54. On the Obligations of Children

1. Aloisius, a young man of noble family and honest morals, desires to enter some strict religious Order, so that more securely he may render his own salvation secure. His father resists the religious vocation of Sempronius [i.e., Aloisius], because, after secretly squandering a great quantity of the goods of the family, he places hope in Aloisius that, by his talent and industry, he may restore the domestic wealth. Aloisius has also a brother already joined in marriage, who, in a short time, on account of his vicious life, consumed his share of the family goods, so that from now on, for himself and his family, there remains scarcely what is necessary for an honorable sustenance. Nevertheless Aloisius, his father being unwilling, enters Religion; and when he has professed, in order to attend more perfectly to Christian perfection and to theological studies, he breaks off all communication with his family, not even sending or receiving letters. Nevertheless he daily prays much and fervently to God for his family, especially for his father and for his brother, whom he knows to be declining from the path of virtue; and, while these are converted to God with a sincere heart, although they afterward fell into graver temporal necessity, and each of them dies most holily, he receives supreme consolation from the news, brought to him by the Superiors themselves, and gladly celebrates many Masses for them.

Q. What are the obligations of children toward parents? What as to the case?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 665, 666. To the second. Aloisius used his right when he entered Religion. For each one is free in the choice of state, as already often said. Moreover, Aloisius is worthy of praise, since for rendering his salvation more secure, he wished to enter Religion and take up the evangelical counsels. Again, he is worthy of praise, since he wished to enter a Religion of stricter observance, in which he could more easily and surely render his salvation secure.

But Aloisius is not held to obey his father and remain in the world, so that, by his own talent and industry, he may restore the domestic wealth squandered by the fault of the father. First, indeed, the whole thing is uncertain. Then, the opulence and honor of the family are of an order far inferior to his own spiritual and eternal salvation, to which, because of this, he most greatly provides by embracing the evangelical counsels. Besides, the good of the family is not necessary to the sustenance of life. "If parents cannot be sustained without the service of children, then children are not permitted, with the parents having been deserted, to enter Religion. But if they can be sustained in some way without the service of the children, not honorably, then because of this the children are not held to leave aside the works of perfection. For it is one thing to provide that someone may in some way live; and another, that he may live honorably. But he who is in the world is held to provide his parents that they may live honorably, if he can; but he who has already entered Religion is reputed dead to the world. And therefore, according to the mode pertaining to him, he is not held to provide that his parents live honorably, but only that they live in some way." St. Thomas, Quodlibet 10, a. 10.

Much less is Aloisius held to abstain from entering Religion so that he may increase the wealth of his brother's family, or so that he may sustain him honorably, since he has been reduced to grave want by his own vices and fault.

Aloisius, after entering Religion and then professing, conducts himself praiseworthily, when he gives himself more perfectly to Christian perfection and to theological studies. For "the religious state can be considered in three ways: first, insofar as it is an exercise tending to the perfection of charity; secondly, insofar as it quiets the human mind from exterior cares, according to 1 Cor. 7:32: I will that you be without solicitude; thirdly, insofar as it is a certain holocaust, by which someone offers himself and his goods totally to God. And according to this, Religion pertains to perfection not only of charity, but also of religion." St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 186, a. 1. "Properly, therefore, religious are called those who totally bind and, as it were, hand themselves over to divine service, offering, as it were, a holocaust to God." Ibid. a. 1. But the state of Religion "was principally instituted for acquiring perfection by certain exercises, through which the impediments of perfect charity are taken away." Ibid., a. 2.

Finally, that Aloisius wishes no communication thereafter with his family, even by letters, is also, speaking of itself, a thing worthy of praise; for we read this of several saints, among whom St. Ignatius Loyola, who only once, if I remember well, wrote to his brother from the time of his conversion. And speaking of itself, this difficulty of communication seems also to have been present for Aloisius.

But parents, after the entrance of Aloisius into Religion and after his profession, fell into rather grave need. Aloisius indeed cannot be obligated on account of this to leave Religion, as is clear from the words of St. Thomas just cited. But he does not seem able entirely to neglect the grave need of his parents. "He who has already professed in Religion is regarded as though dead to the world. Hence he must not, on the occasion of sustaining his parents, leave the cloister in which he is buried with Christ, and implicate himself again in secular business. Nevertheless, with obedience to the prelate and the state of Religion being preserved, he is held to apply a pious effort, so far as he can, as to how his parents may be helped." St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 101, a. 4, ad 4. "When someone sees his parents to be in necessity and he does not have the care of them, before he enters Religion he is held to minister to them and must not leave them if they cannot be sustained without him. But if after he has entered Religion and made profession, his parents have been reduced to poverty, he ought, so far as possible, with obedience to his prelate preserved, to strive, either through himself, if this belongs to him, or through another, as he can, that assistance be given to his parents." Quodlibet 3, a. 16.

Finally, Aloisius is also to be praised, since he daily prays much and fervently for his family, especially for his father and his brother, whom he knew to be declining from the path of virtue. He receives supreme consolation worthily, because of the news of their conversion and of their most holy death. Finally, he praiseworthily celebrates many Masses for them. For the care of children for parents, especially in grave spiritual necessity of parents, certainly pertains to that love which they owe them. Hence St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 333, says: "Children sin gravely if they neglect prayers and sacrifices for their parents." And again: "Children sin gravely, if they do not take care that their parents, in the article of death, receive penance and the other sacraments."

2. Alphonsus, being twenty-one years old, by the counsel of his confessor hears Mass daily in a nearby church, and each week frequents a Congregation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, where he also confesses and communicates. Moreover, he earnestly applies himself to the study of canon and civil law, and indeed, by natural inclination, he desires the profession of an advocate. His father, otherwise Catholic, displeased at these things, forbids his son to continue in this course; for he fears lest these spiritual exercises harm his health. Therefore he wants him to abstain from daily Mass and to hear Mass only on Sundays and feast days; and to approach the sacred table at most once a month, since because of Eucharistic Communion he must often be fasting up to the tenth hour. He wishes besides that his son embrace the medical profession; for he himself is a notable physician and has many clients. Therefore Alphonsus refers the thing to his confessor, who responds that he must be patient and obey his father, because a son is bound to obey his father in all things.

Q. Can Alphonsus continue his pious exercises and embrace the profession of advocate? What as to the response of the confessor?

R. To the first, affirmatively. For these things, in the case, do not pertain to the right governance of the house and to the education of the son, but to the spiritual exercises of Alphonsus, the direction of which belongs to the confessor, not to the father. Besides, in the case, the father's fear concerning the son's health is excessive and unfounded. And finally, the choice of profession belongs to the son himself, according to each one's talents and inclination. The father can indeed direct his son by counsel and help him, but not command him in this matter, if the son wishes to embrace a fitting profession. For the rest, Alphonsus must take care that he does not fail in reverence toward his father, and not resist openly, but sweetly persuade him to allow himself to be directed by the confessor.

To the second. The confessor erred in responding that a son must obey his parents in all things. For obedience is owed to a superior or to a prelate according to the mode and order of the superiority or prelacy. Hence, just as secular subjects are not held to obey ecclesiastical superiors, nor vice versa, except perhaps in those things in which the one power depends on the other; so subjects are held to obey their own prelates only in those things concerning which they have been appointed over them. But just as man is created by God, and is subject to God's governance, so also the son is naturally generated by the father; and, in the beginning, indeed, according to body and soul, and then, in the course of time, according to the soul by discipline and education. And therefore the father, in the first place, has right over his children as to domestic intercourse. "The carnal father is partaking particularly of the nature of principle, which is universally found in God. But the father is the principle both of generation and education and discipline, and of all things which pertain to the perfection of human life." St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 102, a. 1. Hence the carnal father has the right over his children in domestic intercourse, as also the king in the kingdom, etc. And consequently sons and servants are held to obey the father of the family in those things which pertain to the governance of the house. But secondly, he has right as to the moral discipline and education of his son; wherefore the Apostle says, Heb. 12:9: We had the fathers of our flesh as instructors, and we reverenced them. For the father is held to educate and instruct children. In these therefore the son is held to obey the carnal father, and not in others. Cf. St. Thomas, Quodlibet 2, a. 9; 2. 2, q. 104, a. 5.

3. Virginia, an exceedingly modest and laborious girl, works diligently in her father's shop. But her brothers spend much money in games and drinking parties; her parents, moreover, imprudent and lacking counsel, spend at present everything which they receive, having no care for the future. Virginia therefore, seeing the future needs of her parents and brothers, and wishing to provide both for herself and for her brothers and her parents in case of sickness, of death, or of another rather grave necessity, secretly takes money aside, and by her own industry already has several thousand lire. But afterward, becoming anxious, she refers the whole matter to the confessor.

Q. What dominion do children in the family have over goods? What is to be answered to Virginia?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 666 seqq. To the second. Insofar as Virginia takes money aside, not for herself, but for the whole family, and especially for the needs of her parents, she is safe in conscience, and indeed worthy of praise. The reason is that, since she retains nothing for herself, but spends the whole for the utility of the family and especially of her parents, she injures no one and procures good for all. And indeed, if a wife does not sin by taking something for food, clothing, and other necessities of the family, which husbands often do not care for, and would be sought from them in vain; if a wife, seeing her husband dissipate the goods of the family to the detriment of the family, can hide them and reserve them for the good of the family, as the doctrine of theologians holds, why will not the same thing be possible for a daughter of the family, the mother being dead, for example, or if the mother herself also associated herself with the husband in dissipating all the goods of the family? Cf. G. 824. 2°, Comp. 554.

But insofar as Virginia sets aside money also for herself, so that she may provide for herself for the future time, her parents being dead, she does not seem to be disturbed, although the matter presents greater difficulty. For if a wife, who brought a very small dowry, can secretly and gradually subtract money from a rich and avaricious husband in order to support a very poor and miserable mother, although she knows that the husband would bear this most unwillingly if he knew it; if a wife can do the same in order decently to clothe a son whom she has from a prior marriage, to whom the husband, besides necessary food, scarcely wishes to concede anything else; if finally the same is also permitted to a wife in order to provide for herself for the future, lest she lack the things necessary for preserving the decency of her state, as the opinion of theologians also holds, the same certainly seems able to be conceded to a daughter of the family. Cf. Gury, Cas., v. 1, n. 560, 561. And the reason is at hand: for therefore such an indulgence must be granted to such a miserable wife, if she helps her needy mother or a son born from a first marriage, because the husband cannot reasonably be unwilling in that matter. But therefore the same must be granted to her, if she also provides for herself for the future, seeing that her husband is much older, infirm, and knowing certainly that he will give nothing to her, because a husband must provide for a wife in these circumstances. Now each of these reasons, which militates for the wife, seems also to hold for a daughter of the family constituted in the same straits. Let Virginia therefore take care lest she be led by blind passion; but if the matter is certainly established, she does not seem to be held to restitution, provided that she does not exceed what is reasonably necessary for herself. And especially unhappy Virginia merits indulgence, if, while she sets aside for herself only what is necessary, she uses labor altogether not owed. For something is owed to her extraordinary industry itself; and the industrial fruit is owed to him who uses the industry.

Fr. Gury holds the contrary opinion, Cas. Consc., v. 1, n. 503, who consequently, while in the place cited above he judges that a wife constituted in a similar case must be indulged, nevertheless thinks that a daughter of the family cannot of herself be excused from mortal sin. But the reason which Fr. Gury brings is, "because she committed theft in grave matter against parents reasonably unwilling." But this is precisely what can be denied in our case: namely, that the parents are reasonably unwilling. For if, in a similar case, the husband is not reasonably unwilling toward the wife, why would the parents be reasonably unwilling toward the daughter? - But Fr. Gury objects to himself, l. c., n. 504: "According to several very grave authors, children of the family in a similar case merit at least the wage owed to a servant." He himself responds: "that doctrine is full of dangers and not easily to be tolerated in practice." But that same doctrine the same Fr. Gury, in Comp., v. 1, n. 547, affirms "appears sufficiently probable," and for that very reason just brought forward, "because a son is not of worse condition than a servant." He indeed carefully notes at once in the same Comp., l. c., "that in practice one must not depart from the negative opinion." But, as Fr. Ballerini well observes, "since otherwise he admits that the opposite is probable, he is not to be understood as if an obligation ought, or even could, be imposed on anyone; for a confessor is not a legislator, nor does he have the power of imposing or enjoining a certain obligation when this is uncertain; and it is certainly uncertain when it is probable that it does not exist. Therefore this author only intimates this: that that practice should be prudently advised; prudently, I say, lest, while he fears hallucinations in the penitent, he himself hallucinate more gravely, and thus deprive the penitent of a utility not unjust."

The question therefore is one of prudence, not of liceity. Nor indeed does it avail to object against the argument brought from that case of the wife, that parity is not present; since the goods which she subtracts, as common to herself and her husband, are not only the husband's, but also her own. For Fr. Gury, l. c., openly holds the contrary; for he says that such a wife must be indulged, "if the husband were much older, infirm, and if it were established that he would give nothing to his needy wife, because a husband must provide for a wife in these circumstances." Therefore those goods which the wife subtracts are the husband's goods, not her own. And this is confirmed; for immediately proceeding, Fr. Gury adds these words: "A fortiori a wife would not be condemned who, while her husband was dissipating the substance of the family, would withdraw money and preserve it for the children, or even for herself, if she had goods in common with her husband." Therefore in no way was it a question of common goods.

Finally, since the same Fr. Gury in the two immediately preceding cases, 449, 502, is so easy with a son of the family, it does not appear why he is so difficult in the following case for a daughter of the family. For in the first of those cases, the question is about a son who, after the death of his father, remains with two sisters in the paternal house and alone carries on the father's trade with notable profit; and Fr. Gury says: "Leopoldus, who contributed not only an equal part of the money, but also himself alone the whole labor and industry, ought to obtain the greater part of the profit mentioned. For although the civil law does not except a case of this sort, nevertheless some place seems to be given to epikeia, at least in proportion to the extraordinary and undue labor, according to the judgment of an upright and skilled man. But if he has a certain and evident right to some compensation, strictly speaking, he could make it secretly, if in another way he cannot recover that to which he has a right." Let Leopoldus be removed, let Virginia be put in his place, and certainly the same conclusion remains. But in the other case the question is about a son of the family who trades with his father's money and receives profit from it, and Fr. Gury says: "Nor is Marius held to restore the profit which he acquired by private trade, because it is to be attributed to his extraordinary industry; but the industrial fruit is owed to him who applied the industry." Let it be said not Marius, but Virginia, and here also the same conclusion remains. For that Virginia exercises that extraordinary industry not, as Marius, outside the paternal house, the father unaware, but in the paternal house with the parents present, this certainly does not change the nature and dominion of the fruit of this industry. For a thing always and everywhere fructifies for its owner. But the difficulty would be still less for Virginia if, as can be sufficiently gathered from the case itself, she is no longer a minor, but of age; and there would be no difficulty at all if she were separated in goods from her father and from the family; if she labored not in the name of the father, or in the name of the family, nor by the aid of common money, but in her own name and with her own money, from Virginia's saved frugality, for example, which sufficiently appears in Virginia from the case. For the fruit of frugality from those things which are altogether owed to her in the family, as to a brother, is entirely her own.