tion no doubt can take place not only by words, but also by signs, otherwise deaf mutes or the dumb could not marry.

3. The emergency must at least have lasted a month (conditio a mense jam perseveret). These rules apply also to mixed marriages and marriages with apostates (Num. XI, Par. 1 and 2, of the decree).

Kindred cases of emergency may occur in times of persecution, or in a Kulturkampf, in times of war; in widely extended missionary districts, etc.

ALOIS SCHMÖGER, D.D.

XXIV. ARSON AND RESTITUTION

Catharine, the wife of Andrew, set fire to their house, unknown to Andrew. When the latter learned of the true state of affairs he did collect the insurance of $1,000, but threw the money down before his wife, saying angrily: "Here, take this unrighteous money if you will. I want none of it." Andrew troubled himself no further about this money, and Catharine died several years after, fortified by the last Sacraments. Some years after Andrew also falls ill. The incendiary fire and the money collected, for the use of which he can not account, weigh heavily upon his conscience. Part of the amount he can refund, but not the entire sum, without interfering with his children's yet unfinished education and without rendering impossible their further study for the professions. Is he obliged to make restitution, and of the whole sum, or may he presume that his late wife put the affair in order?

Answer. The money taken by Andrew belonged to others, and was not his due, because the fire insurance companies do not agree to pay damages directly caused by the insured, or by his wife, or by his near relative. All rightful claim to insurance money is absent, also in conscience, if malevolence, or grievous theological guilt, has caused the fire.

To the money accepted by Andrew adheres, therefore, the obligation of restitution. Although Andrew, in order to protect himself and his wife from the greater evil of public dishonor and against severe punishment by the authorities, was allowed to take the money, he could only do so with the intention of refunding the money as soon as possible to its rightful owner. The basis and extent of the obligation to make restitution is in general, and can only be for

Andrew, 1. Unlawful injurious action, or 2. Unlawful acquisition of another's property. It is evident that both these conditions existed in regard to Catharine. But here it is not a question of Catharine's obligation to make restitution, but of Andrew's, and in this regard the answer will vary according to the circumstances, which have to be ascertained. We have to decide the case on the following suppositions:

1. First of all let us suppose that the money was applied for the benefit of Andrew's family; in such case it is incumbent upon Andrew to refund the money, because he has been unlawfully enriched by it, as it went to pay expenditures which otherwise would have had to come out of his own income.

The obligation of restitution would, furthermore, be Andrew's, no matter how the money had been used, if he, with grave theological guilt, has put the money in other hands than the owner's, with the knowledge that Catharine would not make the restitution.

Should one or the other of these suppositions be a fact, then the obligation of restitution rests, or rested, upon Andrew. We say the obligation rests or rested, for there is a possibility that it no longer rests with him, because, at least in part, restitution may have been made already. In order to decide this we must first consider the question: To whom must the money be refunded? Compare in this connection the author's Theologia Moralis, ed. 9, a. I, n. 1134. It is a practical probability that not the shareholders of insurance companies, but rather the great number who insure with them their belongings, by payment of yearly premiums, are the actual sufferers, because the companies include in their calculation of premiums the average cases of arson which yearly take place. From this follows the further practical probability that, instead of to the great number of insured, the restitution may, as a rule, be made to the poor or to

some charity; for where the amount to be refunded would be divided among so large a number, especially if the individuals are not all known, and the individuals have not been injured in a grave materia, then, according to the general opinion of theologians, the restitution can for prudent reasons be made to the poor or to some charitable purpose, because on the one hand we may presume this to be the reasonable will of the insured, and because on the other hand the poor and the public charities are that part of human society, to whom the superfluity of temporal goods, or the portion of no avail to the actual owner, is due (Compare LIGUORI, I. 3, n. 589 and 595).

If restitution to the poor, or to some charity, is lawful in Andrew's case, it follows that Andrew, by alms and other donations made by him since the incendiary fire, or rather since collecting the insurance money, has already refunded part of this money.

This is the first ground to reduce the amount which Andrew is obliged to refund.

A second ground for a reduction may perhaps be found in Andrew's circumstances, which make the money needful for the further education of his children. If one of them has chosen the priesthood for his vocation, or some other calling similarly to the welfare of mankind, the furnishing of the means for such vocation, and for the preparation therefor, is a pious purpose, such as we have said can, in our case, take the place of restitution to the creditors. Although it is advisable that of a debt arising from an obligation of restitution the entire sum should not remain in the debtor's family, on the claim of poverty or causa pia, but that an outside causa pia should be preferred, yet under such title at least a considerable portion of the money may remain in the debtor's possession.

For these reasons alone, the money still to be made good, even if

Catharine has not made restitution and if Andrew is a culpable accessory, may be reduced to at least one-half, and in case of need to less.

II. It is, however, quite possible that our supposition, of Andrew's theological guilt and of the expenditure of the money for the benefit of the family, is not a fact. One would suppose that it could not have escaped the husband's notice if the money had been really expended for the family or for household needs. There is of course the possibility that the wife alone had these matters in hand, the husband having relinquished his control over them. Then the matter would remain in doubt. A circumstance seemingly in favor of the opinion that restitution had been made-or an application of the money equal to restitution-is that Catharine died fortified with the last Sacraments, and had said nothing before her death to her husband of being burdened with the duty of restitution. A difficulty to do this was not present in this case, Andrew being aware of the wife's act upon which the obligation of restitution rested. Still there is no certainty, and a mere possibility could hardly suffice for a complete exoneration of Andrew. Yet it will be permissible for this reason to make a still further reduction of the obligation and of the sum to be refunded, in the supposition of Andrew's theological guilt.

In conclusion it remains to inquire about Andrew's theological guilt or non-guilt. We have remarked above that no theological guilt can attach to Andrew because he took the money; he was compelled to do so to prevent greater evil to himself and to his wife. There would have ensued the theological sin of injustice had he appropriated the money as his own property. That this evidently was not his intention, is shown by his action directly afterward, when he declared he would have none of it. Of course, having