Doubt VII: On sacrilege

Sacrilege, insofar as it is a species of Luxury, is thus defined: It is a sin of Luxury by which a sacred person, or a holy place, is violated. So D. Bonaventure in the Mirror of the Soul, cap. 3, §. around the passage on touch. and p. p. Censil. sect. 24. and in the Compendium of Theology, lib. 3, cap. 21. D. Thomas art. 10. and others.

Therefore, whether a sacred person with a non-sacred one; or a non-sacred person with a sacred one; or anyone whatsoever is defiled in a sacred place, the sin of sacrilege is committed. By reason of persons, indeed, even kisses, touches, and thoughts are sacrileges: But whether spouses, joined together in a sacred place, are sacrilegious.

The first opinion is that this is always sacrilege. So Navarrus man. lat. cap. 57. num. 252. Henriquez lib. 11. de matrim. cap. 16. Cajetan sum. verb. Matrim. and others cited by Fagundez in the 6th precept, lib. 6, cap. 3, num. 9. Candelab. p. p. de matrim. num. 262. Sylvius in suppl. quaest. 64, art. 7.

The second opinion holds that it is only venial. So the Gloss. on cap. Ecclesiis de cons. nor does it displease Soto 4. dist. 32. art 3. quaest. unic.

The third opinion is that it is licit if done for a cause, and secretly, Angl. flor. p. p. de matr. quaest. 6. Poncius de matr. lib. 10. cap. 10. num. 15. Casp. de pec. disp. 2. n. 20. Rodriq. tom. 1. sum. cap. 242. n. 19. Vega tom. 1. sum. lib. 1. cap. 78. casu 1. Diana tom. 1. Tract. de circuns. resol. 19 and 26. Vasquez prima 2. quaest. 72. ar. 9. disp. 92. num. 6. Lopez p. p. Instr. cap. 82. Sanchez de matr. lib. 9. disp. 15. num. 10. Caramuel in reg. D. Benedicti, n. 1017. and he says it is the opinion of all Doctors of good name.

The fourth opinion is that there is no fault in a case of necessity, or a just cause; nor is the Church defiled, if it is done secretly; even if afterward it begins to become public; but if it is done without cause, it is always mortal, even if secret; and if it begins to be spread abroad, the Church is to be considered defiled. So Sylvester V. conssecr. 2, §. 5. Sa V. Debitum, coniug. num. 12. Rebel. 2. part. lib. 3. num. 5. Couar. 2. part. de sponsal. cap. 7, §. 2. Lessius tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 3. dub. 10. Toletus lib. 5. cap. 12. Castro lib. 1. de potestate leg. poenalis, cap. 3. docum. 2. Fagundez lib. 6. cap. 3. num. 11.

As to D. Bonaventure, in the Mirror of the Soul, cap. 3, §. around the passage on touch, when enumerating the sins occurring in marriage, he does not list copulation in a sacred place; yet soon after, defining sacrilege, he says: Sacrilege is committed when Virgins or widows dedicated to God are known carnally, or such things are carried out in a sacred place. Nor does he seem to be speaking of copulation, which is by its nature licit within marriage.

In truth, in the Compendium of Theological Truth, lib. 3, cap. 21. he holds it to be a sin, without explaining whether it is mortal if done in a sacred place out of an impulse of lust; and indeed, if it is done for a just cause, he does not judge it to be sacrilege. The same the holy Doctor sets forth in the Confessional, cap. 2. part. 14. where he says it is mortal if done from mere impulse of lust; but I see that he is speaking in the sense of Alexander of Hales.

Therefore, if it is done for a just cause, and secretly, there will be no fault, or violation of the Church; but otherwise if it is done publicly — for which it is enough that a bed has been publicly erected in the Church.

Nor is the reception of offspring, or sensible delight, a just cause. So Tolet. lib. 5. sum. cap. 12. Sylvester V. the conjugal debt, num. 5. Fagundez n. 12. Yet it is excused when rendered, as Lessius notes, Tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 3. dub. 12. Fagundez at the place cited.

A LEGITIMATE cause will be the danger of incontinence, or the avoidance of imminent pollution; for this is a spiritual good. Likewise a long siege in that place.

TOUCHES, however, kisses, and looks in the Church, outside the danger of pollution, are not sacrileges. So Sanchez lib. 9. de debito coniug. disp. 15. Cajet. tom. 1. opusc. tract. 17. opusc. 31. Navarrus on cap. Consideret. num. 20. and others with him, as Diana p. p. Tract. 17. resol. 23. who calls the opposite view scrupulous. Ledesma nevertheless adds, on the sacrament of Penance, cap. 19. unless obscene words have been uttered aloud; for then the sacred place is injured.

Now a SACRED place is a Church, whether blessed or consecrated. And indeed, if it is consecrated, it cannot be purified except by the Bishop of the place, or by another Bishop with his license, cap. Aqua on the consecration of Churches; nor can it be committed to a simple priest, except by the supreme Pontiff, according to the Gloss on cap. Aqua, Sylvester V. consecratio 2. quaest. 8. and it must be reconciled with water with wine, and blessed ash. But if it is not consecrated, it can be purged by a simple Priest with blessed water. And when the Church is violated, the cemetery also is violated, because the accessory follows the principal.

The QUESTION is also: whether one who is at once a priest and a professed religious is defiled by a twofold sacrilege.

The FIRST opinion is that it is a double sacrilege, because they are circumstances specifically diverse. So Sotus lib. 8. de Iust. quaest. 2. art. 3. Peter Ledesma on the sacrament of Penance, cap. 10. Paludanus 4. dist. 36. quaest. 4. art. 1. and others; and those also are held to assert this who say that the obligation of chastity in sacred orders arises from precept, not from vow: these are Valentia 4. part. disp. 9. quaest. 5. puncto 5. Sanchez lib. 7. de matr. disp. 29.

The SECOND opinion is that it is one sacrilege with an aggravating circumstance: So Azor cap. 27. quaest. 9. and Caramuel num. 998. Bassaeus V. Sacrileg. 2. num. 2.

The THIRD opinion is that there is only one, and therefore it is enough to confess the one. So Sanchez lib. 7. de matrim. disp. 27. Lessius tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 3. dub. 12. Corduba sum. quaest. 3. Cajet. 2. 2. quaest. 186. art. 9. Lud. Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 29. Ovandus in 4. dist. 25. q. un. Rodriq. tom. 1. sum. cap. 53. Henriq. lib. 5. cap. 5.

As to the holy Doctor, I judge him to be with this opinion; for he says that the priest and the Religious sin the same sin in the Confessional, cap. 2. particula 20.

From these things it follows that a Religious who fornicates need only say that he violated his vow of chastity; for solemnity is only an aggravating circumstance, not a necessary one, in the opinion of St. Bonaventure; this follows Filliucius tract. 30. on the sixth precept of the decalogue, cap. 7. Sanchez lib. 7. de matrim. disp. 27. num. 27. nor does Fagundez refuse it, lib. 6. cap. 7. num. 11. Henriq. lib. 2. de poen. cap. 5. num. 6. with the commentary litt. C. Corduba summa, quaest. 3.

THUS if they have a solemn and simple vow, it will be enough to say that they acted against the vow. So Sanchez, Henriquez at the places cited, and Fagundez num. 14.

The PUNISHMENTS of sacrilege are most grave. One who carnally knows a nun is punished with death; it is clear from the text in the Authentics on the most holy Bishops, § penult. and from the text in l. si quis in hoc genere, at the beginning of the Codex on Bishops, and Clerics. and cap. Si quis rapuerit, 27. quaest. 1. See Farinacius Tom. 4. quaest. 146. Clarus §. fornic. num. 14. Menoch. de arbitr. qq. num. 2. casu 389.

The goods also of the violator are applied to the monastery of that nun, as Farinacius notes, num. 9. and Fagundez num. 19.

By canon law, a layman is excommunicated, cap. Si qua monacharum 27. quaest. 1. yet not ipso facto, nor reserved to the Bishop, except after sentence passed; a cleric can be deposed, deprived of benefice, and thrust into a monastery. See Farinacius.