Case VI: Forgiving Injuries

Case.—Margaret, a rich maiden aunt, had a special predilection for Robert, one of five nephews. She was accustomed to show this feeling in various ways, particularly by many extraordinary gifts showered upon her favorite. Recently Robert incurred the displeasure of his aunt by contracting marriage against her expressed wish. Since then she has not given any gifts, she has refused him admittance to her house, and has told his brothers that she would leave him no inheritance in her will. She has persevered in this conduct despite the efforts of her confessor. He intends to refuse her absolution in future.

Question.—Is he justified?

Answer.—All Christians are well aware of the law of charity as imposed by Christ and know its binding force. It obliges us to succor our neighbor in his necessities when we can do so—it likewise obliges us to help our enemies under the same conditions. Moreover, we are bound to show even our enemies the common signs of charity, though these may vary, and do vary with time, country, custom, etc. To neglect these common signs of charity would be a violation of the law which compels us to love our enemies. This would be a mortal or a venial sin, according to circumstances, i. e., if the matter is not serious or if some grave cause tempers the action, the sin committed would not be a grievous one. We must, therefore, examine the motive of Margaret’s aversion. If she objected to the marriage because it brought disgrace upon her family, by reason of the condition or of the lax morality of Robert’s bride, she cannot be said to have violated the law of charity. The grief that would be caused by her nephew’s miserable action would fully justify her in refusing even the common ordinary signs of affection, at least for the time being. Even if such treatment were to persist for a very long time, we do not think that under such provocation an affectionate aunt could be held to be guilty of sin. But if the motive in the case is hatred based on disobedience, then, of course, Margaret cannot justify her conduct, there would then be a clear violation of God’s great law of charity. We must add to this that her attitude would be scandalous. No obedience was due in the matter, and in the supposition no injury was done either to herself or her family, consequently no reason exists for the hatred which in the given instance is exceedingly sinful. She does no wrong in ceasing to bestow her gifts; these were gratuitous and depended on the good will of the giver; but she must show her nephew the common signs of charity. Unless she rids herself of her hatred she proves herself unworthy of absolution. However, she may have been moved by disappointment or by sentimental sensitiveness, rather than by hatred, she may have wished him to marry a bride of her own selection, or to have remained with her during her old age. Here she is free to deprive him of the customary extraordinary signs of affection. But she must give him what he is entitled to, viz., the ordinary signs, the same as she gives to his brothers, or his cousins, etc. Her attitude is unreasonable and reflects her own selfishness, giving evidence of wounded pride. Time will effect a cure, and therefore the confessor need not worry. Excluding real theological odium and scandal, he may in this last instance continue to give absolution.