Duties of Parents to Children

287. On obligations in general. 1. Children are bound from piety to show parents love, reverence, and obedience. This obligation is founded in the threefold peculiar relation by which children are referred to parents: by reason of origin, which children draw from parents; by reason of dignity, by which parents excel them; and by reason of power, by which the same parents can and ought to educate and direct children.

a. Some children are legitimate, who are born in legitimate marriage from a husband and his wife; others are illegitimate, who are generated outside legitimate marriage. Of illegitimate children, some are natural, who are born from a man and woman between whom marriage could then have been entered, wherefore, marriage having been entered, the children are by that very fact legitimated. Others are spurious, who are born from a man and woman between whom marriage could not have been entered, as those born from adultery, from incest, from sacrilegious fornication; wherefore the spurious cannot be legitimated. Among legitimate children are also numbered legitimated natural children and adoptive children.

b. Between father and son there intervenes both a debt of piety and a debt of justice; hence it happens that violations of justice sometimes constitute two sins. If a son unjustly injures his father in the goods of life, reputation, and honor, he commits a twofold sin, against justice and against piety, because the father, as he is a man, has a right to his own life, reputation, and honor even in relation to son and wife; and the father, as he is a father, has a peculiar right of requiring reverence and obedience from his children (n. 279). The same must be said if, conversely, the father injures the son in the same goods, because the son retains his own right even with respect to the father. But if the son unjustly injures the father in goods of fortune, he does not sin against piety but only against justice (n. 278), and that less than by theft committed against strangers; for the natural conjunction between father and son effects that the goods of the father are in some way also the goods of the son.¹

2. This obligation is of its kind grave, so that he sins gravely who in a notable matter, and lightly who in a small matter, injures the love, reverence, and obedience due to parents. But more easily it is a grave sin if these offices are injured toward parents than if toward other superiors.

¹ Ballerini-Palmieri, III, n. 4.

288. On the obligation of love. 1. The love of children toward parents ought to be internal, by which they are bound to will good to them, and external, by which they are bound to signify benevolence to them, to do good to them, and to furnish help to them when they are constituted in necessity, whether bodily or spiritual.

a. Therefore children sin gravely against piety who deliberately and in notable matter are carried with indignation or hatred against parents, wish evil to them, treat them harshly, habitually look upon them with grim eyes, converse with them in bitter words, speak ill of them, or gravely sadden them, for example, because they frequent games, neglect study or a trade, return home late, etc.

b. Likewise they sin gravely who do not assist parents in grave bodily or spiritual necessity, as those who do not furnish food to parents in need, do not take care that in danger of death they can receive the sacraments, that when dead they have funeral rites suitable to their condition and to the custom of the place, who do not execute their testaments, and do not pay their debts, whether sacred or not sacred, according to the resources of the inheritance.

2. Since the obligation imposed by nature precedes every obligation assumed by one's own will, or an action which is of mere counsel, such as the religious state, it is not licit for a son, when his parents are constituted in extreme or grave necessity, to enter religion, even if by vow he has promised entrance, provided that by remaining in the world he can assist his parents. And if he had entered against the will of his parents, he is bound under grave obligation to depart if the necessity of the parents is extreme, provided that outside religion he can assist them more efficaciously. But if the necessity of the parents is only grave and already existed at the time of entrance, he is likewise bound to seek permission to depart; but if the grave necessity did not yet exist at the time of entrance, he is not indeed bound to depart, but he can justly seek and obtain permission.

a. The reason for the distinction is that in the first case at the time of profession the son was bound by the law of nature to assist his parents. Now this obligation, as prior and natural, is to be preferred to the obligation of the vow, which is posterior and voluntarily assumed. But in the second case the obligation supervened after the change of state; and one is not bound to satisfy a supervening obligation except insofar as it can be done while preserving the state.¹

b. A brother is bound from piety to assist a brother or sister in extreme and grave necessity; nevertheless this obligation is not as great as that which exists between parents and children. Therefore one who is professed in religion is indeed bound to depart so that he may assist parents, but he is not bound to depart so that he may assist a brother or sister existing in extreme or grave necessity.

Whether a son is bound from his own goods to pay the debts of a father who left nothing to the son. - A son to whom the father left goods is bound to pay the father's debts as soon as he conveniently can, both from the obligation of love, lest the reputation of the deceased suffer, and from the right of succession, because one succeeding to the goods also succeeds to the burdens. But if the father left nothing to the son, he is not bound, because the obligation of paying debts in this case is personal.

Therefore a son is not bound to return the money which the father had received as a loan, not even if he had received it for paying expenses for the education of the son, because the son by nature has the right of receiving education, and therefore its expenses are to be demanded from the father, not from the son.

¹ Lessius, De iustitia, l. 2, c. 41, n. 34.

289. On the obligation of obedience. 1. Children are bound of themselves under grave obligation to obey parents in all things which are honest and licit and pertain to their care, as long as they are under their power, provided they command expressly and seriously: "Children, obey your parents in all things," namely those things which pertain to their care; "for this is pleasing in the Lord."¹ And indeed, parents are bound to instruct and educate children; therefore in turn children are bound to listen to parents.

a. The obligation of obedience lasts as long as children are under paternal power; but it ceases when they are emancipated from paternal power or become of age. On the contrary, the obligation of love and reverence never ceases.

alpha. A son of the family becomes major or of age at the time determined by civil law. Nearly all modern laws declare children of either sex majors after the twenty-first year of age has been completed.² If an adult son remains in the paternal house, the obligation of obedience toward the head of the family does not cease in those things which are necessary for domestic order.

beta. An emancipated son is one who has been released from paternal power. Civil law governs emancipation, so that according to some laws a son is emancipated by the very fact that he has attained the legitimate age, but according to other laws he is emancipated only when he himself wills it.

b. Sacred Scripture indicates in many places that this obligation is of itself grave;³ yet in order that a grave sin of disobedience be committed, it is required that parents command seriously, not merely by warning, exhorting, or directing show their will, and that they command in a grave matter pertaining to their care.

alpha. What matter is to be judged grave must be defined by prudent judgment, after account has been taken of the end which parental power has, which is the good of the son himself and the good of the family. Hence generally that matter will be grave by whose omission parents, domestic order, or the temporal or spiritual good of the son himself will suffer grave detriment, as to avoid evil companionships, gambling games, suspect houses, etc.⁴

beta. In practice the disobedience of children, even in a grave matter, will not rarely be excused from mortal sin both on account of defect of a strict precept on the part of parents, and on account of defect of advertence to the gravity of the malice on the part of children.

gamma. Where the matter concerns a precept which refers to several successive acts, for example, that they not approach a tavern, that they not return home too late, etc., grave sin, contempt being excluded, is not committed unless the precept is violated rather often.⁵

c. The object concerning which parents can justly command comprehends all those things which pertain to their care; but this care extends to three things: alpha. to the salvation of the soul; beta. to good morals; gamma. to the governance of the family, both in temporal and in spiritual matters.

Hence children can sin gravely against obedience due to parents: alpha. if against the express precept of parents they do not assist at Mass on feast days, and for a notable time do not receive the sacraments; beta. if they frequent the tavern or theaters, give themselves to harmful games, go out at night, do not avoid dangerous conversations; gamma. if they neglect to devote themselves to studies or to learn a trade, if they do not execute a work of great importance enjoined upon them.

¹ Col. 3:20.

² The German civil code, Section 2, and the Austrian civil code, Section 21, declare children of the family majors only after the twenty-fourth year has been completed. From canon law a son is major who has completed the twenty-fifth year of age.

³ Ecclus. 3:9 ss.; Deut. 27:16; Rom. 1:30; 2 Tim. 3:2.

⁴ Genicot, I, n. 318.

⁵ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 821; Elbel-Bierbaum, I, tr. 3, n. 555.

290. 2. But in other matters, especially in choosing a state of life, whether matrimonial, clerical, or religious, children are free by the law of nature. They are indeed ordinarily bound under grave obligation to consult parents both about entering marriage and about choosing a certain person; but of themselves they are not bound to follow their counsel. Hence to reject just and prudent counsel does not exceed a venial sin, unless the matter concerns obtaining an end of great importance, for example, extinguishing hatreds or relieving the necessity of parents.

But concerning a clerical or religious vocation, it will be better not to seek the counsel of parents when the necessary knowledge of these matters seems to be lacking to them; but, once the choice has been made, it suffices to seek their consent. If they deny it, God calling is to be obeyed more than resisting parents. Indeed, if it is foreseen that parents will unjustly impede the matter, children can embrace the state without the parents' knowledge.

Therefore parents sin gravely if they compel children to enter religion or to enter marriage without a just reason; and in equal manner they sin gravely if they impede children without just cause from entrance into religion or from contracting marriage: for it is a grave injury to deprive someone of the liberty which the author of nature has given to each concerning the state of life. The gravity of the sin increases if parents impede a son from contracting marriage either entirely or for a time, because marriage was instituted also as a remedy for concupiscence; for by this manner of acting parents can be the occasion of many sins which are committed by children. Yet if parents are in grave necessity, they rightly require that they be helped by their children as long as the necessity lasts.

291. On the obligation of reverence. The reverence which children owe to parents requires that interiorly they acknowledge their dignity and exteriorly profess it by words, signs, and deeds.

a. Hence children can sin gravely against the reverence due to parents by words, if they call them by contumelious names or seriously curse them; by signs, if they despise them, mock them, are so ashamed of them that they pretend they do not know them; by deeds, if they strike them, even only lightly, or if they only raise the hand as a sign of striking them, if they accuse them in court, even concerning a true crime, except for the cause of the public good. Children by striking parents sin not only against piety, but also against justice; and although the deeds are only lightly opposed to justice, nevertheless they gravely injure reverence.

b. St. Alphonsus notes (n. 334) that a son is excused from mortal sin who, for a just cause and without internal contempt, pretends that he does not know his parents or refuses to have them with him, for example, because they are marked by an infamous crime or because he himself would suffer grave damage from it, provided that he furnishes them necessities; because in such a case the parents themselves are not judged gravely or reasonably unwilling. And in like manner, at least from grave sin, children are excused who restrain by words or deeds parents lacking the use of reason on account of old age, drunkenness, etc., without contempt or malice.

c. Children who have sinned against the reverence due to parents properly and strictly ought to restore wounded honor by petition for pardon; yet if this has not been done before confession, it can and ought indeed to be advised that it be done afterward, but it must never be strictly enjoined or imposed as penance, lest children who do this with difficulty be exposed to the danger of sinning again. For deservedly it can be presumed that parents remit this obligation to children precisely lest they sin again.

292. On illegitimate children. 1. Parents do not enjoy paternal power over illegitimate children, nor do illegitimate children enjoy the same rights as legitimate children, unless they have been legitimated, since they have been brought into human society through wrong, that is, injury.

2. Illegitimate children do not pertain to the family of the father, but rather to the family of the mother, whose name also they receive; nevertheless they do not enjoy the rights of children of the family. Therefore by civil law a guardian (Vormund) must be constituted for them.

3. The obligations of parents extend also to illegitimate children; and in equal manner illegitimate children are bound to show parents love and obedience which the end of education requires, because in each case the foundation of obligation is the same, namely natural generation.

a. By natural right both parents are bound in an equal manner to support illegitimate offspring; yet recent codes primarily enjoin the obligation of support upon the father, and only if he fails, upon the mother, with the exception of the French code, which imposes this burden upon the mother alone. This disposition of law, after the sentence of a judge, is to be obeyed in conscience.

b. According to the civil codes, parents, or the father, are bound to provide for illegitimate children concerning an education consonant with the condition of the parents, or of the mother, although by the law of nature they seem to satisfy their obligation if they procure for them the education necessary and suitable to a man.¹

¹ Austrian civil code, Sections 165-171; German civil code, Sections 1705-1718.

Nature herself teaches parents their duties towards the offspring that they have brought into the world, and which stands in need of their loving care for many years before it arrives at maturity, so as to be able to lead an independent life.

Parents, then, are bound first and foremost to love their children with that special affection which belongs to the virtue of piety. They will commit grievous sin if they are indifferent to their children’s welfare, if they deliberately curse them, if they show great and foolish preference for one child over others to the serious discontent of the latter.

They are bound to support their children until these can support themselves. Even before the child’s birth, the mother must take care not to risk its life or natural development. After birth she is bound at least under venial sin to nourish it with her own milk, unless some good reason excuse her. Then there is the obligation of providing sufficiently for the child’s maintenance, according to its position in life, by a prudent administration of the family property, or by earning money and saving what is necessary for the purpose. Grave sin is committed by a father who will not work, or who squanders his wages in drink or gambling, so that wife and children are deprived of proper support. Parents are bound to instruct their children in all that is required to enable them to lead a good Christian life; they must warn them of dangers into which their inexperience would lead them, and correct them when they do wrong. Above all, they must be careful to give them good example by leading a good Catholic life themselves, and by never being a source of scandal to their children in word or deed. They must watch to see with what companions their children associate, what they read, and what places they frequent.

The Elementary Education Act, 1876, declared it to be the duty of the parent of every child between the ages of five and fourteen years to cause it to receive efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic; and penalties were imposed on parents who neglected this duty. As such an education can in most cases only be given in a school, it becomes a practical moral question of great importance as to what sort of school Catholic parents should select. The education of their children belongs primarily by the law of nature to the parents, and if they entrust a portion of their task to others they are bound to select such as can and will educate them according to Catholic principles. The Church, too, has received a divine commission to teach, and those who by baptism have become subject to her authority are obliged to be guided by her directions in this all-important matter. The Church condemns all non-Catholic schools, whether they be heretical and schismatical or secularist, and she declares that as a general rule no Catholic parent can send his young children to such schools for educational purposes without exposing their faith and morals to serious risk, and therefore committing a grave sin. A Catholic child, if educated away from home, should be placed in a Catholic school, under Catholic masters or mistresses. Sad experience in many different countries has shown how necessary this is for the preservation of the Catholic faith. If, however, there is no suitable Catholic school to which children can be sent, they may be sent to a non-Catholic school provided that the proximate danger can be made remote by using the proper means, and provided that the parents see to the religious instruction of their children. In many countries, as in England, the Bishops have reserved to themselves the decision as to whether in any particular case these conditions are fulfilled. A priest, therefore, should not take it upon himself to deny the sacraments to parents who send their children to a non-Catholic school; the case should be sent to the Bishop (cf. Can. 1113, 1374).

What has just been said applies specially to primary and secondary schools, for the question about non-Catholic universities is somewhat different. The Church would indeed wish that all who desire it might be able to obtain a higher education in a Catholic university. As this, however, is impossible in England, the Holy See has permitted Catholic parents to send their sons to Oxford or Cambridge on account of the grave necessity, and because when a young man has already received a sound secondary education among Catholic surroundings, if there is any character in him, he can be trusted to hold his own, Suitable safeguards, however, are prescribed for the young men who avail themselves of this permission, among which is the obligation of attending Catholic lectures which are provided by the Bishops.

In order that parents may fulfil their obligations towards their children, the law of nature itself confers on them the requisite authority and the right to look after their children until these can provide for themselves. It would, then, be against natural justice if children were removed from their parents’ control or if there were any interference with the parental authority as long as it is rightly exercised.1 Although parental authority is derived from the law of nature, yet its precise extent and its limits are not defined by natural law; this is left to positive law, ecclesiastical and civil.

Parental authority extends to the person and to the property of a child. i. (a2) The right to the custody of the person of a child belongs to the father during his life, and after his death to the mother. Until emancipation at the age of twenty-one or until marriage a father can enforce his right by writ of habeas corpus.

An action also lies for loss of services against anyone who entices a minor away from the custody of his parents. Moreover, abduction of a girl under sixteen or under eighteen for immoral purposes is rigorously punished by English criminal law.

However, if a child who has reached years of discretion chooses to depart from home, our courts will not compel him to return, if the departure seems to be for his benefit.

(6) A parent or one who is in loco parentis may moderately chastise a minor who has been guilty of fault.

(c) The consent of the parent is required for the lawfulness of a minor’s marriage. ii. The parent as such has no rights over the property of his child according to English law. If, however, no other guardian has been lawfully appointed, the father will be regarded as the guardian of his child, and he will be compelled to administer its property for its benefit, and he can be compelled to render an account of his administration. Gifts which have been freely made by children to their parents are considered valid by our law, but there is a presumption against their being free gifts, unless this is proved. 1 St Thomas, Summa, 2-2, q. 10, a. 12.

The duties of parents extend to illegitimate as well as to legitimate children. The duty of caring for an illegitimate child falls primarily on the mother, who, before a year has elapsed from its birth, may obtain from the magistrates a maintenance order against the reputed father, providing for the child’s support and education at his expense.

A husband is bound by our law to support the children of his wife by a former husband as well as his own.

I. Principle. Parents owe their children love, both internal and proved by acts. The acts chiefly include bodily and spiritual education.

II. Applications. 1. Due love requires that they pursue their children with a good affection and wish good things for them.

Against this obligation they sin gravely: 1. who hate their children, wish grave evil to them, or from the heart curse them or rejoice over their grave evil; 2. who do not help them in necessity or do not avert some other grave bodily or spiritual evil from them; 3. who without cause often treat them truly harshly, strike them; 4. who undeservedly favor one much more than the others and thus are the cause why the others are gravely saddened.

2. Due bodily education requires provision for life, sustenance, and state. "Parents," as can. 1113 says, "are held by a most grave obligation, according to their powers, to care for the education of their offspring, both religious and moral, and physical and civil, and also to provide for their temporal good."¹

a) Provision for life requires that parents care for the offspring from conception itself, and avoid those things which could harm it.

Against this obligation they sin gravely: 1. the mother who, while pregnant, dances immoderately, labors immoderately, lifts heavier burdens, consumes harmful things. Besides, let her beware of too tight clothing, of more vehement anger, melancholy, drinking spirituous liquors, and other things which can bring harm to the offspring or induce danger of abortion; indeed in the case there is also sin against justice, because the offspring has a right to life and to it whole. 2. The father who long vexes his pregnant wife, afflicts her with grave sorrow, or strikes her. 3. Parents who leave little children alone at home with danger that harm may come to them through fire, water, animals, instruments, or excessive crying. Likewise those who keep tender infants with them in bed with danger of suffocation;² the gravity of this danger depends on the age of the infant, the width of the bed, and on whether the mother is accustomed to be quiet in sleep. Commonly, however, especially in the first year of life, the mother should not keep the little infant with herself (St. Alphonsus, VI, 160).

Question. Is the mother bound herself to nurse the offspring?³

Resp. 1. In the affirmative; which is clear both from the authority of the holy Fathers,⁴ and from the fact that the Author of nature granted milk to the mother for that end, as is evident; wherefore note that the milk of the mother herself profits the offspring more than another's. But the obligation is only light, because no grave disorder appears. Hence a just cause excuses, for example weakness of the mother or a new pregnancy (St. Alphonsus, III, 336).⁵

Resp. 2. If the mother herself abstains from nursing the offspring, she is bound to entrust it to a wet-nurse, because artificial nutrition cannot fully compensate for human milk. Indeed she is held to this under grave obligation if the infant is somewhat weak, namely on account of the danger otherwise to be feared for the offspring. From seeking a wet-nurse a very grave or just cause excuses, according as the obligation is grave or light.

Resp. 3. If the mother abstains both from nursing the offspring and from seeking a wet-nurse, artificial nutrition remains. Moreover, if recourse is had to it, the mother is held under grave obligation to apply due precautions; for the death of innumerable newborns is to be attributed to the neglect of these precautions, for example to a defect of milk, uncleanness of vessels, etc.

Resp. 4. If the mother uses a wet-nurse, there is a grave obligation of taking on a wet-nurse healthy in body, because the infant is easily infected by diseases of the wet-nurse - especially syphilitic diseases. It is disputed whether there is also a grave obligation of substituting for herself a wet-nurse of honorable morals. Some affirm it, because they judge that the qualities of the wet-nurse flow into the infant. This, however, is denied today, because food, for example the flesh which we use, in no way directly flows into morals. Yet a grave obligation can be present from the fact that a wet-nurse ruined in morals can harm the infant in another way.

Corollary. Practically one must work so that the mother herself nurse her own offspring; both because of itself she is bound to this, and because the use of a wet-nurse is to be disapproved for the reasons set forth, and artificial nutrition is easily done without due precautions; which is so true that innumerable infants die chiefly on account of precautions neglected.

b) Provision for sustenance requires that parents furnish to children a dwelling, food, clothing, and all those things which are necessary for maintenance suitable to their condition, and this until the children can provide for themselves; finally, that according to circumstances they leave a suitable inheritance to the children (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 101, a. 2, ad 2).

Against this obligation they sin gravely: 1. who expose offspring in a public place; who hand it over to a foundling hospital, unless very grave poverty or infamy to be avoided excuses them (St. Alphonsus, III, 336). Let them see, however, whether the foundling hospital to which it is handed over provides due education, even religious education; 2. who deny food or other necessities to needy children; 3. who squander goods and thus cast the children down into a lower state⁶ (St. Alphonsus, III, cited place).

c) Provision for state imposes on parents the obligation of seeing to it that afterward the children can live according to their condition; this obligation is of charity, not however of justice.

Therefore they sin: 1. who do not send children even to elementary school; indeed they commit of themselves a grave sin, since on the one hand this can be done easily today, and on the other hand neglect of elementary instruction creates grave inconvenience for children, and those who do not frequent schools easily find themselves in the occasion of sinning; 2. who do not see to it that children acquire a science, art, or craft suitable to their state and capacity; I say suitable: hence higher instruction is not to be imposed on those who are less apt in talent for acquiring it.

3. Due spiritual education comprises teaching and exhortation, example, vigilance and correction, and these so furnished that at the same time formation of character is kept before the eyes.

a) Teaching and exhortation; namely, parents are to instruct their children, by themselves and through others, in Christian doctrine, and therefore are to command them to frequent catechism (can. 1335) and sermons and ask them about what they have heard; they are to imbue them with hatred of sin, especially mortal sin, with love of virtue, of God, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and send them to Catholic schools (can. 1372 ff.); they are to take care that they recite prayers morning and evening, receive the sacraments of Penance and Eucharist in due time (cf. can. 854, § 4), fulfill the precepts of the Church, frequent the sacraments, be present at sacred offices, and enroll in pious associations (St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tr. 7, n. 5).

Parents sin gravely who care nothing or little for Catholic instruction.⁷

About schools we shall speak more fully in Scholion I; about coeducation in Scholion II; about instruction concerning dishonorable actions and sexual life something is more suitably said in the treatise on the Sixth Precept.⁸

b) Example, according to the saying: words move, examples draw.⁹

Against this obligation they transgress gravely: 1. who blaspheme in the presence of children, speak shameful things, provoke a spouse with injuries and curses, indulge in marital liberties; 2. who are given to a notorious vice, such as drunkenness or lust; 3. who ridicule Religion or priests, or do not observe the precepts of the Church (St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tr. 7, n. 5).

c) Vigilance and correction. Let them see from the first age what the inclinations of the children are, namely so that good inclinations may be promoted, but bad ones restrained. Let them amend those who offend, now by correcting them but without anger or curses, now by chastising them, chiefly by privative punishments. - Let them turn them away from dangers and occasions. Therefore let them beware lest sons and daughters sleep in the same bed, or even in the same room as parents; lest boys together with girls guard animals or play; lest they be perverted by bad companions or readings; lest they court untimely, or with a non-Catholic, or alone; lest they hand them over to dangerous service; nor let them permit girls to be taught, for example, music, by a teacher outside all presence of others (St. Alphonsus, III, 339; Homo Apostolicus, tr. 7, n. 5; Praxis confessarii, n. 211).

d) Formation of character; about which we spoke in n. 50.

Corollary. Education "which, content with the mere powers of nature, rejects or neglects those things which divinely contribute to the right formation of Christian life, is false and full of error; and every way and method of educating youth which takes no or scarcely any account of the stain transmitted from our first parents to all posterity and of divine grace, and which therefore rests wholly on the powers of nature alone, wanders entirely from the truth."¹⁰ "Here nearly belong the doctrines which place almost the whole foundation of education in this, that children should be free to form themselves by their own talent and wholly by their own judgment, or with the counsels of elders rejected and every law and both human and divine help set aside. Yet this does not prevent adolescents, the more they advance in age and knowledge of things, from having to bring their own effort and industry also more and more to their education; nor does it prevent force and harshness from having to be removed from the education of children, while just correction, however, is not excluded."¹¹

¹ Cf. encyclical letter of Pius XI, Divini illius magistri, "On the Christian Education of Youth," December 31, 1929 (A.A.S. 1930, p. 49 ff.).

² Roman Ritual, title 2, chapter 2, n. 32.

³ Cf. Muckermann, Der biologische Wert der muetterlichen Stillpflicht; Capellmann-Bergmann, Pastoral-Medizin, 8th ed., p. 96; N. K. Stemmen 1904, p. 239; Meuleman, Het levensrecht van de geboren vrucht; De Katholiek, vol. 148, p. 62 and p. 181.

⁴ Cf. Benedict XIV, De Synodo dioecesana, bk. 11, c. 7, n. 9.

⁵ The contrary custom of matrons is to be prudently opposed: both because it is observed on vain grounds, namely so that they may withdraw themselves from the burden and be able to frequent pleasures; because desire for wet-nurses who are well-fed multiplies fornications; and because wet-nurses more easily neglect their own offspring.

⁶ Cf. 2 Cor. 12:14.

⁷ Cf. the cited encyclical letter.

⁸ Cf. the cited encyclical letter; our little work De virtute castitatis, p. 111 ff.

⁹ Sirach 7:25.

¹⁰ Cited encyclical.

¹¹ Cited encyclical.

66. What is the proper obligation of parents? - Parents are the principle of the existence of children; and children are something of the father. Wherefore, besides love, parents owe providence to children, whether legitimate or illegitimate; namely, they ought to provide for children as to body, as to soul, as to state. L. 336; St. Thomas, 1.2, q. 100, a. 5, ad 4; 2.2, q. 26, a. 9.

67. They owe love. For just as each one ought to love himself, so parents are bound sincerely to love children as something of themselves, flesh of their flesh; and thus, as much as is in them, they ought to care for their good, and to look to them in every matter both as to body and as to soul. This obligation of love never ceases, although another obligation of education ceases with the greater age of the son or with his emancipation.

Aptly St. Thomas, 1.2, q. 100, a. 5, ad 4: "It must be said that natural reason at once dictates to man that he should do injury to no one. And therefore the precepts of the Decalogue prohibiting harm extend themselves to all. But natural reason does not at once dictate that something should be done for another, unless to one to whom a man owes something. But the debt of a son to a father is so manifest that it can be denied by no tergiversation; because the father is the principle of generation and existence, and besides of education and teaching. And therefore it is not placed under a precept of the Decalogue that some benefit or service be bestowed on anyone except parents. But parents do not seem to be debtors to children because of some benefits received, but rather conversely. A son also is something of the father, and fathers love sons as something of themselves, as the Philosopher says in Ethics VIII. Hence by the same reasons there are not set forth some precepts of the Decalogue pertaining to love of children, just as neither are there some ordering man to himself."

68. They owe providence as to the body; and thus parents sin gravely if they expose those not yet brought forth into the light to the danger of abortion, if they expose those already born in public places of mercy, unless they do this from a grave cause. Besides, they must feed them, unless nevertheless they can feed themselves from elsewhere and are not in need, whether they are legitimate, or illegitimate, or spurious, C. Cum haberet 5, de Eo qui dux.; C. I. 752; C. G. 762; C. H. 139; C. A. 166; C. B. 1602, 1667, 1705, 1708. And if there is question of food necessary for life, they are bound to feed the son, although he has dissipated the portion of goods given to him by the parents, because he is always a son. - To this, however, father and mother are bound together from C. I. 138; C. G. 203; or the father first, as from Common Law, L. 9, C. de Patr. potest.; from Canon Law, C. 2, de Convers. infid.; C. A. 141, 143, 167; C. A. 155; C. B. 1634, 1709, 1739; C. L. 140. - The adopting person also must feed the adopted, C. B. 1766; in a case of necessity from C. I. 211. - But the mother is bound to nurse the offspring with her own milk. For the natural law itself demands this. Nevertheless this obligation of itself does not urge under grave sin, since otherwise no grave disorder is had. But necessity excuses from light fault, if, for example, the mother is weak; notable utility, if, for example, the mother would have to abandon another occupation by which she procures sustenance for herself and her family; custom prevailing among noble families. But then the mother is bound under grave sin to seek a good nurse. - L. 336, 949, 951; C. A. 218; C. B. 1635; C. L. 148.

69. They owe providence as to the soul; wherefore under grave sin parents must teach children those things which are necessary for eternal salvation, imbue them with good morals by words and examples, keep them away from proximate occasions of sinning, correct them with due moderation lest, provoked to anger, they become worse, and coerce them when they do wrong, even imploring the office of a judge if necessary, C. I. 222; C. G. 377; C. H. 155, 156; C. A. 145; C. B. 1631; C. L. 143. For this reason parents sin gravely when they permit children freely to accompany wicked companions, to read wicked books and newspapers, to frequent wicked workshops and schools, unless there is a most grave cause excusing them, and the dangers of these workshops and schools are removed. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Sapientiae christianae, Jan. 10, 1890, sect. Locus admonet. - L. 339.

In the absence of parents, ascendants, grandfather and grandmother, are bound to educate children or grandchildren; but in the first place the paternal grandfather, who succeeds in the place of the father, before the maternal. The obligation of education, since it is from the law of nature, extends also to illegitimate children. From civil laws the absence of parents is supplied by a tutor or curator. C. L. 100, 185.

70. The power of the father over the son is not a power of property, as over some thing useful to himself, but is a certain power of jurisdiction over the person of the son and for the good of the son himself, which is properly called and is dominative power, since nevertheless children are something of the father. The power is not only of ruling or directive, but also of urging or coercive. Wherefore the father has the power of educating the son by discipline and correction, according to Eph. 6:4. But this power is circumscribed by due moderation, as the Apostle Paul also admonishes in the same place. To the point St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 65, a. 2: "The father and the master, who preside over the domestic family, which is an imperfect community, have an imperfect power of coercing, according to lighter punishments which do not inflict irreparable harm, and of this kind is whipping."

71. They owe providence as to state; whence parents must instruct children in some art or letters, according to the custom of the region and the condition of the family. They must take care that children who wish to enter marriage enter an honorable marriage; and, if the chastity of daughters is for this reason in danger, they ought at least from charity to endow them. Indeed there are not lacking those who hold absolutely that the father is obligated to give a dowry to a daughter; which is prescribed in C. H. 1340, 1341 and C. A. 1220, 1222, 1231, whether she contracts a worthy marriage or enters religion; likewise that he is obligated to give a patrimony to a son who wishes to undertake the priesthood, L. l. 6, n. 819. The reason is that, as a father ought to procure for his children an honorable and suitable placement, so he is bound to supply to them the means necessary for obtaining it. Nevertheless from C. I. 147 and from C. G. 204, no action belongs to children against parents unwilling to subtract anything from their patrimony, so that sons or daughters may be able to enter marriage, or by another similar title. Cf. C. B. 1610, 1620, 1621. - If parents squander their goods, and for this reason leave children needy, they certainly are not free from grave sin. Nor can they be excused from sin if they do not apply at least moderate diligence, that they acquire goods by which the children may be fed and may have an inheritance according to their state. But especially are they bound to leave freedom to their offspring as regards the election of a state; and they sin gravely by forcing the unwilling into marriage or religion, or by averting them from such a state. - L. 336, 337, 339, 740; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 101, a. 2; Ferraris, v. Dos, a. 2, n. 1, 5; Sanchez de Matr. d. 26, n. 7; C. I. 138, 230; C. G. 203, 385; C. A. 139, 148; C. H. 155.

"Possessions... are ordained to the conservation of natural life; and because natural life, which cannot be preserved in the father perpetually, is preserved in the son, as by a certain succession according to the likeness of species, according to nature it is fitting that in those things which are the father's the son should succeed. Therefore it is natural that the solicitude of the father for the son should remain unto the end of his life." St. Thomas, C. G. l. 3, c. 123.

72. Can parents sometimes disinherit children? - R. Affirmatively; yet on account of a just and grave cause of crime against the parents themselves, which merits such a penalty. This is clear first by natural law. For it is altogether equitable that parents be able to punish with such a penalty children gravely injurious to themselves, and to keep them in their proper duty by fear of the same penalty. It is clear besides by positive law. For Roman Law acknowledges this power in parents, and determines several cases in which parents can disinherit children. And on account of the same reason of crime, children can disinherit parents, and brothers disinherit brothers. Novella 115, cap. 3, 4; Novella 22, cap. 47. - The same is had from Spanish Law 848 seqq.; and from Austrian Law 768 seqq.

From Italian Law 725, 1081, and from French Law 727, 955, 1046, 1047, there is not indeed disinheritance properly so called, but generally there is established incapacity and unworthiness of succeeding by reason of crime, and the revocability of a donation made by reason of ingratitude, on account of certain determined delicts: namely, 1. if they have laid snares for the life of the testator; 2. if by another crime, cruelties, or grave injuries they have been guilty against him; 3. if they have denied him maintenance; 4. if by calumny they have accused him of a grave capital crime, from French Law; and 5. from Italian Law, if they have compelled him to make or change a testament, or have impeded him from making or revoking it. - L. 340, 948, 949; Ferraris, v. Exhaeredatio.

From German Law 1938, 2333 seqq., 2339 seqq., one can by testament exclude a blood-relation or spouse from succession, without instituting an heir. - Various causes of unworthiness for succession are assigned besides; and, once the succession has devolved, any one who has an interest in the exclusion of the unworthy person can oppose those causes. - And on account of certain graver crimes, especially crimes against piety, almost the same as those which constitute unworthiness from C. I. and from C. G., one can by testament take away from his necessary heir the portion reserved to him by law. - When some descendant has been prodigal, or gravely burdened with debt, the testator can reduce the portion reserved by law for that descendant, attributing it to other legitimate heirs, as fideicommissary substitutes. He can also commit the administration to a testamentary executor, and the descendant then has a right to the whole annual revenues.

73. Are parents bound in the forum of conscience to leave to children the legitimate share according to the laws? - Parents, more truly and according to the common doctrine, ought by civil law to leave after death the legitimate share to their children, whether males or females, natural and legitimate, indeed even those natural by law acknowledged and legitimated, as well as legitimate or adoptive, unless a grave cause is present. For the law is just, and indeed obligating in conscience. Parents by the natural law owe providence to children as to body and as to state. Wherefore the positive law determining the legitimate share in reality interprets and defines the natural law. But it does not exclude certain rarer cases of necessity, in which the good itself of the children and of the family persuades that one act otherwise; and this is also confirmed by the practice of those who fear God. - L. 215, 740, 947, 950; H. A. 237; La Croix p. 3, l. 2, n. 1173; Gousset 794.

But there is no doubt that parents can, with attention to the civil laws, make manual gifts, especially remunerative ones, to children; for if these are not prohibited in favor of friends, neither are they prohibited in favor of those joined by blood, or for pious causes. Besides, they can also make gifts of greater moment to the same persons, if they are made from mere revenues; because of these they are full and free owners, nor, by the civil laws themselves, are they bound to increase the patrimony by revenues. Finally, if a just, proportionate, grave cause is present, they can also, if the legitimate share of the children is not injured, make a donation from those things also which constitute the patrimony. The reason is that the law, determining the legitimate shares, gives to parents this faculty, that they freely dispose of the remaining goods in favor of others. Therefore if a father can leave those things to other strangers, he can also give them to the children themselves, if a reasonable cause of acting thus is present, and the legitimate share is not injured. - But this must be noted, which Lugo has, d. 23, n. 147, namely that "parents, if they have donated inofficiously, that is, to the prejudice of the legitimate share of the children, their donations can be revoked by the children. Yet the donation is not invalid, but it can be made void." And this has force also in Italian and French Law; for in each of these Laws it is not said that it is void, but that it will be void. C. I. 821; C. G. 920. - L. 740, 950.

74. The distinguished D'Annibale has these things, Summ. Theol. Mor. P. 2, n. 601, ed. 2; n. 573, ed. 4: "More truly by civil law, parents ought after their death to leave to their children, whether males or females, born from just nuptials, or adoptive, indeed also natural children acknowledged by law, yet not to spurious children, the legitimate share. By civil law; for if they were held by natural law, it would have to be left also to spurious children. Do they therefore sin lethally who leave to children less than the legitimate share, more to strangers, or by giving largely to pious uses; or indeed the whole legitimate share, but not an equal one to each? Namely, if neither the children, from whom they subtract, need the thing subtracted, and they add to others from a just cause.... If it is lawful to estimate the matter from the common sense and affection of nearly all parents, as though from a certain natural law, I think that they are not to be disturbed, regularly: 1. as regards donations or largitions which are made by short hand; for scarcely is there anyone who judges this unlawful to himself, provided this is not some enormous thing, or done in hatred of the children. Nor 2. if they subtract something from females, especially married females, that they may add it to males; and in reality there is scarcely anyone who does not take pains to do this, with whatever art and fallacy applied for eluding the law. Nor finally 3. those who from a grave cause leave more to one of the males. And thus neither will those be disturbed who have received from them, until by sentence of a judge they are compelled to restore."

75. The family is an altogether natural society, which God Himself constituted, and it is presupposed to ecclesiastical and civil society; for each, without the family, which is the first society and the foundation of the others, can neither be nor be conceived in the present order of things. Hence at once and easily the conclusion is deduced that children belong first to parents, and that the civil state cannot claim them for itself, in order to educate them both corporally and morally, with the work of parents excluded. Those who assert this and do this deny and violate the rights of nature itself. Wherefore parents at the same time have both the right and the obligation to educate children in a Christian manner, according to their own Christian and Catholic religion, which alone is true. The right education of children consists in truth, not in error.

76. Civil society can in no way hinder this; on the contrary it is bound to furnish helping work. For the elements of political society are proximately families, which, since they are imperfect societies, are developed and unfolded by civil society, which is a perfect society. For this alone is sufficient and more than sufficient for fully satisfying human necessities, and for unfolding the powers by which man strives toward the perfection suitable to himself. Therefore, when the family grows into a city or kingdom, it does not lose its preexisting rights, but perfects them. And for this reason, from the civil bond superadded, it ought both to exercise them more easily and to unfold them more fully. In civil society that further perfection is sought which cannot be obtained in domestic society.

77. Therefore the aforesaid right and obligation of Christian parents to educate their own children in the Christian and Catholic religion cannot be suppressed by civil society; nor can civil society claim it for itself, just as it cannot claim for itself, for example, the care of the economic or domestic order. Hence in the Encyclical Quanta cura of Pius IX, there are expressly condemned those professing "that domestic society or the family borrows the reason of its existence only from civil law, and consequently that all the rights of parents over children, and especially the right of caring for their instruction and education, emanate and depend only from civil law." Aptly Leo XIII: "Paternal power is of such a kind that it can neither be extinguished nor absorbed by the republic, because it has the same and common principle with human life itself. Sons are something of the father, and as it were a certain enlargement of the paternal person: and if we wish to speak properly, not they by themselves, but through the domestic community in which they were generated, enter and participate in civil society." Enc. de Condit. opificum.

78. But how grave this right and at the same time obligation of parents is, of educating children in a Christian manner in the Catholic faith, is easily clear from this: although the inseparability of marriage pertains to the natural order of mutual justice to be observed among men, nevertheless in favor of the faith, divine authority intervening, the right which one spouse has acquired over the other from the contract of marriage, and which naturally is perpetual, is taken away; namely by reason of the higher supernatural end which God most wisely intends. "Marriage," says St. Thomas, 4 D. 39, q. 1, a. 2, "was instituted principally for the good of offspring, not only to be generated, because this could happen without marriage; but also to be promoted to a perfect state, because each thing naturally intends to bring its effect to a perfect state. But in offspring a twofold perfection is to be considered, namely the perfection of nature, not only as to the body, but also as to the soul, through those things which are of the law of nature; and the perfection of grace. And the first perfection is material and imperfect with respect to the second. And therefore, since those things which are for an end are proportioned to the end, marriage, which tends to the first perfection, is imperfect and material with respect to that which tends to the second perfection," and consequently because of the defect of that second perfection, namely of grace and faith, the marriage of infidels, although naturally inseparable, nevertheless has less firmness than the marriage of the faithful. "But always a firmer bond dissolves a less firm one, if it is contrary to it; and therefore the marriage which afterwards is contracted in the faith of Christ dissolves the marriage which had previously been contracted in infidelity." St. Thomas, 4 D. 39, q. 1, a. 5, ad 1.

79. Now if parents have this most noble right and most grave obligation of educating children in the Christian and Catholic faith, children on the contrary have no right to repudiate this education, but are bound to accept it with an altogether docile mind. And this is clear not only by natural reason, but is expressly asserted in Sacred Scripture. In Proverbs, chapter 1, verses 8 and 9, it is said: "Hear, my son, the discipline of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother. My son, if sinners shall entice thee, consent not to them." And again chapter 6, verses 20 and 21: "Keep, my son, the commandments of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother. Bind them in thy heart continually, and put them about thy throat. When thou shalt walk, let them go with thee; when thou shalt sleep, let them keep thee; and when thou awakest, speak with them." And the Apostle Paul to the Colossians, chapter 3, verse 20: "Children," he says, "obey your parents in all things; for this is pleasing in the Lord."

80. Parents can exercise the aforesaid right over children through themselves, and through others, who are in the place of parents and perform by delegation of parents. These regularly are the teachers of schools. Therefore schools must be chosen by parents for their children, in which they may be educated in a Christian and Catholic manner, according to the religion of the same parents. Besides, parents are bound to watch lest from teachers, from books, from fellow-students, their children undergo danger to their own soul. But if this happens, parents must promptly recall their own children from schools of this kind, perverse schools.

81. In the present state of society, however, without doubt a certain necessity is present for sons of families to frequent public schools, so that afterwards they themselves may be able to procure for themselves suitable aids of life. Even elementary instruction in letters, although it is not absolutely necessary for all, nevertheless is necessary: those who lack it are liable to many difficulties and inconveniences, neither few nor slight, for passing life in a fitting manner, and also for averting harms to faith and morals.

82. Wherefore in a Christian and Catholic nation its rulers are held by grave obligation to establish Christian and Catholic schools, both especially elementary schools, in which the first instruction of boys is had, and also middle and higher schools. For in all schools of this kind, even in middle and in higher schools, graver and most grave dangers can be present for boys and adolescents as to faith and as to morals. And if Governments fulfilled this grave obligation, it would yield to the supreme good of families and of the nations themselves. For as all atheists, indifferentists, free-thinkers, sectarians, Freemasons, heretics, modernists, and all wicked and impious men are to the immense harm of families, so also are they to the most mournful ruin of Catholic nations.

83. The rulers of society wander away from their most grave obligation, even for the public good, by establishing schools positively non-Catholic, in which infidelity, heresy, impiety, and iniquity are taught openly in the mouth and before the eyes of all, or by establishing neutral schools, which in the instruction of boys prescind from the positive teaching office of religion. But since this can scarcely be possible in practice, what in schools of this kind is said, often at least, if not always, concerning religion, is said against the Catholic religion. And although in neutral schools of this kind nothing is said against religion, nevertheless in reality they are not neutral; for by their very silence they keep boys away from religion, and of themselves lead them to indifferentism and atheism. This is confirmed everywhere in our time by patent fact itself.

84. Where there is present at the same time a Catholic school, a positively non-Catholic school, and a neutral school, parents cannot, without grave sin, send their own children to the latter, unless grave damage altogether were imminent for them or their children. This indeed can then be tolerated, yet on this absolute condition, that boys and adolescents not be exposed to proximate danger of eternal salvation. The proximate danger in schools of this kind must be rendered remote. Therefore diligent vigilance must be applied by fathers of families, lest their children suffer harm. They themselves outside school must instruct their own children in those things which it is necessary to know for the Catholic faith and for leading a Christian life, and especially teach them those things which are attacked in the aforesaid schools. But parents will be able to furnish this either through themselves or through other suitable persons, especially priests, by whose assiduous work they may provide for the religious instruction of their own children. Nor indeed is faith alone to be placed in safety, but honesty of morals also must especially be attended to. And this other danger to morals, certainly no less grave, is in those schools which are mixed, namely which boys and girls of each sex frequent promiscuously together.

85. Moreover, if to these things which have just now been established is added the precept given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and their successors: "Going, teach all nations... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt. 28:19, 20, it is easily understood that the following errors were altogether proscribed by law in the Syllabus:

"45. The entire government of public schools, in which the youth of some Christian Republic is instructed... can and ought to be attributed to the civil authority....."

"47. The best condition of civil society demands that popular schools, which are open to all children of whatever class of the people, and public Institutes, which are destined for teaching letters and the more severe disciplines and for caring for the education of youth, be exempted from every authority of the Church, from her moderating force and interference, and be subjected to the full judgment of civil and political authority, according to the pleasure of rulers and the exact rule of the common opinions of the age."

"48. That method of instructing youth can be approved by Catholic men which is separated from the Catholic Faith and from the power of the Church, and which looks only, or at least primarily, to the science of merely natural things and the ends of earthly social life."

86. The things which have been said hitherto are worth confirming by the doctrine handed down by Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter to the Bishops of Gaul, Nobilissima Gallorum gens, of the day Feb. 8, 1884. With most grave words the Supreme Pontiff admonishes parents that their children be educated in Catholic and duly instituted schools. "And first indeed," he says, "as regards domestic society, it is of the greatest concern that offspring received from Christian marriage be early instructed in the precepts of religion; and that those arts by which childhood is accustomed to be formed to humanity be joined with religious instruction. To separate the latter from the former is the same as in very fact to will that childish minds be moved to neither side in duties toward God: which discipline is fallacious, and, especially in the first little ages of boys, most pernicious, because in reality it prepares the way of atheism, and blocks religion. Good parents altogether ought to take care that each of their children, as soon as they have begun to have understanding, receive the precepts of religion, and that nothing occur in schools which offends the integrity of faith or morals; and that this diligence be applied in educating offspring is established by divine and natural law, nor can parents be loosed from that law for any cause. But the Church, guardian and avenger of the integrity of faith, which, by authority handed to her by God her Creator, must call all nations to Christian wisdom, and likewise watch sedulously by what precepts and institutions youth, which is in her power, is cultivated, has always openly condemned the schools which they call mixed or neutral, also admonishing fathers of families again and again that in a matter of such moment they apply their mind to taking care. In these things, by obeying the Church, one obeys utility at the same time, and provision is made for the public safety by the best reason. For those whose first age is not instructed in religion grow up without any knowledge of the greatest things, which alone can nourish in men the studies of virtues and rule the appetites contrary to reason. Such are those notions of God the Creator, of God the judge and avenger, of the rewards and punishments of the other life to be expected, of the heavenly aids brought by Jesus Christ for diligently and safely keeping those very duties. These things not being known, every future cultivation of minds will be unhealthy: adolescents unaccustomed to reverence of God will be able to bear no discipline of living honorably, and, daring never to deny anything to their own desires, they will easily be drawn on to disturbing states."

87. Indeed so true is that which the same Supreme Pontiff asserts in the cited Letters, that all attempts which harm the Church are also pernicious and fatal to the republic itself, because it cannot happen that prosperity accompany a state when the virtue of religion has been extinguished. Therefore let this flourish, and flourish exceedingly, both in Gaul and in Italy and in Spain and in Lusitania, and in Germany and in Austria, and in England and in Russia, in Europe, in America, in the whole world; and in the whole world supreme peace will reign, and with peace the true prosperity of nations and the happiness of men: the beginning of eternal happiness.

What is the proper obligation of parents? - Parents are the principle of the existence of children; and children are something of the father. Therefore, besides love, parents owe providence to children, whether legitimate or illegitimate; namely, they must provide for children as to the body, as to the soul, and as to state. L. 336; S. Th. 1. 2, q. 100, a. 5 ad 4; 2. 2, q. 26, a. 9.

They owe providence as to the body; and therefore parents sin gravely if they expose children not yet brought into the light to the danger of abortion, or if they expose those already born in public places of mercy, unless they do this from a grave cause. Besides this, they must feed them, unless however they can feed themselves from another source and are not in need, whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, or spurious. C. Cum haberet 5, de Eo qui dux.; C. I. 752; C. G. 762; C. H. 139; C. A. 166; C. B. 1602, 1627, 1705, 1708. And if the matter concerns food necessary for life, they are bound to feed the son, although he has squandered the portion of goods given to him by the parents, because he is always a son. But father and mother together are bound to this from C. I.

138; C. G. 203; or the father first, as from Common Law, L. 9 C., de Patr. potest., from Canon Law, C. 2, de Convers. infid., C. A. 141, 143, 167; C. H. 155; C. B. 1627, 1634, 1709, 1739; C. L. 140. The adopting person also must feed the adoptive child, C. B. 1766, in case of necessity from C. I. 211.

But a mother is bound to nurse her offspring with her own milk. For the natural law itself demands this. Yet this obligation per se does not press under grave obligation, since otherwise grave disorder is not had. Necessity excuses from light fault, if, for example, the mother is weak; notable utility, if, for example, the mother would have to abandon another occupation by which she procures sustenance for herself and her family; custom, prevailing among noble families. But then the mother is bound under grave sin to seek a good nurse. L. 336, 949, 951; C. A. 218; C. B. 1635.

They owe providence as to the soul; therefore under grave obligation parents must teach children those things which are necessary for eternal salvation, imbue them with good morals by words and examples, keep them away from proximate occasions of sinning, correct them with due moderation, lest having been provoked to anger they become worse, and coerce them when delinquent, even imploring the office of the judge if it is necessary. C. I. 222; C. G. 377; C. H. 155, 156; C. A. 145; C. B. 1631; C. L. 143. For this reason parents sin gravely who allow children freely to associate with bad companions, to read bad books and newspapers, to frequent bad workshops and schools, unless a most grave cause excusing them is present, and the dangers of these workshops and schools are removed. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Sapientiae christianae, 10 Jan. 1890, § Locus admonet; L. 339; C. He. 277.

The newly introduced so-called education of purity cannot be approved, which consists in this, that those things which regard venereal matters are manifested to children. For by this manifestation the danger is not averted, but is begotten and increased, since from knowledge of those hidden matters the very natural bad inclination to experience them evidently grows. S. C. Ind., 18 Jan. 1908, to the Bishop of Barcelona.

They owe providence as to state; whence parents must instruct children in some art or in letters, according to the custom of the region and condition of the family. They must take care that children who wish to enter marriage enter an honorable marriage; and if the chastity of daughters is therefore placed in danger, they must at least from charity give them a dowry. Indeed there is no lack of those who hold absolutely that a father is obligated to give a dowry to a daughter, which C. H. 1340, 1341 and C. A. 1220, 1222, 1231 prescribe, whether she contracts a worthy marriage or enters religion, and likewise that he is obligated to give patrimony to a son who wishes to receive the priesthood. L. l. 6, n. 819. The reason is that just as a father must procure for children an honorable and fitting placement, so he is bound to furnish them the means necessary for obtaining it. Yet from C. I. 147 and from C. G. 204, no action belongs to children against parents unwilling to subtract anything from their patrimony so that sons or daughters can enter marriage, or by another similar title. Cf. C. B. 1610, 1620, 1621.

If parents squander their goods and therefore leave children needy, they certainly are not free from grave sin. Nor can they be excused from sin if they do not apply at least moderate diligence to acquire goods by which the children may be fed and have an inheritance according to their state. But most especially they are bound to leave freedom to offspring as to the choice of state; and they sin gravely by compelling the unwilling to marriage or religion, or by turning them away from such a state. L. 336, 337, 339, 740; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 101, a. 2; Ferraris, v. dos, a. 2, nn. 1-5; Sanchez, de Matr., d. 26, n. 7; C. I. 138, 230; C. G. 203, 385; C. A. 139, 148; C. H. 155; C. He. 275, 276; E. M.

Can parents sometimes disinherit children? - R. Affirmatively; yet on account of a just and grave cause of a crime against the parents themselves, which merits such a penalty. This is clear first by natural law. For it is altogether equitable that parents be able to punish children who are gravely injurious to them by such a penalty, and to contain them in their own duty by fear of the same penalty. It is clear besides by positive law. For Roman Law recognizes this power in parents and determines several cases in which parents can disinherit children. And by reason of the same crime, children can disinherit parents, and brothers disinherit brothers. Novella 115, cap. 3, 4; Novella 22, cap. 47. The same is had from Spanish Law 848 seqq.; from Lusitanian Law 1875 seqq.; and from Austrian Law 768 seqq.

From Swiss Law 477, by a disposition by reason of death, one can be deprived of a legitimate inheritance when he has committed a grave offense against the one disposing or against a person intimately joined to him; when he has gravely contracted against his obligations of family toward the one disposing or toward a person pertaining to the same family. From German Law 1938, 2333 seqq., 2339 seqq., someone can by testament exclude a blood-relative or spouse from succession without instituting an heir. Besides this, various causes of unworthiness for succession are assigned, which causes, after succession has devolved, anyone who has an interest in the exclusion of the unworthy person can oppose. And on account of certain graver crimes, especially crimes against piety, almost the same as those which constitute unworthiness from C. I. and from C. G., someone can by testament take away from his necessary heir the portion reserved to him by law. When some descendant has been prodigal, or gravely burdened by debt, the testator can reduce the portion reserved by law for that descendant, by attributing it to other legitimate heirs as fideicommissary substitutes. He can also commit the administration to a testamentary executor, and then the descendant has a right to the whole annual revenues.

From Italian Law 725, 1081, and from French Law 727, 955, 1046, 1047, disinheritance properly so called is indeed not had, but incapacity and unworthiness of succeeding are generally established by reason of crime, and revocability of a donation itself made by reason of ingratitude, on account of certain determined offenses; namely if 1. they plotted against the life of the testator; 2. if they were guilty toward him of another crime, cruelty, or grave injuries; 3. if they denied him support; 4. if they calumniously accused him of a grave crime from Italian Law, or of a capital crime from French Law; and 5. from Italian Law, if they compelled him to make or change a testament, or impeded him from making or revoking it. L. 340, 948, 949; Ferraris, v. Exhaeredatio.

Are parents bound in the forum of conscience to leave the legitimate portion to children according to the laws? - Parents, more truly and according to the common doctrine, must by civil law leave the legitimate portion after death to their children, whether male or female, natural and legitimate, indeed also natural children acknowledged and legitimated by law, and also legitimate or adoptive children, unless a grave cause is present. For the law is just, and indeed obliging in conscience. Parents by natural law owe providence to children as to the body and as to state. Therefore the positive law determining the legitimate portion in reality interprets and defines the natural law. But it does not exclude certain rarer cases of necessity, in which the good itself of the children and family may suggest that one must act otherwise; which is also confirmed by the practice of the God-fearing. L. 215, 740, 947, 950; H. A. 237; La Croix, p. 3, l. 2, n. 1173; Gousset 794.

But there is no doubt that parents can, with attention to civil laws, make manual gifts, especially remuneratory ones, to children; for if these are not prohibited for friends, neither are they prohibited for relatives or for pious causes. Besides this, they can also effect gifts of greater moment to the same persons, if they are made from mere revenues; because they are full and free masters of these, nor, by the civil laws themselves, are they bound to increase the patrimony by revenues. Finally, if a just and proportionate grave cause is present, they can also, if the legitimate portion of the children is not injured, effect a donation from those things also which constitute the patrimony. The reason is that the law determining the legitimate portion gives this faculty to parents, that they may dispose freely of the remaining goods for others. Therefore if a father can leave these things to other extraneous persons, he can also donate them to the children themselves, if a reasonable cause of acting thus is present and the legitimate portion is not injured.

But that must be noted which Lugo has, d. 23, n. 147, namely "parents, if they have donated undutifully, that is, to the prejudice of the legitimate portion of children, their donations can be revoked by the children. Nevertheless the donation is not invalid, but can be voided." And this holds also in Italian and French Law; for in both these Laws it is not said that it is void, but that it will be void, namely to be voided by reduction. C. I. 821, 1091; C. G. 920; C. He. 522; C. A. 775; C. H. 654; C. L. 1492, 1789; L. 740, 950.

1. Melania, a widow, has two sons; one she loves greatly, but the other she can scarcely bear to see, for she herself did not nurse him. Although this one is of a good disposition and of no common talent, the mother experiences toward him a natural antipathy, which, as she says, she cannot overcome. Hence it is that she constantly reproves him with words and afflicts him with insults and even beatings. But the other son, whom she had nursed, although he is of a depraved disposition and of rather mediocre talent, she heaps with every blandishment. She continually bestows hand-gifts upon him, gives him precious objects, notable sums of money, and also a certain small villa, bought by her, which she pretends was given to him by an uncle. Indeed, in her testament she assigns to this one the whole remaining disposable part.

Q. 1. What are the obligations of parents toward children? 2. Has Melania sinned in the case?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 671 seqq. To the second. 1. It cannot be doubtful that Melania, by that manner of acting, sins, and sins gravely against piety. For in the correction and chastisement of her son she gravely exceeds moderation, and in these things she is led by no honorable motive of good toward the son, but by a natural and disordered passion; and this perhaps she cannot overcome insofar as she cannot extinguish it in herself; but she certainly can overcome it insofar as she does not act according to it, but according to right reason. So pertinacious a manner of acting on Melania's part can at length inflict grave harm on her son. "You fathers," says the Apostle, "do not provoke your sons to anger." Eph. 6:4. Immoderate chastisement harms children much. It renders them morose, dull, pusillanimous, and sometimes affected with despair. In place of the love owed to parents, it is accustomed to produce contempt and hatred. Reuter, Neoconfessar., p. 2, 6, 4, q. 3, n. 9; Gur., Comp. 375.

2. In those gifts which Melania lavishly bestows in every way upon her other son, she also sins gravely against charity; for she is led by aversion of mind against her other son, to whom, by such excessive gifts, she causes evil. But from this acceptance of persons, with the lapse of time, grave dissension and discord can also arise between the two brothers. Does she also sin gravely against legal and commutative justice? It seems it must be denied.

For through various acts between the living and through the testament she gives and bequeaths to her favorite son only the disposable part. Wherefore, if the legitime of the other son remains untouched, Melania seems to be exempt from grave sin against justice. But it would be otherwise if she harmed this legitimate part, and then the other son, after he had already received it, would be held to restitution, but not before the sentence of a judge. "But it must be noted," says St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 740, "that the donee is held to restore nothing to the children before the sentence of a judge." I. M. 673; G. 822-824.

2. Titius first contracted an ecclesiastical marriage only with Bertha, from whom he begot children. Then, having left his family, he entered civil nuptials with Caia, from whom he begot other children. Being near death, he made a testament, and in it, with not even a word having been made about Bertha and her children, he assigned the whole inheritance to Caia and her children. To what are these heirs held in conscience?

3. Caius, with children received from a merely ecclesiastical marriage, dies intestate; and thus the inheritance civilly devolves to his collaterals. What of these in conscience?

4. Seia, when she could not, after an ecclesiastical marriage contracted with Titius, induce him to complete the civil act, steals something from his goods, so that she may compensate herself for the legal part which, at his death, she will not be able to obtain. Can she justly conduct herself thus in conscience?

Q. What must be responded to the various cases?

R. As regards the civil law, these things must be noted in advance:

1. Civil laws, definitive of right and translative of dominion of property, oblige in conscience. Of this sort, moreover, are the laws which define the legitime of necessary heirs and the legitimate succession of legitimate heirs.

2. Laws are to be interpreted in a fitting way, if this is possible, and are not to be drawn to an iniquitous and unjust disposition, if this is not necessary. Now the law of civil marriage, if it is understood of a true marriage to be entered, where the Council of Trent has been promulgated, is iniquitous and unjust, and then must not be attended to. For no legitimate right can flow from a law which is contrary to natural and divine right, and which is not from the use of legitimate authority but from its abuse. But this interpretation is not necessary. For it can be understood only of a certain exterior form, so that there may be certainty concerning true marriage in order to its civil effects, which depend only on true marriage, from the very fact that they are the civil effects of marriage; and by no means on that legal form, which is only for the proof of true marriage. Besides this common and extrinsic reason, there is also a proper and intrinsic reason for this interpretation. For first, that law concerning civil marriage has its foundation in the power which the civil authority has of ruling the civil effects of marriage. Therefore, if an effect supposes its cause, that law cannot be understood except of true marriage, that is, of the mere civil declaration or proof of true marriage. Moreover, the law itself distinguishes between marriage, concubinage, and adultery; and, what is more, between valid and null marriage. Therefore again it must be understood only of true marriage, that is, of the proof and declaration of true marriage. - Moreover, some civil laws have been approved by the Church and oblige, others have been reprobated by the Church and do not oblige, others have neither been approved nor reprobated, which in particular are to be examined in order to define the force and nature of the obligation. Now the law of civil marriage, if again it is understood of true marriage to be entered, has been reprobated several times by the Church. But if it is understood only of the legal form and civil proof of marriage, thus that law has never been reprobated; indeed, it has been positively approved. Nor indeed is that law approved in another sense, except insofar as the civil authority can dispose concerning the civil effects of marriage, namely true marriage. Cf. the letter of Leo XIII, Il Divisamento, 8 Feb. 1893, to the Cardinal Bishop of Verona and to the Episcopate of Venice, concerning the schema of the law on the precedence of civil formalities with respect to religious marriage.

3. It is worthwhile to report certain words of the praised letter, which bear most upon the matter: "It is not inappropriate to declare once more that the civil power may indeed dispose of the civil effects OF MARRIAGE, but let it leave to the Church what regards marriage in itself; LET IT ADMIT THE FACT OF TRUE AND LEGITIMATE MARRIAGE, as it was instituted by Jesus Christ and practiced by the Church, AND FROM THERE TAKE ITS MOVES to grant or deny the effects which follow from it in civil society." Lower down the Supreme Pontiff reprobates the civil law in this same matter, which indeed could not bring it about that a marriage legitimately contracted be null, "because it is a matter of natural and divine right, against which there is no power in the world that can prevail; but it would put into operation all means to make it be considered as null, to impede its duties, AND TO FRUSTRATE THE EFFECTS WHICH LEGITIMATELY FOLLOW FROM IT." And afterward the Supreme Pontiff asserts that civil effects of this sort pertain solely to the civil State, and that sufficient provision had been made by the State regarding them, even beyond measure, through civil marriage, without the precedence also of the same marriage being imposed.

4. The same observation must be made as regards the civil law constituting the legitime, in testamentary disposition, and legitimate succession, in legitimate disposition, in favor of the spouse and legitimate children. Cf. C. I. 721. This law is pious and just, and it must be understood piously and justly only of a true spouse and of children born from true marriage, who truly and uniquely are, and are called, legitimate. But impiously and unjustly it would be understood of an adulterous concubine and adulterine children, whom the law itself punishes and excludes from any succession. Nor indeed would the same law be fittingly and honestly understood of a merely fornicating concubine and fornicating children; nor would that law be understood coherently in this way, since the law itself distinguishes between merely natural children, born outside marriage, and legitimate children, born from marriage. Moreover, the law here disposes in reality concerning the civil effects of marriage. Therefore it presupposes true marriage, and accordingly treats of truly legitimate children and a true spouse. Cf. tit. Qui filii sint legitimi.

As regards the natural law: 1. No right belongs to collaterals and ascendants from natural law and from strict justice; but only from civil law, founded on charity and piety. Wherefore, with the assistance of civil law and legitimate succession failing, and with testamentary disposition also failing for them, ascendants and collaterals cannot exclude from testamentary succession the spouse and children, whether only civil marriage was present, or whether only ecclesiastical marriage was present. For these legitimately succeed in either case, as at least voluntary heirs, if testamentary disposition was present for them. But if testamentary disposition failed and only civil marriage was present, they also legitimately succeed, as voluntarily called to the inheritance by the testator himself, who, entering civil marriage and dying intestate, is now considered to bestow rights upon the wife and children from the civil marriage, according to the very laws to which he remits himself. If again testamentary disposition failed, and also civil marriage, but only canonical marriage was present, then from natural law ascendants and collaterals have no right to succession, nor do they have any right to succession from civil law, since a truly legitimate spouse is present, and truly legitimate children are present; to whom, in the case, the civil law itself gives assistance.

2. The spouse and children, as many think, have no strict right from natural law and from justice to succession, but only from civil law, founded on equity and piety. Others, on the contrary, hold that the spouse and children have a right to succession from the natural law itself. But those who opine thus in reality fall back into the prior opinion. For they must finally necessarily agree in this: that a right of this sort is not a right in the thing, but to the thing; it is in no way a right from strict justice, but one arisen only from piety and founded in piety, to which natural equity consequently accedes. But this right certainly is neither to the whole inheritance nor to this principal part of the inheritance, but only to some goods, namely to food and due provision, if they need these things. Wherefore, with the assistance of civil law failing, they could claim nothing else, even from natural right. But the civil law admits the spouse and children to legitimate succession, and establishes the legitime for children, but not always for the spouse. Nevertheless the Italian Code also assigns a legitime to the spouse.

Hence to the first case it is answered: Bertha and her children have a right to the whole inheritance, by force of legitimate succession, according to the civil law. For the testament in favor of Caia the adulteress and the adulterine children, with the legitimate wife and legitimate children having been passed over, is of no force with respect to the adulterine children, declared incapable by the law itself, and to whom only food is owed, C. I. 767. But with respect to Caia the adulteress, no more can be owed to her by force of the testamentary disposition than if she were the legitimate spouse of Titius; this cannot exceed, in the case, the portion of one of the children, within the limits, nevertheless, of the disposable part, C. I. 770; CC. 10, 13, Qui fil. sint legit.

To the second. The collaterals of Caius have no right to the inheritance of Caius, neither by force of testamentary disposition, which did not take place, nor by force of legitimate disposition, since, when legitimate children, or legitimate children and a legitimate spouse, are present, as in the case, collaterals are excluded.

To the third. Seia, in the case, from what has been said does not seem to be disturbed. - D'Annib., 3rd ed., p. 2, n. 342, notes 22, 23; Gennari, Consult. etc., cons. 24, 27; Scav., l. 4, n. 560, cas. 6.

5. Aristides, married and having legitimate children, committed adultery with Vincentia, from whom he had a son and a daughter. The matter is hidden and remains so; for Vincentia died before the adulterine children arrived at the use of reason. But Aristides provided for the sustenance and right education of his children, as of orphans altogether foreign to himself, placing the son in a certain college of religious, and the daughter in a house of nuns. Hence the son, now having become older, is initiated into sacred orders, and Aristides establishes a patrimony for him; but the daughter contracts nuptials, and he establishes a fitting dowry for her. But Aristides makes a testament and leaves the disposable part to each, son and daughter, while pretending a work of charity toward abandoned orphans, whom he also commends to his testamentary executor.

Q. 1. Do adulterine children succeed to their parents? 2. Has Aristides acted rightly?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 663, 1038, 1039, 1045. To the second. Aristides acted rightly indeed in providing for the sustenance of his adulterine children. For it is of the law of nature that children be nourished by parents, although they are illegitimate, because they are always children. If, generation being considered, all are children in the same way, it follows that, if parents, because they are the principle of generation, the cause and authors of children, owe food from the law of nature to legitimate children, by the same right likewise and by the same reason they must provide the same things to any illegitimates whatsoever, with respect to whom they have the same character of principle and the conjunction of blood. Hence the contrary disposition of Roman law, Auth. Ex complexu, C. de Incest. et inutil. nupt., Auth. Quibus modis naturales efficiuntur sui, cap. fin., was corrected by Canon Law, C. Cum haberet de Eo qui duxit in matrimonium etc., C. Per venerabilem Qui filii sint legitimi. But by more recent civil law, food is positively conceded to adulterine children of this sort. C. I. 767; C. G. 762; C. H. 845; C. A. 166.

Aristides also acted rightly in providing for the right education of his children, and that so prudently and secretly that no dissension and no scandal would arise in his family. For this also is required by natural law itself, and is confirmed by civil law also, since food granted by civil law extends also to fitting instruction, according to the condition of the person. C. I. 138, 143, 846; C. G. 203, 308, 762-664; C. H. 143; C. A. 166.

Nor indeed does Aristides seem to be disturbed when he establishes for the son a patrimony and for the daughter a fitting dowry, by no means excessive or inofficious. For in C. Cum haberet de Eo qui duxit in matrim. etc., it is said that necessities must be furnished to children of this sort according as means suffice. But among necessities, in the case, a patrimony is counted for the son, and a dowry for the daughter; for a son lacking a patrimony perhaps will not be able to ascend to sacred orders, nor will a daughter lacking a dowry be able to marry, and by not marrying perhaps she would live shamefully. C. I. 143; C. G. 208; C. H. 143, 146; C. A. 166.

But Aristides does not act rightly in also instituting his two adulterine children as heirs, to the grave damage of the legitimate children, from whom for this reason the whole disposable part is subtracted. Adulterine children by law are incapable of succession, whether legitimate or testamentary; likewise they are incapable of donation. Hence, if the son and daughter knew their condition, they would be held to restitution. L. Si quis incesti, C. de incest. nupt.; L. 1, C. de Naturalib. liber.; C. I. 752, 767, 1053, 1055; C. G. 762, 908, 911; C. H. 139, 625, 628, 845; I. M. 1039, 1045; G. 868.

6. Iacobus, a priest, a beneficiary, since he had had a son from a certain unmarried woman, instituted this son and his wife as heirs of all his patrimonial goods and of the goods which he was able to collect from the fruits of the benefice through several years. He thinks that he can do this with a safe conscience, since the law speaks only of adulterine and incestuous children, and excludes only these, besides food, from all succession. C. I. 180, 767. Besides, he says, the civil law certainly cannot touch at least ecclesiastical revenues; and he left these directly to his son; for the patrimonial goods he left to his son's wife, whom, since she is in no way his daughter, he judges in no way able to be repelled from the inheritance. Has Iacobus acted rightly?

Iacobus has not acted rightly. The disposition in favor of the sacrilegious son is invalid, and likewise the disposition in favor of the wife of the same son, as an interposed person, is also invalid. This is established from the Constitution of St. Pius V, Quae ordini, by which all faculties of testating and disposing concerning ecclesiastical goods, and also, as regards clerics, concerning patrimonial goods in favor of any illegitimates whatsoever, the incapable and incapacitated, are revoked. These things are contained in § 4: "Henceforth, however, we more strictly prohibit that such things be done either for the aforesaid illegitimates of either sex, or for their spouses, or for their parents, children, descendants, ascendants, or other relatives, whether the illegitimates are dead or living, even with a view to poverty, dowry, or any other pious work whatsoever; nor shall they ever succeed in the aforesaid things, goods, monies, rights, jurisdictions, and actions, whether wholly or in part, or have them come to them, although supported by dispensation, even through the aforesaid circuit; nor shall any concession, donation, transfer, or other disposition be made concerning these to another or others, so that other goods, similar or dissimilar, may be conceded to illegitimates or to others above-mentioned."

And these things can in no way licitly and validly be done, since St. Pius V, ibid., § 2, decreed that illegitimates in no way can "either immediately, or through interposed persons, and in whatever manner, succeed in the goods of an ecclesiastical father, or have those goods otherwise come to them, even through any circuit of multiplied successions to others who are capable." And ibid., § 5: "But if anyone of the aforesaid should be a violator of the present letters, the testament, donation, legacy, and disposition shall altogether not hold, nor shall it be valid even with respect to others capable and other things," etc. Sanch., Cons., l. 4, c. 3, d. 20; Roncaglia, Consil., cons. 28.

942. According to St. Thomas,¹ parents "are the particular principle of our being, just as God is the universal principle"; for just as God creates men, so parents procreate their children; just as He preserves creatures in being, and directs them to their end and governs them by his providence, so parents protect their offspring by assiduous cares, and by counsels, examples, and also by wise providence rule them and direct them to the end. From this it follows that the right and office of educating their own children is incumbent upon parents, and besides that children are held to render the due honor to parents.

¹ St. Thom., 2. 2., q. 122, art. 5.

950. Since parents act in God's place with respect to their offspring, they are held to pursue them with a special love, and to impart to them bodily and spiritual education, and also by a certain providence to direct them to the end.

² St. Chrysostom, De liberorum educatione, in Migne, P. G., t. LXIII, col. 763-772; Sayrus, Clavis regia sacerdotum, lib. VII, cap. 7; Mayol, Summa doctrinae moralis circa decem Decalogi praecepta, in Migne, Curs. Theol., t. XIV, p. 503-532; Jaugey, De virtutibus cardinalibus, Paris, 1876, p. 464-475; Berardi, Praxis, Tract. VII, n. 1-32; Rosset, De sacram. Matrimonii, t. V, n. 3520-3572; A. de Margerie, De la Famille, Paris, 1869, t. I, p. 226 sq.; P. Janet, La Famille, 15th ed., Paris, 1894, p. 107-236; A. de Gasparin, La Famille, Paris, 1866, t. I, p. 143-297; M. d'Hulst, Lent of 1894, 4th Conference.

1. On The Love Of Parents Toward Children.

951. Love of this sort is called piety, because it bears before itself something sacred and religious; it helps to set forth its foundation and endowments.

(A) The motives on account of which parents ought to love their offspring are natural and supernatural.

(a) Natural indeed; for if anyone loves the work of his hands, if even beasts themselves by a certain natural instinct love and protect their young,³ even with danger to their own life.

³ St. Augustine lucidly sets forth this argument, Sermon 349 (alias, de Tempore 52), in Migne, P. L., XXXIX, 1530: "Beasts also love their children: asps love their children, tigresses love their children, lions love their children. For there is no beast which does not gently murmur to its children. For when it terrifies men, it cherishes its little ones. A lion roars in the woods, so that no one may pass: he enters the cave, where he has his children, he lays aside every rage of ferocity. Outside he places it, when he himself does not enter. Therefore he who does not love his children is worse even than a lion."

how much more ought parents to pursue with tender and devoted affection the offspring whom they have begotten from their own substance, and who are as it were a certain amplification of the paternal person? - This appears even more manifestly if one considers that the children whom they procreated are endowed with reason and free will, bear in themselves the image of God and at the same time of the parents, enjoy immortality, are destined to God as to their ultimate end, and that they are citizens of the earthly fatherland, whose good and honor they can promote, if they have been rightly educated; for who, attending to these things, would not sincerely and devotedly love the sweet offspring who can procure the glory of God, the exaltation of the fatherland, and the happiness of the family?

952. (b) To these are added supernatural motives; for these are citizens not only of the earthly, but also of the heavenly fatherland: they are destined to the supernatural end, namely the clear vision of God and perfect possession; wherefore they are given the divine life, and all the graces necessary for increasing it; redeemed by Christ, and cleansed by his precious blood, they bear the image of Christ impressed in their hearts, and ought to imitate his virtues. Now parents are as it were God's cooperators in the sanctification of children, as they were in procreation; and therefore they ought to love their offspring with a special and supernatural love, so that by paternal solicitude they may form in them the spirit and virtues of Christ, and supernaturally beget those whom they have carnally begotten, according to that saying of the Apostle:¹ "My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you."

¹ Galat., IV, 19.

953. (B) The endowments of this love. The love of parents toward children ought to be:

(a) True and internal, insofar as they sincerely will their good, not only as to the body, but also and chiefly as to the soul, not only for the present, but also for the future. - Wherefore they sin gravely of themselves who deliberately pursue them unjustly with hatred, or seriously and from the soul curse them or imprecate evils upon them, or provoke them to anger with names gravely injurious; to the point St. Paul says: "And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but educate them in the discipline and correction of the Lord."¹ - Yet parents are often excused from grave sin who, moved by anger, act thus without perfect deliberation. Nor do they commit any sin, but act rightly, who, on account of a just cause, severely rebuke children, and moderately chastise them.

¹ Ephes., VI, 4.

(b) Rightly ordered, that is, resting on and ruled by a rational and also supernatural motive, so that it is neither excessive, nor irrationally favors one rather than another. - Hence they should not love children with a quasi-idolatrous love, by indulging everything to them, on account of sluggishness or cruel benignity, by by no means correcting their vices, etc. Likewise they should love all offspring equally, insofar as it can be done; and if there is some distinction, let them take care that it not be made without a reasonable cause; not rarely incautious parents are deceived by external qualities or flattering caresses, and they pursue with a more tender affection those who are worthy of less love; and from this arise not a few envies, quarrels, contentions, and other things of this sort, as is clear from the history of Joseph.²

² "But his brothers, seeing that he was loved by his father more than all the sons, hated him, nor could they speak anything peaceably to him." (Gen. XXXVII, 4.) - Hence St. Ambrose writes (de Joseph, in Migne, P. L., XIV, 643): "To love children is sweet, and to love more intensely is very sweet; but frequently paternal love itself, unless it holds moderation, harms children; if either by excessive indulgence it weakens the beloved, or by the preference of one turns the rest away from the affection of brotherhood... Let equal grace join children whom equal nature has joined."

(c) Generous and operative, insofar as parents not only will well to children, but do good, by averting from them every evil, whether corporal or spiritual, insofar as it can be done, and by furnishing that which can conduce to their good and salvation; this indeed is especially performed through the best education.

2. On The Education Of Children.³

³ Dupanloup, De l'Education, 7th ed., Paris, 1866, t. II, l. 2, p. 138; Guibert, L'Educateur apotre, Paris, 1894, p. 66-84.

954. Education is the progressive and harmonious evolution of faculties, by which children are gradually and orderly transformed into perfect men. For children have received from God various faculties, which, although generically the same in all, are nevertheless imbued with special inclinations, whether good or bad; now good education is placed in this, that it eradicates evil inclinations, restrains untamed passions and directs them to good, but strengthens, cultivates, and orders good qualities to human and at the same time Christian perfection. - This evolution, however, can only be slow and progressive, because it is impeded by many obstacles, and besides man naturally can obtain perfection only gradually. It ought to be harmonious, or rightly ordered, insofar as all faculties, whether bodily, spiritual, or religious, must be cultivated in such a way that the whole man is formed, that is, a sound mind in a sound body; if therefore one kind of faculties is evolved before the others, this nevertheless ought to be done proportionately, so that bodily exercise does not harm the progress of the mind, nor excessive intellectual cultivation stand in the way of bodily health. - We shall speak of education both bodily and spiritual, and also of the schools to which parents ought to send their children.

955. (A) On bodily education. This already begins in the maternal womb, and does not come to an end except at mature age.

(a) As soon as it is established that a child has been conceived, everything which, under grave obligation, could harm the life of the little child ought to be avoided. Wherefore the mother ought to abstain from those dances, violent movements and actions, and other things of this sort which induce more violent concussions of the body;¹ and also from immoderate excitements, anxieties, or from excesses in drink; for all these things can induce abortion. Men and others who inhumanely treat, exasperate, or strike a pregnant woman also sin, since from this the life of the fetus is endangered.

¹ To the point Capellmann, Medicina pastoralis, 1896, p. 156, n. 1: "It is also to be most carefully guarded that they (pregnant women) not be carried in a carriage through badly paved streets or rough roads. The very trips on the railway, by continual concussions, not rarely furnish the occasion of abortion, wherefore longer journeys on the railway are not to be undertaken without necessity. To this also pertains the use of machines for sewing (machines a coudre, sewing machines) which are moved by the feet."

(b) After the birth of the offspring, parents are held diligently to watch so that whatever would induce danger of death be warded away from it. Wherefore the Ritual admonishes parents not to have a little child with them in bed, because of the danger of suffocation.

956. (c) The mother ought to nourish children with her own milk, as often as this can be done;² for many inconveniences arise from the contrary practice as to the mother herself, who is exposed to a longer-lasting fever, - as to the children, for whose nourishing maternal milk is more apt,¹ - and as to the nurses themselves, who are generally compelled to abandon their husbands and their own offspring, with danger of incontinence and neglect of the offices of domestic life. Yet mothers are excused from this office who, because of lack of milk, infirmity, or another reasonable cause, prudently cannot nurse their own offspring.

² Concerning the gravity of this obligation, scarcely anything certain can be established; of itself it is held as light by most theologians; but when many evils, and very grave ones, are foreseen to arise from the use of a strange nurse, of itself a grave sin is committed if this is done without legitimate cause. On this Capellmann wrote excellently, op. cit., p. 47-53; cf. R. Bazin, Donnatienne; Brieux, Les Remplacantes.

¹ Hence, with experience as witness, among infants who are nourished by art, mortality is far greater than among those who are fed with maternal milk.

But when little children are handed over to nurses, care should be taken that these be healthy in mind and body, and provide for the health and also the morals of the child: for maternal solicitude is no less necessary in this case than where the mothers themselves feed their children.

(d) Parents are held under grave obligation of itself to furnish to offspring food and other things necessary for honestly sustaining life, according to their condition, until these can feed themselves; for it pertains to them to protect the life of those whom they have procreated, and this obligation from its nature is grave.

Therefore parents sin who, without grave necessity, expose offspring in public ways, with danger of death, or at the door of an orphanage, so that they may free themselves from the burden of feeding it, when besides they can easily provide for its education. Yet, if the matter concerns illegitimate offspring, prudence can demand that it be commended to an orphanage; in which case, however, honor and equity demand that the rich repay the expenses for nourishing the offspring. But whether justice requires this is disputed among theologians; certain ones probably deny it, because hospitals of this sort have been instituted not only for assisting the poor, but also the rich who otherwise would incur the mark of infamy;² whence if any parents have not paid these expenses, they are to be earnestly exhorted, but not compelled to restitution.

² St. Alphons., lib. III, on the Decalogue, n. 656; Ball. P., n. 824.

957. (e) Finally, in a general way parents ought to take care that children, by bodily exercise and labor proportioned to age, orderly evolve and increase their physical powers; for since the body is the instrument of the soul, and the health of the body favors not a little the evolution of intellectual life, it is very expedient that legitimate means be used for multiplying physical powers.³ This is also true of girls: for if they are educated delicately and are weaker in body, they easily suffer in their nerves and by an irritable character exasperate others.⁴

³ Demolins described how, in Great Britain, attention is given to the physical education of boys, A quoi tient la superiorite des Anglo-Saxons? Paris, s. d., p. 52-86; every excess indeed in this matter must be avoided, but in France parents and teachers often do not care enough about bodily education.

⁴ To the point Bentzon, Causeries de Morale, p. 236: "It is a duty to be well. Without doubt each of us inherits a more or less robust temperament; but, such as it is, we ought by wise hygiene to maintain it in the best possible equilibrium. And why? Because the soul is bound to the body; how many nervous people, by losing all command over their will, become insupportable to themselves and to others! How many young girls are sullen, capricious, disagreeable, because they overwork, digest badly, lead a life too over-excited, abuse dance and worldly pleasures..."

958. (B) On spiritual education. The care of parents is not confined to the health of the body, but ought especially to be occupied in rightly instructing the souls of children. For this it is necessary that they cautiously and diligently look into their inclinations and psychological dispositions: for not all ought to be instructed in the same way and by the same method, but each according to his own powers and the special character with which he is endowed.¹ Yet we shall hand on certain more general things: namely education ought to be virile, practical, and Christian.

¹ Courtade and d'Hulst, De l'action individuelle dans l'education chretienne, Paris, 1870; E. Picard, Comment traiter l'enfant a l'ecole, in Science sociale, t. XXXVI, August 1903, p. 97-129.

959. (a) First, education ought to be virile, insofar as it ought to tend to forming men gradually. For there are parents and teachers who think that nothing else is to be desired in the young except perfect docility of soul and blind obedience of will, by which they immediately and without complaint embrace the opinions expressed by superiors and obey their commands. Men endowed with reason and liberty are not formed thus. But by words and examples, persuasion and gentle suggestion, and also paternal correction, let the young be taught how they may cultivate their faculties, and gradually may be able by themselves to think, will, and act, not indeed independently from God and the rule of morals, but independently from vain human fear and from prejudices by no means consonant with reason.

Wherefore, as soon as the exercise of reason dawns, let it be set forth to them why and how they ought to flee evil and do good; let them be deterred especially from vices common to their age, such as lies, small thefts, contentions, and quarrels; let them be induced to perfect sincerity and honesty, justice and charity, modesty and chastity.² But let them be taught to perform all these things not only from fear or custom, but from the inward persuasion of the soul, by which they understand that they are held to this both from the will of God and from the dictate of conscience. Likewise let them increase the powers of the will by assiduous efforts,¹ so that they may more easily overcome the untamed passions which arise within, and the allurements of the world which from without entice them to vices.

² Fonssagrives excellently sets forth how the young are to be strengthened in chastity, Conseils aux parents et aux maitres sur l'education de la purete, 2nd ed., 1902. - For preserving chastity, it must diligently be cared for that boys and girls not sleep together in the same room, and especially in the same bed, at least after the seventh year.

¹ J. Payot, L'Education de la volonte, 18th ed., Paris, 1894; Ribot, Les maladies de la volonte, Paris, 18th ed.; A. Martin, L'Education du caractere, Paris, 1889.

960. (b) Education ought also to be practical, that is, truly preparing boys or girls for that kind of life for which they are destined, according to the character and condition of each. Many parents today, especially in France, think only of teaching letters, and send their offspring to colleges and universities, so that they may be able to lead a quiet life in the exercise of the liberal arts or in managing public affairs; from this it happens that many exercise no office, because there are many more candidates than offices to be distributed. Now the liberal arts must be cultivated by some, but not by all; otherwise industry, commerce, agriculture, and other arts necessary for life would soon grow languid and perish. Moreover many are found less suitable for the liberal arts, while on the contrary they would wish to give themselves to agriculture, industry, or commerce, if they were rightly instructed in these. Therefore let parents and teachers diligently look into the character and inclinations of their children or pupils, and not exercise any longer in literature those who intend to devote themselves to industry. Therefore it is greatly to be desired that schools which they call professional be multiplied among Catholics, in which all those who wish to embrace an industrial office, independent from the State, may be rightly formed.²

² Demolins, op. cit., p. 87-112; the same author, in another work (L'Education nouvelle, Paris, s. d.), describes how the young can be practically prepared for industrial life.

961. (c) Education should especially be Christian, by which namely adolescents are formed who embrace religion and adhere to it, not only when they are placed under the guardianship of parents or teachers, but also when they now act by their own movement and lead life far from the family. For this it is required that they believe from an inward and reasonable persuasion of the soul, and not be ashamed to manifest faith by works; for today, since the Catholic faith is attacked everywhere, it is necessary that Catholic youth be ready to fight manfully for the faith, as soldiers of Christ.

Wherefore parents are held under grave obligation, either through themselves or through others, to hand on to their children Catholic doctrine concerning all those things which are necessary to be known for attaining salvation and living as Christians; to form the same to the practice of those virtues without which they cannot be saved. For since children of this sort are destined to a supernatural end, those who procreated them by that very fact took upon themselves the burden, insofar as it can be done, of furnishing them the means necessary for obtaining this end. - The Roman Catechism inculcates this obligation in these words:¹ "The proper offices and duties of parents are that they imbue their children with most holy disciplines and morals, and give them the best precepts of living, so that, instructed and prepared for religion, they may venerate God holily and inviolate."

¹ Catech. Rom., On the fourth precept of the Decalogue, n. 13.

The same is handed down in the Code, c. 1113.

962. 1. Hence parents ought to take care that children be baptized as soon as possible (On Baptism, n. 48), and receive the grace of regeneration, by which they are made children of God, citizens of the Church and of the kingdom of heaven; - that from the tenderest years they learn the principal mysteries of faith, invoke the name of God,² love Christ the mediator, and pursue his Mother with a pious affection; - that they become accustomed to morning and evening prayers, the sacrifice of the Mass and divine offices, and also catechisms; - that they avoid depraved companions and dangerous readings, and especially that they not be corrupted by impious or dishonest servants.

² Let mothers take care that children, first attaining the years of discretion, turn themselves to God; to the point St. Thomas, 1. 2., q. 89, a. 6, ad 3: "For the first thing that occurs to a man having discretion is that he think concerning himself, to whom he should order other things as to an end. For the end is prior in intention. And therefore this is the time for which he is obliged by the affirmative precept of God, by which the Lord says: Be converted to me, and I will be converted to you (Zach., 1, 3)."

2. But they themselves ought to furnish a good example to their offspring, by speaking cautiously before them, especially about things pertaining to religion or chastity, lest at an inopportune time they learn what they ought still to be ignorant of; - likewise by acting cautiously, lest perhaps they furnish scandal to little ones:³ for these easily desire to imitate all things which they see; - by showing them examples of all virtues: for since the first age, like soft wax, receives impressions more distinctly and elegantly, it is certainly of great importance that only specimens of virtue be shown before boys, especially by those who enjoy the greatest authority among them.

³ Hence even the pagan poet Juvenal writes (Satire 14): "The greatest reverence is owed to the boy; if you prepare anything shameful, do not despise the years of the boy: but let your infant son stand in your way when you are about to sin."

3. Parents are also held to correct delinquent children, yet moderately, prudently, and benignly, so that it clearly appears that this is done for the sake of amendment, but not of indignation and anger. - For parents act in God's place in the rule of the house, and ought to imitate him who disposes all things sweetly and strongly, and chastises men only wisely, for instructing them and deterring them from vice. Therefore let them speak or determine nothing too bitter against children; but, as the Roman Catechism admonishes,¹ "if any fault has been committed, since chastisement and rebuke are necessary, let them not loosely remit anything to children through indulgence: for often children are depraved by the excessive softness and facility of parents; wherefore let the example of Heli, the high priest, deter them from relaxed indulgence, who, since he had been too indulgent toward his children, was afflicted with the greatest punishment."

¹ Catech. Rom., loc. cit., n. 14.

963. (C) On Catholic schools. Finally parents, when they cannot provide at home for the perfect education of children, are held to send them to Catholic schools; for from the Code, c. 1374, "Catholic children should not frequent non-Catholic, neutral, mixed schools, namely those which are open also to non-Catholics"; lest they be exposed to the danger of losing faith or morals.²

² Dupanloup discusses excellently the endowments of teachers and the manner of educating the young, De l'Education, and Lettres sur l'Education des Filles, Paris, 1879; cf. Guibert, op. cit.

To set forth the matter more fully, it must be known that non-Catholic schools are of two kinds: neutral, which in the education of boys prescind from any positive religion, but teach nothing heretical or impious; positively evil, in which atheism, heresy, or indifferentism is more or less defended.

(a) Now it is not permitted to parents to send children to positively evil schools, in which the proximate danger of perversion cannot be removed: for here the matter concerns the eternal salvation of souls, which must be preferred to all goods; nor is it permitted to expose oneself to the proximate danger of sinning, as is established from the things said where treating the proximate occasion, On Penance, n. 458-469. Hence, if such public schools exist, let fathers of families not omit to denounce them, as contrary to the common good, and let them use all legitimate means to abolish them thoroughly. - But if, with attention to all the circumstances, the danger can certainly morally be removed, let these things from the Code, c. 1374, be attended to before the eyes: "But it belongs to the Ordinary alone to decree, according to the norm of the instructions of the Apostolic See, in what circumstances of things and with what cautions employed, so that the danger of perversion may be avoided, it can be tolerated that those schools be attended." This also applies to neutral schools.

964. Schools which are called neutral are also very dangerous; for by the very fact that they exclude every religion, they prepare the way for religious indifferentism, especially as regards boys of tender age; at least in their estimation the dignity and authority of religion is much diminished if it seems relegated within domestic walls; besides, in these schools purity of morals is not rarely exposed to great dangers; finally it can scarcely happen that religion is altogether prescinded from, especially in historical and moral matters, and often, under the pretext of neutrality, Catholic dogmas are attacked or mocked.¹

¹ Leo XIII vividly described these dangers, Encyclical Nobilissima Gallorum gens, Feb. 8, 1884; cf. Instruction of the S. C. de Prop. Fide, Nov. 24, 1875, to the Bishops of the Federated States of America, in Collectanea, n. 481; Third Council of Baltimore, n. 194-213; Letter of the S. C. de Prop. Fide, in Acta S. Sedis, t. XXVIII, p. 381. - In France, the Bishops set forth how dangerous State schools are, in the letter of Sept. 14, 1909; cf. Goyau, L'ecole d'aujourd'hui, Paris, 1899; J. Bricout, Ce qu'on enseigne aux enfants dans nos ecoles publiques, Paris, 1910. In certain schools the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and the very foundations of morality are denied or called into doubt!

Wherefore Catholic schools are to be erected wherever this can be done, all the more because, where such have been instituted, public schools are compelled to reverence the Catholic religion more, lest perhaps parents send their offspring from these to Catholic schools.

But where there are no Catholic schools suitable for conveniently educating the young, parents are permitted to commit their offspring to public schools, provided that cautions are employed by which the danger of perversion is made remote from proximate.²

² Thus the Holy See already declared that it can be tolerated that Catholic young persons frequent the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and at the same time defined what cautions are necessary for removing the dangers thence arising (Holy Office, March 26, 1895).

But the cautions to be employed so that the danger of perversion may be warded off are these: to hand on Christian instruction and education outside school rightly and diligently, especially concerning those truths which are usually attacked in schools; to watch solicitously lest children suffer some detriment in faith or morals from lessons heard, from depraved books, or from association with depraved companions.¹

¹ Thus the Holy Office, in Collectanea, n. 481. - Hence the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 199, established that "all Catholic parents are held to send their offspring to parochial schools, unless either at home or in other Catholic schools they sufficiently and evidently consult the Christian education of their children, or, on account of a sufficient cause, approved by the Bishop, and with opportune cautions and remedies, it is permitted to them to send them to other schools."

3. On The Providence Of Parents Toward Children.

965. When parents have given work to the education of children, it remains that, by a certain paternal providence, they help them toward choosing a state and rightly ordering life.

(A) First of all they are held to help them so that they may be able to embrace a state suitable to their condition and character; for it is not fitting that even the rich and noble remain idle, but an obligation is incumbent upon each person of devoting himself to some labor, so that he can bring some utility to himself, to the family, and to society. They will furnish this indeed:

(a) By taking care that boys and girls (for these also ought to do something useful) learn art or letters, - and acquire those endowments of body and soul by which, even if they were deprived of an inheritance, they would be able to obtain for themselves an honorable support.

(b) By furnishing to the same counsel concerning choosing a state of life, according to their condition: for parents, who have greater experience, can help incautious young persons much in this matter; nevertheless they cannot bring force upon their children, who have the right of choosing a decent state for themselves, after they have sought the counsel of parents.

966. (c) By bringing help to them, so that they may be able to attain the state which they have chosen; therefore, if parents are richer, it is altogether fitting that they moderately endow their children, so that these may more easily be able to devote themselves to some industry or art and support themselves and their family, when they have married. But whether this is owed from justice, by natural right alone, is not so certainly established, provided that otherwise the children are able to provide for themselves. - Whatever may be the case, in many regions the custom has prevailed that daughters be endowed, so that they may more easily marry according to their condition; and, where custom flourishes, parents who without reasonable cause would not wish to furnish this would sin against charity - gravely or lightly according to the circumstances - because by their fault a daughter would often remain unmarried or would enter only an unequal marriage.

It is likewise fitting that parents lay up treasure for children, and leave to them a part of the inheritance, so that the honor and security of families may be more safely provided for; but, natural right alone being inspected, that is not prescribed from justice;¹ wherefore, in certain nations, civil law leaves full liberty to fathers, as we declared above, on the Virtue of Justice, n. 716. But where civil law has defined something concerning this matter, what is to be done in conscience we handed down in the same place, n. 725.

¹ To prove that this is an office of justice, many allege the words of the Apostle: "For children ought not to lay up treasure for parents, but parents for children" (II Cor., XII, 14); but, the context having been inspected, it is clear that St. Paul there in no way treats of an office of justice incumbent upon parents, but only refers to those things which are fitting, and which in his time were commonly done.

967. (B) After children have chosen a state of life and have married, paternal care is indeed diminished, but not altogether extinguished; for children, even after marriage has been celebrated, are closer to parents than strangers; wherefore the order of charity demands that, if they are placed in bodily or spiritual necessity, parents assist them more than strangers.

(a) If therefore children by fortuitous chance, from physical infirmity or misfortune, indeed from their own fault, have been made needy, and do not have the necessities for the support of themselves and of their children, and neither wives nor their own children can furnish them food, paternal charity demands that parents, insofar as they can, provide for the necessities of children: for if they are held to aid the poor, a fortiori those who are joined to them by the closer bond of consanguinity. - Yet they ought by no means to supply them with wealth and luxury, but only those things which are required for honorable support.

968. (b) Thus likewise if children need spiritual correction or opportune counsel, the right and office of furnishing spiritual alms by paternal affection is incumbent upon parents rather than upon strangers, because of the closer conjunction which they retain with them.

In one word, the special bonds of charity by which parents are bound to children are indeed relaxed at mature age, but are not entirely dissolved. Yet in these matters very great attention must be paid to the morals and customs which have prevailed in such or such a region, indeed even in the same region among various kinds of families; for the bonds by which parents and children are joined are closer or looser among diverse Nations, and also at various times or among diverse families: in this matter, custom is the best interpreter of laws.

If a marriage is blessed with children,¹ parents and children together form the social community called family. The bond which unites its mem- bers is love, not by virtue of some secondary or artificial arrangement, but by the voice of nature and divine Revelation.² The duties of parents to their children are manifold and various. St. Paul sums them up in the passage: “And you, fathers, provoke not your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and correction of the Lord.”³

¹ Even aside from religious motives, a child has a “right,” as it were, to brothers and sisters. A recent non-Catholic writer (Mary Vida Clark) says on this subject: “If the plural is in all cases too much to demand, at least one ‘sibling’ should be a minimum concession. The liability of the only child to the danger of being ‘spoiled’ has been long and widely recognized. The expectation of moral life which can be calculated for an only child is about equal to that of the proverbial ‘minister’s son.’ But it is not only in the strictly moral sphere that to be an only child is an extra hazardous occupation. Our ultra-modern psychologists and psychiatrists are calling attention to previously unrecognized mental risks, and warning us that this way madness lies. The first decade of life is no longer pictured as a garden of delight, but as a field of battle where ‘invisible armies clash by night.’ It is in these infantile conflicts (‘conflict’ is the technical word) that those wounds of the spirit are acquired, which, after festering in ‘the unconscious’ for a few decades, break out in the neuroses and psychoses of middle life. One of our leading Freudians has produced a learned monograph entitled The Only or Favorite Child, a signpost pointing out the descensum Averno down which these preordained victims of infant damnation are pushed by the fatuous and doting parents who are called by an inscrutable Providence to do the work. According to this school of thought, the superior opportunity that the only child is afforded by his freedom from domestic competition is that of ending his days in an insane asylum—and being able to be a paying patient. But even without these lurid lights on this dark subject, we can feel our way to the sensible realization that an only child is at best a forlorn and unnatural object, arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of the company of his peers, and condemned to excessive and demoralizing association with rude-mannered adults, constantly intruding their unwelcome attentions, and making the unfortunate an object of ridicule to the more happily situated groups of brothers and sisters to be observed in the outer world. To fail to conform to the requirements of this abnormal environment, where one is the only one of his kind in his world, makes for immediate misery; and to conform, it now appears, results in even more serious disaster in the future. A cruel dilemma indeed for a guileless enterer in life’s handicap! And yet the senile speak of ‘childhood’s happy hours’! Consider next the child’s right to respectful treatment. The rudeness exhibited by most adults in their relations with children is fully recognized only by the victims themselves, who are too forbearing and well-mannered to speak out in their own defense. The child is a very serious-minded individual, engaged in a life and death struggle for existence and growth and knowledge, in a world ill adapted to meet his needs, to which he must by increasing and herculean effort learn to conform. Self-respect and consideration for others demand the repression, so far as possible, of external indications of the conflict going on within the soul; but to the combatant, conscious of the struggle, life and himself are very serious propositions. To the adult, however, whose growing pains have ceased and been forgotten with the conclusion of his stunted development, the child, because of a certain meretricious outer appearance of calm, seems for some inscrutable reason an object of hilarity, to be treated jocosely when not subjected to autocratic domination and suppression. A sense of humor, in cases where it exists at all, is a development of maturity, a thing not born but made. The child still regards life as real and earnest. Yet his serious observations on his discoveries in the natural and supernatural world are treated by thick-headed grown-ups as funny sayings to be bandied about for public entertainment. The child, naturally sensitive to ridicule, soon learns to keep to himself his queries and his discoveries, painfully and laboriously acquiring knowledge by putting two and two together through æons of time.” North American Review, Vol. 216, No. 3 (Sept. 1922), pp. 407 sqq.

² Is. XLIX, 15; Matth. VII, 9–11; Luke XI, 11–13; cfr. John XVI, 21.—J. P. Gury, S. J., Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 378.—Tit. II, 4; cfr. Matth. X, 37; Luke XIV, 26.

³ Eph. VI, 4.

1. This bringing up,—education as we are wont to call it,—comprises a threefold care on the part of the parents, namely, a) Care for the physical life and well-being of their children. Parents are bound to protect their children against everything that is apt to prove injurious to their life and health. In positive terms this means that they must provide for them whatever they need to grow up and develop their physical powers. This duty begins long before the child is born, at the moment of its conception in the maternal womb. Hence parents commit a mortal sin if they deliberately induce abortion or expose their children to any other grave danger to life and health, either before or after birth.

b) In regard to support (victus), the first duty devolves upon the mother. She is bound to give the new-born infant the food which nature has provided for it, and if she is unable to do so, either because of ill health or for some other weighty reason, she must provide an adequate substitute for mother’s milk. After the infant is weaned, father and mother must share in his care by providing him with food, shelter, and clothing in accordance with their station in life, until the child is able to take care of himself.⁴

⁴ Col. III, 21. Cfr. Gury, Compend. Theol. Mor., I, n. 379–381.

The mother’s duty of nursing her babies obliges under pain of mortal sin, and it is a grievous mistake to think that compliance with this duty injures a woman’s health or mars her youthfulness. Under normal conditions the contrary is true: neglect to nurse her baby is apt to induce serious disturbances in the physical organism of the mother. It is foolish to regard nursing as immodest or degrading. But if a mother is really incapable of nursing her infant, which is nowadays unfortunately but too often the case, in consequence of unnatural habits continued through many generations, the best substitute that can be had is a wet nurse. In engaging a wet nurse preference should be given to healthy married women of good repute, not only for moral reasons, but also because unmarried mothers are more likely to transmit diseases.⁵

⁵ Lam. IV, 3.—Gury, op. cit., I, n. 381.—H. Noldin, S. J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, p. 310; H. Muckermann, S. J., Der biologische Wert der mütterlichen Stillpflicht, Freiburg 1918; J. Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, Vol. II, pp. 10 sqq.

A relatively large proportion of infants nowadays die of neglect. They are mostly the offspring of mothers who entrust their little ones to strangers while they, compelled by poverty, go out to work. This is a deplorable evil, which can not be effectively combatted by the erection of foundling asylums. Such institutions, even when conducted according to the most approved rules of Christian charity, cannot supply to the foundlings what their nature demands and their mothers refuse to give them. A certain monarch once suggested as an appropriate motto for a foundling asylum the words: “Ici on fait mourir les enfants—Here infants are made to die.” There is more truth than poetry in this inscription. Foundling asylums are not without their merits, but statistics show that the majority of the children entrusted to them either die prematurely or become degenerate in after life.

If possible, orphans should be entrusted to good Christian families, rather than to asylums, where they usually feel as if they were in prison. Still a well conducted orphanage is superior to a private home in which the children are allowed to grow up wild or are exploited for profit.

Experience teaches that men often abandon girls whom they have seduced and that the young unmarried mothers are unable to support their offspring with their meagre earnings. This condition of affairs is responsible for many crimes, such as abortion, child-murder, and suicide. Relief should be furnished by the State or municipality by erecting institutions for the proper care of such mothers and their children. Institutions for receiving girls about to become mothers are also a desideratum, especially in our large cities, and can do much good, not only by relieving such poor unfortunate creatures of worry, but likewise by leading them back to virtue. To accomplish this double end it is advisable that the girls should remain in these institutions for some time both before and after delivery. The charges should be moderate, and poor girls should be received and treated gratis. Upon being dismissed, the unmarried mother should be given an opportunity to leave her baby in a home connected with the institution and herself be provided with safe lodging if she is obliged to go out to work.⁶

⁶ F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, p. 646.—P. G. Kammerer, The Unmarried Mother, A Study of Five Hundred Cases, Boston 1918.—C. Bruehl in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol. XXIII (1923), no. 10.

Motherhood insurance (against the risks of maternity) is a good thing because it secures to mothers proper care during and after confinement and enables them to nurse their babies if they are physically able to do so.

c) Parents are further bound to aid their children in choosing a vocation or profession and in preparing them for it. This means, under modern conditions, that they have to accumulate a certain amount of money in order to enable the children to equip themselves properly for the battle of life. St. Paul expressly teaches that parents should lay up treasures for their children, not children for their parents.⁷ St. Thomas states the reason as follows: “Since a father stands in the relation of a principle, and his son in the relation of that which is from a principle, it is essentially fitting for a father to support his son, and consequently he is bound to support him not only for a time, but for all his life, and this is to lay by. On the other hand, for the son to bestow something on his father is accidental, arising from some momentary necessity, wherein he is bound to support him, but not to lay by as for a long time beforehand, because naturally parents are not the successors of their children, but children of their parents.”⁸

⁷ 2 Cor. XII, 4.

⁸ Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 101, art. 2, ad 2: “Since a father has the character of a principle, while a son has the character of one existing from a principle, it therefore belongs to the father in himself to assist his son; and for this reason he ought to assist him not only for the present hour, but for the whole of his life, which is to lay up treasure. But that a son should contribute something to his father is accidental, by reason of some pressing necessity in which he is bound to assist him, but not to lay up treasure as though for the distant future, because by nature parents are not the heirs of their children, but children are the heirs of their parents.”—Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 382: “Finally, parents are bound to procure for their children a station in which they may someday live honorably according to their condition. Hence the following sin gravely: 1. Those who do not employ at least moderate diligence to acquire goods from which they may suitably support their children and provide for their future station, according to that saying of the Apostle (2 Cor. xii, 14): Children ought not to lay up treasure for their parents, but parents for their children; 2. Those who neither teach nor have their children taught a trade suited to their station or some other honorable manner of making a living; 3. All the more, those who dissipate the family property through sloth, negligence, drinking, feasting, games, and gravely imprudent transactions; 4. Those who without legitimate cause obstinately deny a daughter a suitable dowry for contracting marriage or entering religion.”

Parents are not, however, bound to go to extraordinary pains, or to impose privations upon themselves, in order to enrich their children. The best they can do for them is to fit them for a position where they can take care of themselves.

It is wrong for parents to spend money without stint to help along their sons and at the same time to make no provision for their unmarried daughters.

Just how much or how little a child needs to be properly provided for, cannot be definitely determined by any general rule. Often the sons of poor families become prosperous, nay wealthy, whereas the pampered scions of the rich grow poor. “To surround the young with what they ought themselves to achieve,” says Archbishop Spalding, “is to enfeeble and corrupt them. Happy is the poor man’s son, who, whithersoever he turns, sees the obstacles rise to challenge him to become a man; miserable the children of the rich, whose cursed-blessed fortune is an everpresent invitation to idleness and conceit. O mothers, you whose love is the best any of us have known, harden your sons and urge them on, not in the race for wealth, but in the steep and narrow way wherein, through self-conquest and self-knowledge, they rise toward God and all high things.”⁹

⁹ J. L. Spalding, Means and Ends of Education, 5th ed., Chicago 1909, pp. 124 sq.

A good education, or a trade or profession, is worth more than a large fortune. “He who hath a trade hath an estate,” says Poor Richard.

Parents are not obliged to go to the limit of their ability in providing for their children. For a good and appreciative child they will naturally do more than for a wicked and ungrateful one. “Parents cannot do too much for good children,” says Lessing; “but if a foolish father deprives himself of the necessaries of life to support a wayward son, love degenerates into folly.”

Among the duties of parents, says a recent writer on ethics, is that of training their children so that they will avoid sloth and pleasure-seeking, and teaching them to work diligently, to employ their time in useful pursuits, to be methodic and frugal, and to save money. To many a thriftless and prodigal parent might be applied the words of Homer’s Lycophron, when he says of the father of Mestra, that “he hath consumed everything.” They consume, i. e., waste everything, and not only fail to provide for their children, but abandon them to material and moral ruin. Pauperism with all its misery too often has its source in gross parental neglect.

2. The most important duty which parents have towards their children is to educate and train them in the fear of God.¹⁰

¹⁰ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 383: “Parents are bound chiefly to provide a spiritual education. The reason is that man, besides that material or bodily being which he has in common with the other animals, is endowed by God with a rational and most noble soul in the image of the divinity Himself, and was created to tend toward God as his final supernatural end; consequently he ought above all to be instructed and directed by his parents toward this end. For this reason Matrimony was raised to the dignity of a sacrament, that the offspring born might be reborn in Christ and prepared for eternal life. Hence the Apostle (1 Tim. V, 8) says: If anyone does not have care for his own and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. For this education are required: 1. Instruction; 2. Correction; 3. Example.”—St. Augustine, De Bono Coniug., c. 17, n. 19: “For among them the desire for children itself is carnal; among them, however, it was spiritual, because it accorded with the sacrament of that time. Now indeed no one perfect in piety seeks to have children except spiritually; but then it was an operation of piety itself to propagate children also carnally.” (Migne, P. L., XL, 386 sq.).

a) Children need instruction (doctrina), that they may acquire proficiency in the things a man needs to know in order to be enabled to take care of himself when he grows up and, in his turn, to provide for his own offspring. The most necessary and elementary branches of knowledge are the so-called three R’s, i. e., reading, writing, and arithmetic, commonly conveyed in elementary or grammar schools. To these Catholics are wont to add a fourth “R,”—namely religion. Hence parents, who are unable to instruct their children themselves, are bound to send them to a good Catholic school. If a boy is fit for and aspires to a higher education or profession, parents should cheerfully provide the means to achieve his ambition, but compulsion should never be exercised in the choice of a profession or occupation.

It would be a travesty of liberty and a suppression of rights if parents were prohibited from choosing their own schools for their children, where the latter will receive the kind of instruction that is in keeping with the parents’ outlook on life and their religious beliefs. Right gives way to might and liberty becomes tyranny when education is made a monopoly of the State and when thoughts and ideas are shaped and controlled by a party in power, by “vested” interests, or a hostile majority.

When a child shows signs of a vocation for the priesthood or for the religious life, the parents should encourage it, but they are not allowed to interfere with the child’s freedom of choice.¹¹

¹¹ Conc. Trid., Sess. XXV, De Regular. et Monial., c. 16–18; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 104, art. 5.

Parents who let a child grow up without giving him all the opportunities for mental development which they can command, or who oppose the child’s desire for a higher education and forcibly try to keep him in ignorance, commit a grievous sin, especially if they could give him the desired opportunities without great sacrifices on their part. A boy who shows a talent for a higher profession should not be denied an education on the plea that his help is needed at home and the family would have to deny itself certain luxuries if he quit working.

In all questions pertaining to education parents should above all remember that they may under no circumstances entrust their children to institutions in which faith or morals are exposed to direct danger.¹²

¹² J. L. Spalding, Means and Ends of Education, pp. 151 sqq.; Linsenmann, Lehrb. der Moraltheol., p. 647. Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 386; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 937 sqq.

b) So much for instruction. Of equal importance is moral and religious training (disciplina). It must comprise the intellect, the will, and the heart. The child must be instructed in its duties to God, to himself, and to his fellowmen, and taught to acquire a firm and enduring tendency toward moral goodness, in order that he may acquire true culture and nobility of character and attain to “the age of the fullness of Christ.”¹³ Consequently, parents are in duty bound to instruct their children at an early age in those moral and religious truths which are necessary for salvation, to accustom them to the daily practice of religion, to protect them against the danger of seduction arising from servants or companions, and particularly to train them in obedience and respect to authority.

¹³ Eph. IV, 13.—Cfr. Brother Azarias, Phases of Thought and Criticism, Boston 1896, pp. 72 sqq.

Some parents fancy that in sending their children to a religious school they have discharged all their obligations towards them. Even in secular quarters apprehension is growing on account of the remissness of parents at home in the matter of supplying a background for the teaching in the schools. Miss Sarah Louise Arnold, dean emeritus of Simmons College, recently registered the following complaint: “The modern American home is no longer filling its former place in the education of the child. We are leaving to the school the responsibilities of the home. Education is not for the school alone. Where can re- sponsibility and co-operation be taught, if not at home? The home is the environment that is natural for a proper training for responsible citizenship. But to-day our homes too often lack the permanence that made the homes of a generation ago so fundamental in training our present generation. To-day our homes, too, often lack the books and the chores and the duties toward the family.”

Still graver consequences than those which follow the state of affairs set forth by Miss Arnold are produced by faulty home environment and false standards of life. “In many a Catholic home,” says a current Catholic writer, “the inspiring and helpful teaching given to the children at school not only remains unencouraged, but principles and modes of action are stimulated which are directly opposed to what the child has learned while under the care of Catholic teachers. What is the result of this twofold standard, presented almost daily to the impressionable character of the young persons? They will be apt to follow the example, and to adopt the views of their elders at home. After all, the adolescent boy or girl understands quite well that it is not the school, but the home where father and mother and friends and neighbors meet, which really counts. In the minds of the young it is the home, and not the school that pre- sents a sample of what goes on in the great world around. The child looks upon the school as an episode to be gotten through with as soon as possible, in order to start real life.”

When it becomes necessary to correct or punish their children, parents must proceed with prudence and moderation. Punishment, especially corporal chastisement, when applied in anger or to excess, produces discouragement, bitterness, and contempt of authority, and is apt to prove an obstacle rather than a help to education. “Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and correction of the Lord.”¹⁴

¹⁴ Eph. VI, 4; cfr. Col. III, 21; Prov. XIII, 24; XXIII, 13 sq.; Ecclus. XXII, 6; XLII, 5.—Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 385.

No partiality should ever be shown, because it is a hindrance to the right development of character.

The best and most effective means of training a child, especially in religion, is good example.¹⁵ Parents are, therefore, under a particular obligation to fulfill their religious duties regularly and conscientiously. “You will give [your daughter] very much if you give her nothing but your [good] example,” says Seneca; and Horace: “The virtue of good parents is a rich dowry.”¹⁶

¹⁵ St. Jerome, Epist., 107 (al. 7), n. 9: “Let her have you as her teacher; let her inexperienced childhood imitate (admire) you. Let her see nothing in you and in her father which, if she does it, she sins. Remember that you are the parents of a virgin, and that she can be taught by examples more than by voice. . . . Let her never go out in public without you. . . . Let our little virgin so celebrate the days of vigils and solemn night watches that she does not depart from her mother even by the breadth of a fingernail.” (Migne, P. L., XXII, 875).—St. Gregory the Great, Regula Past., p. 3, c. 4 (al. 28): “Let these [fathers] learn how also to furnish outwardly to those committed to them examples of living well. Prelates must also know that if ever they perpetrate perverse deeds, they are worthy of as many deaths as the examples of perdition which they transmit to their subjects. Hence it is necessary that they guard themselves from fault all the more cautiously, since through the evil things which they do, not only do they themselves die, but they are guilty of the souls of others, which they have destroyed by evil examples.” (P. L., LXXVII, 54).

¹⁶ Seneca, De Consol. ad Helviam, XVIII, 8: “You will give her much, even if you give her nothing except an example.”—Horace, Carm., l. III, c. 24, 21: “The virtue of parents is a great dowry.”

“Education,” says Archbishop Spalding, “is always the result of personal influence. A mother, a father in the home, a pure and loving heart at the altar, a true man or woman in the school, a noble mind uttering itself in literature, which is personal thought and expression, these are the forces which educate. Life proceeds from life, and religion, which is the highest power of life, can proceed only from God and religious souls. Not by preaching and teaching, but by living the life, can we make ourselves centres of spiritual influence.”¹⁷

¹⁷ Means and Ends of Education, p. 125.

The dread which prevents so many parents from being strict with their children is not a sign of a humane disposition, but rather a proof of mental unsteadiness, moral weakness, and lack of principle. They hesitate to impose a law upon their children because they themselves have no law to guide them, and because father and mother proceed on different principles, or have no principles at all. Parental discipline, to be effective, must be concerted, reasonable, moderate, and uniform. Though the father is stricter than the mother, both should communicate to each other their experiences and observations and never let the children notice any difference of opinion that may arise between them. There should be no partiality in the treatment of children, yet, on the other hand, each should be dealt with according to his or her individual character, with due regard to his or her idiosyncrasies, and all should be made to know and feel that they are equally dear to their progenitors. That parents love those of their children who cause them trouble with a special tenderness seems to be natural, but to treat the younger children more leniently than the older is neither just nor prudent.¹⁸

¹⁸ Linsenmann, Moraltheologie, pp. 647 sqq.

Though instruction in matters of sex may be necessary in some cases, it cannot be regarded as a general duty incumbent upon all parents, for three reasons: First, not all are able to give this sort of instruction effectively; secondly, a great many children, in consequence of temperament, education, or environment, do not require such instruction, at least not in childhood; third, it is not at all certain that instruction in matters of sex always produces the desired effect, but experience teaches that, on the contrary, this sort of enlightenment, no matter how well-intentioned, often entails great danger.¹⁹ For very good reasons drawn from personal experience many moralists, pedagogues, and parents oppose this new fad. The words of the noble Bishop Sailer²⁰ remain as true to-day as when they were spoken nearly a century ago: “The lure of curiosity and forbidden desire, aided by the imagination, often overcomes the trained reason of the adult man; what will they do to the boy whose reason is so very weak and whose imagination is so immensely strong? Hence sexual instruction must not be the rule. Whether it may be employed beneficially in exceptional cases, must be left to the judgment of the wise and prudent lover of youth.”²¹ Consequently, there can be no duty in this matter for parents except in individual and exceptional cases, when such instruction appears necessary, and even then only to the extent in which it is necessary. The general rule is that parents should instruct their children in the unchangeable principles of Christian morality, inculcate especially the necessity of watchfulness and prayer against the temptations of the flesh, train the children to be chaste and modest, and instil into them at an early age fear of God and a deep aversion for the sins against the Sixth Commandment.²²

¹⁹ Cfr. F. Damian, “Eine aktuelle Frage,” in the Theologisch-prakt. Quartalschrift, of Linz, 1906, pp. 750 sqq.; F. Tischler, Prinzipielle Gesichtspunkte zur sexuellen Aufklärung, ibid., 1908, pp. 783 sqq.; Th. J. Gerard, The Church and Eugenics, London 1921, pp. 61 sqq.

²⁰ On Sailer see the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, p. 328.

²¹ Schmetz, Das Glück im Heim, p. 191. Cfr. F. W. Foerster, Sexualethik, 3rd ed., pp. 183 sqq.

²² L. Auer, Die Einführung in ein richtiges Geschlechtsleben, Donauwörth 1907, pp. 22 sqq.; M. Gatterer and F. Krus, Die Erziehung zur Keuschheit, 2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1910, pp. 4 sqq. (English edition by Van der Donckt).

Father Thomas J. Gerrard, a very competent authority, says that parents and teachers have to steer between Scylla and Charybdis in this matter of sex instruction:

“The difficulty arises from this, that there is an intimate nervous connection between the imagination and the bodily functions; so that knowledge may cause keen physical sensations and they in turn may become a source of temptation and sin. If the knowledge is gained before the mind can rightly grasp the motives for self-control or the will acquire the habit, the removal of ignorance may mean the loss of innocence as well. Whereas if when knowledge is due it is withheld, an unhealthy curiosity may seek gratification in wrong ways or be suppressed by an equally unhealthy prudery.

“Once the necessity of this instruction is admitted, the solution of the problem must take the form of an answer to the questions—Who? When? and How? Who is the proper person to give the instruction? As the parent stands in the closest relation to the child and is primarily responsible for its moral education, it is clearly the parental duty to see that the offspring gets the requisite knowledge neither too early nor too late. It is never too early to begin to train children in habits of modesty as regards themselves and others, but the time will come when that training must be supplemented and confirmed by a disclosure of the rational and religious grounds for those habits. Of the parents, the mother is normally the best fitted in herself and in her opportunities to undertake this duty, but if she for some reason cannot do it, she is bound to provide an efficient substitute.

“As to the when and how, clearly the disclosure must be gradual. As generally it is the phenomenon of birth that first arouses the child’s curiosity, the mother should be prepared to use the analogy of reproduction amongst irrational animals, such as cats and rabbits, to illustrate such part of the human process as concerns herself. Answers to some questions may readily be deferred for a time, especially if the child leads a sheltered life, but false information should never be given. God’s share in the process, both in ordaining it and actually creating the rational soul, should be emphasized, so as to show its essential sacredness, and, whilst it is described as too intimate to be discussed with others, care must be taken not to let the child think that there is anything improper in the function itself. Not until much later, when the occurrence of the phenomena of puberty seems likely to arouse youthful curiosity again, should the part the father takes be indicated. Then it is time that the growing youths should learn other reasons, besides God’s stern prohibition, for preserving continence, such as reverence for the purity of others and the personal and social harm of indulgence.

“So much for what we may call home instruction, normally indispensable if the moral character is to be duly developed. But it should always be accompanied or followed up by that training in religion by which young minds are best enlightened and young wills best strengthened against sexual sin. The explanation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, if given clearly and fully, should, by indicating precisely what is wrong, and the penalties which are assigned by God to transgression, suffice to preserve any Catholic child from unconsciously forming habits of vice. Unfortunately, as every confessor can testify, owing to a mistaken reticence on the part of parents or to the difficulties attending class instruction in so delicate a subject, many children are allowed to grow up and to leave school inadequately or even wrongly informed as to what is and what is not sinful. Such ignorance is widespread outside the Catholic Church, but, with Catechism instruction as a basis of enlightenment, it should be impossible for a Catholic child to be misinformed on so vital a matter. It is the grave duty of those entrusted with the task of teaching the Catechism to see that the nature of the obligations imposed by these two commandments, and the reason for them, are clearly understood by their pupils. This obviously cannot be done by questioning in public, both because of the nature of the subject and the different degrees of precocity exhibited even by children of the same age and standing. For this reason, detailed class instruction in this matter is strongly to be deprecated. The state of the child’s knowledge is best ascertained by judicious questioning in private with the view to removing misapprehensions, and correcting, if need be, both laxity and scrupulosity of conscience.”

Closely akin to this question, and equally important, is when and how to tell the young of the harmful physical effects of sexual indulgence. It is a pressing question to-day when the looseness of morals, induced by the Great War, has greatly increased the incidence of venereal disease. The medical profession are seriously alarmed at the spread of this racial poison, which affects the innocent as well as the guilty, and are casting about for means of checking its ravages. One of these means is the diffusion of knowledge both as to the painful and health-shattering character of veneric diseases, and as to the methods by which they can be cured once they have been incurred. “In the conveyance of this information,” says Fr. Gerrard, “the moralists (and genuine eugenics put morality foremost) see a double effect: the revelation of the terrible nature of the infection is clearly a deterrent, whilst the indication of a ready means of recovery tends to make the sinner more reckless. However, the need of promoting public health and of protecting the innocent from loathsome complaints, outweighs the possible danger of making the way of the transgressor less hard; and, the crisis being what it is, no Catholic moralist would refuse to second the efforts of the health authorities, both to warn the public and to heal, as speedily as may be, those who do not heed the warning.

“Again, the risk attending public instruction of adults must necessarily be run, if only because of the impossibility of conveying the knowledge otherwise. Members of non-Catholic bodies, deprived of explicit moral teach- ing and the counsels of the confessional, must be treated thus en masse and appealed to mainly on physical and social grounds. But we hold out against such instruction being given publicly in schools, and we insist on the religious motive as being the highest and most permanent in fighting this great evil. Religion, as we said above, is the only eugenic force in the world capable of realizing the final aim of eugenics.”²³

²³ The Church and Eugenics, Appendix.

All further explanations may, as a rule, be postponed to the time immediately preceding marriage.²⁴ Innocence of mind and heart has this great advantage that it turns away the imagination of the adolescent boy or girl from the sexual organs and their functions, which in not a few cases is of greater advantage than the most profound knowledge concerning these things.

²⁴ See the excellent specimen instruction for bridal couples by Dean J. H. Keim in Dr. F. Schulze’s Pastoral Theology, 3rd ed., St. Louis 1923, Appendix II.

A Catholic lay writer on these subjects says that the instruction which he and his bride received from an experienced and pious priest immediately before marriage, was of greater benefit to them than all professed instruction in matters of sex could possibly have been. Given in the confessional, such instructions are frequently even more effective, because they turn the attention to the sacred purpose of Matrimony at a time when and in a place where the mind is most receptive to such things.

READINGS.—Sporer-Bierbaum, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 794 sqq.—Elbel-Bierbaum, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 3rd ed., pp. 730 sqq.—Reuter-Lehmkuhl, Neoconfessarius, pp. 166 sqq.—J. M. Sailer and J. Baier, Über Erziehung für Erzieher, Freiburg 1899, pp. 160 sqq.—D. Dupanloup, L’Éducation, Paris 1850.—W. Becker, S.J., Die christl. Erziehung oder Pflichten der Eltern, 3rd ed., Freiburg 1907.—F. A. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. II, pp. 419.

Offices. Besides the perpetual debt of love, parents are held by a grave office of piety to feed and institute their children. And the vow of nature is that the offspring, whom they began to generate by common counsel and as if made one, they should with the same cooperation and similar unity feed and institute, or continue to generate.

In this work ascendants, according as they have the possibility, must supply for parents. Wherefore:

1. Parents must procure a good birth, also by a fitting solicitude for avoiding abortion or an acceleration of childbirth that is not necessary.

2. That they may preserve the honor of the offspring and his very reputation, if he is legitimate, they must acknowledge the offspring and call him by their own name, so that those sin gravely who expose the offspring in a hospital or public place. Yet they are excused by grave danger of life, reputation, or another grave necessity, provided they have turned away every grave danger from the physical life or religious childish institution.

Since foundling-hospitals lie open to all, an obligation of justice by which rich parents would be compelled to pay the expenses of support cannot be demonstrated.

Although several affirm the same, at least when abandoned offspring is supported at public expense.

For the public administration seems to have freely undertaken these cares; and it could undertake them because of the public utility of diminishing infanticides. Yet parents are seriously to be exhorted that, by repaying expenses, they exercise their piety toward the offspring.

3. To feed the offspring with her own milk is a natural office of the mother; yet this cannot be urged under grave obligation if the physical and moral safety of the offspring is sufficiently provided for, nor grave harms are to be feared to another's offspring, another's wife, another's family. A just excuse can also be taken from one's own weakness or necessary occupations.

But, of itself, both the pastor and the confessor should greatly exhort mothers to fulfill their parts, and not to imitate many worldly women who, from desire of worldly liberty or a vain fear of losing beauty, abdicate that function. For they inculcate this exhortation:

a) The bodily good of their own offspring, for whom the milk of his own mother is more useful than the milk of another person, and still more than the milk of an animal, at least if it alone is used. When, with war raging, necessity itself compelled mothers to give breasts to their offspring, fewer infants died, although mothers were nourished with less good foods. Nor can the cares of a solicitous mother be expected from another woman. b) The moral, spiritual good of the offspring. The question being omitted concerning contagion of vices and propensions through nursing, it is agreed that moral education is begun from the very beginnings of life, so that through the first six years of life the moral "character" is said to be formed. Therefore the disposition, prudence, and morals of the person who continually turns about the infant are of very great value. c) Cooperation in the sin of the nurse is to be avoided, if she, in order to feed another's offspring, is compelled gravely to neglect her own. d) The public morals themselves, to which no small harm is done by that usage. For either a wife is separated from her husband, to whom in this way an obligation of continence is imposed and every faculty of corruption is permitted; or a girl is taken who has fornicated: she obtains no small money as if the wages of sin. And whether she was wife or girl, both grow accustomed to living richly and delicately, so that they conceive distaste for their own humbler condition and fare. Besides, by that venal manner of servitude, social peace is little strengthened. Therefore a mother must be said to sin gravely who, for a light reason, admits an external wet nurse in adjuncts which make a grave danger for the husband, or for the woman, or for the offspring. But if a grave reason is present for admitting a nurse, nevertheless she will sin gravely who does not try to avert those harms.

A certain manner of consulting for the physical safety of another's offspring is this: that a nurse be chosen who already for some time has been able to feed her offspring, so that this child, made stronger, may more easily bear another nourishment. And more mildly, as is clear, one must speak of mothers who, the wet nurse omitted, themselves feed their own offspring by an artificial manner.

By the office of piety parents are also obliged to apply at least moderate diligence so that they acquire goods by which children may be fed and obtain an inheritance according to their state. Therefore they sin both by their sloth, and by dissipation of goods, and by arbitrary denial either of a dowry or of an inheritance.

Yet to a child who has made an unworthy marriage or by his own fault has dissipated goods it will be enough to furnish a subsidy for indigence or necessary support.

Neither in the Italian Civil Code (art. 117) nor in the French Civil Code is an action conceded for seeking a dowry for marriage or for entering a state; but each Code sanctions a reciprocal obligation of support, which is owed with account taken of the necessity of one and the faculties of the other. Cf. Italian Code, art. 138-146. Unless the tribunal defines the mode, it is intact to the debtor of support either to offer a pension or to receive under his roof and feed the person to whom he owes support.

It is also necessary that parents furnish to children the possibility of learning art and letters according to their condition, while nevertheless taking care lest imprudently, i.e., without a peculiar cause, they wish to institute them more liberally than their condition bears and, deceived by vain ambition, prepare men impatient of their own lot, ungrateful to parents, harmful to the state. In today's adjuncts of our regions, a certain elementary learning seems to be procured for all.

When there is question of a natural child who has not been civilly acknowledged by the father, theologians judge it enough that he be instituted according to the condition of the mother.

More than the care of the body and of profane learning, parents must take care of the soul and spiritual salvation of children. Wherefore they must:

a) Negatively, turn occasions of sin away from them, for example a common bed, especially if they are of different sex; bad companions; and still more their own bad examples;

b) Positively, correct those sinning with gentle firmness; provide religious instruction for children; take care that, in due time and according to the mind of the Holy See, they approach the sacraments of penance and Eucharist, and frequent the same, much less impede timely and frequent access; bring it about, according to their strength, that literary instruction be imbued with moral and religious institution.

Question concerning schools. Here belongs today the most grave question concerning the choice of schools. From what has been said, it is already clear that parents fail in their office who, when they have the possibility of a truly Catholic school, prefer another which brings less security for solid piety or pure morals. But, that we may say something more concerning the gravity of sin:

1. It will be grave for parents to send boys or adolescents to a non-Catholic school:

a) If proximate danger of perversion in faith or morals will not be avoided, whether because remedies cannot be applied, or because illicit things are prescribed: for example, that heretical prayers be recited;

b) If a grave danger must be sustained, as in a "neutral" school, unless a grave cause has excused, for example a very troublesome vexation of law, necessity of procuring a state for children, etc.;

c) If children are thereby deprived of positive religious education;

d) If, at least by external appearance, parents seem to favor a non-Catholic sect or indifferentism, or give a grave scandal of example which is not excused by the general rules.

2. These things set aside, the fault of those who choose a non-Catholic school will be able to be light, while a Catholic school is at hand, but with greater inconvenience, provided the teacher utters nothing against religion. For if he positively detracts from it, a graver cause of excusing is required. And it is necessary that what is lacking to public institution, parents try to supply by private institution.

3. As priests and counselors, we cannot sufficiently inculcate the most grave office of Catholic institution; and in every way we must add courage to those who determine, even to their own harm, to give abundant spiritual bread to their children.

As confessors we shall sometimes have to dissemble, lest a certain good faith of parents be disturbed in vain. But we shall strive to obtain this: that cautions be applied to diminish the danger, and that positive Catholic education be procured in some way. Cf. what Lehmk., I, 937-939, has concerning that argument.

N.B. The school so-called "neutral" harms adolescents most of all, who are placed under the continual action of teachers. For children depend more on parents than on schoolteachers; but youths more easily preserve the pious morals which they have put on, and are also helped by their aggressive propension to resist professors whom they know to be less well affected toward religion. But greater harms are to be feared from a false exposition of juridical or moral doctrine in higher schools, except that remedies can more easily be applied. Yet especially into those who excel in talent the frequent insinuation of error will instill a poison which will scarcely be fully evacuated in the rest of life. Nor do they receive now a light detriment from this, that they are deprived of the proposition of truth.

To young men who approach "general studies," or civil Universities, it is to be commended in the highest degree: a) that they frequently approach the sacraments; b) that they choose for themselves a stable, learned, and pious confessor, with whom even outside confession they may willingly communicate difficulties; c) that they carefully choose for themselves friends of honest conversation, who may be a mutual help and add courage to them; d) that in certain literary or scientific groups they become accustomed to proposing and defending approved theses. Parents can help their children in this matter at least by counsel. Opportunely they should commend them to a trustworthy man; yet he will be able to do little if the young men themselves do not visit him spontaneously.

Sum. The Code, c. 1113, embraces the offices of parents excellently in this formula: "Parents are held by a most grave obligation of caring according to their powers for the education of offspring, both religious and moral, and physical and civil, and also of providing for their temporal good."

Since paternal filiation is not subject to direct proof, the status of a legitimate child is defined both canonically and civilly by presumptions. Therefore:

1. Canonically, from c. 1114: "Children are legitimate who are conceived or born from a valid or putative marriage, unless because of solemn religious profession or received sacred order, the use of a previously contracted marriage was prohibited to the parents at the time of conception."

Therefore observe that for canonical legitimacy it is enough that the child was born during marriage, although he had been conceived before marriage. But a putative marriage is that which has been celebrated in good faith by at least one party; and it remains such until each party has become certain of its nullity. Cf. c. 1015, §4.

Can. 1115, moreover, introduces these presumptions: "§1. The father is he whom just nuptials demonstrate, unless the contrary is proved by evident arguments. §2. Children are presumed legitimate who were born at least after six months from the day of celebrated marriage, or within ten months from the day of dissolved conjugal life."

Therefore the presumption of c. 1115, §1 is of law only (iuris tantum) (cf. I, 178), since it admits direct contrary proof; but it is strong, since it is overcome only by evident arguments.

Besides, what individual civil laws establish concerning this matter must be attended to.

That we may give examples:

The German Code similarly regards as legitimate children who are born during marriage, provided that, at the time of conception, the husband had cohabited with the mother; which cohabitation is presumed. But the time of conception is defined by the interval between the 181st (inclusive) and the 302nd (inclusive) day before birth, or even beyond, if the infant is demonstrated to have been carried longer (art. 1591, 1592).

On the contrary, by the Codes of France and Italy he is not civilly legitimate unless he was conceived during marriage. But he is presumed to have been conceived during marriage who was not born before 180 days from the celebrated marriage, nor after 300 days from the marriage dissolved or annulled (Italian Code, art. 60; French, 312). The husband, moreover, is judged the father of offspring who is conceived during marriage (Italian, art. 159; French, 312). But if the offspring was born before 180 days from the celebrated marriage or after 300 days from its dissolution or declared nullity, the husband or heirs can deny paternity, except in the cases foreseen in art. 161. (Cf. art. 169, Italian Code; French, 314, 315.)

The presumption of legitimate filiation in more than one civil law is of itself of law and concerning law (iuris et de iure). Yet in a few cases the Italian Civil Code admits the husband to denying paternity, i.e.: a) if, through the time in which the offspring is presumed to have been conceived during marriage, he proves that he could not physically have had carnal commerce with his wife; b) if through the same time he lived legally separated from his wife, and that without even a temporary interruption (art. 162, 163).

Legitimated children are of themselves equated with legitimate children. By the present canonical law, c. 1116, "By the subsequent marriage of parents, whether true or putative, whether newly contracted or convalidated, even not consummated, offspring is made legitimate, provided the parents were able to contract marriage between themselves at the time of conception, or pregnancy, or birth." (Therefore observe that it is enough that at one of the three times, even transitorily, this ability was present.) Although the Code is silent concerning another source of legitimation which before the Code was chiefly alleged, i.e., concerning legitimation by rescript of the Holy See, it must be said to subsist, since nothing has been taken away from the absolute power of the Pontiff. Moreover, the faculty of making offspring legitimate is customarily conceded to those to whom dispensation from matrimonial impediments is committed; but concerning him who possesses a general faculty of dispensing, c. 1051 establishes that use of the faculty at the same time legitimates the offspring; i.e., that as often as they dispense in an impediment, the offspring is actually legitimated, with adulterine and sacrilegious offspring excepted. The equation of legitimate and legitimated child suffers certain exceptions, by which the legitimated are excluded from the dignity of the cardinalate (c. 232), from the episcopate (c. 331), from the office of abbot or prelate nullius (c. 330, collated with 320, §2). A major Superior of a religion must be legitimate or legitimated by subsequent marriage (arg. c. 1117 and 504).

Adulterine and incestuous children are also excluded from civil legitimation. The ordinary mode of legitimation is the subsequent marriage of the parents. By an extraordinary way, with certain conditions posited, it lies open from the Italian Code, art. 198, through a decree of the king. The effects of each legitimation are the same. Cf. art. 201.

This disposition of law is sufficiently general, that children are legitimated either by subsequent marriage of the parents or by an act of public power.

Among several nations, as morals slide and through zeal for equality, attempts are made that illegitimate children may use the same right as legitimate ones.

Acknowledgment of children. Finally, in civil law, besides legitimation there is also the acknowledgment of a child by the mother and especially by the father, since he is of himself uncertain. Acknowledgment is one voluntary, another coerced. For today the previously absolute prohibition of French law concerning inquiring after the father is tempered. Cf. art. 189 of the Italian Code. Moreover, the effect of acknowledgment is limited to the parent alone who has acknowledged the offspring as his own; but it gives to the acknowledged one the name (of the family), the guardianship of the one acknowledging, and the right to support. Cf. Italian Code, art. 179-201.

Piety toward children induces a perpetual debt of love, which of itself brings with it the office of feeding and instituting children. And the vow of nature is that, by the unity by which the offspring was generated, by the same it be fed and instituted. In this office parents are to be supplied by ascendants, according as the possibility will be given. Wherefore, parents must procure a good birth, a relatively honored place, through acknowledgment and communication of the name; secure foods of first infancy, especially through the mother's breasts; an honorable condition in society, and therefore an education in letters congruent with state. The gravity of the obligation is to be estimated according to the gravity of the harm to be avoided. Grave necessity, physical or moral, can excuse parents who commit offspring to a public foundling-hospital to be fed well and religiously; nor, even if they were rich, must they rigorously repay the expenses.

Parents must prudently remove occasions of sins from children, and positively provide for them a good moral and religious institution.

Hence, there is the obligation of choosing, if the possibility is had, a truly Catholic school; the grave prohibition of sending children to a school where a proximate danger of perversion in faith or morals remains for them; and the very defect of religious institution must be compensated otherwise. As counselors, we shall have to persuade toward better things; as confessors, we shall sometimes have to dissemble more things, lest worse things happen. In the estimation of danger, account must be taken both of the institute and of the talent and age of the child. Concerning the offices of parents, cf. the excellent formula, c. 1113.

Which children are legitimate is to be drawn canonically from c. 1114, civilly from various laws. Both canonical and civil laws admit legitimation by subsequent marriage of parents for offspring at least not adulterine or spurious. Besides, legitimation is had through a special act, which canonically the Holy See alone concedes. In civil law, acknowledgment of offspring by one or other or each parent, whether voluntary or coerced, also has a certain efficacy.

Marriage was instituted first of all for the due propagation of the human race.

Because propagation of any sort would satisfy neither the dignity of the parents, nor the education of the children, nor the interests of society.

Because it might be the work solely of animal passion, whereas man’s dignity requires in all his free actions intervention and even control by his superior or spiritual part.

Because it might leave paternity uncertain, it might be the fruit of transient unions, and it would then afford for the education of the children neither the security nor the continuity nor the unity which are needed.

Because the citizen is no better than the man of whom he is made; and a promiscuous propagation of mankind, by compromising the right formation of men, would expose society to the risk of being in want of that which it needs most, virtuous citizens who are devoted to their country.

by requiring in advance of the corporal union a First, sincere affection uniting the souls; secondly, by providing for education by means of the stability of the union; finally, by creating through the fusion of two persons a common principle of vigilance, tenderness and care, by which the children benefit from the qualities of both sexes harmoniously combined. “Man and woman together constitute the principle which is destined to transmit and develop human life.”¹

¹ Dermine, work cited, p. 44.

Such a death is an accidental misfortune. Sad though it be, it does not entirely destroy the unity in duality which was realized in the marriage. The surviving spouse is guided in his life and in his task of education by the remembrance of the lessons and counsels of the departed one, and by all that the deceased has left him. He knows the counsels and wishes of the deceased partner, and tries to conform to them; and thus the education of a legitimate child is never the work of one parent alone.

The Creator of the human race Himself [says the Encyclical] who in His goodness wished to use men as His

helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses, “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth,” as St. Augustine¹ admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle St. Paul to Timothy when he says, “The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: ‘I wish,’ he says, ‘young girls to marry.’ And, as if someone said to him, ‘Why?’ he immediately adds, ‘to beget children, to be mothers of families.’”² We prove it from the fact that the faculty of reproduction brings together intimately persons of different sexes; also because apart from this power of reproduction the institution of marriage would be inconceivable; because the right use of that power is a safeguard of the other blessings of marriage; and because the right propagation of mankind closely concerns the good of society as a whole.

¹ De bono conjugali, c. 24, n. 32; PL, 40, 394.

² Pp. 24-25.

Yes, a great blessing. In the first place what an honor it is for man to be associated with the creative work of God, to bring forth a king of visible creation, to prepare one of the elect for Heaven, to furnish to the Church a son, in whom, once he will have been regenerated by baptism, Jesus Christ will dwell! What happiness to survive, as it were, one’s self in the persons of dear ones who love you, and thus obtain even on earth a kind of perpetual memory! Besides, the child cements the union of the parents; in the little quarrels which are almost inevitable he is the conciliating element; because he requires good example he is an educative factor, and makes the work of mutual upbuilding easier for the parents. The sacrifices he demands are compensated for by satisfactions of a higher order; the cares he requires make him the more beloved. The human mind is unable to imagine or to taste this dignity, or to appreciate that feeling of pride in being the father or the mother of a child of men and a child of God. Even then they will not appreciate it when they see the look in the eyes of their child in whom shines the immortal soul; or when afterward they reflect that that soul is the breath of God, that the Son of God died for that child, that enriched as he is with the gift of sanctifying grace, he is more like a God than a man, that he is destined to live forever *De bono conjugali chapter 24. number 32, Latin Patrology. 40, 394. *Pp. 24-25.

and when, thereupon they exclaim: “This is my child! He owes his existence to me! Without me he would not be there, and would never come to be!”¹ If a true Christian mother weighs well these things, she will indeed understand with a sense of deep consolation that of her the words of Our Saviour were spoken: “A woman . . . when she hath brought forth the child remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world”; and proving herself superior to all the pains and cares and solicitudes of her maternal office with a more just and holy joy than that of the Roman matron, the mother of the Gracchi,² she will rejoice in the Lord, crowned as it were with the glory of her offspring. Both husband and wife, however, receiving these children with joy and gratitude from the hand of God, will regard them as a talent committed to their charge by God, not only to be employed for their own advantage or for that of an earthly commonwealth, but to be restored to God with interest on the day of reckoning.³ “Such,” says St. Augustine whom the Encyclical cites, “is the law of marriage, which sets off the glory of fecundity while it puts a brake to the shameful disorder of incontinence.”⁴

¹ Schilgen, work cited, p. 11.

² The Encyclical here recalls an event of Roman history. Whilst other matrons were displaying their jewels to their hearts’ content, the mother of the Gracchi presented her two sons, saying: “These are my jewels.”

³ P. 26.

⁴ De Gen. ad. lit., Book IX, chapter 7, number 12; Latin Patrology, 34, 397.

Not at all; it is completed only by the right education of the child. In giving them this little being who is entirely incapable of providing for himself, nature, in a general way, designates the parents as those who must provide for him: physically, by the mother’s milk and the means of subsistence; morally, by the education of the mind and heart which begins immediately and lasts continuously, thanks to the constant influence which the common life exerts on those who share it. The parents have an inviolable right to fulfil this mission of education with which nature has entrusted them, and in view of which they have been instilled with a love which nothing can replace.

Since this twofold duty entrusted to the parents for the good of their children is of such high dignity and of such great importance, every use of the faculty given by God for the procreation of new life is the right and the privilege of the marriage state alone, by the law of God and of nature, and must be confined absolutely within the sacred limits of that state.¹ Certainly, outside of marriage, education is deprived of the double guaranty which a lawful union provides: the guaranty of its duration by the perpetual bond which attaches the parents to each other; the guaranty of prudence by the intimacy which gives to education the resource of a common principle rich with the complementary qualities of both sexes.

¹ P. 27.

A training which curbs selfishness and cowardice in the presence of temptations; training to generosity and self-command.

Those who are determined to help each other in everything; to save their souls and to work for their mutual perfection; to be real fathers and mothers to their children,

and to provide for them at home that happiness which money cannot buy and which is a reminder of Heaven.

Precisely those who have prepared in this way for marriage.

Future spouses must pass through, as it were, an apprenticeship for conjugal life by practising generosity and cultivating moral fibre. Educators must correct the disordered tendencies of children from their early years, and develop their good inclinations; imbue their minds with the doctrines that come from God, and prepare their hearts to receive the help of Divine grace.

It insists in the first place—and with what good reason!—on the importance of that choice. How many have to rue during their whole lives the rashness and frivolity of an ill-considered match! Hence it demands mature deliberation, in which neither God nor religion are left out: in which the aspirants to marriage reflect on themselves, their character, education, propensities, and qualities; and consider, also, the other party and his or her fitness under these same respects, the children whom they must be ready to receive willingly from God's bounty, and finally society and their place in it. It demands a prayer that this choice may be enlightened, pure and high in its motives. It demands that the wise counsel of parents on the subject be not neglected; they have experience on their side; and besides this deference to them draws down the blessing of God.

Preliminary note. Just as children are held to honor their parents, so likewise parents are bound to this, that they bear diligent care for children. For the right of procreating and governing offspring was granted to them for this reason, that they may bring the offspring received to its end.

The following things also have force in relation to illegitimate offspring. For although their progenitors do not possess paternal power, nevertheless both are obliged, from natural right, to have care for those to whom they gave life. Many civil laws order the matter otherwise, so that the obligation of feeding the offspring regards the mother alone (cf. French Law, 340); but one cannot stand by this ordinance, not even after the sentence of a judge. See below n. 958. Better is the German Code, § 1705-1718.

In all these things there lies hidden a question of the greatest moment: Whether children possess rights against parents?

Resp. with St. Thomas: Insofar as each is a man, there is justice in some way toward them; but insofar as each belongs to the other, according to this the perfect notion of justice or right is lacking (2.2, q. 57, a. 2, ad 2). - Thus therefore children, as they are men, have a strict right to life, integrity of members, reputation, and honor. This assertion is confirmed by civil law. But children, as they are children, that is, something of the father, have a right to education and food, but of themselves only from charity, for they are destitute of help. But if parents are lacking, relatives or the community are held to supply. See what was said n. 398.

699. Principles. I. Parents, from a special precept, are held to love their children with internal and external love, and this rightly ordered. Nature itself promulgates this obligation, as is established from brute animals themselves, which love and nourish their offspring.

Hence, parents sin not only against charity, but specially against PIETY, more or less according to the gravity of the matter, who have hatred toward their own children, who utter evil prayers against them, who treat them too harshly, who do not succor them when constituted in necessity, who from defect of ordered love indulge them too much, etc., etc.

700. II. Parents are held to procure corporal education for children. He who gives being must also give the things consequent upon being; namely to have care of life, sustenance, and status (Inst. cat., P. I, c. 4, n. 12).

1. In relation to care of LIFE, parents are held, from the very conception of the offspring up to the time when the offspring is truly able to suffice for itself, to confer diligent care toward its preservation, and according to their powers to avert all things which could harm it.

Hence, of themselves they sin gravely: a) Women who bring the existence of the fetus into risk, for example by carrying burdens that are too heavy, sustaining labors that are too toilsome, indulging too much in anger, sadness, lust, and other passions. Cf. Capellmann, Med. past. b) Husbands who treat pregnant wives inhumanely, gravely strike them, exhaust them with excessive labors. c) Spouses who keep little infants with them in the same small bed, with danger of suffocation (cf. Rit. Rom., de Bapt. parv., 32); as also those who use no precautions lest some evil befall their little children through water, fire, animals, iron instruments, etc.

2. In relation to care of SUSTENANCE, parents are held to supply to children whatever things, according to their condition, are necessary for food, clothing, and habitation. They are obliged even if the children have dissipated their part; and therefore parents are held to pay debts which the children contracted for sustenance, but not for other things (H. Ap., VII, 4). See German Code, 1705; Spanish, 155.

Hence: a) The mother is held, under venial obligation, to nourish the infant with her own milk, unless perhaps she has a just excuse, for example that she is weak, noble, or very rich; but then she is held, under grave obligation, to provide for herself a faithful nurse, that is, one healthy and well-mannered.¹ b) Parents sin mortally by exposing offspring in a hospital or public places without just cause, such as can be very great want, or illegitimacy of offspring from a hidden crime;² likewise by casting children out of the house, or not furnishing necessary things, until they can suffice for themselves by their own industry.

3. In relation to care of STATUS, parents are held to procure for children such a condition of life that afterward they can live in a manner which befits their birth; for children ought not to store up treasure for parents, but parents for children (2 Cor., 12, 14). See St. Alph., III, n. 336; H. Ap., tr. VII.

Hence they sin: a) If they do not use at least moderate diligence to acquire goods by which children may be fed and may obtain an inheritance according to their status. b) If by squandering goods they render themselves unable to educate and endow them honorably according to their condition. c) If they do not take care that they go to school, provided the required cautions are present, that they learn an art, or embrace some genus of life by which they may be honorably sustained.³ d) If they unjustly disinherit them, or harm them in the legitimate portion; if they refuse to establish a patrimony for a son wishing to be promoted to sacred Orders; if they deny dowry or the legitimate part of inheritance to a daughter who, after the years of majority, celebrated marriage against their will. Nevertheless to this daughter, if before the years of majority she married an unworthy man, dowry is not owed, according to the more probable opinion; but food is owed to one in need. In a similar way, if a son, against the father's will, took a wife, the father is held to feed him in need and his wife. e) Finally parents sin gravely if they drive unwilling children to embrace a state, whether conjugal, religious, or especially priestly, or earnestly turn them away from such a state. They can be excused, at least for a brief time, by reason of ignorance or inadvertence, which can easily be admitted because of their excessive love (IV, n. 77).

701. III. Parents are held to procure spiritual education for children. Man, created to the image and likeness of God, has been elevated to a supernatural end. Therefore he must be directed to this end by parents. Whence St. Charles Borromeo (Hom. 31, to the people of Canobbio, 1583): "To educate," he says, "is to lead children to Christ."

But spiritual education requires four things for itself, namely instruction, vigilance, correction, and good example (Inst. cat., P. I, c. 4, n. 15-20).

1. It requires INSTRUCTION, according to that admonition of Scripture (Eccli., 7, 25): Hast thou children? instruct them ... from their childhood.

By force of this precept parents must take care: a) that either through themselves or through others fit for it, they instruct children in faith, in good morals, in the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, and in all things necessary for salvation (cf. n. 718);⁴ - b) that they instill into them the highest esteem and love of holy prayer, and render this very familiar to them; - c) that they imbue them with an affection of true devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God; for, as St. Alphonsus testifies, devotion toward the divine Mother is morally necessary for salvation.

2. It requires VIGILANCE. For more precious things are entrusted to parents than to a depositary with whom an earthly thing has been deposited.

Hence, parents sin gravely if they do not remove children from the dangerous amusements of the world, depraved companions, games, conversations, readings, etc.; if, for the sake of learning an art or serving, they place them far from themselves in such families where their faith or modesty is endangered; if they do not keep them away from conversations with persons of the different sex; if they permit boys and girls to sleep in the same small bed, etc.

3. It requires CORRECTION; and indeed serious correction, for Scripture says: He who spares the rod hates his son (Prov., 13, 24); discreet correction, for Scripture adds (Coloss., 3, 21): Fathers, do not provoke your children to indignation, lest they become of little spirit. Therefore first let them admonish, afterward threaten, finally chastise, without imprecation and harmful words.

4. It requires EXAMPLE. For words move, examples draw, especially children.

Therefore let parents conduct themselves cautiously in all things, and, especially in those things which pertain to the worship of God, furnish themselves as an example of good works. Parents sin most gravely when in the presence of children they blaspheme, mock religion, utter or do shameful things, detract from neighbor, or drive them to sin in any way whatsoever (H. Ap., VII, 5).

702. On the obligations of blood relatives and guardians.

1. Blood relatives are held, from piety, to mutual love, assistance, and reverence; more, however, or less, according as they approach parents more or less (cf. n. 484). - Whence he who affects a grandfather, great-grandfather, paternal uncle, paternal aunt, brother, sister, and probably collaterals in the second degree, with hatred or injury, or does not assist them in necessity, must, if otherwise the fault is grave, declare the circumstance of kinship in confession. Otherwise, if the degree is more remote (III, 340).⁵ Cf. what we said n. 687, I.

2. Guardians are held, by force of quasi-contract: a) to bear care of the ward, protect his person, correct him, and educate him in a Christian manner; - b) duly to administer the same person's temporal goods: and this according to the prescriptions of law, so that, the guardianship having ended, an account of all acts may be rendered before the family council, or the guardianship council for illegitimates, according to the rules of justice (see the treatise on Justice, n. 1039 seqq.).

Note. Piety alone can oblige to the same things, namely if someone is a proximate blood relative of the ward, and no other fit guardian or assistant guardian is found. Yet advert that it is not a light thing for Catholics to undertake the guardianship of non-Catholic wards, lest namely they seem to favor heresy by educating them in it; or, by not educating them, to violate the faith furnished to the testator and the court (III, 918; Kon., n. 434).

Parents owe children: 1° love; 2° education.

The reason for this obligation is founded in the very bowels of nature and in the title of generation. For nature teaches each, indeed even brute animals themselves, which love their offspring and seek for them the things necessary for preserving life.

427. • Parents ought to pursue children with love: 1) internal; 2) efficacious; and 3) ordered, so that they not only put away every hatred and malevolence of soul, but love them in heart and, as much as in them lies, care for their good and provide for them in every matter. For just as anyone ought to love himself, so parents are bound sincerely to love children as something of themselves, flesh from their flesh, so that after God they have nothing dearer to themselves.

Hence parents sin more or less against the special virtue of piety:

1° Who are inflamed with a depraved affection and unjust hatred against children, and disdain them by their aspect, or seriously imprecate grave evils against them, and do not assist them when there is need.

2° Who call them by gravely contumelious names. For thus they furnish to them occasion for anger, and make them peevish and contumacious.

3° Who manifest their hidden faults to outsiders without a just cause. Yet parents can reveal these to one another, because they share in the power of punishing, and it is often expedient that they be known to each, for preventing the perversion of children, etc.

4° Who love them with disordered affection, so that they concede or permit all things to them lest they sadden them; or who, using unseasonable kindness, act more remissly toward them, and whether because of sluggishness or because of cruel benignity neglect to draw them back from vices by serious precepts or other efficacious means.

5° Who favor one more than the others without a just reason, and look upon the rest indifferently, or even have them as adulterine; for this love of one before the rest is the font and occasion of quarrels, fights, divisions, and infinite evils in families.

The education of children, both bodily and spiritual, must be procured by parents.

428. • Bodily education demands from parents a threefold providence, namely by reason of: 1° life; 2° food; 3° state.

a) By reason of life. Parents are bound to carry on diligent care of offspring from conception itself, to turn aside all things which can be harmful to them, and to watch that they be exposed to no danger of life.

Hence of themselves they sin gravely: 1° women who do not take care lest the fetus in the womb be destroyed by disordered wantonness, dances, too heavy burdens, running or a long journey, too much anger, or rather vehement grief; 2° men who treat pregnant wives harshly, afflict them with grave blows, or impose enormous labors on them; 3° spouses who do not take care lest little children be suffocated, by placing them, still very tender, that is, in general before they have completed the first year of age, with themselves in bed without any barrier, or do not take care lest some evil in any way happen to them from water, fire, beasts, iron instruments, etc....

b) By reason of food. Parents are bound to procure for children whatever things are necessary for food, habitation, and clothing congruent with their state and condition.

Hence parents sin: 1° who do not assist children suffering necessity, until they are able to provide for themselves by labor or industry; 2° who cast children out of the house while they cannot yet provide for themselves, or who compel them to beg or to exercise a vile art alien to their condition.

Quaer. Must a mother nourish little children with her own milk?

Resp. Affirmatively, with the common opinion, because natural right seems to postulate this. Nevertheless this obligation does not press under grave sin, because otherwise a grave disorder does not appear. But necessity, notable utility, or custom in force among primary families, etc., excuses from every fault; ... but then under grave sin the mother ought to substitute for herself a nurse good as to morals and health. St. Alphonsus¹ - Collet, etc., and others commonly against others more lax or more strict.

429. • c) By reason of state. Parents are bound to procure for children a state in which they can sometime live honorably according to their condition. - Hence they sin:

1° Who do not employ at least moderate diligence so that they may acquire goods from which they may suitably sustain their children and provide for their future state.

2° Who do not teach, nor take care that their children be taught, an art congruent with their state, or another kind of living decently.

3° A fortiori, those who by laziness, negligence, drinking, feasting, games, and imprudent business dissipate the family property.

4° Who without a legitimate cause obstinately deny a dowry suitable for the daughter for entering matrimony or entrance into Religion.¹

Quaer. What do our laws generally establish concerning the obligation of parents as to the bodily education of offspring?

Resp. 1° "The common law furnishes no means of enforcing the parent to maintain, protect, or educate his child."² But in many States, during the minority of the child, "... the parent is absolutely bound to provide reasonably for his maintenance and education; and he may be sued for necessaries furnished, and schooling given to a child under just and reasonable circumstances...."

"In consequence of the obligation of the father to provide for the maintenance, and ... the education of his infant children, he is entitled... to the value of their labor and services."³

Resp. 2° Concerning the obligation of parents as to the sustenance and education of illegitimate offspring, Kent⁴ has these words: "The mother or reputed father" (by which the judge ordinarily considers him whom the sworn mother affirms) "is generally in this country chargeable by law with the maintenance of the bastard child." Cf. L. IV. 951.

430. • Parents are especially bound to procure spiritual education for children. The reason is that man, besides material or bodily being, which he has in common with the other animals, is endowed by God with a rational and most noble soul, created to the image of the Divinity itself; and he was made that he may tend to God as his supernatural last end. Therefore by parents he ought especially to be instructed and directed to this end; for matrimony has been raised to the dignity of a Sacrament for this reason, that offspring born may be reborn in Christ and prepared for eternal life. - But for this education there is required: 1° doctrine; 2° correction; 3° example.

a) Doctrine. Parents are bound, by themselves or through fit instructors, to educate children in good morals, in observance of the commandments of God, in faith, and in all things necessary to salvation, because they ought to educate them in the way by which they may arrive at God.

Therefore parents must carefully take care: 1° that children be regenerated by the grace of Baptism as soon as possible (see n. 1259. q. 5°); 2° that from tenderest childhood they teach them the principal heads of Christian doctrine (n. 257 sq.), and incline their hearts to God; 3° that from the first years they accustom them to morning and evening prayers, to the Offices of the Church and Catechisms, and also turn them away from the fallacious allurements, pomps, and pleasures of the world; 4° that they set over them teachers conspicuous in doctrine and especially in gravity of morals; 5° that they watch day and night lest they be corrupted by depraved companions, conversations, or readings.

431. • b) Correction. Parents are bound to correct delinquent children. Hence: He that spareth the rod hateth his son.¹

But correction, that it may be useful, ought to be moderate and prudent. For immoderate chastisement is known to harm more than to profit, since it renders children peevish, stupid, faint-hearted, and sometimes affected by despair; indeed, instead of the love owed to parents, it is wont to produce contempt or even deadly hatred.

c) Example. Parents owe good example to children, because 1° examples more efficaciously than words somehow draw to following, especially if they are furnished by Superiors; 2° because, if parents themselves are known to be imbued with evil morals, their words will move children little to pursuing good morals.

432. You will resolve. - 1° Parents sin gravely who, spending every care only on temporal things, so forget spiritual things that they do not even know the things necessary for attaining salvation, much less instruct their children or take care that they be instructed.

2° Parents sin gravely who, to spare expenses, utterly neglect the spiritual education of their children.

3° Of themselves parents sin gravely who by excessive indulgence notably neglect to correct children when otherwise it would be necessary; but no less do they sin who punish children with more grave penalties, for example if they mutilate them, or inflict on them a grave wound or blows or beatings so grave that their life or health suffers notable detriment.

4° Parents perpetrate a threefold sin in species when they utter filthy words and obscene conversations while children are hearing, vomit forth curses and imprecations, and belch out oaths and blasphemies. This is plain from those things which I taught n. 293, under "We have said: Scandal has at least a twofold malice."

5° Parents sin gravely who permit children near the use of reason, either with themselves or with others of a different sex - whether children or adults - in the same bed, or older ones with themselves in the same room. But if the matter can in no way be otherwise, parents should abstain from the use of marriage during the time when children lie with them in the same bed or room.

433. Questions. - Quaer. 1° What about parents who hand over offspring to a foundling home, especially in these regions?

Resp. It is certain that those sin gravely:

1° Who place newly born offspring near the house of someone; for they expose both the temporal and spiritual life of the offspring to grave danger.

2° Who hand over offspring to a public foundling home in those places where a Catholic one exists; for without cause they expose the soul of the offspring to grave danger.

3° Who, in whatever manner finally they expose the offspring, do not first duly baptize them, or neglect means by which their baptism may be rendered indubitable.

4° Who expose them in whatever manner without a cause sufficiently excusing.

Quaer. 2° What in places where no Catholic foundling home exists, and where therefore offspring, after leaving the public foundling home, is to be handed over to sectarians or infidels, as is customary?

Resp. A mother can be moved by a threefold cause to expose offspring: a) infamy alone; b) poverty alone; c) each at the same time. If the girl has means, in the first case, she is bound to hand the offspring over to a nurse or take care that it be handed over, as often as this can be done without danger of her reputation, which, as is supposed, is still intact. - But one who is pressed by necessity of consulting her reputation is bound to take care lest the offspring be imperiled in life or salvation. But to take care for salvation will be most difficult for her, since the curators of the foundling home hand infants over for education to whomever they wish, as was said above.

The second cause, or poverty alone, will be of various force for excusing. Yet where it is extreme, or so grave that the mother cannot sustain the offspring, Kenrick¹ does not dare to condemn her if, that she may consult its life, from the instinct of nature she hands the offspring over to the foundling home to be nourished, cherishing hope that some occasion may afterward be born to her to instruct it with Christian documents.

The third cause will excuse if she commits the offspring to the foundling home with this intention, that at least she may consult herself, being prepared to consult the salvation of the offspring by that means which she can.

434. • Quaer. 3° What are the obligations of other blood relatives, ascendants and descendants, especially tutors?

Resp. They are generally the same, with due proportion, as those of parents with respect to children, and vice versa; for all these, by reason of the generation of some from others, are bound mutually by the strict bond of piety, especially if, parents lacking, ascendants take up the care of grandchildren. - Thus all.

Yet note with Kenrick² that the care of non-Catholics is not easily to be assumed by anyone as tutor or curator, since on one side he cannot favor heresy by educating them in it, and on the other side, by not educating them in it, he would seem to violate the faith given to the testator or the court. (z) p. 479.

The dispositions of our civil laws concerning the constitution of a tutor and his rights and offices, see, if you like, apud Kent,³ or apud Walker,⁴ or apud Smith.⁵

Quaer. 4° What are the mutual obligations of brothers and sisters?

Resp. 1° They ought to pursue one another with mutual love, not only with common affection, as other men, but with a peculiar love because of the close bond of blood.

Resp. 2° They ought also mutually to aid one another as to the necessaries of life, not only in extreme, but also in grave necessity. - Thus all. - See St. Alph.¹

587. Parents are bound to show their children: 1. love; 2. bodily and spiritual education. As regards love and bodily education, nature itself dictates this, since even brute animals love and nourish their offspring. But because man has a rational soul, and especially because he has been elevated to the supernatural order, human parents must furthermore educate their children spiritually.¹⁰⁰⁷ The obligation of love never ceases, but the obligation of education ceases when its end ceases, namely, when the child has so matured that he is able to provide for himself in bodily and spiritual matters.

1. Love and its obligation and violation. Parents must love their children with a true and sincere love, both affective and effective, so that they not only put aside all hatred and every malevolence, but also wish their children well, do good to them, and assist them in necessities. For a father a son is, as it were, another self, since he has been begotten from his substance; and therefore a father must love his son as himself.¹⁰⁰⁸

Parents therefore sin:

a) who pursue their children with hatred, malevolence, or some other depraved affection;

b) who call them by insulting names or pour forth curses against them. Indeed, insulting words and curses of this sort are often uttered not seriously but from an impulse of anger, and then they are not such grave sins unless grave scandal arises from them; nevertheless, such words must be carefully avoided, since they do not remain without an evil effect. Hence it is said in Sacred Scripture: "The curse of the mother rooteth up the foundations [of the houses of her children]."¹⁰⁰⁹

c) who disclose the secret offenses of their children without just cause. Parents can sometimes disclose the offenses of their children to one another, provided that this serves the good of the family or of the children;

d) who unduly beat or otherwise punish their children, for example, by casting them out of the house;

e) who, while expending all affection upon one child, conduct themselves coldly or indifferently toward the others. For the worst effects customarily follow from such a manner of acting, for example, quarrels, strife, divisions, hatreds among the children, etc.;

f) who love them with a disordered affection, so that they grant or permit them everything and do not restrain them from vices and depraved habits. Such disordered love¹⁰¹⁰ is in truth a cruel indolence, causing the gravest injuries both to the parents and to the children themselves, as daily experience establishes.

¹⁰⁰⁷ The Code of Canon Law, c. 1113, says concerning this matter: "Parents are bound by a most grave obligation, according to their ability, to care for the education of their offspring, both religious and moral and physical and civil, and also to provide for their temporal good."

¹⁰⁰⁸ Cf. S. theol. 1, 2, q. 100, a. 5 ad 4.

¹⁰⁰⁹ Ecclus. 3:11.

¹⁰¹⁰ Affenliebe, amour aveugle [blind parental love, blind love].

588. 2. Bodily education and its obligation and violation. Bodily education creates two obligations: a) the preservation of life; b) the procuring of a suitable state of life.

a) By reason of preserving life, parents are gravely bound to exercise diligent care of their offspring from conception itself, so that its health may be preserved. Hence the following sin:

α) pregnant mothers who harm the fetus by dancing, disordered acts of lust, violent passions of anger or grief, etc.;

β) fathers who treat pregnant wives harshly, strike them, excite them to violent passions, or burden them with excessive labors;

γ) mothers who, without grave cause, do not nurse their offspring.¹⁰¹¹ For then notable bodily harm, and sometimes even spiritual harm, is accustomed to arise for the offspring. Bodily harm is accustomed to arise because no other food is as suitable for an infant as its own mother's milk. Spiritual harm can also occur if a strange nurse is given to the infant, because according to several physicians¹⁰¹² the moral qualities of the nurse in some measure influence the infant himself. And since those nurses are often mothers who have given birth from fornication, their moral qualities are sometimes bad. Moral harm also sometimes arises for the mother herself, who fails in her duty. For mothers, especially wealthy ones, are accustomed to withdraw themselves from this duty of nursing so that they may more easily attend worldly gatherings, dances, theaters, and other amusements. All of these things are of little use for their souls. There are, however, cases in which a mother is not bound to nurse her own offspring, provided a proportionately grave cause and an honorable end are present; for example, if she is too weak, if sufficient milk is lacking, or if otherwise she would have to omit work by which she must obtain her livelihood;

δ) parents who, without urgent necessity, expose their children in a foundling hospital¹⁰¹³ or in a public place. The reason is both that thus to desert children is against nature, and that offspring thus exposed will have no slight disgrace and harm throughout life from having been brought up in a foundling hospital and from having unknown parents. Above, n. 148, in the tract on justice, it was discussed whether wealthy parents are bound to repair the damages which arose for the foundling hospital from the education of exposed offspring;

ε) parents who do not provide their children with sufficient food, clothing, housing, and care during illness. Parents are bound to furnish all these things to their children until the time when they can provide necessities for themselves; indeed, even throughout their whole life if the children are in grave necessity.¹⁰¹⁴ But if the children are unable to obtain their livelihood through their own perversity, the parents are bound indeed to furnish those things which are altogether necessary for life, but not other things. Hence, for example, if a son has dissipated the entire inheritance already received, the father is nevertheless bound to feed him and to pay debts perhaps contracted for buying food; but he is by no means bound to pay other debts or to provide a prodigal son with anything beyond what is strictly necessary for life.

b) By reason of procuring a suitable state of life, parents are bound to take care that their children learn either some art or letters, insofar as this is possible in view of the means of the parents and the abilities of the children. Furthermore, parents must employ at least moderate diligence to leave a suitable inheritance to their children. For St. Paul says: "For neither ought the children to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children."¹⁰¹⁵

Hence parents sin who through sloth, negligence, drinking, games, etc., dissipate the family property so that the children's inheritance is notably diminished. Likewise parents sin who, without legitimate cause, deny a suitable dowry to a daughter for contracting marriage or entering religious life; but if they justly dissent from the marriage to be contracted, then they are not bound to provide a dowry, but only necessary support if the married daughter is in grave necessity.

¹⁰¹¹ Cf. W. Grosam, Die Stillpflicht der Mutter, in moral- und pastoraltheologischer Beleuchtung. Düsseldorf, 1924.

¹⁰¹² Cf. Capellmann-Bergmann, Pastoralmedizin (1902), p. 94: Das Ammenwesen; I. Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis I (1906), n. 498: De nutricibus venalibus.

¹⁰¹³ Findelhaus, enfants trouvés, foundling hospital.

¹⁰¹⁴ Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 101, a. 2 ad 2: "The father has the character of a principle.... Therefore it belongs to the father of himself to assist his son; and on account of this he must assist him not only for a time, but throughout his whole life."

¹⁰¹⁵ 2 Cor. 12:14.

589. 3. The obligation of spiritual education and its violation. The obligation incumbent upon parents to procure the diligent spiritual education of their offspring is most grave. For offspring begotten, inasmuch as they possess a rational soul destined for eternal beatitude, must above all be educated as regards the soul, so that they may be imbued with the knowledge and virtues necessary for attaining the supernatural end. Therefore St. Paul admonishes parents that they should endeavor to educate their children "in the discipline and correction of the Lord."¹⁰¹⁶ Parents are therefore bound promptly to regenerate the child born by the laver of baptism and to free it from original sin. Hence a notable delay of baptism is a grave sin, as will be said below in the tract on baptism. Parents must then take care, as soon as possible, that children who have scarcely attained the use of reason be instructed in matters of morals and religion, that they pour forth pious prayers daily, and that they exercise virtues suitable to their age.

Parents must give their children a good example in all things. For examples are stronger than words. Hence St. Jerome writes to Laeta concerning the education of her daughter:¹⁰¹⁷ "Let her have you as her teacher; let her untutored infancy look with wonder upon you; let her see nothing in you and in her father which, if she does it, is a sin. Remember, you parents... that you can teach more by examples than by voice." And the Council of Trent says generally: "The integrity of those who preside is the salvation of their subjects."¹⁰¹⁸ Therefore parents sin gravely who blaspheme before their children, speak shameful things, do immodest things, or, what is worse, induce their children to sin.

Furthermore, parents must employ sufficient vigilance or even, when necessity requires, due correction, lest their children contract vices or grow filthy in sins. Hence this grave admonition is directed to them: "Withhold not discipline from a child; for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell."¹⁰¹⁹ This correction must always be done with love and discretion, and not with harshness or disordered passion. Hence the Apostle admonishes: "Fathers, provoke not your children to indignation, lest they be discouraged."¹⁰²⁰

Parents therefore sin who do not restrain the excesses of their children by suitable chastisement. The most sorrowful example of neglected chastisement is Heli, who was therefore gravely punished. Likewise parents sin who carelessly leave their children in a proximate occasion of sin, for example, by permitting boys and girls to sleep in the same bed, or sons and daughters to prolong dangerous courtships, etc. On the other hand, parents also sin who commit notable excesses in punishing their children.

In our times the spiritual education owed to children chiefly requires that parents send their children to good schools in which sound doctrine is handed down and good morals flourish among pupils and teachers. Above, I, n. 528, enough was said concerning the dangers which arise from bad schools. It is useful to add here the Instruction of the Holy Office of March 21, 1866, to the bishops of Switzerland concerning mixed schools:¹⁰²¹ "Whether it is lawful for parents to entrust their children to be educated in schools of this kind? In general, it is not lawful; but in particular cases this is to be left to the judgment and conscience of the Ordinary. It shall, however, be his duty diligently to take care that suitable remedies be applied, not only by himself and by parish priests but also by individual parents, by which the danger of perversion may be removed from the pupils; and at the same time to strive before magistrates and governors that violence not be done to the conscience of Catholics by employing books which are hostile to the Catholic religion; and finally, assiduously and urgently to admonish and exhort all, and especially those who have the means, to send their children to other regions where they may be educated in a Catholic manner."

St. John Chrysostom¹⁰²² sharply inveighs with satire against those who entrust their children to bad teachers for instruction: "We have greater care for asses and horses than for children. For if a muleteer must be placed over our mules and asses, we take no little care lest we place over them one who is insane, drunken, a thief, or unskilled in that work. But if a tutor must be found for us to cultivate the mind of our children, we receive whoever happens to be offered, nor do we consider that no art is found more sublime than this art."

In some dioceses, for example, those of England, parents who send their children to non-Catholic schools without the most urgent reason cannot receive sacramental absolution without the previous permission of the bishop. In practice it is strongly to be recommended that, after receiving the instruction of the bishop, the parish priests and confessors of each region proceed in a uniform manner in this matter by denying absolution to those parents who do not sincerely promise that they will, according to their ability, guard against the dangers which arise for their children from attendance at the schools.

¹⁰¹⁶ Eph. 6:4.

¹⁰¹⁷ In Migne, Patr. lat. 22, 867ff. This letter, which treats excellently of education in the families of the ancient Christians, is most worthy of being read.

¹⁰¹⁸ Session 6, c. 1, de reform.

¹⁰¹⁹ Prov. 23:13ff.

¹⁰²⁰ Col. 3:21.

¹⁰²¹ Collect. de Prop. Fide I, n. 1286. Similar things are contained in the Code of Canon Law, c. 1374.

¹⁰²² Homily 20 on Matthew. A proverb says something similar: Das ist fürwahr ein großer Sünder, der für seine Kälber mehr sorgt als für seine Kinder [He is truly a great sinner who cares more for his calves than for his children].

590. Scholion. On the obligations of piety among other relatives. From the virtue of piety there arise similar, though unequal, obligations also among other relatives in the nearer degrees, namely, toward a grandfather, grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, brother, and sister. But the obligations toward more remote relatives are the same as those dictated by common charity toward one's neighbor.

I. Obligations of children. - Children ought to render four duties to parents: special love, reverence and honor, obedience, and assistance in spiritual and temporal necessities, as is usually set forth in moral theology.¹

¹ Cf. Summa Theologiae Moralis, II, nn. 810-817.

These constitute the necessary foundation or formal exercise of the virtue of piety.

II. Children sin against parents, and indeed by a special sin grave of itself:

1. Against love, if they hate them or despise them, if they show signs of hatred toward them or treat them harshly as if they hated them, if they are the cause that they are deservedly saddened, especially if gravely, if they wish a grave evil to them or deliberately rejoice over it against the order of charity.

2. Against reverence and honor, if they afflict them with harsh or insulting words, or with words by which they know them to be gravely offended; if they look upon them with a grim eye; if they cast curses or abuse upon them; if they strike them or raise a hand to strike them, unless this would be necessary for preserving their own life or integrity of body; if they are unwilling to acknowledge poor parents from contempt or shame, or with grave sadness to them, unless this is done from true grave necessity and contempt being excluded; if they accuse them in judgment of a crime even true, unless the crime were of such a kind against the common good that it had to be denounced.

3. Against obedience, if they are rebellious or contumacious against the express and just commands of parents; if in a grave matter pertaining to morals, education, salvation of the soul, or governance of the house they do not listen to them; if against their right will they contract marriage with an unworthy person, from which, all circumstances considered, grave disgrace would follow for the family; if they choose a state without consulting parents in circumstances in which these can deservedly be offended.

4. Against assistance, if they do not supply food and other necessities to poor parents who cannot honestly support themselves; if they neglect parents in infirmity, or do not call a physician when they can; if in danger of death they neglect to admonish them or to provide the necessary sacraments; if they maliciously impede them from making pious legacies, or do not fulfill those made; if they do not assist the dead by Christian suffrages.

They sin: a) by a special sin, because hatred of or injury against parents adds to the sin a new species against the special love or piety due to parents;

b) grave of itself, for hatred, malevolence, contempt, or injury, which with respect to another would be light, are easily graver with respect to parents, to whom before others we owe love, reverence, and dutiful service more strictly. Nevertheless the sin can be light either from lightness of matter, or accidentally by reason of age, infirmity, dull judgment, or deficient education. Hence Reuter notes, Neo-conf., n. 138:

If someone accuses himself in general of disobedience or irreverence against parents, the disposition and age of the penitent are to be considered.

a) Therefore if the age is tender, the offense can be supposed not grave.

b) But if the age is more advanced and the disposition seems bold, one must inquire concerning the manner of irreverence and the matter of disobedience; for those things which with respect to others, in the matter of hatred, insult, malevolence, and contempt, are moderate, with respect to parents are grave for children, because after God they are nearest to them.

c) Moreover, custom and the estimation of the people must also be considered, so that judgment may be made concerning the gravity of children's irreverence against parents.

d) But if a child doubts whether the cause for doing or omitting something by which a parent can be gravely afflicted is just, he is bound to abstain, because possession is in favor of the parent; indeed, although it is certain that the parent's exacerbation arises from malevolence or from his difficult and morose nature, nevertheless piety requires that the child avoid, so far as he can, every occasion of exacerbating him.

e) If, however, the exacerbation arises beyond the child's foresight, it is not imputed to him.

III. Children are to be questioned, especially older ones:

1. Whether they have not gravely injured the love due to parents by gravely saddening them or by denying assistance to them.

2. Whether they have transgressed express commands of parents in a grave matter, "as it would be, that they should not go out of the house at night, that they should not play harmful games, that they should not keep company with bad companions, or persons of the other sex, and the like," as St. Alphonsus has, Praxis Conf., n. 34.

3. Whether they have committed grave irreverence against parents by words or deeds, such as by imprecations or grave injuries inflicted in their presence.

In a case of insult inflicted, children are bound to restore the injured honor to them, and indeed of itself by asking pardon in the presence of those in whose sight they sinned. In practice, however, this act is for the most part not to be enjoined, but only advised, especially to boys; for afterward they often either fear to execute it or do not care to, and therefore parents are presumed for the most part to remit this obligation to their children, lest the children again incur an offense of God.²

² Aertnijs, Th. P., n. 36, according to St. Alphonsus, l. c.

IV. Children are to be admonished concerning their obligations toward parents:³

³ See Reuter, Neo-conf., n. 147.

1. If a child accuses himself of disobedience, let him be admonished to remember the greater benefits of parents, and the command of God requiring obedience toward those who hold His place on earth; wherefore a disobedient child has no blessing of God to expect. Especially if the parents are of modest condition, let him remember how many things they have borne for the children, how many nights they have passed sleepless, how many troubles they still sustain so that they may be able to support them honestly and provide for them in the future; wherefore he is unworthy to increase these inconveniences, or to deny them help or the required labor.

2. If a child has gravely offended parents either by disobedience, or by imprecation or injury of honor, let him be admonished, on returning home, to ask pardon and promise amendment; or, if he seems likely to do this only with difficulty, to satisfy his debt by gentle words and ready services, and to reconcile them to himself. Generally, however, it is not expedient to impose on younger persons the obligation of asking pardon for a determinate matter, because it is beyond their strength.

3. If a child complains of a parent's partiality, and thinks that he is treated more harshly while another is favored, let him be asked whether that other is perhaps more reverent toward the parent: if so, let him do likewise; otherwise let him strive in all things to gratify the parents, so that he may not be loved less. Nor is greater love of one child always marked by partiality: thus, if one more virtuous is esteemed more, or if one younger or weaker is loved with more tender affection, another or the older by birth is not therefore objectively loved less than he ought to be. But if the parent truly treats him more harshly, let him be commanded either to be silent or to answer kindly and reverently; for nevertheless the parent remains an eminent benefactor after God and one representing Him among children, who is to be treated with every reverence; and the kindly reverence of the child will be crowned with God's blessing, just as it is apt to conquer and soften the parent's mind.

4. But if, to excuse disobedience and irreverence, the child complains of the father's unfitness for managing the household and his dissipation of it, let him be admonished that he himself should watch over matters more diligently; that when the father is drunk or angry he should be silent; that when he is well disposed he should kindly and reverently ask him to take counsel for his own affairs and for theirs, if this seems opportune; or that he should take care that the father be brought back to better things through a prudent man, such as the pastor, confessor, or a friend; meanwhile let him not omit to pray often and fervently to God for him.

5. If a child is detected as unjust toward the goods or rights of parents, let him be admonished:

a) that concerning things granted to him by the father he cannot dispose except according to the will of the father; but concerning his own things, if he has any, he is bound to provide for his own sustenance, indeed to assist the grave necessity of parents or siblings;

b) that to take secretly from the goods of parents unduly is a sin of injustice, and indeed grave if it concerns a grave thing and they are gravely unwilling, as easily happens if money is taken for forbidden games, drinking bouts, luxury, and other things merely useless or vicious;

c) that injustice committed of itself induces the obligation of restitution. Yet in practice he is not to be forced to this unless he can restore and the grave obligation is certain, nor unless the father is rightly judged not to have condoned it. But what quantity in the case is grave cannot be defined by one rule, but must be judged according to the state of the parents, their resources, affection toward the children, the multitude of children, and the end for which the thing was taken. Thus, if the parents are rich, liberal toward their own, the children few, and the thing is taken for honest uses, the parents are less unwilling, at least as to the substance, than if they are of moderate fortune, frugal, have numerous offspring, or the thing is taken for dishonorable uses.⁴ Therefore all these things are to be considered, lest either a conscience of mortal sin be too easily thrust upon children, or the reins be loosened for stealing.

⁴ Ibid., nn. 143-144.

Concerning this argument it is customary to speak more fully and accurately in the treatise on Justice.

V. Duties of parents. - Parents owe to children: special love, true and sincere, but moderated by Christian prudence; bodily education or care of life, food, and good health; instruction and spiritual education; and provision of a state suitable to the condition and disposition of the children; these things are declared in moral theology.

VI. Parents sin against children:

1. Against love: by defect indeed if they hate them or afflict them with insults, wish evil to them, do not care to provide a good necessary to them or to avert evil from them if they can; but by excess if they love them too much so that they permit them all things, or prefer one to others without sufficient reason.

2. Against bodily care: if they harm offspring already conceived, the mother, for example, by working immoderately, dancing, carrying heavier burdens; the father by exasperating or gravely beating a pregnant wife with danger to the fetus; if the mother, when she can, is unwilling to nurse the offspring, especially with great harm to it, or, when she cannot, does not provide concerning a nurse of good health and honest life, or concerning another suitable means; if parents deny food and other necessities to children or do not employ diligence in procuring them; if without grave necessity they expose offspring in public ways or at the doors of a hospital so that they may free themselves from the burden of providing for it.

3. Against spiritual education, if they compel a child to enter religion, or impede him from it without a just reason; likewise if they truly compel children to determinate marriages; or if they prohibit marriage, unless this is done for a grave and just cause; if they do not care that children be instructed in the true religion and in Christian life; if they send them to heretical or non-Catholic schools, or even to neutral or mixed schools without grave reason and sufficient caution by which the danger of perversion is averted; if they give children bad example; if they do not watch over them, permit them to frequent wicked company, foster illicit loves, make dangerous readings, and do not procure that they fulfill their duties; if they do not correct delinquent children, or, where it is necessary, do not punish them; or, on the contrary, inflict excessive punishments.

4. Against provision of state, if they do not care that children learn a trade or letters so that they may be able to live honestly according to their condition; if they dissipate their goods and have no care of the household estate, by which they may provide for children or leave them an inheritance, so that they may be able to arrive at a suitable state and live honestly.

The sins are grave from their kind; but in individual cases whether parents sin gravely or only lightly must be judged from the gravity of the matter, harm, injury, and from the accompanying circumstances.

VII. Parents are to be questioned:⁵

⁵ Aertnijs, Th. P., n. 36, according to St. Alphonsus, Praxis conf., nn. 35 and 177.

1. Whether they have been negligent in the education of children, by not taking care that they learn Christian doctrine, attend Mass, frequent the sacraments, and avoid wicked companions.

2. Whether they have sent children to Catholic schools, if such are present.

824. Offices of parents in general. - By natural and divine law, under grave obligation, from piety parents are bound to exhibit to children 1) special love, on account of their special conjunction to them, and indeed always; 2) corporal and spiritual education, from the fact that they are a principle for children as to being and direction (Prov. XXIII, 13; Eccli. VII, 25; Eph. VI, 4; Col. III, 21); and 3) a certain paternal providence for rightly establishing life, until the children can provide for themselves.

825. The office of love. - Parents are bound to love their children with a special love, affective and effective, internal and external, natural and supernatural: natural indeed because children are something of themselves, but supernatural because they themselves are cooperators of God in sanctifying children as in procreating them.

Therefore let the love of parents toward children be:

1. Affective and internal, so that they sincerely will their good as to body and as to soul, for the present time and for the future. Hence they sin gravely per se who deliberately pursue children unjustly with hatred, malevolence, or another evil affection, who from the soul curse them or wish evil upon them, who call them by gravely contumelious names or provoke them to anger by very injurious words (Eph. VI, 4), who treat them too harshly, beat them without cause, or cast them out of the house; not, however, those who for a just cause severely rebuke children and moderately chastise them. In practice, parents who, moved by anger, have affected children with very injurious words or treated them too harshly are often excused from grave sin; unless, however, they have given grave scandal.

2. Moderate, so that it is regulated by reason and rests upon faith; hence let it not be:

a) Excessive: let them not love children with an almost idolatrous love, conceding all things to them, nor correcting them even minimally in vices; which is nothing except cruel kindness toward them.

b) Nor partial: let them not give all affection to one, while cold and indifferent toward the others; but let them love all equally and not make a distinction without a just cause, and even if a distinction can reasonably be made, let them not demonstrate it too much, so that envies, contentions, quarrels, which otherwise easily arise, may be avoided. A fortiori the children of a prior marriage cannot be abandoned; nor may those who are precisely less worthy be cherished with greater affection.

c) Nor egoistic: let parents not love for themselves, but for the children themselves and for God.

3. Effective and external, so that parents not only will good to children, but also do good to them as far as they can. Therefore not only those sin who wish evil to children, but also those who do not avert evil, whether corporal or spiritual, from them when they can; or who do not furnish what is necessary for their good or salvation. To this they ought especially to attend in educating children.

828. The office of providence. - Parents ought to provide concerning the state of their children and help them, so that they may be able to embrace a state suited to their condition, disposition, and aptitude and to follow their vocation. Hence:

a) They ought to take care that boys and girls learn an art or letters, so that afterward they may be able to live honorably according to their condition. Nevertheless negligence of this office per se would not be grave if the children already had from elsewhere that from which they might live.

Therefore: 1) since at least elementary knowledge is usually required in our cultivated regions in almost any state of life, lest someone with disgrace be forced to occupy a place inferior to others, parents are rightly judged to be bound to procure that knowledge for all their children, unless they are excused by moral impossibility; which impossibility rarely exists, for even the poor find a means of suitable instruction;

2. but they are not bound to procure higher knowledge for children, unless this is commonly had in that social condition in which they are found; indeed parents of an inferior condition ought to beware lest thus they be a burden to themselves, to the family, and to the State.

b) They ought to furnish counsel to children concerning choosing a state of life according to their condition.

For since parents are strong with greater experience and know their children better, they can help incautious youths much in this matter, yet they cannot bring force or compel, as was noted above, n. 822.

c) They ought to furnish help, so that the children may be able to attain the state which they have chosen; hence:

1. If they are richer, parents are bound to help their children in some measure, so that more easily they may be able to attend to their art or industry and sustain themselves and their family, when they have married.

2. Where the custom has prevailed that daughters be given dowries so that they may be able to marry more easily according to their condition, parents are also bound to this; unless they justly dissent from a determinate marriage.

3. They ought to apply moderate diligence so that they may leave to children an inheritance suited to their state (II Cor. XII, 14); and they sin gravely if they squander goods, so that they render themselves unable to provide for children or leave them needy. The office of providence lasts until children have attained a state or have married; then per se it ceases. Yet if afterward children fall into temporal or spiritual necessity, before all others parents ought to bring help, not only from charity but also from the special debt of piety.

829. Remarks. - 1. When parents are lacking, guardians and sponsors are bound concerning the education of children.

2. Teachers owe instruction and education to pupils, both from piety, because in the place of parents they take this obligation upon themselves, and from justice, namely, by reason of the office undertaken and by reason of the stipend paid. Hence teachers sin, and if they gravely neglect, they must make restitution:

a) If they do not perfect themselves in letters, insofar as there is need, if they do not apply due diligence in instruction, if they teach pupils false and inept things; which is graver in proportion as the matter is of greater importance.

b) If they do not correct the evil morals of pupils or do not exclude from their schools boys imbued with evil morals, when this is necessary and possible: for in this the common good of the school ought to be preferred to the private good of some.

c) If they punish them unjustly or indiscreetly, or without sufficient inquiry.

d) If by evil example they harm their morals. But if they seduce pupils to sin, they themselves sin in a twofold way, namely, against the virtue which they positively violate, such as justice, chastity, religion, etc., and against piety, because they have taken upon themselves the care of the pupil in the place of parents.

3. Masters toward servants, besides the debts of justice which they have as toward workers, as was explained in n. 551, also have offices of piety toward those whom they have received into their family (Eccli. XXXIII, 31; Eph. VI, 9), and consequently they owe them love, education, especially if they are minors, and providence in temporal and spiritual matters.

Hence they ought:

a) to treat them kindly, to furnish them suitable nourishment, to have care for their bodily health, so also that in sickness or infirmity there be present for them an opportune remedy, which nevertheless they are not strictly bound to pay for, unless it has been otherwise agreed;

b) also to watch that they lead a Christian life, to warn the more negligent as may seem opportune, to furnish means of fulfilling religious offices, to ward off danger of perversion, to remove occasions of sin, especially where there are younger persons of different sex, to take care that they be instructed in religion;

c) to beware lest they be a scandal to them and by depraved example, incautious speech, or solicitation move them to sinning, or permit them to be moved by children or other domestics;

d) also to correct them, prudently and gently indeed, but firmly, when by blasphemies, filthy speech, impious discourses, illicit familiarities they scandalize others.

Parents are held by a most grave obligation of taking care, according to their strength, of the education of their offspring, both religious and moral, and physical and civil, and also of providing for their temporal good (Can. 1113).

I Say 1st. Parents ought to cherish their children with true, efficacious, and ordered love. The reason of this obligation is founded in the very bowels of nature and in the title of generation. For just as, by the impulse of nature, each one ought to love himself, so parents are held to love children as something of themselves, or flesh from their flesh. - I said 1st, with true love, namely both with internal affection of heart and with external love, by procuring their good as much as is in them. - I said 2nd, efficacious, insofar as parents ought not, on account of sluggishness or cruel kindness, to act too remissly with children, neglecting to draw them back from vices by more severe precepts and other suitable remedies. - I said 3rd, ordered, namely insofar as the spiritual good of children ought to be preferred to their temporal good, and among the diverse kinds of temporal goods, that which is better and more necessary for them. - Hence:

1st. Parents can sin gravely if they are inflamed with a depraved affection against children, and look upon them disdainfully; 2nd, if they address them with gravely contumelious names; 3rd, if they grant or permit all things to them, lest they sadden them; 4th, if they favor one before the others very much without a just reason, and look upon the rest indifferently, or even hold them as if adulterine.

I Say 2nd. Parents ought to procure for children a suitable bodily education, namely not only to do nothing positively against their life from the moment of conception, but also to provide all those means which are necessary for sustaining life, and for preserving and perfecting strength, and to prepare a future state for them according to their proper condition. This is clear from the law of nature, according to which we see even brute animals, after they have begotten offspring, labor greatly for preserving life for them and for seeking food. Hence:

1st. Parents can sin gravely if they cast children out of the house without sufficient reason, while they cannot yet sufficiently provide for themselves; 2nd, if they do not apply at least moderate diligence to acquire goods from which they may suitably sustain children and provide for their future state; 3rd, if they do not teach children an art suitable to their state or some other manner of living decently, nor take care that they be taught.

I Say 3rd. Parents are principally held to procure spiritual education for children. The reason is that man, besides material or bodily being, which he has in common with the other animals, is endowed by God with a rational and most noble soul, created according to the image of the Divinity itself; and he was created that he might tend to God as his supernatural last end. Therefore he ought especially to be instructed and directed by parents to this end; for marriage was raised to the dignity of a sacrament so that the offspring born may be reborn in Christ, and prepared for eternal life. - Hence:

1st. Parents sin gravely or can sin gravely if, when opportunity is given, they do not take care that children be regenerated as soon as possible by the grace of Baptism; 2nd, if they do not teach them or strive that they be taught the principal heads of Christian doctrine, and do not form their morals from tenderest childhood according to the norm of the divine law; 3rd, if they do not correct them when delinquent, even with the rod being applied, yet prudently, moderately, and opportunely; 4th, if finally they furnish depraved examples to them or utter filthy words or blasphemies in their presence.

Question 1. Ought a mother nourish her little children with her own milk?

Response. Affirmatively, with the common opinion, because natural law seems to demand this. Yet this obligation does not urge under grave obligation, because in this matter grave disorder does not appear. But necessity, notable utility, or custom prevailing among noble families, etc., excuses from every fault; but then under grave obligation the mother ought to substitute for herself a nurse good as to morals and health. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 336. - Benedict XIV, de Synod. dioec., lib. 11, chap. 7, nn. 9, 10 and 11. - Kenrick, tract. 8, n. 85.

Question 2. Do parents sin gravely who, with no cause or only a futile cause, bring newly born offspring to foundling homes or expose them at the houses of private persons?

Response. Affirmatively, and indeed both against the piety which they owe to children and against justice, by imposing a grave burden upon foundling homes or private persons without reason. But if they redeem with competent money the cares expended for the good of the offspring, they sin only against piety, because only a maternal instinct can suitably satisfy the natural needs of offspring, especially in the tenderest age. But when a just cause is present, there is no sin; indeed then parents, even if they are rich, probably are not held to monetary compensation if they entrust the offspring to public foundling homes. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 336; and tract. 5, n. 656. - Kenrick, tract. 8, nn. 84 and following.

Question 3. What must be said concerning those parents who, compelled by want or to avoid infamy, place offspring at Protestant foundling homes?

Response. If they do this only because of danger of infamy to be avoided, certainly they are not excused from grave sin; because, by using money, they could by many other means provide both for their own reputation and at the same time for the eternal salvation of the offspring. But if they are oppressed by the greatest want, and a fortiori if to want there is added the danger of infamy, the distinguished Kenrick does not dare to condemn those who thus expose their own children, yet with this mind and hope: that, Baptism now having been conferred, in the future they strive to obtain their eternal salvation in the best way they can. - Cf. Kenrick, n. 84.

Question 4. Is it licit for parents to send children to positively evil schools, when a most grave cause is present?

Response. Not at all, negatively, because parents acting thus expose the offspring to evident and proximate danger to eternal salvation, which can never be licit, notwithstanding even a most grave temporal evil, and therefore absolution must be absolutely denied to these parents unless they repent. But I call positively evil schools those in which heresy, impiety, or corruption of morals is taught.

Question 5. What must be said concerning public schools as they generally exist among us, in which namely religious education is set aside?

Response. Speaking of themselves, and with the principles of both positive and natural law considered, schools of this kind are evil: namely the system itself according to whose norm they have been instituted is evil and full of dangers.

It is clear 1st from proposition 48 of the Syllabus, which sounds thus: "That method of instructing youth can be approved by Catholic men which is separated from Catholic faith and from the power of the Church, and which looks only, or at least primarily, to the knowledge of merely natural things and the ends of earthly social life."

It is clear 2nd from Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 426, where it is read thus: "Long experience has indeed proved sufficiently and more than sufficiently how grave are the evils and how intrinsic also the dangers which commonly come upon Catholic youth in these regions from attendance at public schools. For by virtue of the system obtaining among them, it can in no way happen that Catholic youths are not at the same time brought into great danger of faith and morals. Nor indeed do the advances which that fatal stain of Indifferentism, as they call it, has thus far had to the greatest degree in this region, and has day by day, seem to be traced back to any other cause; also that corruption of morals, by which not without tears we see even the tenderest age among us everywhere infected and ruined. For the daily intercourse of those who practice either a false religion or none, also the reading and meditation of authors who attack, gnaw at, and sprinkle with black salt our most holy religion and institutions, indeed the Saints themselves, gradually weaken in the souls of Catholic children the force and virtue of true religion. Then the fellow-students with whom they associate are commonly of such morals and examples, with such wicked license of speaking and acting, that by this association and familiar intercourse, for our adolescents, although excellently instructed at home, every modesty and piety is quickly consumed and perishes, as wax when fire has been applied."

The things which are prescribed in the new Code concerning schools accord:

Let Catholic children not attend non-Catholic schools, neutral schools, mixed schools, which namely are open also to non-Catholics. But it belongs to the Ordinary of the place alone to decide, according to the norm of the instructions of the Apostolic See, in what circumstances and with what cautions applied, so that the danger of perversion may be avoided, it can be tolerated that those schools be frequented (Can. 1374).

§ 2. Not only parents according to the norm of can. 1113, but also all who hold their place, have the right and most grave duty of taking care of the Christian education of children (Can. 1372). - Cf. Can. 2319, § 1, nn. 2, 4, § 2, where penalties are established against parents educating offspring outside the Church.

Question 6. With these things notwithstanding, can Catholic parents ever send their offspring to our public schools?

Response. Affirmatively, provided the conditions under which the Baltimore Fathers permit this are verified. The reason is that, after all, the malice of those schools consists both in the system itself of the separation of religious education, and in the danger concerning morals and faith; but parents who, compelled by grave necessity, send their own offspring to them do not approve the system but rather undergo it, and by applying cautions they either altogether remove the dangers or in great part lessen them. Therefore. ... This same thing is clear from Conc. Plen. Balt. III, which, in n. 198, made its own the very words of the Instruction which the Congregation de Propaganda Fide sent to our Bishops on November 24, 1875, concerning this matter. Therefore the Baltimore Fathers speak thus: "It can sometimes happen - as also the Instruction just cited intimates - 'that Catholic parents can in conscience entrust their offspring to public schools. But they cannot do this unless they have a sufficient cause for acting thus, and whether such a sufficient cause is present or not in some particular case, that will have to be left to the conscience and judgment of the Ordinaries; and then it will generally be present when either no Catholic school is available or the one which is supplied is little suited for educating adolescents suitably and congruently to their condition. But then, that public schools can be attended in conscience, the danger of perversion, always more or less connected with their proper nature, ought to be made remote instead of proximate by opportune remedies and cautions.'"

Question 7. Can a confessor ever deny absolution to parents who send their offspring to public schools?

Response. A twofold case can be present; for Catholic parents either do this from a just cause approved by the Ordinary of the place, or otherwise. If the first, absolution would be denied unjustly. Wherefore in the cited place the Fathers of Conc. Plen. Balt. III add: "Therefore when, on account of a sufficient cause and one approved by the Ordinary, parents wish to send children to public schools, provided the proximate dangers are removed by necessary cautions, we strictly command that no one, whether Bishop or presbyter, as the Pontiff through the Sacred Congregation expressly forbids, dare to repel parents of this kind from the sacraments as if unworthy, either by intended threats or by the act itself. This must be understood much more concerning the children themselves. Wherefore pastors of souls, while they warn the faithful committed to them concerning the dangers of these schools, should take the greatest care lest, led by immoderate zeal, they seem by words or deeds to violate the most wise counsels and precepts of the Holy See."

But if the other case is verified, then it will belong to a prudent confessor to judge from the circumstances whether the malice which Catholic parents contract is grave, by reason of disobedience, scandal, and the dangers to which they expose their own offspring, and thence to gather whether absolution must certainly be denied to them. - Cf. Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. 12, pp. 339 and following.

We give here one document from which the unshaken principles of Catholics can be derived. Thus Leo XIII in his Constitution Nobilissima Gallorum Gens:

"First indeed, as regards domestic Society, it is of the greatest importance that the offspring received from Christian marriage be instructed early in the precepts of religion, and that those arts by which the age of childhood is accustomed to be formed to humanity be joined with religious instruction. To separate the one from the other is the same in reality as to will that childish souls be moved to neither part in duties toward God: which discipline is deceitful, and, especially in the earliest years of children, most pernicious, because in truth it fortifies the way of atheism and blocks up the way of religion. Altogether good parents must take care that each of their children, as soon as they have begun to understand, perceive the precepts of religion, and that nothing occur in the schools which offends the integrity of faith or morals. And that this diligence be applied in instructing offspring has been established by divine and natural law, nor can parents by any cause be freed from that law."

Question 8. What does the Code prescribe concerning schools?

Response. § 1. All the faithful are to be instructed from childhood in such a way that not only is nothing handed on to them which is opposed to the Catholic religion and honesty of morals, but religious and moral instruction occupies the principal place (Can. 1372).

Hence in any elementary school religious instruction is to be handed on to children according to their age. Indeed, let youth frequenting middle or higher schools be cultivated by doctrine of religion, and let Ordinaries of places take care that this be done through priests outstanding in zeal and doctrine. - Cf. Can. 1373.

But the Church has the right of founding these schools, elementary, middle, and higher; to its authority and inspection the religious instruction of youth in all schools is subject. Therefore to Ordinaries of places there belongs the right and duty of watching lest anything against faith or good morals be handed on or done in any schools of their territory. Cf. Can. 1373, 1374, 1375, 1376.

But these domestic duties, namely care of the family, reverence owed to the husband, education of infants, are sacrosanct; and whatever calls wives away from these is forbidden to them. Besides, whatever introduces discord between them and their husbands, or effects that they desert the hearths and domestic walls, that they neglect infants, that they aspire to divorce, that they foster free loves, that they cast off the modesty and shamefastness adorning Christian women, is forbidden. Therefore every feminism which endeavors to emancipate a married woman from her matrimonial obligations, and to liberate the unmarried and the married from the natural and divine law, is to be avoided, since it is repugnant to the nature of civil society, of the family, and of religion. But with conjugal duties saved, if they are married, and other duties if they are not, it is licit for women, according to the measure of their condition, to have a part in social action, and to devote themselves to those sodalities whose end is that, under the care of the Ordinaries, especially in their own order, the praise of Christian morals may revive entire, that the stain of divorces may be averted from Christian marriage, that the instruction of children may be duly provided for, that there may be restrained the pest of human intercourse, the shameful license of spectacles, the obscenity of books and newspapers, the futile softness of conversations and assemblies, the shameless luxury in adornment and cultivation of the body, that laws may be issued protecting working youth by limits placed as to age, hours and manner of labor, workshops, wage, and other aids, by which both body and soul, especially of girls and women workers, may be preserved from every harm. Therefore socialistic, atheistic, irreligious feminism is to be fought with all strength. But let that pest not be confused with the social action of Catholic women working under the Ordinaries of places. Nouvelles Orientations de la morale, pp. 27 and following. - Epist. Pius X, Quae de istius, November 22, 1904.

You Will Resolve. - 1st. But let parents principally take care that children are protected from all occasions, whether of companions, books, newspapers, or theaters, by which either faith or chastity is brought into danger. Around chastity, in our times, great caution must be applied. Therefore let parents take care, 1st, that from earliest childhood modesty of the offspring truly grows, for it is the bulwark of chastity: once it has been lost, virtue is easily lost; 2nd, that boys or girls never be permitted to attend schools in which sexual education is part of the program or schedule of studies; such public instruction in this slippery matter is an occasion of monstrous crimes; may nothing more dangerous happen to youth than this; the same should be said concerning books which set forth sexual life for boys and girls to know deliberately; such books do not fortify the hearts of children with a holy fortification, but open the way to the malignant enemy of souls; 3rd, since knowledge does not give security, let them take care that conscience be well instructed and the soul strengthened by frequenting the sacraments; 4th, when age and bodily development demand instruction, then let the mother alone, or father, or faithful instructor, or confessor hand it on to the child alone, holily, reverently, and only according to necessity; let him not give the whole doctrine, but a gradual doctrine accommodated to age and conditions of time; 5th, let the parent dedicate himself wholly to preserving modesty; let the offspring be accustomed to rational care of soul and body, to victory over self, to strengthening of the will; let religious instruction be handed on in order from the first years, and let the life of the child be illuminated and enlightened by the light of faith; 6th, let the offspring approach daily, if only it can be done, to holy communion, which is a special and necessary remedy against luxury. See the golden Encyclical Letters of the Bishops of Germany, August 20, 1913.

2nd. Parents are held to watch with peculiar care lest children associate themselves with certain sodalities dedicated to the instruction of children in a certain natural morality, unless ecclesiastical authority itself has approved them or at least, the dangers having been removed, has permitted association in them. For if such a society in its norms publicly inculcates that all religions are to be held by the members in the same rank, that equal respect is to be furnished to all, that truth is in all, that there are various ways leading to the one end of blessedness, and that there is one head of all, it is wicked and cruel to permit children to enroll themselves in these assemblies. Such a society opens the way to indifferentism, lessens the powers favoring faith, increases those hostile to it, separates things not to be separated, religious and moral education, claims for itself a magisterium in a certain natural morality, which does not belong to it. Besides, that instruction is not normal, either as to method or as to matter. They are children, not soldiers; they are to be watched over, not watchers. Today the world campaigns for children. It belongs to Catholic parents to protect them from the world, to educate them in Catholic schools, to cherish them day and night and not to permit that they go alone through roads or woods, and that they guard others, being themselves guards needing guardianship. See the things just cited from Leo XIII and Pius X.

3rd. Parents are gravely obliged to guard offspring from the modern danger of cinematographic representations; indiscriminately to be present at these is certainly not licit for boys and girls of tenderer age; easily such attendance harms their eyes and nerves, lessens modesty day by day and thus can weaken chastity, indeed also here and there, on account of the matter treated, leads faith into danger. Therefore great caution is to be applied in permitting these entertainments to offspring.

4th. Not only parents or those holding the place of parents, but also masters and sponsors are obliged to take care that subjects and those commended to them are instructed in catechesis. - Cf. Can. 1335.

I ASSERT first, that fathers are bound to provide support to their children in grave necessity. Under the name of support come clothing, food, medicine, lodging, and all those things without which human life cannot go on, as Panormitanus teaches in cap. cum secundum de praebendis, as is clear from cap. non liceat, on the same title: Moreover, by the name of Fathers are understood those ascending along the paternal line, and likewise of the Mother.

IT IS PROVED because he who gives life ought to supply the things necessary to it. It is the common opinion, as Covarruvias shows in Epit. part. 3. cap. 8. §. 6. Azor, tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. Sylvester under the word alimenta.

Yet the Father may, for correction, restrict the support given to his son. For he is bound to provide his children with good education and discipline by fitting means. Wherefore, even if by accident he cannot go out to hear Mass, it does not matter, as Fagundez says cap. 1. num 3.

NOTE that under the name of children are included also illegitimate ones. Wherefore parents gravely sin who, being able to support their spurious children, expose them in churches and hospitals for alms. So Fagundez num. 5. Toledo lib. 5. cap. 1. Navarr. man. cap. 14.

Nor let them excuse themselves by saying that those places of the Hospitals have revenues for this end; they have them for the poor as their children. Therefore they are bound here to restitution, as Fagundez says num. 5. after Sylvester under the word Adulterium. Navarr. man. cap. 16. Rebell. p. p. de obligat. iust. lib. 3. quaest. 10.

Some add that spurious children are not bound to be dowered. So Panormitanus in cap. Pervenit, de arbitr. Vasquez de success. creatu. lib. 2. §. 10. num. 314. Molina Tom. 1. de iust. dub. 223. Fagundez num. 6. inclines to it, though he holds the opposite probable, which many follow.

The reason therefore is that the argument from support to dowry does not hold.

From what has been said it follows that fathers are bound to provide support to their children even if they contract marriage without their consent with some person. So Sanchez lib. 4. de matrim. disp. 27. Decius on the rule nuptias 30. at the end, ff. de reg. iuris, Molina lib. 2. de primog. cap. 16. Fagundez num. 10.

I ASSERT secondly, that parents are bound to provide for the right education of their children, which contains the nourishment of the mind.

THEREFORE they are bound to instruct them in the law of God; to keep daughters from shameless lovers, lest they allow them 'with stibium' etc. to adorn the face wantonly. Say the same of others under whose care they fall.

I ASSERT thirdly, that parents cannot force their children to undertake a state of life, forcing them either to Religion or to marriage; yet for marriage there can be a grave cause. Therefore the Council of Trent session 25. cap. 18. strikes with excommunication those forcing women, girls or widows, to enter Religion, or to take the habit, or to make profession.

Titius, a Catholic father of a family, sent his children to a Catholic elementary school, but when, as he thought, they were unjustly and cruelly beaten by the schoolmistress, and the greater part of the boys who attended the school were from the lowest class, he afterward transferred them to a school provided by public authority. In it, indeed, no religious education was given besides the reading of the Bible; but on Sundays Titius sent the boys to the Catholic church, where they were instructed in Christian doctrine. Paul, the parish priest of Titius, tries in vain to bring him to a better course, and remains doubtful whether he ought to deny him the sacraments, or what should be done in the case. Hence it is asked:

1. What right belongs respectively to the Church and to parents concerning the education of children?

2. Is there an obligation, and what kind, for parents to send their children to a Catholic school if one exists in the place?

3. When is a penitent to be judged incapable of receiving absolution?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What rights have the Church and parents, respectively, over the education of children ?

The Church has received the right and the duty from

God to teach, train, and educate especially, all those who belong to her by Baptism. This right of the Church directly extends to religion, faith, and morals, but as these can not, in practice, be separated from education in other branches, and no attempt should be made to separate them, therefore the Church claims authority over all the education of her children. The parents by natural law have the right and the duty to bring up and educate their children, and in fulfilling this duty, as all others, Catholic parents should follow the guidance of the Church. If parents commit part of their office to others, they are bound to select those who can and will give a Catholic education to their children.

2. What sort of obligation are parents under of sending their children to a Catholic school, if there is one in the place?

The bishops of the Province of Westminster declared, in a circular read Sept. 17, 1905: “We desire to call the earnest attention of all Catholics to the grave departure from Catholic teaching and tradition, and to the very serious dangers to Catholic faith and spirit, which are involved in the placing of Catholic children, of whatever class in life, in non-Catholic schools. Owing to the usually proximate nature of these dangers, it is under ordinary circumstances a grievous sin on the part of parents to expose their children to such risks, and this has been expressly declared in the instructions of the Holy See, and of the bishops of this province. There is not infrequently also a grave sin of scandal. . . . The social advantages to be gained at certain schools manifestly do not constitute such a necessity. No individual priest or confessor is entitled to decide where necessity of this nature exists, but the matter is one to be referred to the Ordinary of the diocese for his counsel and judgment.”

3. When is a penitent to be judged unfit to receive absolution ?

A penitent is unfit to receive absolution for his sins if he is not sorry for them, if he has not made, at least, a formally integral confession, and if he is not prepared to fulfil all his duties which impose on him a grave obligation.

4. The case. Titius, a Catholic parent, transferred his children from the Catholic elementary school to the provided school, because, as he thought, they had been unjustly and cruelly beaten by the mistress, and because the greater portion of the children were from the lowest classes. No religious instruction besides Bible reading was given in the provided school. Titius sent his children to the Catholic Church on Sundays where they were taught their catechism. Paul, the parish priest of Titius, having tried in vain to get him to send the children to the Catholic school again, is now in doubt as to whether he should refuse him the sacraments, or what he should do.

Such questions, as to whether and how far Titius was justified in his action or not, have been reserved to the bishops in the Province of Westminster. Paul, therefore, should not take upon himself to refuse the sacraments to Titius, but he should refer the case to the bishop. Objectively it will seldom be advisable to proceed to extremes with people like Titius, unless their example is likely to be imitated by many others if some drastic remedy is not found.

Caius, a young Catholic twenty years of age at the University of Oxford, wishes, as a volunteer soldier, to wage war for his country in South Africa. His parents oppose him, however, because they do not wish to undergo the danger of losing their first-born son, since he is of the best character and likely to bring greater glory to their honored name. Since he cannot obtain their consent, but nevertheless burns with zeal to serve his country, he approaches Julius, his confessor, and asks whether he can enlist without mortal sin. Hence it is asked:

1. What are the obligations of children toward their parents?

2. What are the rights of parents over their children?

3. When do the obligations of children toward their parents cease?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What are the obligations of children toward their parents?

Children are bound to love, honor, and obey their parents, and support them when they are in need.

2. What are the rights of parents over their children?

As parents have the duty of bringing up and educating their children they have the right, which corresponds to that duty, to keep their children with them, and to receive their obedience, honor, and love. They may correct a child when he requires it. A parent, as such, has no rights over a child’s property, but if no guardian of the property has been lawfully appointed, the father will be considered its guardian, and he will be obliged to administer it for the benefit of his child.

3. When do the obligations of children toward their parents cease?

The obligations of children to love and honor their parents never cease. The obligation to live under their direction and control terminates with minority. In general, minority terminates when the child is twenty-one, but before that age a child who has reached the age of discretion may enter into religion, marry, and enlist in the army.

4. The case. Caius, a young Catholic at Oxford, twenty years of age, wanted to enlist in the army and serve in the South African war. He was the eldest son in a family of position, and the parents would not give their consent. He asked Julius, his confessor, whether he would sin grievously if he enlisted without his parents’ consent.

In such cases, the confessor will, as a rule, act prudently by taking the side of the parents, and trying to induce the son to do as they desire. Still, if Caius insists on a theological answer to his question, Julius should tell him that he will not sin if he enlists against his parents’ wish. They do not stand in need of his assistance, and English law allows him to enlist without the consent of his parents: * Although parental authority continues until the child is twenty-one, yet public policy requires that a minor should be at liberty to contract an engagement with the State; and the parental authority is suspended, though not destroyed, by enlistment in the army.”¹ Thus positive law determines and defines the indefinite and vague law of nature concerning the time of emancipation from parental control.

1 Encyclopedia of Laws, vol. v, p. 28.

Robert, a young man seventeen years of age, seeks the counsel of Titius, his confessor, concerning his obligations. For recently, as he says, he left his father’s house because of frequent quarrels between his drunken father and the rest of the family; but now his father commands him to return, and Robert is in no way prepared to obey unless he is bound under grave sin. For he says that, if he returned, his father would squander in indulging his vice the greater part of the money which Robert acquires by his labor, and that, furthermore, it would be necessary for him to endure quarrels and other inconveniences between his father and himself or another member of the family, which indeed he affirms he would bear most unwillingly and only under compulsion. Titius knows Robert to be well-behaved and prepared to do everything that the Catholic religion requires in the case. Hence it is asked:

1. How long do children remain under the authority of their parents?

2. The ownership of what goods belongs to children of a family?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. How long do children remain under the authority of their parents?

The natural law requires that children should, in general, remain under the authority of their parents until they are able to take care of themselves. The age at which they are able to do this is not determined by the natural law, but is left to be determined by positive law, ecclesiastical and civil. A child is sui juris for the purpose of receiving baptism at seven years of age by himself, for the purpose of taking vows, or marrying at the age of puberty. By English law, children in general become sui juris at twenty-one, but when they have attained years of discretion (regularly fourteen for males, sixteen for females), and separation from their parents appears to be for their advantage, English law will not compel them to remain with their parents.

2. Of what property have children the ownership?

Children, by English law, are capable of owning property just like adults who have attained their majority, but they are limited in the administration of it. The administration is regularly in the hands of a guardian, appointed for the purpose, but a minor can make contracts for necessaries, and necessaries are understood in a wide sense to comprehend whatever is suitable to the minor’s position in life.

3. The case. Robert, a youth of seventeen, asked the advice of Titius, his confessor. He left home because of the frequent broils between his drunken father and members of the family, and he is determined not to return unless he is bound under pain of mortal sin to do so. He knows that if he does return, his father will take the largest part of his wages, and spend it in drink, and that he will have to put up with the constant family broils, and this he is not prepared to do. Titius knows that Robert is steady and will do what a good Catholic is bound to do. The confessor, as a rule in such cases, will try his best to keep youths at home till they marry or attain their majority. Still he can not tell Robert that he is bound to return home under pain of committing mortal sin. He is steady, we must presume that he is in respectable lodgings, he can support himself, and he is not bound to give his wages to his father, to be spent in drink. Under such circumstances Titius should give Robert some good advice about keeping steady and attending to his religious duties, but he should also tell him frankly that he is not bound to return home in the circumstances.

We do not assert that socialism aims at the legal prohibition of marriage or at the compulsory dissolution of the family. Kautsky feigns great indignation at imputations of this sort made against social democracy. “It is a most palpable falsification,’ he says, “to impute to us any such intentions; only a fool can imagine that a family is created or abolished by a legislative enactment.”¹ It has become a real mania with socialist writers to wax wroth at objections which no one thinks of raising. All we maintain is that the dissolution of the family is the necessary consequence of socialist principles and demands. The proof for our assertion is not far to fetch.

¹ Das Erfurter Programm, etc., p. 146.

The destruction of the marriage bond involves the destruction of the family. Marriage is the root and foundation of the entire family. Socialism, however, by its theories of equality loosens the marriage tie, and introduces instead some amorous relation based on mere whims and passing inclinations. The truth of this statement is vouched for by the express testimony of prominent socialists. Already Marx has pointed out that modern industry, by assigning an important part in socially organized production to women, young persons, and children, and thereby removing them from the sphere of domestic life, is creating the economic basis for “a higher form of the family and of the relation of the sexes.” And he adds that it is rather silly to consider the Christian Germanic form of marriage or any other form as absolute and unchangeable.²

² Capital, vol. I. p. 455.

What are we to understand by the higher form of sexual relations? The Erfurt platform calls for the “abolition of all laws which subordinate woman to man in public and private life.” This demand implies at least the destruction of the unity of the family, which necessarily postulates one supreme head. Who is to decide the dispute, if man and wife disagree as to their dwelling-place and similar affairs? But to make us understand more fully what is meant by that higher form of marriage, it will suffice to hear the evidence of a leader, who may be said to represent the almost universal sentiment. Bebel writes of the position of woman in the socialist state as follows:

“In the choice of the object of her love she [woman] is no less free than man: she loves, and is loved, and enters into the marriage alliance with no other regard than that of preference. This alliance is a private agreement, without the intervention of any [public] functionary, just as marriage was a private concern till late in the Middle Ages.”¹ . . . Man should be free to dispose of the strongest instinct of his nature as of every other natural instinct. The gratification of the sexual instinct is not a whit less the personal affair of every individual than is the satisfaction of any other natural appetite. Therefore no one is obliged to render an account of such gratification; nor is any uncalledfor intermeddler permitted to interfere in this matter. Prudence, education, and independence will facilitate and direct the proper choice. If disagreement, disappointment, or disaffection should arise, morality [!] demands a disruption of the unnatural and, consequently, immoral alliance.”²

¹ This is a mistake. The Church never looked upon marriage as a purely private concern, beyond the limit of her jurisdiction. According to Catholic doctrine, marriage is a sacrament instituted by Christ and entrusted to the care of the Church. Therefore marriage laws and marriage impediments were promulgated. Moreover, every marriage not celebrated according to the ecclesiastical rite (in facie ecclesiæ) was declared illicit. If, nevertheless, up to the Council of Trent clandestine marriages were acknowledged as valid (that is to say, if there existed no other impediments), this was done to prevent greater evils. But also, then, the contracting parties were bound forever. What is there in common in this institution with the promiscuity of sexual intercourse advocated by Bebel, who permits the utmost freedom of tying or untying the marital bond without the least interference from any one?

² Die Frau, p. 342. Similar ideas are propounded by Engels in his Origin of the Family, by Stern and Liebknecht. Among American socialists these views on marriage have been popularized by Edward Carpenter's Love's Coming-of-Age. According to Carpenter, marriage relations are raised to a much higher plane by a continual change of partners “until a permanent mate and equal is found.” A man of ordinary common sense, however, will characterize such proceedings as rank promiscuity.

Here we have unvarnished “free-love.” What remains of the bond of marriage if the parties, following every whim and transient disaffection, are free to separate and to enter upon another alliance? However, we do not mean to confine ourselves to such explicit teaching of socialists. We shall endeavor to show that socialism of its very nature demolishes the family, which is the foundation of the social order.

In the first place the atheistic and materialistic tenets of socialism are incompatible with the unity and indissolubility of marriage. If man has no higher aim than to revel in earthly enjoyment, how can he be induced to bear the yoke of indissoluble monogamy? Is he to be tied for life to a partner whom he no longer loves, who is perhaps subject to loathsome diseases, who is guilty of adultery or other crimes? If even many defenders of the existing social order look upon divorce as excusable in many cases, how can socialists, with their striving after enjoyment, be brought to respect the sacredness of the marriage bond? An indissoluble marriage contract is incompatible with Epicurean principles.

The basis upon which the indissolubility of marriage, and consequently the stability of the family, chiefly rests is the education of the children. It is chiefly for this purpose that the lifelong union of man and wife is necessary; for such a lifelong union is generally required for the suitable education of their offspring. Therefore whoever wrests the education of their children from the hands of parents, and makes it a function of the state, thereby undermines the lowest foundation of the family. But socialism puts education and instruction altogether into the hands of the commonwealth. The Gotha platform demands: “Universal and equal education of the people by the state.’ This demand is re-stated somewhat obscurely by the Erfurt platform: “Compulsory attendance at the public schools. Instruction, use of all means of instruction, and board free of charge in all public elementary schools and in the higher institutions of learning for such pupils of both sexes as, on account of their talents, are judged fit for higher studies,” whilst the American Socialist Party platform advocates “education of all children up to the age of eighteen years, and state and municipal aid for books, clothing, and food.”

On this point we may yet insert the words of one of the great apostles of socialism.

“Every child that comes into the world, whether male or female, is a welcome addition to society; for society beholds in every child the continuation of itself and its own further development; it, therefore, perceives from the very outset the duty, according to its power, to provide for the new-born child. And, first of all, the mother who gives birth to and nurses the child is the object of the state’s concern. Comfortable lodging, pleasant surroundings, and accommodations of all kinds suited to this stage of motherhood, careful treatment of herself and of her offspring, are the first requisite. It is self-evident that the mother must be left to nurse the child, as long as this is possible and necessary... .

“When the child waxes stronger his equals await him for common amusement, under public direction. Here again all things are supplied which, according to the perfection of human knowledge and wisdom, for the time being, tend toward the development of soul and body. Then comes the kindergarten with its playrooms; and, at a later period, the child is playfully introduced into the elements of knowledge and human activity. Mental and bodily labor, gymnastic exercises, free movement on the playground and in the gymnasium, on the ice field and in the natatorium; marching, fencing, and other exercises for both sexes, shall succeed and relieve and supplement one another in due order. The introduction to the various kinds of useful labor—to manufacture, gardening, farming, and to the entire mechanism of production—follows in due succession. But the intellectual development, in the meantime, on the various fields of science, is not to be neglected. Corresponding to the high grade of social culture shall be the outfit of the lecture-halls, the educational appliances, and the means of instruction. All means of education and instruction, clothing and food, supplied by the community, will be such as to give no pupil an advantage over another. The number and the ability of the teaching body will be in proportion to the demands.

“Such will be the education of both sexes—equal and common —for the separation of the sexes can be justified only in those cases in which the distinction of sex makes it an imperative duty. And this system of education, strictly organized, under efficient control, continued to that stage of life when society shall declare its youth to be of age, will eminently qualify both sexes for all rights and duties which society grants or imposes on its fullgrown members. Thus society can rest satisfied that it has educated members that are perfectly developed in every direction.”¹

¹ Die Frau, pp. 322-324, 328.

This is one of the midsummer night’s dreams in which Bebel’s “Frau” delights to revel. How grossly immoral such dreams are needs hardly to be stated. The usurpation of education by the state, however, is quite logical according to the principles of socialism. If socialism is to effect absolute equality in the conditions of life, it must first of all remove the universal source of social inequality, i.e., unequal education; and this can be done only by making education a social concern. Such a regulation would, of course, not hinder mothers from suckling their own children and nursing them to a certain age. But mothers and children would be placed under the supervision of the body social; for there would be no servants in those days: physicians, surgeons, midwives, etc., would be in the service of the body politic; those able to work would have to contribute their share to the social production, while the care of those unable to work would devolve upon the community. The care and treatment of mothers in confinement and of their children would, of course, be the concern of the state. For if the care of the children were left to the parents, it might happen that childless husbands and wives who have never been prevented from work would attain to a much higher income than others who would have to provide for the support of a numerous family, and would thus be prevented from taking an active part in production. And if the father or mother should fall sick it might easily happen that an entire family would be exposed to starvation, while another would enjoy all comforts. And how could a mother, without the aid of servants, bring up and educate a large family, say of ten or twelve children? If, therefore, education were left to the parents themselves it would be the duty of the community at least to give an additional allowance from the public produce for their support, and to make provision for them in case of sickness. In brief, parents would have to be relieved by the state of the burden of supporting their children.

Therefore both the nourishment and the education of the children in the socialist state would be a public affair, and would be directed and controlled by the entire body social. Thus the chief duty of parents, for the sake of which marriage has been instituted as an indissoluble union, would cease to exist; for a life-long union and co-operation on the part of parents is not required for the mere propagation of children. And even though in the socialist state the indissolubility of marriage might be sanctioned by law, yet the integrity of the family would receive the death-blow. That which binds husband and wife most closely is not only the actual existence of offspring, but, above all, the consciousness that upon their united efforts and care depends the weal or woe of their children. Parents have to provide for the support and the development of their children; upon their care, in the first place, depend the life, the future position, the social standing, the honor, and the eternal welfare of their children. This consciousness urges them on to untiring activity. What they have been able to accumulate by their toil falls to the advantage of their offspring, in whom they, as it were, continue to live, and who naturally inherit the fruits of their cares and toils.

On the other hand, the consciousness that they owe to their parents, not only their life itself, but also their preservation, education, and position in society—in short, all they possess—binds the children in intimate love to their parents. They know that their own fortune is closely linked together with that of their parents. Hence there exists between them mutual sympathy in joys and sorrows. In socialism all this would cease to exist; for the entire social body would form but one family. What would become of parental authority if children knew that the state provided for their sustenance, or, at least, remunerated parents for the care bestowed upon them? Would not such a system greatly promote rash marriages and facilitate divorces, particularly as in the socialist state marriage would be a purely private concern?

Let us now cast a brief glance at education and instruction in the socialist state. As we have already stated, Bebel promises the most marvellous results in the field of education. But now let us imagine children collected in large numbers, separated from their parents, first in the spacious playrooms of the kindergarten, then in the elementary schools, where they are “playfully” introduced into the elements of knowledge. Will this mass of wholesale education lead to satisfactory results? We might consider this possible if there were question only of a military education for the formation of future soldiers. But the universal application of such a system is simply absurd. Nor can the socialist point to the example of present educational institutions in which children receive not only instruction, but also their board and education, as in the family. For, to say nothing of the fact that the children are generally not confided to such institutions before the age of ten or twelve years, and that the pupils of such institutions form but a small fraction of the entire youth, while socialism would have all children without exception confided to public institutions for care and instruction— the chief difference consists in this, that our present boarding educational institutions presuppose and are based upon the existence of the family and of home training. The teachers of such institutions are the representatives of parents, and are supported by the parents’ authority; and if a pupil of such an institution is incorrigible, he will, to his own disgrace and the shame of his parents, be expelled from the institution. But this would not be the case in the socialist state. Besides, we must bear in mind that the socialist youth would be brought up without religion; that there would be no separation of the sexes. What then, would be the result? Nothing would remain but forcibly to lash the socialist youth into discipline and order. And yet how ineffectual is mere physical force in education!

However, we have not done with the difficulties arising from the socialistic principles of education. It is impossible that all children should be instructed and educated in all branches of knowledge and industry. Bebel repeatedly asserts the contrary; yet it remains simply impossible. Let us suppose that up to a certain grade the instruction and education is the same for all. Beyond this grade, however, a division would have to take place. Not all have talents for arts and sciences, and still fewer there are who have abilities to take up all studies. Not all have sufficient skill for the practice of all trades and industries. If, therefore, the socialists would not be satisfied with a very low and insufficient grade of culture, if they would not make shallowness and superficiality universal attributes of education, they must at a certain stage, say at the age of twelve or thirteen, draw a line, and then allow their pupils to devote themselves to some special branches of knowledge or industry. But who is to determine the studies to be pursued? The simplest system would be to submit the pupils to examinations; for a decision by the children themselves, or by their parents, or by the verdict of a committee, or by the vote of the majority, would be impracticable. The parents manifestly would in most cases present their children for the highest grade of education, as they themselves would not have to bear the expenses and trouble. The children, on the other hand, even the most gifted, if left to themselves, would in most cases be satisfied with little learning. If the decision were left to a committee it would lead to unjust treatment, and consequently to endless complaints on the part of those parents whose children would be slighted.

The promotion to higher studies, therefore, would have to be made dependent on the results of examinations. But even this method would be attended with serious difficulties. For either we suppose that higher grades of education would be connected with certain advantages in regard to income and social standing, or we suppose that they would not. If a higher grade of education has no advantage for future life, very few would be found to aspire to it. If, on the other hand, it should have some influence upon the future social standing of the possessor, it would result in a difference of social position, and thus there would be an end to the socialistic equality of the conditions of life. Moreover, if social position is not made altogether dependent upon the labor performed according to the logical programme of socialism, but upon other conditions, why should talent alone be taken into account? Do not also virtue, diligence, and the descent from parents who have merited well of the commonwealth, deserve consideration? Is it not harsh, nay, unjust, to make the entire future of a man’s life depend upon a school examination to be undergone in his youth?

As the promotion to higher studies, so also the decision what trade or industry each one should embrace would have to depend upon examinations; for as in branches of knowledge, so also in trades and industry an equal education of all is a thing of impossibility. If too many candidates would pass the examination for a certain branch of industry, they would have to be applied by superior authority to different industries. Therefore from the very outset the body social would have to decide the course of education and the future vocation of all and each of its members, lest there should be too great a rush to any profession, or to any particular trade or industry. Socialism and freedom, therefore, are incompatible with each other. The irreconcilable contradiction between freedom and the “universal systematic control” of the national labor is the rock upon which socialism is destined to be shipwrecked.

THE Catholic position with regard to education is nowhere stated more plainly, more briefly, and more authoritatively than in the recently issued Code of Canon Law. In a few short paragraphs the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on this important subject is set forth, and the policy to which the Church has constantly adhered is explained. It may be worth while to direct the attention of our readers to those Canons. They will help to clear up hazy notions on the subject, and they will help us to realise how closely it is bound up with our Christian faith. One of the fundamental principles is laid down in Canon 1113, which is as follows: " Parents are bound by a most serious obligation to procure as far as possible the religious, moral, physical, and civil education of their children, and to provide also for their temporal welfare." By "civil education" without doubt the Code means the imparting of that knowledge and training to the children which will enable them to fill worthily the place which they are destined to occupy in civil life. We may notice how broad are the ideas of the Church. She is influenced by no narrow spirit in her educational aims. By the law of nature the young during their years of immaturity are to be fitted to take their place in life. The duty of so fitting them is imposed by nature on those who brought them into the world. By the very nature of things parents are responsible for the education of their children, and, as long as they do their duty, they cannot be deprived of that responsibility by any human power. Religion gives its sanction to this natural duty and enforces it. The Fourth Commandment indeed only makes express mention of the duty of children to respect, love, and obey their parents; parents have a right to this. But they have this right because they have the corresponding duty of bringing up, educating, and providing for their children as long as these are unable to provide for themselves. The mutual relation of parental duties and parental rights is brought out in Canon 1372 of the new Code: “Parents, and all who are in the place of parents, have the right and most serious duty of procuring the Christian education of their children." There we come to another great principle of Catholic education, the rights of the Christian Church. Catholics, as members of the Church, fully recognise and admit the rights of the Church in the education of her children. She received her commission to teach from her Divine Founder. "Go," He said, "teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." The Church, then, is under the obligation to teach especially her own members what their duties are, and what is the extent and limit of them. She is faithful to her office and insists that baptised Christians shall receive a Christian education. A Christian education means that nothing should be taught Christian children which may weaken their faith or endanger their morals. It means that the relative importance of the various departments of education should be settled according to the teaching of Christ. The tendency is to relegate religious and even moral education to a secondary place in the school curriculum, or altogether to pass over those all-important subjects. Christ put them first, they belong to the greatest and the first Commandment. In a scheme of Christian education they must retain their pre-eminent position. As Canon 1372 says: "All Catholics are to be brought up from childhood in such a way that not only nothing be taught them which is opposed to the Catholic religion and to good morals, but so that religious and moral training hold the first place." Practically, as the Catholic Church knows only too well from long experience in many lands, this position of honour for the Catholic religion and for Catholic morality can only be secured by Catholic teachers in Catholic schools. In other schools, even if there is no hostility to Catholicism, the atmosphere is chilled by a still more deadly indifference in which the tender plants of Catholic faith and morals in the young cannot live and thrive. The Church has the duty and the right to protect her children from these dangers, and so she forbids them to go to non-Catholic schools. Canon 1374 enacts: “Catholic children must not go to non-Catholic, undenominational, or mixed schools, which are open to non-Catholics." In order that Catholic children may be able to obtain the kind of education which their faith requires, the Catholic Church claims the right to found Catholic schools. For many centuries she has exercised this right. The Third Council of the Lateran decreed as follows: " Since the Church of God, like a good mother, is bound to provide so that the poor who can get no help from the wealth of parents should not be deprived of the opportunity of learning and making progress in letters, let a competent benefice be assigned in every cathedral church to a schoolmaster, who will teach clerics and poor scholars for nothing." The Fourth Council of the Lateran in A.D. 1215 renewed and extended this law to all other principal churches. Those decrees were inserted in the “Corpus Juris” authorised by Gregory IX., and they were taught in all the schools of Canon Law throughout Christendom. They were quoted as Chapters 1 and 4 in the Title “De Magistris.” It is not without precedent, then, that the Catholic Church enacts as follows in the new Code the Catholic education of their people. In striving to obtain their educational rights they are not striving after power or money, they are simply doing their duty. The new Code is not silent on this point. Canon 1379 prescribes: “If Catholic elementary and secondary schools do not exist, Bishops must take care that they be built." The Catholic position, then, on the education question is clearly outlined in the new Code of Canon Law. It may be stated in this way. The education of children belongs by natural and divine law to their parents. This does not mean that the parents can give them any sort of education they like, or no education if they so please. They have the right because they have the duty to so educate their children that they may be fit to take the place in life which is destined for them, and attain the end for which they came into the world. Catholic parents recognise this duty, and they also recognise their obligation to accept the teaching and guidance of the Catholic Church as to the nature, extent, and limits of this and of all their other duties. Moreover, the Catholic Church has received a divine commission to teach religion and morality to all men, and more especially to her own baptised members. Practically, she can only exercise her right and fulfil her duty by requiring that Catholic children should be educated in Catholic schools under Catholic teachers. For centuries she has exercised this right, as history abundantly testifies. I can imagine some of my readers asking: “And where does the State come in? Has the State no rights and duties with regard to the education of its citizens?" The State has similar rights and duties with regard to the education of its citizens to those which it has with regard to their other natural rights. The State has the duty and the right to defend and protect the lives of its citizens. It cannot deprive them of their lives unless they have forfeited them by their crimes. The State has the right and the duty to protect the property of its citizens. It cannot deprive them of it, although it may levy contributions for the common good. Just in the same way it is the province of the State to protect and defend the natural right of parents to educate their own children. The State was founded to protect the natural rights of its members. It betrays its trust and becomes a tyrant if it takes them away. A Socialist State would be guilty of robbery if it deprived its members of their property against their reasonable wish. A State which obliges parents to send their children to schools where they receive an education of which the parents reasonably disapprove introduces Socialism into education. The State has the right to compel negligent parents to do their duty. If parents are bringing up their children in crime and vice, the State in the last resort can remove such children from the control of their unworthy parents. But as long as parents do not abuse their parental rights and desire to do their duty by their children, it only remains for the State to provide them with the means of giving their children an adequate education. This is all that Catholics at any rate ask of the State. They ask for a fair share of the public money which is devoted to education. The State may, of course, see that it gets good value for the money that it provides. If it were satisfied with fulfilling these legitimate functions, the education question would be solved as far as Catholics are concerned.

“The Church has the right to found schools of all kinds and of all grades” (Canon 1375). It is well known that very many of the oldest educational foundations in the country owe their origin to the provident action of the Catholic Church. To prevent the main object of Catholic schools being forgotten the new Code lays down that "Religious instruction must be given in all schools of whatever grade suitably to the age of the scholars" (Canon 1373). It is to be noted that the Catholic clergy, Bishops and priests, are bound by these laws, not less but more than the laity. One of the chief burdens and anxieties of the Catholic clergy is to provide for The State would have no reason to mistrust or complain of its Catholic subjects. They have shown in the great war that they yield in patriotism to none, and that they are fully ready to take their share in the common burdens. The Catholic ideal is that parents, Church, and State should loyally work together to give such an education to the young that when they come to maturity they may be fitted to take their place in the national life, lead good, decent, and useful lives, and save their souls in the end.

Printed in England

Let us again bear in mind that the Public School-girls of to-day will be the mothers of to-morrow. Mothers are destined, by God, to bring up children for heaven. This is their grand mission. What a happiness, what an honor for a mother to give angels to heaven! Would to God she only knew the real dignity and importance of her mission, and comprehended the qualifications in the moral and religious order that best prepare her for the duties of her sublime calling! What mission can be more sublime, more sacred, what mission can be more meritorious before God than that of giving to the young child the primary lessons of religion?

There is indeed nothing more honorable, nothing more meritorious, nothing which conducts to higher perfection, than to instruct children in their religious duties. This instruction of children is a royal, apostolic, angelic, and divine function. Royal, because the office of a king is to protect his people from danger. Apostolic, because our Lord commissioned apostles to instruct the nations, and, as St. Jerome says, thus made them the saviours of men. Angelic, because the angelical spirits in heaven enlighten, purify, and perfect each other according to their spheres, and their earthly mission is to labor without ceasing for the salvation of man. St. Peter Chrysologus calls those who instruct others in the way of salvation, "the substitutes of angels." Indeed this mission of mothers is divine; they are called to carry on the very work of God Himself. Everything that Almighty God has done from the creation of the world, and which He will continue to do to the end, has been, and will be, for the salvation of mankind. For this He sent His Son from heaven, who enlightened the world by His doctrine, and who still continues to instruct His people by His chosen disciples. Those mothers, then, who direct their children in the paths to heaven, who allure them from vice, who form them to virtue, may fitly be termed apostles, angels, and saviours. Oh! what glory awaits those mothers who perform the office of angels, and even of God Himself, in laboring for the salvation of the souls of their children. If this employment is honorable for mothers, it is also not less meritorious for them. What is the religious instruction of children, but conferring on a class of our race, the weakest and most helpless, with inconceivable labor and fatigue, the greatest of all blessings? For while the physical development of the child advances with age, it is not so with the mental; for religious instruction only can develop the noble faculties of the soul. The soul of a child, so to speak, would continue to live enshrouded in Pagan darkness, if the mother did not impart and infuse the light of truth. All the gold in the world is but dross in comparison with true religious knowledge.

Our Saviour says: "Whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones, even a cup of cold water, shall not lose his reward."—(Matt. x. 42.) May we not infer that those mothers who bestow upon children the treasures of divine knowledge will receive an exceedingly great reward? If God denounces so severely those who scandalize little children: "But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones, it were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matt. xviii. 6), what recompense will mothers not receive who instruct and sanctify them?

Mothers who give their efforts and means to this object, choose the surest way to appease the anger of God, and to insure their own salvation. They choose the best means of attaining a high degree of perfection. Almighty God gives to each one the graces proper to his vocation. Mothers, therefore, who are devoted to the religious instruction of their children, must rest assured that God will give them extraordinary graces to arrive at perfection. "Whoever," says our Lord, "shall receive one such little child in My name, receiveth Me."—(Matt. xviii. 5.) Whosoever, then, believes that our Saviour will not allow Himself to be surpassed in liberality, must also believe that He will bestow His choicest blessings on those mothers who instruct their children in the knowledge of God and the love of virtue.

What obligations have not the "angels" of children "who always see the face of the Father who is in heaven" (Matt. xviii. 10), to pray for these mothers—their dear colleagues and charitable substitutes, who perform their office and hold their place on earth. The children will pray for their mothers, and God can refuse nothing to the prayers of children, and their supplications will ascend with the prayers of the angels.

Do you desire, O Christian mother, to be saved? Do you wish to acquire great treasures in heaven, and to attain great perfection in this life?—Employ yourself diligently in the religious instruction of your children. Do you wish to gain the love of our Lord, and to deserve His protection?—Teach your children to fear and love God; you cannot do anything more pleasing to His Divine Heart.

It is related in the Gospel that mothers brought to Him little children, that He might touch them. And the disciples rebuked them that brought them. And when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said to them: "Suffer little children to come to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God; and embracing them, and laying His hands on them, He blessed them." If Jesus was displeased with those who prevented little children from coming to Him, what love and tenderness will He not have for those mothers by whose means they come to Him?

Oh! how consoled will they not be in their last hour, when they shall see the souls of those whom they prepared for heaven, accompanied by their good angels, surrounding their bed of death, forming, as it were, a guard to protect them from the snares and assaults of the enemy!

This is a happiness which those mothers may confidently expect who labor assiduously to give their children a good religious education. Ah! would to God, I say once more, that mothers would understand their sublime mission on earth!

But it is just here that the difficulty lies: how can a mother give the child these early lessons of piety and devotion, if she has never learned them herself? How can she train it to raise its young heart to that Heavenly Father, and ask Him for His continued mercy and blessings, of whose name or law she has never been informed or instructed in the Public Schools? How can she impart to her child that knowledge which she herself has never learned in the Public Schools, and which she has always been taught to look upon as unnecessary? Can she teach the child to love God and keep His commandments, to hate sin, and avoid it for the love of God?—To love, honor, and obey its parents, not from natural motives alone, but because, in so doing, it would love, honor, and obey God in the person of its father and mother, and have thus not only a great reward, and length of days here below, but also the joys of heaven above? This lesson the poor mother was never taught in the Public Schools. How can she teach her sweet child that it has an immortal soul, that God sees even the inmost thoughts of the soul, that it is this soul that sins by consenting to the evil inclinations of the heart; that when the child is tempted to pride, gluttony, anger, disobedience, theft, lies, or any manner of uncleanness, even in thought as well as deed, that it must call on God and its good guardian angel to come to its assistance, and keep its soul from consenting, and its body from doing, any of those things that might offend its good God? All this the poor mother has not been taught in the Public Schools. The State claims the right to educate her, and it did not regard this kind of knowledge necessary, else it would have provided it.

Let us again bear in mind that the Public School-girls of to-day will be the women of to-morrow.

The most majestic kingdom for woman to reign in is home. A woman nowhere looks more lovely, more truly great, more fascinating, and more really beautiful and useful, than when in her own house, surrounded by her children, giving them what instruction she is capable of, or devising some plan of intellectual entertainment. Depend on it that this is the grandest position in this world for a woman, and this home-audience is nearer and sweeter to the affectionate heart of a mother whose brain is properly developed, than all the applause and flatteries that the outer world can bestow. It is not in the court-room, the pulpit, and rostrum, but it is among the household congregation that woman's influence can achieve so much, and reign paramount. This, however, is not easily understood and practised by women who have been educated without religion. And it is for this reason that such women cannot make faithful wives and tender mothers.

Young ladies whose education has been devoid of moral and religious instruction, whose imagination, always over-ardent and vivacious, has been still more stimulated by a class of exercises, public examinations, and studies better calculated to give them an unreal than a sober view of life, are not prepared to fulfil their divine mission on earth. An illustration of this truth is the fact that quite recently over six hundred personal applications—mostly made by girls of from fifteen to twenty—were made in one day at the Grand Opera House in New York to fill places in the ballet and Oriental marches of the spectacle of Lalla Rookh. Assuredly this fact is evidence that the women in New York, like so many women in all quarters of the land, are unwilling to do the work which properly belongs to them to do, and prefer any shift, even the degrading one mentioned above, to honest household labor. There are thousands of ladies to whom the following description, written by a lady herself, may well be applied:

"How is it that there is not more nature in the present age, and less sophistication in society, and that mothers do not teach their daughters to fit themselves for wives and mothers? For they all seem to be setting traps to get husbands. Why, the young ladies of the present day are quite ashamed should they be ignorant of the name of the last new opera and its composer, but would feel quite indignant if they were asked whether they knew how to make good soup, or broil a beefsteak, or mend stockings.

"Above all, you can notice in the young ladies of the present day a madness beyond description for dress, for balls, theatres, watering-places, and all kinds of worldly amusements; you can see in them the greatest desire to appear ladies. They go and spend the whole day at the perfumer's, where they purchase their complexion; at the goldsmith's and the milliner's, where they get their figures. A few days ago, the father of one of these ladies had to pay a bill of forty-nine hundred dollars at the milliner's, for his daughter. The chief mental agony of the masses of the young women of the present day seems to be, who shall have the largest possible waterfall, the smallest bonnet, and make themselves the greatest fright. They do nothing from morning till night but read novels, and look at their white hands, or the passers-by in the street. They all seem to be senseless creatures, for their capacious brain soars no higher than dress, fashion, pleasure, comfort of life. Were it not for their vain daughters, hundreds of parents at this moment would have a happier countenance, and not that careworn, wretched look that we so frequently see when honest people get in debt, incurred by living beyond their means. Were it not for the extravagancy of young women, young men would not be afraid to marry, consequently would not be led into the temptations that they are in the single state, for marriage is one sure step towards morality, and consequently tends to the decrease of crime.

"Very many young ladies act as catch-traps, with their painted faces and affected sweetness, to lure young men into the swamps of iniquity.

"I frequently read comments about servants not knowing and performing their proper duties; in fact, of their incompetency to fill the office they apply for: and it is true.

"In Boston, a short time ago, one hundred and eighty unfortunate girls were arrested in one night; and I doubt not that the greater portion of them could have once been respectable servants, but considered the office and name too low! Men think it no disgrace to become carpenters and masons, and it is certainly as respectable to clean a house, and keep it in order, as it is to build it. And what kind of a name have these girls now? What future have these women to look forward to? Generally the world's cold, nipping scorn, combined with ill-health and destitution. A girl would much rather work in a factory, or a 'saloon,' because she can be called 'Miss,' dress finer, and imagine she will be thought a lady! Poor girl! It is this delusion, this false pride, that crowds the streets nightly with pretty young girls, some of whom count only twelve short summers. With Hamlet, I exclaim, 'Oh, horrible! most horrible!' I lived in a house in which there was a girl, Annie C., not seventeen, and she attended in a restaurant. I once said to her, 'Why do you not take the situation of a seamstress, or a nurse in a gentleman's family?' She turned upon me in the most insolent way, saying, 'Me be a servant! That will do very well for Irish, or Dutch, or English girls, but I am an American, and feel myself as good as anybody.'

"However, this girl afterwards went as a ballet-girl at one of the lowest places in Boston; and the last account I heard of her was, she was travelling with an Ethiopian troop alone. Poor young creature! what will be her end? The truth is, that after a girl is fifteen years old, in this country, she considers herself a person of sound judgment, and the parents look up to these sprites with a sort of deferential fear. These girls are simply living pictures walking about the earth, deriding everything they are incapable of understanding. And who could be charmed with such women? with such 'Grecian Bends,' Grecian noses? The genuine well-bred woman will shine out from beneath the plainest garb; and shoddy vulgarity, even should it be incased in rubies and diamonds, will only be rendered the more obvious and conspicuous to those who at a glance can discover the difference—to those who cannot be deceived, even by the radiant sparkling of these richest of gems."

This sort of women wish to have the "women's rights." They would like, if they knew how, to turn the world upside down, and inside out. This great desire among a certain class of women, to have the world think that they possess masculine power, generally proceeds from persons who wish to create a sensation, and fail to do so in the station they belong to. When a woman wishes to go out of her natural element, she shows that her intellect is shallow, and she is desirous of being thought greater than her sex generally; while, in reality, she discovers to us her own littleness. These people seem to wish to be what it is impossible for them ever to become—"men."

"When God created man in his own image, He said, 'It is not good that man should live alone: I will make him a helpmeet.' Now, had God meant to create merely a companion capable of following the same pursuits, and capable of the same herculean labors that evidently is meant to be man's destiny, why, He would have made another man. But no! When God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, he took out one of his ribs, and made a woman—a being in every way the complement of man. And, after they ate of the tree of knowledge, God said to the woman, 'Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.' And unto Adam he said, 'Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it, cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;' thus plainly demonstrating to us, that MAN was meant to rule. Bear in mind that God was angry because Adam hearkened unto the voice of his wife; and Adam called his wife Eve because she was the mother of all living. So it is clear to be seen, that woman was meant to attend to the duties of a mother in caring for her offspring, and man was intended to labor as the provider for her whom he chose as a helpmeet, as well as for the entire household. Woman has natural nourishment sent to her for the babe long before she is able to leave her couch. Does not all this prove to every thinking person that woman's sphere and calling are widely different?"

The good and perfection of women consist in remaining contentedly in the place which God has assigned them, and in performing well the duties of their divine calling. If the hand wishes to be in the place of the eye, and the eye wishes to be where the hand is, they become burdensome, and disturb the good order and harmony of the body. Now it is the same with the members of the social body. If women are in the place, or engaged in the occupation which God has chosen for them, they enjoy a profound peace; they rest under His protection; they are nourished by His grace; they are enriched by His blessings, and work out their eternal happiness with but little pain.

This truth, however, is considered by many women as one of trifling importance; they seem not to care as to whether they live up to their divine calling or not. The Holy Ghost, however, admonishes every one thus: "Let every man abide in the vocation to which he was called" (1 Cor. vii. 20); for, "Blessed is the man that shall continue in wisdom—and that considereth her ways in his heart."—(Eccles. xiv. 22, 23.) Blessed that woman who well considers her divine calling, penetrates into, and admires its greatness, and endeavors, with all her strength and heart, to comply with all its duties. One of the most usual temptations which the arch-enemy of mankind makes use of to shake women's happiness, in the present day, is to excite in them disgust and dissatisfaction for their divine calling. Hence it is that we so often hear them complain of their state of life; they fancy that, by changing their condition of life, they shall fare better: yes, provided they changed themselves. Would to God they were sworn enemies of these useless, dangerous, and bad desires! God wills to speak to them amidst the thorns, and out of the midst of the bush (Exod. iii. 2), and they will Him to speak to them in "the whistling of a gentle air."—(III Kings, xix. 12.) They ought, then, to remain on board the ship in which they are, in order to cross from this life to the other; and they ought to remain there willingly, and with affection. Let them not think of anything else; let them not wish for that which they are not, but let them earnestly desire to be the very best of what they are. Let them endeavor to do their best to perfect themselves where they are, and bear courageously all the crosses, light or heavy, that they may encounter. Let them believe that this is the leading principle, and yet the one least understood in the Christian life. Every one follows his own taste; very few place their happiness in fulfilling their duty according to the pleasure of our Lord. What is the use of building castles in Spain, when we are obliged to live in America? "As a bird that wandereth from her nest, so is a man that leaveth his place" (Prov. xxvii. 8), his occupation, or station of life. Let every woman remain firm in her calling, if she wishes to insure her tranquillity of mind, her peace of heart, her temporal and eternal happiness.

To become unfaithful to their vocation is for women to suffer as many pangs as a limb which, through some accident, has been wrenched out of place. They are continually tormented by evil spirits, who have power over a soul that is out of its proper sphere. They are no longer under the protection of God, since they have withdrawn from His guidance, and voluntarily abandoned His watchful Providence. They fall often into grievous sins, because they are not sustained by the grace which belongs to the state in which God desires them to be. A woman, therefore, can never show her superior intellectual powers better than by cheerfully accepting the calling for which the Creator evidently intended her; that is, for woman, wife, and mother.