 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
(Latinparere, to beget)
In the oldpagan world, with due allowance for the operation of thenatural law,love and reverence were replaced by authority and fear. The Romanjurisprudence during a time at least exaggerated the paternal power to the point of ownership, but it did not emphasize anyduties that he had to perform. His dominion over his children was not less complete than that over his slaves. He possessed an undisputed right of life and death; he might sell them into slavery and dispose of anyproperty they had acquired. Compatible with this generalidea, abortion,infanticide, and exposition were widespread. Thelaws seemed to contemplate these crimes as venial offences and to have been largely inoperative in such cases.
In consequence the filial observance implied in the ancientpietas could not always be translated as affection. This earlier condition was modified by decrees of the later emperors.Alexander Severus distinguished the right of a father to put an adult child to death, whilstDiocletian made it illegal for fathers to sell their children.
UnderChristianity parents were not merely the repositories ofrights andduties whose affirmation nature demanded, but they were to be regarded as the representatives ofGod Himself, from whom "all paternity is named", and found in this capacity the way to minglelove and reverence, as well as the strongest motive for a cheerful obedience on the part of the children.
The firstduty of parents towards their children is tolove them. Nature inculcates this clearly, and it is customary to describe parents who lack this affection as unnatural. Here the offence is against a distinct virtue which thetheologians callpietas, concerned with the demeanour reciprocally of parents and children. Hence the circumstance of this close relationship must be made known in confession when there is question ofsins of this sort. In the case of serious damage done by parents to their children, besides thesin againstjustice there is contracted the quite different malice derived from this propinquity. This virtue, interpreting the precept of thenatural law, also requires parents diligently to care for the proper rearing of their children, that is, to provide for their bodily,mental, and spiritual well-being. This is so even in the supposition that the children areillegitimate. Parents are guilty of grievoussin who treat their children with such cruelty as to indicate that their conduct is inspired byhatred, or who, with full intent, curse them or exhibit a notable and unreasonable preference for one child rather than another. Parents are bound to support their children in a manner commensurate with their social condition until these latter can support themselves. The mother is bound to do nothing to prejudice the life or proper development of her unborn infant, and after birth she must under pain of venialsin nurse it herself unless there is some adequate excuse.
A father who is idle or unthrifty so that hisfamily is left without fitting maintenance is guilty of grievoussin. Parents must see that their children obtain at least an elementaryeducation. They are bound with special emphasis to watch over the spiritual welfare of their children, to afford them good example, and to correct theerring. The teaching of theChurch is that theright andduty toeducate their own offspring abides natively and primarily with the parents. It is their most important task; indeed understood in its full sense it is ranked by noobligation. In so far as it means instruction in the more elementary branches ofhumanknowledge it is in most cases identical with theobligation of bestowing care in the selection of aschool for the children.
Hence, in general, parents may not with a safeconscience send their children to non-Catholicschools, whether these be sectarian or secularist. This statement admits of exception in the instance where there are grave reasons for permittingCatholic children to frequent theseschools, and where such dangers as may exist for theirfaith ormorals are by fitting means either neutralized or rendered remote. The judge in such cases, both of the sufficiency of the reasons alleged as well as of the kind of measure to be employed to encounter successfully whatever risks there are, is, in theUnited States thebishop of eachdiocese. The attendance at non-Catholicschools byCatholic children is something which, for weighty motives and with due safeguards, can be tolerated, not approved. In any case parents must carefully provide for the child's religious instruction.
As to highereducation, parents have a clearduty to see that thefaith of their children is not imperilled by their going to non-Catholicuniversities and colleges. In the lack of positive legislation before parents can assent to their children attending non-Catholicuniversities or colleges there must be a commensurately grave cause, and such dangers as may threatenfaith ormorals are to be rendered remote by suitable remedies. The last-named requirement is obviously the more important. Failure to fall in with the first, provided that means had been taken faithfully to comply with the second, would notoblige the confessor to refuseabsolution to such parents. There is an undoubted and under ordinary circumstances inalienable authority to be exercised by parents. The extent of this is a matter to be determined by positive law. In the instances in which it becomesnecessary to decide upon one of the parents rather than the other as custodian of the children, the rule of legal preference in theUnited States is that the children are confided to the charge of the father. There is, however, a growing disposition to favour the mother. Parents have theright to administer chastisement to delinquent children. Their omission to punish suitably may be a serious offense beforeGod.
Children have a threefoldobligation oflove, reverence, and obedience toward their parents. This is enjoined by the virtue whichSt. Thomas callspietas, and for which the nearest English equivalent phrase is "dutiful observance". As religion makes itobligatory for us to worshipGod, so there is a virtue distinct from all the others which inculcates the attitude we ought to hold towards parents, in so far as they in a secondary sense are the principles of our being and of its regulation. The violation of thisobligation therefore is reputed a grievoussin unless the smallness of the matter involved make the offence a venial one. Of theobligations referred to,love and reverence are in force during the parents' lifetime. Obedience ceases when the children pass from under the parental authority. Theduty oflove of parents, strongly intimated to theconscience by thenatural law, is expressly emphasized by thepositive law of God. The Fourth Commandment, "Honour thy father and thy mother", is universally interpreted to mean not only respect and submission, but also the entertaining and manifestation of affection they deserve at the hands of their children.
Those children are guilty of grievoussin who habitually exhibit towards their parents a heartless demeanour, or who fail to succour them in serious need, either bodily or spiritual, or who neglect to carry out the provisions of their last will and testament in so far as the amount devised will permit. It is not merely the external bearing which has to be governed. The inward sentiment of affection must be deep-seated. TheChristian concept of parents as being the delegates ofGod carries with it the inference that they are to be treated with peculiar respect. Children incur the guilt of grievoussin who strike their parents, or even raise their hands to do so, or who give them well-founded reason for great sorrow. The same is to be said of those who put their parents in a violent rage, who curse them or revile them, or refuse to recognize them.
Besides the parental relationship and dignity account is to be taken of their authority. Children, so long as they remain under its yoke, are bound to obey. This does not mean, according to the teaching ofSt. Thomas (II-II, Q. civ, a. 2, ad lum), that they must intend to do what is commanded precisely because it is enjoined; it is enough that they be minded to do what is prescribed. Thisobligation covers all those matters and those only which make for the proper rearing of the offspring. Parents have no power to order their children to do what issinful, nor can they impose upon them against their will any particular calling in life.Theologians find their criterion for determining the grievousness of thesin of disobedience by scrutinizing the command given as well as the matter with which it is concerned. They say that the offence is then to be rated as mortal when the communication of the parental will takes the form of a real precept given in earnest and not merely a counsel or exhortation. They further require that this behest should have to with something important.
There is no hard and fast rule to gauge the gravity of the matter in which an infraction of theduty of obedience will become a mortalsin.Moralists declare that this valuation must be made by the good sense of thoughtfulpersons. They add that in general when an act of disobedience is calculated to work serious harm to the parents, or interfere seriously with domestic discipline, or put in jeopardy the temporal or spiritual welfare of the children themselves, it is to be accounted a mortalsin. When the thing for whose performance or omission the parent's command is issued is already binding under pain of grievoussin, either by the natural or positive law, the setting at naught of the parental injunction does not involve a distinctsin of disobedience requiring a separate accusation in confession. The reason is that the motive of the command is assumed to remain the same in both cases. An example in point would be the defiance of an order given by a parent to a child to assist at Mass on Sunday, something which the latter is already bound to do.
Children are released from parental control when they attain their majority, or are legally emancipated. In theUnited States this latter may be done either by a written instrument or by means of certain facts which the statutes construe as sufficiently manifesting the consent of the parents.
SLATER,Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); LECKY,History of European Morals (New York, 1910); SPIRAGO,The Catechism Explained (New York, 1899); DEVAS,Key to the World's Progress (London, 1906); D'ANNIBALE,Summula Theologiæ Moralis (Rome, 1908); BALLERINI,Opus Theologicum Morale (Prato, 1899); Sr. THOMAS,Summa Theologica.
APA citation.Delany, J.(1911).Parents. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11478c.htm
MLA citation.Delany, Joseph."Parents."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 11.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1911.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11478c.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Douglas J. Potter.Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.