Question XXXIX: Whether a man ought to love his spouse more than his parents, and children

I assert. In matters belonging to the economic order, and outside extreme necessity, the spouse is to be loved more. Because as regards the things that pertain to this class, the conjugal bond is closer, as is said Matthew 19: And now they are no longer two, but one flesh; and therefore Genesis 2: Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife. So Aragoneus art. 11. Indeed Sà on the word Charity, num. 3. simply prefers the wife to the mother. In extreme necessity, however, parents take precedence, because a greater debt is owed to them, and there is a greater conjunction as regards absolute being, as Valentia notes disp. 3. quaest. 4. p. 5. and Bannes on this article, because the union with parents is one of substantial identity; with a spouse, however, from commixture. Valentia adds, with Cajetan on this article, that in extreme necessity the obligation of helping a son prevails. Tannerus adds disp. 2. quaest. 3. dub. 5. num. 84. that even in a grave necessity, which is not extreme, parents are rather to be helped than children.

From what has been said the Holy Doctor deduces that it is a graver sin to strike a mother than a spouse, on account of the reverence owed, and the dependence as upon a principle; therefore it is far more cruel, which is observed even among beasts more toward parents than toward those joined by the conjugal bond alone, against whom rage is kindled more than against one's begetters.

Although, however, a greater penalty seems to have been imposed upon uxoricide; yet this, the Holy Doctor says, was done to restrain the impulses that often break out into uxoricide. Perversion among these loves is judged venial by Tanner. disp. 2. quaest. 3. dub. 5. num. 83. Bonacina t. 2. disp. 3. quaest. 4. p. 4. Filluc. tract. 28. c. 2. q. 9. because the distance is small and on either side the opinions are probable.