventure, serm. 5, on the ten commandments. So also Navarre, man. cap. 14, Tolet., lib. 5, c. 5, Richard., in 3, dist. 37, Alens., 3 p. dist. 4, praecepto, Sylvester, V. filii, q. 22, Molseus, tract. 2, c. 18, Bassaeus, at the place cited.

Yet it is never licit to lay hands upon parents, unless the children are forced to it to defend their life, or their country. So Azorius, tract. 2, cap. 11, q. 9, 10. Hence neither is it licit to kill a proscribed father. So Julius Clarus, in praxi, lib. 5, §. Homicidium, Bonac., de contract. dub. 2, q. ult. sect. 1, p. 2, Diana, part. 5, tract. 4, resol. 25.

I ASSERT second, that children sin mortally who despise their parents, and contemn them on account of poverty.

The Saintly Doctor reports, at the place cited, a horrible case of this matter, of a certain son who, at the persuasion of his wife, a noble, talkative, and wanton woman, despised his father and hid from him his food. One day the wretched old man arrived, and they scarcely brought him beans; but as he withdrew, they brought out from the chest a fat cooked capon, which, turned into a monstrous toad, leaped upon his face, and pressing the nose with two feet and also the two eyes with two, oppressed his whole face, and could not be torn away by any diligence or force. A physician was summoned, and applied remedies of surpassing power; then the venomous toad, fixing its terrible eyes upon the man in the middle, fell down as if terrified; but soon it miserably killed the impious young man. The Saintly Doctor testifies that he heard this from a certain man worthy of trust, who had known the man slain.

If, however, grave harm should befall them by acknowledging them, it will not be a fault to refuse to recognize them, provided you show reverence and come to their aid. So Toletus, lib. 5, cap. 5, Navarre, man. cap. 14, Fagundez, lib. 4, cap. 5.

I ASSERT third, that children accusing their parents in judgment sin gravely, and are not to be admitted. Yet it is licit for a son to ask that sustenance unjustly denied by his parents be exhibited. It is licit also in the crime of heresy and lèse-majesté. See the Doctors in Fagundez.

The REASON is that the public good, by natural law, is to be preferred to the private. Which reason seems to prove only that one is bound even when heresy can be pernicious to others, but not if it were secret; nor does it appear that she would teach it, as Fagundez says, with others, to be cited in Diana; but I say with D. Paul that every heresy creeps like a cancer. Therefore I assert that in such a case the son is bound. So Farinacius, de haeresi, quaest. 197, Suarez, de fide, disp. 20, sect. 4, Azor, part 2, lib. 2, cap. 2, question 13, Diana, p. p. Tract. de Denunc. resol 4. I say the same of a husband against a wife, and conversely. See Diana, resol. 5. In cases, however, where heresy is doubtful, many deny this, as in Diana, resol. 6.