tion? Theologians give a unanimous answer to this: Ecclesia supplet, si adest titulus coloratus et error communis, but both must be present at the same time. The titulus coloratus is present if, though the exterior act through which jurisdiction is bestowed, has taken place, it is invalid on account of a secret fault, for instance if exteriorly a parish were quite lawfully assigned to a priest, but the entire act were invalid on account of secret simony. If the jurisdiction has not been given at all, or if, though given validly, it has already expired, yet the people suppose the priest has jurisdiction, then there is present titulus putativus, together with error communis. It is plain that in our case Caius had no titulus coloratus, but only putativus, i. e., there is present therefore error communis sine titulo colorato.

For this case the theologians hold: Si adest putativus et error communis, non est certum, an Ecclesia suppleat. LEHMKUHL writes thus: "Si sine titulo colorato solum error communis adest, multi quidem putant Ecclesiam propter commune bonum, cui potissimum publica auctoritas provideat, etiamtum supplere; et quum nullam legem ecclesiasticam habeamus, quae id fieri statuat, neque consensus Doctorum adsit, totum dubium manet."

Ad. II. From the aforesaid there follows the answer to the second question and this answer is: It is not quite certain that the absolutions given by Caius on the second day were valid. For, although SABETTI, S.J., says (Compendium Theol. Mor., n. 773): "Probabiliter etiam supplet Ecclesia, si adsit error communis sine titulo colorato, sed cum titulo tantum existimato (= putativo). Eadem enim urget ratio ac in casu praecedente, cum etiam in hac hypothesi innumerae animae perire possint. Ita multi et graves theologi apud S. Alphonsum, n. 572; and although A. ESCHBACH (Anal. Eccl., 1897, p. 505) writes: "Jam vero sententia probabilior

tenet, Ecclesiam supplere, si error adsit communis etiam sine titulo colorato. Caeteroquin in materia sumus favorabili in qua ampliatio datur," by all this we do not get beyond the probabilitas, and where a Sacrament is concerned, probabilitas is of little use to us (extreme cases of necessity excepted), what we need is certitudo.

What is to be said of Caius' action? Objectively he has committed a grievous fault. It is not even allowed to hear confessions, though titulus coloratus and error communis are present and the Church therefore surely supplies the defect, when one knows he has no jurisdiction, but only a titulus coloratus. Even more unlawful is it if only error communis is present, when it is not certain that the Church supplements. "A fortiori non licet illi, qui omni potestate eiusque titulo se destitutum novit, propter solum errorem communem agere, tum quia usurpat potestatem, quam non habet; tum quia eos, quorum interest ipsius actum validum esse, periculo atque damno exponit" (LEHMKUHL). To what extent Caius was at fault subjectively, we are unable to determine, but it must be admitted that he took the matter too lightly.

The claim will hardly be made that there was a probabilitas of valid absolutions, and that cum iurisdictione probabili one could lawfully absolve. The answer to this would be: In our case there was not only iurisdictio probabilis absent but there was nulla iurisdictio, probable it is only that the Church supplied the defect.

Finally, the question suggests itself, what was to be done after Caius discovered his error? Were the people to be informed that they were only apparently absolved, and that they were obliged to procure certain absolution? This question is by BERARDI (Praxis Confess., n. 1053, IX) answered thus: "There exists no obligation in general to compel the faithful to repeat confessions made bona fide"; and in support BERARDI refers to the decision by the Congr. Concilii,

of December 11, 1683. The matter is to be left at rest; in the worst case the faithful will have these sins indirectly remitted in their next confession. It would be different if the faithful themselves found out that these confessions were of doubtful validity. Some theologians are of the opinion that even in this case the faithful need not be required to repeat their confessions, but the decision quoted by BERARDI says: Si ipsi confessi hoc resciverint vel ed de invaliditate confessionis dubitaverint, eosdem teneri reiterare confessionem.

IGNAZ RIEDER, D.D.

LIII. A MUSICIAN'S CO-OPERATION BY PLAYING IN PROTESTANT CHURCHES AND AT DANCES

In a small town there is an orchestra of which Torquatus is a member. He is a man with family and obtains his sole income from this profession, making a fairly good living. He is often called upon to play at Protestant funerals, also at dances-not infrequently immodest dances. The leader of the orchestra declares that Torquatus must play at all engagements or be dismissed. Torquatus, a conscientious Catholic, asks his confessor what to do under these circumstances. What answer should be given him?

If Torquatus can find other employment, by which he can support his family respectably, he should be advised, without doubt, to quit the orchestra. If this is not possible, then the question is whether the situation excuses him in co-operating, in the manner mentioned, at Protestant funerals and at dances. The twofold danger, of injuring his own soul and of giving scandal to others and co-operating in their sins, appears to prohibit him from so doing.

As regards the actual danger it should not be difficult for a conscientious father of a family to render this danger very remote, especially by purity of intention and by vigilance and prayer.

His participation in an act of non-Catholic worship, and in the sins of others on the dance floor, appears to be more important. For this reason these two points may receive closer attention.

1. As regards playing at Protestant funerals, a distinction must be made as to whether the co-operation must be regarded as formal, or merely as material. Such participation is formal if it forms part of the forbidden ritual, or if it is part of the same, as for instance playing the organ, or singing at non-Catholic services. In such cases

the participation can not be excused for any necessity whatever, because it is essentially wrong. In this sense moralists prohibit Catholics from singing, making responses, or playing the organ at nonCatholic services (Compare MARC, n. 433 (2); LEHмKUHL, n. 656). If the orchestra, of which Torquatus is a member, plays funeral marches, etc., at Protestant funerals, the same as at other purely profane occasions, this co-operation can as little be considered as formal participation as that of mourners accompanying a funeral; both could be considered only material participation, for this reason taking part in a Protestant funeral procession is allowed for just reasons, for example as an act of civic decency. "Funus deducere usque ad fores templi vel coemeterii censetur civile obsequium (MARC, n. 432, 2). And (LEHMKUHL, n. 656, 2), permits "Instrumentorum musicorum concentus inter ritum quidem religiosum, sed non ut ejus pars vel ornamentum, sed e. g. in honorem principis acatholici praesentis.”

2. The second question is whether Torquatus' musical co-operation at dances-not infrequently immoral dances-is not formal cooperation, and as such positively forbidden. "Co-operatio formalis ad peccatum alterius semper intrinsice mala est, atque ideo numquam licita" (AERTNYS, I, II, n. 77). The same authority says: "Co-operatio formalis est vel ex fine operis ex fine operantis” (n. 76). The latter is evidently not the case with Torquatus, who certainly does not intend the sins of others. As regards the finis operis the rule is: "Co-operatio est formalis, quae concurrit ad malam voluntatem alterius praestando operam, quae suapte natura ad malum ordinata est vel pars illius est." It would be difficult to establish that the playing of a musical instrument, even in the rendering of an immodest piece, is to be considered as an act quae suapte natura ad