|
Objection 1: It seems that the duties of piety towards one's
parents should be omitted for the sake of religion. For Our Lord
said (Lk. 14:26): "If any man come to Me, and hate not his
father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and
sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."
Hence it is said in praise of James and John (Mt. 4:22) that
they left "their nets and father, and followed" Christ. Again it
is said in praise of the Levites (Dt. 33:9): "Who hath said
to his father, and to his mother: I do not know you; and to his
brethren: I know you not; and their own children they have not
known. These have kept Thy word." Now a man who knows not his
parents and other kinsmen, or who even hates them, must needs omit the
duties of piety. Therefore the duties of piety should be omitted for
the sake of religion.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Lk. 9:59,60) that
in answer to him who said: "Suffer me first to go and bury my
father," Our Lord replied: "Let the dead bury their dead: but go
thou, and preach the kingdom of God." Now the latter pertains to
religion, while it is a duty of piety to bury one's father.
Therefore a duty of piety should be omitted for the sake of religion.
Objection 3: Further, God is called "Our Father" by
excellence. Now just as we worship our parents by paying them the
duties of piety so do we worship God by religion. Therefore the
duties of piety should be omitted for the sake of the worship of
religion.
Objection 4: Further, religious are bound by a vow which they may
not break to fulfil the observances of religion. Now in accordance
with those observances they are hindered from supporting their parents,
both on the score of poverty, since they have nothing of their own,
and on the score of obedience, since they may not leave the cloister
without the permission of their superior. Therefore the duties of
piety towards one's parents should be omitted for the sake of
religion.
On the contrary, Our Lord reproved the Pharisees (Mt.
15:3-6) who taught that for the sake of religion one ought to
refrain from paying one's parents the honor we owe them.
I answer that, Religion and piety are two virtues. Now no virtue is
opposed to another virtue, since according to the Philosopher, in his
book on the Categories (Cap. De oppos.), "good is not opposed
to good." Therefore it is impossible that religion and piety mutually
hinder one another, so that the act of one be excluded by the act of
the other. Now, as stated above (FS, Question 7, Article 2;
FS, Question 18, Article 3), the act of every virtue is
limited by the circumstances due thereto, and if it overstep them it
will be an act no longer of virtue but of vice. Hence it belongs to
piety to pay duty and homage to one's parents according to the due
mode. But it is not the due mode that man should tend to worship his
father rather than God, but, as Ambrose says on Lk. 12:52,
"the piety of divine religion takes precedence of the claims of
kindred."
Accordingly, if the worship of one's parents take one away from the
worship of God it would no longer be an act of piety to pay worship to
one's parents to the prejudice of God. Hence Jerome says (Ep. ad
Heliod.): "Though thou trample upon thy father, though thou spurn
thy mother, turn not aside, but with dry eyes hasten to the standard
of the cross; it is the highest degree of piety to be cruel in this
matter." Therefore in such a case the duties of piety towards one's
parents should be omitted for the sake of the worship religion gives to
God. If, however, by paying the services due to our parents, we
are not withdrawn from the service of God, then will it be an act of
piety, and there will be no need to set piety aside for the sake of
religion.
Reply to Objection 1: Gregory expounding this saying of our Lord
says (Hom. xxxvii in Ev.) that "when we find our parents to be a
hindrance in our way to God, we must ignore them by hating and fleeing
from them." For if our parents incite us to sin, and withdraw us
from the service of God, we must, as regards this point, abandon and
hate them. It is in this sense that the Levites are said to have not
known their kindred, because they obeyed the Lord's command, and
spared not the idolaters (Ex. 32). James and John are praised
for leaving their parents and following our Lord, not that their
father incited them to evil, but because they deemed it possible for
him to find another means of livelihood, if they followed Christ.
Reply to Objection 2: Our Lord forbade the disciple to bury his
father because, according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxviii in
Matth.), "Our Lord by so doing saved him from many evils, such
as the sorrows and worries and other things that one anticipates under
these circumstances. For after the burial the will had to be read,
the estate had to be divided, and so forth: but chiefly, because
there were others who could see to the funeral." Or, according to
Cyril's commentary on Lk. 9, "this disciple's request was, not
that he might bury a dead father, but that he might support a yet
living father in the latter's old age, until at length he should bury
him. This is what Our Lord did not grant, because there were
others, bound by the duties of kindred, to take care of him."
Reply to Objection 3: Whatever we give our parents out of piety is
referred by us to God; just as other works of mercy which we perform
with regard to any of our neighbors are offered to God, according to
Mt. 25:40: "As long as you did it to one of . . . My least
. . . you did it to Me." Accordingly, if our carnal parents
stand in need of our assistance, so that they have no other means of
support, provided they incite us to nothing against God, we must not
abandon them for the sake of religion. But if we cannot devote
ourselves to their service without sin, or if they can be supported
without our assistance, it is lawful to forego their service, so as to
give more time to religion.
Reply to Objection 4: We must speak differently of one who is yet
in the world, and of one who has made his profession in religion. For
he that is in the world, if he has parents unable to find support
without him, he must not leave them and enter religion, because he
would be breaking the commandment prescribing the honoring of parents.
Some say, however, that even then he might abandon them, and leave
them in God's care. But this, considered aright, would be to tempt
God: since, while having human means at hand, he would be exposing
his parents to danger, in the hope of God's assistance. on the other
hand, if the parents can find means of livelihood without him, it is
lawful for him to abandon them and enter religion, because children are
not bound to support their parents except in cases of necessity, as
stated above. He that has already made his profession in religion is
deemed to be already dead to the world: wherefore he ought not, under
pretext of supporting his parents, to leave the cloister where he is
buried with Christ, and busy himself once more with worldly affairs.
Nevertheless he is bound, saving his obedience to his superiors, and
his religious state withal, to make points efforts for his parents'
support.
|
|