Let us

The marriage is therefore not invalid because of error. inquire whether it is invalid by reason of non-fulfilment of a stipulated condition.

What is understood by a condition? A condition is that which is requisite that something else should take effect. It is apparent from the definition of condition, that, if the condition is not fulfilled, the contract is not intended and therefore not valid, ex jure naturali.

The question is then whether we are dealing in this case with a condition that would abolish the consent, and therewith the validity of the marriage. We are informed that: Claudius married Silvia upon the condition, claimed by her, that he was the parent of her expected child.

Was this a real condition? Did Claudius intend to make the validity of the marriage dependent upon the fact of his paternity, or not?

On the answer to this question the confessor would have to lay stress in his inquiry into the facts. If Claudius made it an actual condition, then the marriage is invalid, even in the case that the condition was not made in the form prescribed by Canon Law, i. e., not explicitly stated before parish priest and witnesses. The neglect of this formality does not make an in jure naturali void marriage a valid one, it only forfeits to the one who imposed the condition the right to claim it in foro externo.

As regards the re-validation of a marriage invalid on account of lack of consent, such does not take place eo ipso by reason of a long cohabitation with the other party. There is necessary an actual, conscious, removal of the lack of intent. In the foregoing case it would mean a conscious renunciation of the imposed condition, and ac

quainting the other party with the renunciation, the two conditions jure divino requisite for renewal of consent.

That such a renunciation was not made is attested by the fact that Silvia is not conscious of it.

If, therefore, the marriage was entered into under an actual condition, then it has been invalid from the very beginning.

In the solution of this case the all important question is: Had Claudius intended an actual condition, or only had an explicit supposition?

HUBERT GERIGK.

XXXVII. ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAST SACRAMENTS TO CHILDREN, OVER THE AGE OF

SIX. IN DANGER OF DEATH

Sinite parvulos venire ad me et ne prohibueritis eos: talium enim est regnum Dei (Mark x, 14).

There can be no doubt that the parish priest, after the example of his Lord and Master, must in a special manner concern himself about children. Of an especial truth are the words: He who has a hold on youth, to him belongs the future. We may go farther and say: To him belongs also the present. For he who wins the children over to his sacred cause and arouses them for it, has in many cases also the parents; with and through the children he gains influence upon the family. A chief part of the priest's effort must, therefore, be directed to the care of the children. But if the priest has to bestow special attention upon children in the normal state, it is befitting and right that he should do the same for those in sickness. How could he refuse his assistance to a child at the very moment when it needs him most? Why should he not make it his special concern to clear the way to heaven for a child? Let us inquire then what form this spiritual care should take in the case of dangerously sick children over the age of six years; what is to be said of the administration of the last Sacraments in such cases?

The Rit. Rom. (tit. V, ep. 4, n. 1) prescribes: Parochus hortetur parochiales suos, ut ipsum admoneant, cum aliquem in parochia sua aegrotare contigerit, praecipue si morbus gravior fuerit. This precept is quite general (aliquem). It has reference not only to those who have already been admitted to Confession and Holy Communion, but to all the faithful who have attained the use of reason,

all those, therefore, capable of an actual sin, whether of modo perfecto or imperfecto, whether mortal or venial. This, however, can, according to the sententia communissima of theologians, not be doubted of children who have passed their sixth, or at most their seventh year, under generally normal conditions.

Such child may, therefore, receive Extreme Unction, and the priest is bound to administer it to him. Hence the Provincial Synod of Prague in 1860 proclaimed: Pueris infirmis cum ad eam aetatem pervenerint, in qua peccare potuerunt, quamvis nondum communicaverint, administrandum est sacramentum extremae unctionis. Since, however, this Sacrament is a Sacrament of the living, it must, as the rule, be preceded by the Sacrament of Penance, or at least by sacramental absolution.

In this sense the Provincial Synod of Cologne of the same year expresses itself: Cum extrema unctio sit sacramentum vivorum, communiter in suscipiente requirit gratiam sanctificantem; hinc, si fieri potest, peccatorum praecedat confessio, si ea jam, qua par est, ratione fieri nequit, saltem absolutio. Fidelis omnes, qui graviter decumbant, modo olim rationis fuerint compotes, ut peccata committere potuerint, capaces sunt hujus sacramenti; hinc etiam aetate juniores licet primam communionen nondum susceperint. The decrees of both these Provincial Synods have been approved by the Holy See; therefore they are not merely diocesan precepts but rather moral dogmatic decisions in concerning what should take place in the case of dangerously sick children capable of actual sin (children, therefore, above their sixth year). Attention should here be given also to the ecclesiastical regulations anent the reception of the Sacrament of Penance when in good health. The Conc. Later. IV says: Omnis utriusque sexus, postquam ad annos discretionis pervenerit, omnia sua peccata, saltem semel in anno, fideliter con

fiteatur. Moreover the Catech. Rom. (De Poenit. 48) directs: Eo tempore confessionem puero indictam esse, cum inter bonum et malum discernendi vim habet, in ejusque mentem dolus cadere potest. Though this is not to be applied to well children above their seventh year, it must be held that to children, in danger of death, it is certainly a priest's sacred duty to administer this Sacrament. Children above their sixth, at any rate above their seventh, year may, therefore, receive both these Sacraments, if they are in danger of death, and the priest is obliged to administer them. ter of course general absolution can be given to them.

As a mat

Objection should not be made here that these Sacraments when administered to such young children might be exposed to irreverence. It should rather be remembered that the Sacraments were instituted by Christ propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem. No doubt, with the duty of administering these Sacraments is joined the other of preparing young children as well as possible.

Even less valid is the objection that children at this age have, at most, venial sins upon their conscience, and that even these on account of imperfect knowledge are only to be viewed as incomplete. Even admitting this to be a fact, which it is probably not in all cases, in God's sight even the least venial sin is by no means a trifling matter and it must be wiped out. Why then should not a priest come to the sick child's assistance? Why should he not help to free the child from his small faults and open to him the door of heaven? And, in conclusion, can we not be mistaken in a child's mental capacity? Even of young children it is often true: Malitia supplet aetatem. The case may even occur that such a child may have committed a mortal sin, or at least is capable of committing one. Therefore it would be inexcusable to refuse to a child these Sacraments. At all events a zealous priest ought, and should, even