Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica
Question VII: Whether children can ever refuse sustenance to their parents, and disinherit them
I PREMISE that from all the causes for which it is lawful for children to disinherit their parents, it is likewise lawful for them to deny them support, extreme necessity set aside, as I said question 5. and Molina notes d. 168. and it is clear from Leg. ult. Cod. de alendis liberis. Leg. si quis a liberis, §. Iudex, ff. de liberis agnosc. and the Gloss in both places.
An Filii possint aliquando alimenta Parentibus negare, eosque exhaeredare.
Praemitto, ex omnibus causis, ob quas licitum est filiis parentes exhaeredare, licitum quoque eis esse alimenta negare, seclusa extrema necessitate, ut dixi quaest. 5. et notat Molina d. 168. et patet Leg. ult. Cod. de alendis liberis. Leg. si quis a liberis, §. Iudex, ff. de liberis agnosc. et Glossa utrobique.
Only SEVEN cases are reported in the aforesaid Auth. Ut cum de Appellat, etc.
Septem autem casus tantum referuntur praeallegat. Auth. Ut cum de Appellat, etc.
The FIRST case, if the parents or ascendants have administered poison to their child, or threatened death in any other way. Molina adds d. 176. that it pertains to the same if they accused their child of such crimes as to deserve the punishment of death or of mutilation. Except the cases brought forward in the preceding question.
Primus casus, si parentes, vel ascendentes venenum filio propinaverint, aut necem quavis alio modo intentarint. Addit Molina d. 176. ad idem pertinere, si filium criminibus talibus accusarint, ut mererentur poenam mortis; vel mutilationis. Excipe casus allatos quaest. praeced.
The SECOND case, if the father has lain with his son's wife, or with a concubine kept in the house in act, or one that was reared in the house, if he knew it.
Secundus casus, si pater concubuerit cum uxore filii, aut concubina domi retenta actu, vel quae fuerit domi alita, si id sciuerit.
The THIRD, when the father or mother etc. have been by guile an impediment, so that the children or grandchildren could not make a will.
Tertius, quando pater, vel mater, etc. fuerint impedimento dolose, ne filii, vel nepotes conderent testamentum.
The FOURTH, if the parents or ascendants have driven their children mad with a potion, or in any other way plotted against their lives, or schemed death for them.
Quartus, si parentes, vel ascendentes, filios potione dementaverint, vel quovis alio modo eorum vitae fuerint insidiati, aut mortem illis moliti fuerint.
The FIFTH, if they have neglected the care of their children who have lost their minds.
Quintus, si filiorum, qui mente exciderunt, curam neglexerint.
The SIXTH, if, forgetful of their children in captivity, they have neglected their liberation. But if they die in captivity through the negligence of the parents or heirs, other captives are to be ransomed from their goods, of which they could have disposed by will, as Molina teaches loc. cit.
Sextus, si filiorum in captivitate obliti, eorum liberationem neglexerint. Quod si ob parentum, aut haeredum negligentiam in captivitate moriantur, ex eorum bonis, de quibus testari poterant, sunt alii captivi redimendi, ut docet Molina loc. cit.
The SEVENTH, when the children are Catholics; the parents heretics. If, however, after the offenses they are reconciled, they can no longer disinherit them for the same; for that would be an impious vengeance.
Septimus, quando filii sunt Catholici; parentes vero haeretici. Si tamen post offensas reconcilientur, non possunt amplius ob easdem exhaeredare; impia enim vindicta esset.
The doubt is, however: Whether besides the causes related here and in the preceding question there are other similar causes for disinheriting. I judge that there are none. For it is defined in the cited Authentic: Ut praeter ipsos nulli liceat ex alia lege ingratitudinis causas apponere, nisi quae in huius constitutionis serie continentur. It is confirmed because punishments are not to be extended, and an argument from similarity does not hold for extending punishments.
Dubium est autem: An praeter causas relatas hic, et quaest. praeced. adsint aliae similes causae exhaeredandi. Arbitror, non existere. Sic enim in allegato Authentico definitur: Ut praeter ipsos nulli liceat ex alia lege ingratitudinis causas apponere, nisi quae in huius constitutionis serie continentur. Confirmatur, quia poenae non sunt extendendae, et argumentum a simili non valet ad poenas extendendas.