weeded out. From earliest youth the grace and assistance of the Holy Spirit are required to this end. The Holy Father sees a twofold advantage in early Confirmation: The childish mind is made more receptive for acquiring the Christian rules of life, it will be better prepared for the Holy Communion later to be received, and will obtain there from greater fruits: Porro sic confirmati adolescentuti ad capienda praecepta molliores fiunt, suscipiendaeque postmodum Eucharistiae aptiores, atque ex suscepta uberiora capiunt emolumenta. The matter is one for the bishops to regulate for their respective dioceses.

FR. GOEPFERT, D.D.

XLII. RESTITUTION, ON ACCOUNT OF THE

PURCHASE OF STOLEN GOODS

Anastasia, saleswoman in her sister Lucia's store, buys provisions which their vender, a housekeeper, has secretly taken out of her allowance, as she considers herself entitled to them through her economy in the management of the household, and also to improve her wages, which she considers insufficient. Anastasia purchases these things, partly not to expose this person in the presence of others, and partly because her sister has told her she may safely do so, and that the responsibility for the truth of the assertion rested with the housekeeper.

Is this proper, or is there in regard to the injury done to the housekeeper's employer the obligation of restitution, and in what order?

Answer. 1. The housekeeper can not be considered justified in appropriating anything over the agreed wages, under the pretext of compensation. To make such a thing permissible it would have to be proved that the person had been forced to work for unfairly low wages. This is not to be supposed in our case. The pretext of economical saving may be regarded more leniently, if in reality the articles ordinarily used in the household were supplied at a saving.

2. The purchase, on part of Anastasia and Lucia, is of articles which at least are very doubtful property of the vender; that a great part of these wares are the property of another, therefore stolen, is morally certain. Consequently their purchase is unlawful; nor does it become lawful because Anastasia hesitates to expose the vender; she can and must refuse the deal, and in order to talk this over with the housekeeper alone this person may be asked to wait until all other customers have left.

3. As there is acquisition of very doubtful, even positively unrighteous, property, the obligation of restitution prevails. As concerns the order, the housekeeper is liable in the first place; she must refund to her employer the value received, or, in case the articles were sold below their value, the actual value of all things to which she had no certain claim; in regard to the balance between the real value and the price received, she is entitled to reimbursement from Lucia's cash drawer, which profited by this difference in price. In the second place, if, namely, the housekeeper can not, or will not, make restitution, Anastasia and Lucia are liable for the loss which the employer has suffered. The entire loss must be refunded if the injustice of the appropriation is positively ascertained; if the injustice remains in doubt, the restitution may be reduced to a part, say one-half. Finally, it may be asked whether Anastasia is obliged before Lucia, or Lucia before Anastasia. As Lucia approved of Anastasia's action and Anastasia bought only in Lucia's name, the obligation of restitution falls first of all upon Lucia. Should Anastasia make restitution she would, in case the housekeeper could not be made to reimburse her, be entitled to recover the money from Lucia; both, however, Anastasia as well as Lucia, are entitled to reimbursement by the housekeeper for the money paid to her. AUGUST LEHMKUHL, S.J.

XLIII. CO-OPERATION BY THE FURNISHING OF

NON-CATHOLIC CHURCHES

A firm manufacturing stained glass, owned by a Catholic, received a handsome order from a Protestant community. The head of the firm asks Father A. whether he can properly and with a clear conscience undertake the commission.

Father A. forbids this, absolutely, as it would be assisting in building a temple for heretics. Subsequently Father B. is asked, who at once permits the firm to do the work.

Who is right? What justification is there for obeying one and not the other?

If Fathers A. and B. gave their decision without further inquiry into the status of the case, they both erred. We will explain this more fully. What is here really concerned? A Protestant house of worship is in need of stained glass windows; if the house were intended for profane purpose there would be no difficulty whatsoever. But the windows are to adorn a place where will be held worship the participation in which is forbidden by the Church, consequently a co-operation in something prohibited, a cooperatio ad rem malam, can not be denied. In the cooperatio, however, the first question is, can it be designated as formal? If so, there can be no permission, because it would be an actual participation in the sinfulness of the act, therefore a sin; if not formal, then it is material, and the act of the co-operation is neither bad of itself nor of its intention, it would solely become wrong through the guilt of the performer. That is sufficient, however, to render such co-operation unpermissible. The law of charity requires us to prevent evil as much as possible, primarily, therefore, not to assist in it in any way at all. The obliga

tions of charity, however-we must not overlook this-exalted as they are, do not oblige us in general under great sacrifices, i. e., for sufficient reasons to suffer evil to be done is not sinful. Hence the principle that a material co-operation is permissible for comparatively grave reasons. In material co-operation the question of the importance of the motives for the action are of great import. The more sinful the act, the greater the injury, the worse the scandalon the one hand; on the other hand the more closely the material co-operation is connected with the act, the more necessary the cooperation for its accomplishment-then the more weighty must be the reason that is to render such material assistance permissible.

Let us apply this principle to the case before us. It is here a question of material support of a heretical sect; therefore the greatest good, the faith, is at stake. If by refusal of assistance the faith could be preserved, or a real injury to it averted, then our duty is clearly defined. Such would be the case if a new sect was being founded, or if a sect newly entered a locality theretofore free from all heresy. Hence the great severity of the rescript of the Cardinal Vicar of July 12, 1878.

If, however, a sect is tolerated to prevent greater evil, and officially recognized by temporal authorities, the case is a little different. The danger to the faith has become chronic, not so burning; the scandal has become lessened by conventionalism, though unfortunately not without spreading indifference in matters of faith. For the Catholic there remains the duty of abstaining from material co-operation, especially one directly connected with the promotion of heresy, as, for instance, contributing money to build heretic churches, contributing, or helping, at bazaars for the same purpose, etc. Architects must not make plans for such churches, nor erect the building, unless a more important reason exists than the gain itself. Fre