Section 4: The Duties of Children to Their Parents

The Decalogue contains a special commandment for children, namely, “Honor thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be long-lived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee.”¹ This precept was expressly re-inculcated by Jesus Christ: “For God said: Honor thy father and mother.”² St. Paul calls attention to the fact that this “is the first commandment with a promise” attached to it.³

¹ Ex. XX, 12; cfr. Deut. V, 16; Tob. IV, 3; Ecclus. III, 3, 5–8; VII, 29.—Cfr. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebr. Bibel, I, 344.

² Matth. XV, 4; cfr. Mark VII, 10.

³ Eph. VI, 1–3; cfr. Col. III, 20.

The precept to honor father and mother, therefore, is not merely based on the law of nature, but it is a positive divine law, given for the purpose of materially lightening the duties of parents.⁴

⁴ St. Augustine, Quaest. in Heptateuch., l. I, qu. 153: “There is also a natural order among human beings, that women serve men and children their parents, because here too this is justice, that the weaker reason serve the stronger.” (Migne, P. L., XXXIV, 590).—Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 5, qu. 2.

The term “honor”⁵ signifies not only the love which every man must show to every other man,⁶ but that filial respect which has its natural foundation in the dependence of youth upon age, in a feeling of personal inferiority, and in addition, that pietas which children owe to their parents as the authors of their existence and their educators.⁷

⁵ τιμᾶν, honorare.

⁶ Lev. XIX, 18; Matth. XIX, 19; XXII, 39.—Love for his parents is part of the child’s natural equipment and therefore is not particularly emphasized in Revelation.

⁷ Lev. XIX, 3; Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 5, qu. 7; Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 368: “Children are bound toward their parents by a most special obligation. Three duties, moreover, are to be rendered by children to parents under the title of piety, namely, love, reverence, and obedience. For parents stand in a threefold relation to their children, namely, by reason of cause, by reason of preeminence, and by reason of governance. Consequently children ought to love them as the cause of their existence, to reverence them as superiors, and to obey them as rulers delegated by God.”

The duties that flow from this virtue are three: reverence, love, and obedience.

1. Reverence (reverentia sive timor reverentialis) is a feeling of deep respect, mingled with awe and affection. Children owe reverence to their parents as long as they live, nay, beyond the grave. It should cause them to bear with their parents even if their demands sometimes exceed the right measure, to spare their feelings, and in their conduct towards them to avoid whatever might savor of contempt. Sins which are but venial when committed against others, may be mortal if committed against parents because they violate reverence.⁸

⁸ Cfr. Gen. XLVI, 29; Tob. X, 9 sqq.—Sporer-Bierbaum, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 2nd ed., 793: “Every hatred, injury, irreverence, and contempt which is judged moderate or light toward another neighbor is grave toward parents; and that which is judged grave toward another neighbor is supreme toward parents (the matter of theft alone is excepted). The reason is taken from the order of degrees, because after God the first degree of union with us is that of parents, and therefore hatred, injury, and irreverence inflicted upon them is always, other things being equal, graver than that inflicted upon other neighbors, even relatives.”

Children sin against the reverence they owe to their parents if they deny them those signs of respect which are demanded by custom or treat them with indifference or neglect. Contempt, mockery, or maltreatment, which would be sinful towards strangers, are a much more grievous sin when committed against parents. To mistreat one’s parents or to curse them was punished by death under the Old Law. Reverence forbids us to reveal the faults of our parents. Children should not sue their parents in court, unless higher considerations of justice or public welfare are at stake, and it is a wise provision of the law which exempts them from testifying against their progenitors. The duty of reverence must not be disregarded even when it becomes necessary to treat parents with physical violence, for instance, in self-defence, when they are insane.⁹

⁹ Linsenmann, Lehrb. der Moraltheol., pp. 651 sq. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 75, art. 2: “It is most grave to mock God and the things that are God’s (Is. XXXVII, 23); then the mockery of parents holds the second place (Prov. XXX, 17).”—Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 372 sq.; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor., I, n. 949.

2. Children must, secondly, love their parents. This love is not identical with the charity every man must entertain for all his fellowmen, but a special duty, based upon the fact that children are indebted to their parents, under God, for their life and for innumerable material and spiritual benefits. This filial love should not only be deeply rooted in the heart (amor affectivus), but it should be manifested outwardly in acts of assis- tance and protection (amor effectivus).¹⁰ Children are in duty bound to support their parents when the latter become unable to support themselves.

¹⁰ Ecclus. III, 14–18; VII, 29 sq.; Prov. XIX, 26.—Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 369: “Children ought to love their parents with both inward love, pursuing them with a pious and benevolent affection of heart, and outward love, repelling from them every notable evil and injury, showing them also outward signs of benevolence, and assisting them according to their means when they are in need. This is established by natural law. Therefore, although our parents may have defects, however grave, and however they may have acted toward us, nevertheless we owe them life and preservation, which surely is the greatest of all benefits.”

This support is, of course, to be gauged in each case by the child’s ability. When a man has to strain every nerve to provide for his own family, or to pay his creditors, he cannot be held to contribute to the support of his parents except in case of urgent need. But even when children have become wealthy, they are not obliged to support their parents on a scale essentially higher than that to which their station in life entitles the latter. Whatever children do for their parents, however, they should do in such a manner that the latter can feel that the assistance given them is not a cold matter of duty, but inspired by genuine affection. Parents have a right to demand this of their children in view of what they have done for them. The consequences of lack of filial affection are graphically portrayed in Shakespeare’s “King Lear.”¹¹

¹¹ Linsenmann, Lehrb. d. Moraltheol., pp. 652 sq.

3. The duty of filial obedience (obedientia filialis) is coextensive with parental authority, and hence comprises whatever is subject to that authority, i. e., all matters of education and domestic government.

a) For minors living under the parental roof the obligation of obeying their parents is a grave one in all important matters. But not all violations of this duty are mortal sins; quite often the guilt is diminished by youthful thoughtlessness, imprudence, or lack of judgment.¹² In the case of children who have reached the age of maturity, however, it is nearly always a mortal sin if they refuse to obey their parents in matters that concern their eternal salvation or are of vital importance for the preservation of peace and good order within the family circle. The sin of disobedience is aggravated by pride, obstinacy, and hypocrisy. Grown-up children may, of course, raise objections against parental commands or orders, but they should present their reasons with respect and deference, and be ready to obey, no matter what the final decision may be.¹³

¹² Ecclus. III, 1; Eph. VI, 1; Col. III, 20.—Gury, op. cit., I, n. 374 sq.

¹³ De Benefic., l. III, c. 38.

b) The duty of filial obedience ceases to bind when parents command their children to do something that is bad in itself or a proximate occasion of sin, for Jesus says, “He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me.”¹⁴

¹⁴ Matth. X, 37; Luke XIV, 26; Acts IV, 19; V, 29.—St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps., LXX, s. I, n. 2: “In this matter alone a son ought not to obey his father, if his father has commanded something against the Lord his God. For the father ought not to be angry when God is preferred to him. But when a father commands that which is not against God, he is to be hearkened to as God, because God commanded that one obey one’s father.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVI, 875).—IDEM, Sermones, 100 (al. 7 de Verbis Domini), c. 1, n. 2: “The father is to be honored, but God is to be obeyed; the begetter is to be loved, but the Creator is to be preferred.”—Ibid., c. 2: “Love your parents, but prefer God to your parents.” (P. L., XXXVIII, 603).

Nor does the duty of obedience bind a child in the choice of a vocation or state of life. Parents have no right to compel their children to embrace a vocation which would require them to renounce marriage or the religious life. If they fear that they will be exposed to extreme want through the marriage of a child, or his reception into a religious order, they may demand that the one or the other act be postponed, and in that case the child should not resist. Children may enter a religious order against the will and without the knowledge of their parents if they are unable to overcome parental resistance and there is no danger that the parents will suffer want. Minors, however, should be kept back as long as possible, since in their case the matter is not urgent and their vocation as yet uncertain.¹⁵

¹⁵ St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 335: “Here it must be noted that children are not bound to obey in those matters which pertain to choosing a state of life. Hence parents sin gravely who compel them, even indirectly, against their will, to choose a state of life, whether religious, clerical, or matrimonial; or, conversely, if without a just cause they unjustly draw them back, even without force or fraud, from the religious, clerical, or matrimonial state, because it especially falls to parents to take counsel for the spiritual good of their children. Hence, if a son feels himself called by God to the religious or clerical state and perceives that his parents will unjustly impede him, he acts more advisedly by concealing the matter from them and carrying out the divine will. It has been said unjustly, for it would have to be said otherwise if the parents opposed him for a just cause, for example, if they would remain in need, or if otherwise a most noble family would become extinct, as Elbel says (Theol. Mor., P. III, n. 539). In this second case, however, I think the son is not bound on that account to abandon his voca- tion.”—Cfr. H. Busembaum, S. J., Medulla Theol. Mor., l. III, tr. 3, c. 2, dub. 1, n. 4: “A child is bound to support needy parents, to such a degree that, if in grave necessity they cannot be helped otherwise, he is bound to remain in the world (unless, however, in this there would threaten him a certain, or at least very probable, danger to salvation); and if he has entered religious life, he is bound to leave and help his parents, provided that their necessity preceded his profession.”—Ibid., n. 5: “But if the necessity arises after profession and is extreme, he is bound to leave, permission having first been sought (though not obtained). But if it is merely grave, such that they can somehow live, he is not indeed bound, yet he can leave if the superior permits. In which case he is bound, insofar as it does not obstruct his purpose, to wear the habit and observe the essentials of religion; but after help has been given to his parents, he is bound to return.” (Tornaci 1876, I, 161).—Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Th., 2a 2ae, qu. 101, a. 4; Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 377; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor., I, nn. 946–948.

The duty of obedience ceases to bind, lastly, when a child marries, becomes of age or enters a religious order or congregation. Children who continue to dwell under the parental roof after they have attained their majority, remain subject to parental authority, and this includes sons who are in clerical orders, but have no benefice and are supported wholly or in part by the family.

If a conflict arises between the demands of the parents and those of the children, the presumption is in favor of the parents because they are supposed to have a riper judgment, and it is, generally speaking, not wise to support children who resist their parents. On the other hand it cannot be denied that parents are sometimes unreasonable in the demands they make upon their children. In the same Epistle in which he inculcates the duty of filial obedience St. Paul says: “Fathers, provoke not your children to anger.”¹⁶ Parents should always remember that they rear their children not for themselves, but for society, and they must not refuse to make the sacrifices demanded of them on this account. They may not hinder their children from choosing a vocation or establishing a family of their own, merely because they themselves would have to live less comfortably in consequence.

¹⁶ Eph. VI, 4.

The children, on the other hand, must remember that they should not take any important step in life without the consent and blessing of their parents and that if they do so without a just cause, they forfeit an important condition of happiness. Parents have a right to be consulted in regard to their children’s choice of a vocation, and often, when the children are moved by passion or restiveness, the will of the parents represents the counsel of mature wisdom. It may justly be assumed that the son or daughter who marries with due regard to the wishes of his or her parents will be better off than he or she who parts from them in anger and contracts a marriage which they disapprove.

As there are children who, because of mental or bodily defects, cannot take care of themselves, but remain a charge on their parents as long as they live, so, too, it may happen that a child must renounce an independent position in order not to expose his parents to penury. Circumstances may render this an imperative duty, and if the sacrifice is made in the right spirit, it is as much a virtue as making a religious profession.¹⁷

¹⁷ Linsenmann, Moraltheologie, p. 651.—The question whether there are between parents and children mutual duties of justice in addition to those of pietas and the other virtues distinct from justice (e. g., gratitude, veracity, etc.) is controverted among theologians.

Those who take the place of parents, especially guardians and teachers, and, in general, superiors, participate in their rights as well as duties.¹⁸ The rights and duties of guardians are, as a rule determined by positive law.¹⁹

¹⁸ Sporer-Bierbaum, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 2nd ed., 806: “To these [teachers] pupils are bound to render love, reverence, and obedience or diligence in those matters which pertain to their care. The sins of pupils, therefore, are: unjust indignation, contempt, irritating the teach- er, disobedience in matters pertaining to their care, e. g., studies, insults, abusive words, and other injuries inflicted; although in these matters boys are for the most part excused from mortal sin by levity, imprudence, or passion, so that they are to be condemned not to hell but only to the furnace. Conversely, masters and teachers are bound to render to their pupils love, instruction, correction, and example. This is evident from the nature of their office. Their sins, therefore, are, among others, unjust or indiscreet indignation and rebukes, negligent, incautious, false teaching, omission of due correction, scandals of the little ones: woe to them! Academic masters or teachers are bound to still more duties, which they themselves will have learned from the statutes and the common law.”

¹⁹ C. I. C., can. 765 sqq.; cfr. this Handbook, Vol. II, p. 121.

Sponsors must see to it that their godchildren are raised in the Catholic religion and lead a good Christian life in conformity with the promises made at Baptism. This is a grave obligation which ceases only with death.²⁰ Baptism gives rise to a spiritual relationship between the sponsor and the baptized person. If one is sponsor by proxy, the principal, not the proxy, contracts spiritual relationship with the baptizandus.

²⁰ Cfr. Conc. Trid., Sess. XXIV, c. 2, De Ref. Matr.; C. I. C., can. 769.

Sponsors are absolved from all obligation if it can be prudently presumed that the godchild is properly taken care of by his parents or guardians.²¹

²¹ J. B. Ferreres, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. II, p. 184; cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. IV, n. 1476.

The baptizing priest should see to it that the canonical regulations concerning sponsors are duly observed, and instruct the sponsors in regard to the obligations they assume, and also with respect to the spiritual relationship they contract.

It is a bad sign if scholars and pupils do not remember gratefully their teachers and others who have contributed towards the formation of their character and their success in life. As true gratitude is a splendid virtue, so ingratitude is a detestable vice, and if it is formal, i. e., coupled with downright contempt for the favors received or for those who bestowed them, it is a mortal sin, unless the matter involved is so small as to diminish the guilt (parvitas materiae).²²

²² St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 106 sq.; Sporer-Bierbaum, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 2nd ed., 806 sqq.—Cfr. Pseudo-Augustine, Append. Serm., 265 (al. 215, De Temp.), n. 2: “Know that you who receive children in baptism have stood as sureties for them before God. And therefore always chastise and correct both those who are born of you and those whom you receive from the font, that they may live chastely, justly, and soberly. And conduct yourselves in such a way that if your children wish to imitate you, they may not burn with you in the fire, but may come with you to the eternal rewards.” (Migne, P. L., XXXIX, 2238).—IDEM, De Rect. Cath. Conversat., n. 4 (P. L., XL, 1171).

READINGS.—Catechismus Romanus, P. III, c. 5.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 101–105.—Sporer-Bierbaum, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 2nd ed., 784 sqq.—Elbel-Bierbaum, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 3rd ed., 719 sqq.—J. B. Hirscher, Die christliche Moral, Vol. III, 5th ed., pp. 539 sqq.—V. Cathrein, S. J., Moralphilosophie, Vol. II, 5th ed., pp. 433 sqq.—W. Becker, S.J., Die Pflichten der Kinder und die christl. Jugend, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1898.—T. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 270 sqq.—J. E. Ross, C. S. P., Christian Ethics, pp. 385 sqq.