superfluous to quote here authorities in this matter.* They all agree that a priest commits grievous sin if he does not administer the last Sacraments, in danger of death, to children, who have attained the use of reason, on the excuse that they had never previously received the Sacraments of Penance or of the Eucharist, or because they have not been fully instructed.

Hence to say: He who has not received the Sacraments of Penance and of the Eucharist is to be buried according to the ordo sep. parvulos is not correct, but, He who is not capable of receiving the Sacraments. He who is capable of receiving the Sacraments must be interred according to the ordo sep. adultos. As this capability is contingent upon the use of reason we may amplify the rule given above and say: All those who have attained the use of reason, and have, or might have, received the last Sacraments, are to be buried according to the ordo sep. adultos.

Ad. 3. (a) The pastor after proper preparation should have given the last Sacraments and general absolution to the older boy. A complete instruction for Confession and Communion is not necessary under the circumstances, only the knowledge of the truths which necessitate medii must be believed explicitly. Hereupon he should have helped the boy to examine his conscience, as far as possible, and should have been especially solicitous for a good disposition by exciting acts of contrition, faith, hope and charity. This suffices for a valid and worthy reception of sacramental absolution and therefore for the reception of Extreme Unction. Whenever these two Sacraments are administered, general absolution should also be given. Furthermore if the child can distinguish the Holy Eucharist from ordinary material food, and there is no irreverence to be feared, he may also receive the Holy Viaticum.

*Note, see p. 173.

(b) The older boy should have been buried according to the ordo sep. adultos, the younger one according to the ordo sep. parvulos. Therefore the blessings at the house, in the church and at the cemetery should have taken place successively. No one could expect, however, that each body should be taken separately from the house to the church and thence to the cemetery, for that would have increased needlessly the parents' grief. A separate rite was therefore not possible in this particular part of the burial rite, it had to be performed according to one ritual and that should have been the ordo sep. adultos. This is the more important and necessary one, and it would have been more in accord with the sentiments of the parents and all those present.

LAMBERT STUDENY, D.D.

LXXI. TWO CASES OF RESTITUTION

I. Cajus, a wealthy man, has three sons, one of whom, Titus, is leading a dissolute life, and has incurred debts to money lenders. Unable to pay them, he leaves the country. The creditors expect to be indemnified, upon the death of Cajus, from the share in the paternal fortune which must fall to Titus. But Cajus is determined to prevent that any part of his property should fall into the hands of these money lenders, and sells his entire property to the two other sons. He sends Titus his legal share in cash, which the latter soon squanders, so that there now remains no prospect for the money lenders of ever getting their money. 1. What obligations have Titus and Cajus? 2. Was Cajus right in acting thus, with the intention of doing the money lenders out of their due?

Answer.-I. Titus is evidently obliged to make restitution. He who incurs debts must pay them. There is only one chance of escape: if, namely, Titus is a minor, and if a positive law exists for the bonum commune-as is contained, for instance, in the jus Romanum-which prohibits to claim from minors the payment of debts incurred in an extravagant manner. In such case Titus may refuse payment, if he has committed no fraud. But if such law does not exist, or if Titus is not a minor, there remains for him the obligation to make restitution. Of course he who has nothing can not make restitution, and thus Titus would be released. Must the father in this matter assume responsibility for the son? In his capacity as father certainly not. Yet Cajus appears to be the cause for the loss to the money lenders, because in order that his property should not fall into their hands he sold it to his other sons. To this no objection can be made. This sale does not render it impossible

for Titus to pay his debts. On the contrary Titus now receives his lawful share and may pay if he so wishes. The father foresaw of course that Titus would not pay, and he suffered the loss to fall upon the money lenders. In this way one may, under certain circumstances, sin against charity, but against justice only if he is vi muneris to prevent damage to a third party. Who, however, can assert that Cajus was bound vi muneris to prevent a loss to the money lenders? Cajus has, therefore, committed no wrong toward the money lenders and need not make restitution.

Answer.-2. This question demands a new presumption. Cajus intended not only to save his property but to do the money lenders out of their due. He sells his property therefore to his two sons, and pays Titus his share out of the price received. The latter, of course, squanders this money. The father calculated correctly and the lenders lose their money. Did the father thus wrong these people? At first glance the answer seems to depend upon whether an intention can make unjust an act of itself just, and whether there is incurred responsibility for the consequences. Yet this is only so apparently. For the question about the influence of the intention. upon a just act presupposes, and must presuppose, that this act is causa damni; it must be ascertained whether through the intention the causa iusta became a causa iniusta. This necessary presumption is lacking in our case; for Cajus through paying Titus his share, even with the purpose of doing the money lenders out of their due, is not the causa, but only the occasio damni, consequently free from the duty of restitution. Thus the theory; but in actual life the circumstances are often deciding. It is hardly conceivable that Cajus, determined to outwit the money lenders, did not also in one or another way, through his counsel, influence his son's unjust conduct. If this is the case-from the statement of the casus this is not evident

then Cajus must assume the consequences of his consilium iniustum, and make restitution; of course only in second place.

II. Frank lends to Anthony, who is financially embarrassed, the sum of one thousand dollars without note of hand or security. Subsequently Anthony gives his daughter in marriage to Caius, making over to him in the marriage contract everything he possesses, and saying nothing of the one thousand dollars which he owes to Frank. After the death of Frank his heirs demand of Caius, who is in good circumstances, the payment of the thousand dollars, because Anthony had transferred his entire property to him. Caius, however, knowing nothing of this debt, affirms in court, upon oath, that he did not make this loan, whereupon the court decides against the heirs of Frank. 1. Must Caius make restitution for the debt? Caius pay the costs of the suit?

2. Must

Answer.-1. We presume that Anthony at the time he made the settlement possessed nothing outside of his real estate; we suppose further that he not now possesses anything, that he is not even in a position to earn anything and thus pay the debt.

Under these suppositions we say: Caius must give up the thousand dollars. But why? To establish this obligation there are several ways of arguing; we prefer the following: Anthony borrowed money of Frank. A debtor does wrong if he does not pay his debts, and also if he voluntarily places himself in a position that makes it impossible for him to pay the debt. Anthony did the latter by transferring to his son-in-law everything that he possessed. Hence Anthony must make good this wrong, as far as possible. There remains nothing for him to do but to reclaim from Caius that portion of his property needed to cover his liability, presuming that he can reclaim it. This he has the right to do, for the donation was in that part unlawful. The part, namely, which Anthony needs to pay his