Parents
See Family.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
PARENTS
A name appropriated to immediate progenitors, as father and mother. The duties of parents to children relate to their health, their maintenance, their education, and morals. Many rules have been delivered respecting the health of children, which cannot be inserted here; yet we shall just observe, that if a parent wishes to see his progeny healthy, he must not indulge them in every thing their little appetites desire; not give them too much sleep, nor ever give them strong liquors. He must accustom them to industry and moderate exercise. Their food and clothing should be rather light. They should go to rest soon, and rise early; and, above all, should, if possible, be inspired with a love of cleanliness. As to their maintenance, it is the parent’s duty to provide every thing for them that is necessary until they be capable of providing for themselves. They, therefore, who live in habits of idleness, desert their families, or by their negligent conduct reduce them to a state of indigence and distress, are violating the law of nature and of revelation, 1Ti 5:8. In respect to their education and morals, great care should be taken. As it relates to the present life, habits of courage, application, trade, prudence, labour, justice, contentment, temperance, truth, benevolence, &c. should be formed.
Their capacities, age, temper, strength, inclination, should be consulted, and advice given suitable to these. As it relates to a future life, their minds should be informed as to the being of God, his perfections, glory, and the mode of salvation by Jesus Christ. They should be catechised; allured to a cheerful attendance on divine worship; instructed in the Scriptures; kept from bad company; prayed with and for; and, above all, a good example set them, Pro 22:6. Eph 6:1-2. Nothing can be more criminal than the conduct of some parents in the inferior classes of the community, who never restrain the desires and passions of their children, suffer them to live in idleness, dishonesty, and profanation of the Lord’s day, the consequence of which is often an ignominious end. So, among the great, permitting their children to spend their time and their money as they please, indulging them in perpetual public diversion, and setting before them awful examples of gambling, indolence, blasphemy, drinking, and almost every other vice; what is this but ruining their children, and “bequeathing to posterity a nuisance?” But, while we would call upon parents to exercise their authority, it must not be understood that children are to be entirely at their disposal under all circumstances, especially when they begin to think for themselves. Though a parent has a right over his children, yet he is not to be a domestic tyrant, consulting his own will and passions in preference to their interest. In fact, his right over them is at an end when he goes beyond his duty to them. “
For parents, ” as Mr. Paley observes, “have no natural right over the lives of their children, as was absurdly allowed to Roman fathers; nor any to exercise unprofitable severities; nor to command the commission of crimes: for these rights can never be wanted for the purposes of a parent’s duty. Nor have parents any right to sell their children into slavery; to shut up daughters and younger sons in nunneries and monasteries, in order to preserve entire the estate and dignity of the family; or to use any arts, either of kindness or unkindness, to induce them to make choice of this way of life themselves; or in countries where the clergy are prohibited from marriage, to put sons into the church for the same end, who are never likely to do or receive any good in it sufficient to compensate for this sacrifice; nor to urge children to marriages from which they are averse, with the view of exalting or enriching the family, or for the sake of connecting estates, parties, or interests; nor to oppose a marriage in which the child would probably find his happiness, from a motive of pride or avarice, of family hostility or personal pique.” Paley’s Moral Philosophy, vol. 1: p. 345 to 370; Stennett’s Discourses on Domestic Duties, dis. 5; Beattie’s Elements of Moral Science, vol. 2: p. 139, 148; Doddridge’s Lectures, lec. 74; Saurin’s Sermons, Robinson’s Translation, vol. 5: ser. 1; Searl’s Christian Parent.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Parents
(Lat. parere, to beget)
I. DUTIES OF PARENTS TOWARDS THEIR CHILDREN
In the old pagan world, with due allowance for the operation of the natural law, love and reverence were replaced by authority and fear. The Roman jurisprudence during a time at least exaggerated the paternal power to the point of ownership, but it did not emphasize any duties 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 any property they had acquired. Compatible with this general idea, abortion, infanticide, and exposition were widespread. The laws 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 ancient pietas 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, whilst Diocletian made it illegal for fathers to sell their children.
Under Christianity parents were not merely the repositories of rights and duties whose affirmation nature demanded, but they were to be regarded as the representatives of God Himself, from whom “all paternity is named”, and found in this capacity the way to mingle love and reverence, as well as the strongest motive for a cheerful obedience on the part of the children.
The first duty of parents towards their children is to love 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 the theologians call pietas, 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 of sins of this sort. In the case of serious damage done by parents to their children, besides the sin against justice there is contracted the quite different malice derived from this propinquity. This virtue, interpreting the precept of the natural 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 are illegitimate. Parents are guilty of grievous sin who treat their children with such cruelty as to indicate that their conduct is inspired by hatred, 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 venial sin nurse it herself unless there is some adequate excuse.
A father who is idle or unthrifty so that his family is left without fitting maintenance is guilty of grievous sin. Parents must see that their children obtain at least an elementary education. They are bound with special emphasis to watch over the spiritual welfare of their children, to afford them good example, and to correct the erring. The teaching of the Church is that the right and duty to educate 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 no obligation. In so far as it means instruction in the more elementary branches of human knowledge it is in most cases identical with the obligation of bestowing care in the selection of a school for the children.
Hence, in general, parents may not with a safe conscience send their children to non-Catholic schools, whether these be sectarian or secularist. This statement admits of exception in the instance where there are grave reasons for permitting Catholic children to frequent these schools, and where such dangers as may exist for their faith or morals 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 the United States, the bishop of each diocese. The attendance at non-Catholic schools by Catholic 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 higher education, parents have a clear duty to see that the faith of their children is not imperilled by their going to non-Catholic universities and colleges. In the lack of positive legislation before parents can assent to their children attending non-Catholic universities or colleges there must be a commensurately grave cause, and such dangers as may threaten faith or morals 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 not oblige the confessor to refuse absolution 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 becomes necessary to decide upon one of the parents rather than the other as custodian of the children, the rule of legal preference in the United 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 the right to administer chastisement to delinquent children. Their omission to punish suitably may be a serious offense before God.
II. DUTIES OF CHILDREN TOWARDS PARENTS
Children have a threefold obligation of love, reverence, and obedience toward their parents. This is enjoined by the virtue which St. Thomas calls pietas, and for which the nearest English equivalent phrase is “dutiful observance”. As religion makes it obligatory for us to worship God, 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 this obligation therefore is reputed a grievous sin unless the smallness of the matter involved make the offence a venial one. Of the obligations referred to, love and reverence are in force during the parents’ lifetime. Obedience ceases when the children pass from under the parental authority. The duty of love of parents, strongly intimated to the conscience by the natural law, is expressly emphasized by the positive 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 grievous sin 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 deepseated. The Christian concept of parents as being the delegates of God carries with it the inference that they are to be treated with peculiar respect. Children incur the guilt of grievous sin 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 of St. 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. This obligation 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 is sinful, nor can they impose upon them against their will any particular calling in life. Theologians find their criterion for determining the grievousness of the sin 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 the duty of obedience will become a mortal sin. Moralists declare that this valuation must be made by the good sense of thoughtful persons. 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 mortal sin. When the thing for whose performance or omission the parent’s command is issued is already binding under pain of grievous sin, either by the natural or positive law, the setting at naught of the parental injunction does not involve a distinct sin 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 the United 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 Theologiœ Moralis (Rome, 1908); BALLERINI, Opus Theologicum Morale (Prato, 1899); Sr. THOMAS, Summa Theologica.
JOSEPH F. DELANY. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XICopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
PARENTS
Probably the most basic of all human relationships is that between a man and a woman. Only through it can human life be perpetuated (Gen 1:27-28). Yet this relationship involves more than sexual relations for the sake of producing children. Sex is only one part of a total relationship in which a man and a woman marry and commit themselves to each other for life (Mat 19:5-6).
It is within this total marriage relationship, not outside it, that God intends children to be born and grow up. Gods design is for children to be brought up in families where both parents live together and accept their responsibilities. Those responsibilities include providing for their childrens physical and social needs, and teaching them the true values of life (Psa 128:1-3; Pro 1:8; Pro 31:21; Pro 31:27; Col 3:20-21; cf. 1Ki 1:5-6).
In the case of Christian parents, the training of their children will aim to bring them to know God and walk in his ways (Deu 6:5-9; Eph 6:1-4; 2Ti 1:5; 2Ti 3:15). Christians will learn how to deal properly with their children as they understand more about the way their heavenly Father deals with them (Heb 12:5-11; Jam 1:16-17; see FATHER). (For fuller details of parental responsibilities see FAMILY.)
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Parents
PARENTS
1. Jewish parents.A few introductory remarks on the conjugal relation are necessary. The husband was supreme in the household, his authority recognized by the wifeand here it may be noted that, while polygamy was permitted by the Jewish law, the principle of one man one wife had won general acceptance. As for the legal status of the wife, the provisions in respect to some things (see Divorce) were onesided; but her position, if subordinate, was by no means one of absolute dependence, nor was she relegated to the seclusion common in other Oriental nations. The husband ruled; the wifes influence in all domestic concerns was great. Fidelity was expected on both sides. The match might have been arranged by other parties (see Marriage), but the relations of the wedded pair would be characterized by a growing love. The honourable position of the faithful wife (Pro 31:10-31) would be evidenced in countless Jewish homes. To the strong attachment of husband to wife, of wife to husband, there is frequent and touching allusion in later Jewish literature. It would make itself felt in the whole family life.
This brief notice of the conjugal relation should help to a correct appreciation of the relations now to be considered, viz. the parental, and, by consequence, the filial. At once it may be set down that the requirements of the Fifth Commandment had taken deep hold in Jewish life. As Bousset (Rel. d. Jud. 402) remarks, it was not forgotten that in the Decalogue the duties of children to parents follow immediately upon those which turn on matters religious and ritual. The requirements, it should be noted particularly, place both parents on the same level. In practice the supremacy of the father as ruler of the household was, indeed, recognized; his power over his children was almost absolute: at the same time, the utmost respect and obedience to both father and mother were demanded and yielded. Domestic discipline was exceedingly strict; the behaviour of child to parent would be marked by that courtliness of etiqnette which was once a feature of English family life; there was, perhaps, little demonstrativeness of affection in the case of the father. Restraint is, in short, observable; but it formed no barrier to a love deep and strong which knit child to parent and parent to child: the full pathos of the love which linked a Jewish father to his son cannot be set down in words. The joyousness of child-life was in no wise cramped: allusion is met with to the readiness of parents to provide for, and to enter into, the amusement of the children. Not until the 2nd cent., was the maintenance of children the subject of legal enactment; fulfilment of the duty had probably been taken as a matter of course. It was certainly expected that children should minister to the necessities of aged parents. See, further, Boyhood.
2. The home at Nazareth.Joseph was in any case the legal father of Jesus (Dalman, The Words of Jesus); hence the parental and filial relation as illustrated in the Holy Family may be discussed apart from questions treated of elsewhere (see Virgin-birth). The glimpses afforded are but few: there are the stories in the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke, and some incidents in our Lords ministry. Fragmentary notices; and yet a great deal may be read into them when studied in connexion with the preceding paragraphs.
What, then, is discernible in the parents of Jesus? Conjugal attachment; so also a genuine and simple-hearted piety. They are punctilious in the observance of religious duties (Luk 2:21-22); if attendance at the Passover was only demanded of men, Mary is quick to avail herself of a privilege which had been extended to women also (Luk 2:41). That the child Jesus increased in wisdom (Luk 2:40; Luk 2:52) is a statement not to be interpreted without thought of the parental care which watched over His ripening intelligence. If His understanding and answers were cause of astonishment (Luk 2:47), the explanation points, in part at any rate, to early training given by His mother; to the careful discharge, by Joseph, of the paternal duties, so preparing Him for the eventful day when, arrived at the age of twelve years, He would become a son of the Law. There was the further discharge of paternal duty as the lad was taught a trade (Mar 6:3). The strict discipline above spoken of is implied in Luk 2:51 ( ): the respect and obedience which Joseph and Mary claim as their due are promptly rendered by the boy, the growing youth.
There the narrative of the early life of Jesus breaks off; of Gospel record of the next eighteen years there is none. With the resumption of the narrative Jesus has arrived at manhood; Joseph disappears from the scene, and attention accordingly centres on the relations of Jesus with the widowed mother. No longer is He a member of the family circle; Mary is cared for by sons and daughters; but the respect, the affection, the loving solicitude of her firstborn son is still enjoyed by her. He asserts His independence, but with perfect courtesy (Joh 2:4; the address is that of courteous respect, even of tenderness, Westcott). He is not to be understood in Mar 3:32-34 as disowning parental ties; rather as speaking of a family of God that is greater than the human family. The touching incident recorded in Joh 19:26-27 is significant of maternal and filial devotion to the very end.
3. Sayings of our Lord.Attention must now be directed to notes struck by Jesus where recorded sayings of His have reference to the parental and filial relations. Few in number, they are significant. For Him parents are the natural guardians (Luk 8:56). He has seathing condemnation for the legal fiction which affords means of escape for children unwilling to contribute to their parents support (Mat 15:3-6, Mar 7:9-13); the Fifth Commandment, for Him, is paramount above other religious duties (see Corban). He takes obedience to the Fifth Commandment for granted (Mat 19:19, Mar 10:19, Luk 18:20); its observance is a condition of eternal life. If in days near at hand parent will betray child and child parent, the unnatural circumstance will be but evidence of tribulation predicted by Him (Mat 10:21, Mar 13:12, Luk 21:16). What He says in Mat 10:37 (Luk 14:26) is tantamount to a recognition of the strength of family ties. Very beautifully has it been said that His favourite illustration was drawn from the home. Thus in the Lords Prayer it is the idea of the home that governs the Prayer. The relations between the Heavenly Father and His children are set forth in terms richly suggestive of the human relationships. Reverence and submissionthat the parent has a right to obtain from the children; support, forbearance, and protectionthat the children on their part have a right to ask from the parent (A. W. Robinson, Church Catechism Explained).
Two sayings may present difficulty. One of them occurs in Luk 18:29; it must be compared with Mat 19:29-30, Mar 10:29-30, where descriptions of the blessings of the Messianic Kingdom are set forth in terms familiar to the Jews of our Lords day. Mention is indeed made of circumstances under which the renunciation of earthly ties may be demanded; they are, however, exceptional circumstances, where the ties in question are incompatible with a higher allegiance. The other saying occurs in Mat 8:21 (cf. Luk 9:59). Request and rejoinder have been explained of proverbial allusion (Adeney); it has been held that the permission really sought was to remain and support an aged father until he died (Theophylact); and this is possible. It is certainly hard to believe that, with burial following so quickly upon death as is the case in the East, a request so thoroughly in accord with Jewish feeling (cf. Tob 4:2-4) was abruptly refused by Jesus. His reply is, perhaps, capable of metaphorical interpretation: Think not only of the dead, remember the needs of the living. There may be, however, a reminder in it of the exceptional circumstances above alluded to. Besides, the teaching of Jesus had its sterner aspect.
Literature.Schrer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] , II. ii. 27; Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, which goes back to earlier days; Joseph, Judaism as Creed and Life; Maurice, Social Morality; J. R. Seeley, The Church as a Teacher of Morality in Lectures and Essays. For the subject in regard to modern life see Mason, Home Education; Turnbull, Hints on Child Training; Mrs. Craik, Sermons out of Church.
H. L. Jackson.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Parents
PARENTS.See Family.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Parents
Covenant benefits of, entailed on children
Gen 6:18; Exo 20:6; Psa 103:17
Curses entailed
Exo 20:5; Lev 20:5; Isa 14:20; Jer 9:14; Lam 5:7; Eze 16:44-45
Involved in children’s wickedness
1Sa 2:27-36; 1Sa 4:10-22
Partiality of:
– Isaac for Esau
Gen 25:28
– Rebekah for Jacob
Gen 25:28; Gen 27:6-17
– Jacob for Joseph
Gen 33:2; Gen 37:3; Gen 48:22
– Jacob for Benjamin
Gen 42:4 Partiality
Parental affection exemplified:
– By Hagar
Gen 21:15-16
– By Rebekah’s mother
Gen 24:55
– By Isaac and Rebekah
Gen 25:28
– By Isaac
Gen 27:26-27
– By Laban
Gen 31:26-28
– By Jacob
Gen 37:3-4; Gen 42:4; Gen 42:38; Gen 43:13-14; Gen 45:26-28; Gen 48:10-11
– By Moses’ mother
Exo 2
– By Naomi
Rth 1:8-9
– By Hannah
1Sa 2:19
– By David
2Sa 12:18-23; 2Sa 13:38-39; 2Sa 14:1; 2Sa 14:33; 2Sa 18:5; 2Sa 18:12-13; 2Sa 18:33; 2Sa 19:1-6
– By Rizpah
2Sa 21:10
– By the mother of the infant brought to Solomon by the harlots
1Ki 3:22-28
– By Mary
Mat 12:46; Luk 2:48; Joh 2:5; Joh 19:25
– By Jairus
Mar 5:23
– By the father of demoniac
Mar 9:24
– By the nobleman
Joh 4:49
Indulgent:
– Eli
1Sa 2:27-36; 1Sa 3:13-14
– David
1Ki 1:6
Paternal blessings:
– Of Noah
Gen 9:24-27
– Of Abraham
Gen 17:18
– Of Isaac
Gen 27:10-40; Gen 28:3-4
– Of Jacob
Gen 48:15-20; Gen 49:1-28
Prayers in behalf of children:
– Of Hannah
1Sa 1:27
– Of David
2Sa 7:25-29; 1Ch 17:16-27; 2Sa 12:16; 1Ch 22:12; 1Ch 29:19
– Of Job
Job 1:5
Paternal reproaches
Gen 9:24-25; Gen 49:3-7 Influence
Unclassified scriptures relating to
Gen 18:19; Exo 10:2; Exo 12:26-27; Exo 13:8; Exo 13:14; Exo 20:5; Exo 20:10; Lam 5:7; Exo 21:17; Lev 20:9; Lev 23:3; Deu 4:9-10; Deu 6:7; Deu 6:20-24; Deu 11:18-21; Deu 32:46; Psa 78:5-6; Psa 103:13; Pro 3:12; Pro 13:22; Pro 13:24; Pro 19:18; Pro 22:6; Pro 22:15; Pro 23:13-14; Pro 27:11; Pro 29:15; Pro 29:17; Pro 31:28; Isa 38:19; Isa 49:15; Isa 66:13; Jer 31:1; Jer 49:11; Joe 1:3; Mal 4:6; Mat 10:37; Luk 11:11-13; 2Co 12:14; Eph 6:4; Col 3:21; 1Th 2:11; 1Ti 3:4-5; 1Ti 3:12; 1Ti 5:8; Tit 1:6; Tit 2:4; Heb 12:7 Children; Instruction
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Parents
“a begetter, a father” (akin to ginomai, “to come into being, become”), is used in the plural in the NT, Mat 10:21; Mar 13:12; six times in Luke (in Luk 2:43, RV, “His parents,” AV, “Joseph and His mother”); six in John; elsewhere, Rom 1:30; 2Co 12:14 (twice); Eph 6:1; Col 3:20; 2Ti 3:2.
an adjective signifying “born before” (pro, before, and ginomai, see No. 1), is used as a noun, in the plural, (a) of ancestors, “forefathers,” 2Ti 1:3; (b) of living “parents,” 1Ti 5:4. See FOREFATHER.
“a father,” is used in Heb 11:23, in the plural, of both father and mother, the “parents” of Moses. See FATHER.