Case LII: A Son's Duty Toward his Father

A young man, whom we will call Robert, accuses himself in Confession of having borne a great dislike and even hatred toward his father for many years. His father, he says, was a drunkard, and filled their home with shame and sorrow. He abused the mother and the children, cursed them, drove them from the house by his violence, and even threatened their lives. When Robert was seventeen years of age he left home, against the will of his father, and came to New York to make his way in the world by learning a trade. His father wanted him to remain at home and to go to work for a daily wage, which the father hoped to be able to spend for drink. After Robert had been in New York for a number of years the father died, having wasted in drink everything he possessed, and leaving a good many drink bills unsettled in different taverns. Robert, who in the meantime had prospered greatly and had considerable money in the bank, buried his father as cheaply as possible; in fact, so cheaply that it caused considerable unfavorable talk among the townspeople. Nor did Robert ever afterward have even one Mass said for the repose of his father's soul, or ever offer a penny toward the payment of his father's debts. What judgment is the confessor to form of Robert's conduct?

Solution.—It is necessary to separate the different counts in Robert's accusation in order to form a clear estimate of the sinfulness or lawfulness of Robert's conduct. There are four separate counts in the accusation, namely:

(1) Robert accuses himself of harboring hatred toward his father; (2) of having left home against the will of his father; (3) of having shown disrespect toward his father in the matter of the funeral arrangements, and ingratitude in not having Masses said for his soul; (4) and, finally, of injustice toward others in not settling his father's debts.

Let us take up each one of these four counts of Robert's accusation, and see whether and in how far Robert may have sinned.

1. Robert accuses himself of cherishing a great dislike and even hatred toward his father. Is this odium inimicitiae, or is it odium abominationis? Odium inimicitiae is sinful; odium abominationis need not necessarily be sinful. Odium inimicitiae is the hatred we conceive for some one personally, not merely for the evil that is in him or the wrong that he does, but for himself personally, inclusive of the good there may be in him, and we wish him evil, precisely because it is injury to him. Odium abominationis is something quite different from this. It is the strong aversion we feel for some one not personally, but for his vices and excesses. Thus, we hate, or rather abominate, the drunkard, not because of his individual personality, but because of his drunkenness. We hate his drunkenness, and we shun him, not because of himself, but because of his drunkenness. This odium abominationis may be a venial sin sometimes, but it is not a mortal sin.

Now, as regards Robert's hatred for his father, we are inclined to think that it was odium abominationis, and, under the circumstances, that it was not a sin. If Robert ordinarily showed his father the respect due to him, and obeyed him in reasonable things, then the hatred that Robert feels for his father is nothing more than a just loathing and disgust for his father's excesses. He despises and abominates his father's "weak, sick way of vomiting up his existence"; and in this he would seem to be without sin. Of course, there is always present a danger that this odium abominationis may go over into odium inimicitiae, and become mortally sinful, and Robert must be put on his guard against such a contingency.

2. Robert accuses himself of disobedience against his father in leaving home against his father's wishes. It does not appear that Robert sinned in this. Robert's motive in leaving home was just and honorable; namely, to render his existence useful by learning a trade. His father's motive in keeping him at home—namely, that he might have the benefit of his wages for drink—was unreasonable and sinful. No good reason can be advanced why Robert ought to obey his father, when such obedience would entail lifelong detriment to Robert's best interests. Of course, Robert is bound to see to it that his father does not want for food or clothing; but when the father has wherewith to buy food and clothing, but spends it for drink, there is no obligation for Robert to supply him with food and clothing.

3. The third count in Robert's accusation regards his father's funeral, and having Masses said for his soul. In this we think that Robert sinned. That Robert, who had plenty of money, had his father buried in such a niggardly and miserly way, showed a lack of elementary respect for his father, and was really insulting to his father's memory and savored of revenge. Robert was bound to observe the "decencies" of society in burying his father, for these decencies are founded on the reasonable respect and honor which the conscience and feelings of men decree should be shown to others. There was no obligation for Robert to provide a funeral for his father in keeping with his means; but there certainly was an obligation to give his father decent and honorable Christian burial.

Robert commits a mortal sin also in not having Masses said for the repose of his father's soul. His father is, in all likelihood, in grave spiritual need. Robert has plenty of means at his disposal to succor his father without grave inconvenience to himself. Not to do so is to transgress the law of Christ. For all theologians are agreed that for a child, who has the means, to refuse to have any Masses said for the repose of his parent's soul would be the committing of even a mortal sin (St. Thom. 2 Q. q. 101, a. 2; Ball. P. n. 7; Genicot i. 346, ii., etc.).

4. Finally, as regards the fourth count, there is no obligation for Robert to settle any of his father's drink bills, since he has received no inheritance from his father. "Liberi tenentur solvere debita parentum, tantum ratione honorum acceptorum" (S. Alph. n. 333).