Sole Question: What sacrilege is, and of how many kinds

Sacrilege is defined by D. Bonaventure in 3. dist. 37. dub. 7. and p. p. Centil. sect. 24. and 30. and in the Mirror of the Soul, cap. 2. It is the violation of a sacred thing, insofar as it is sacred, for it is called as it were the injury of a sacred thing.

Now a thing is sacred by the very fact that it is destined by some law to the worship of God. So D. Thomas art. 1. and 3. Cajetan here d. 5. Valencia quaest. 14. p. 1. Tannerus d. 5. quaest. 8. dub. 1.

Further, according to the diversity of things that are consecrated to God, the Doctors, with D. Bonaventure sect. 30. p. p. Centil. and D. Thomas art. 3., establish three kinds of sacrilege.

The first is if a sacred Person is violated. This happens first, when a sacred person, for instance a Cleric, is unjustly dragged to a secular tribunal, or struck, of which I shall treat when I deal with Censures.

Secondly, when a sacred person bound by a vow of chastity is defiled with lust, or sins in any way whatever against the vow of chastity.

Thirdly, when tributes and tolls are exacted from Clerics against the Ecclesiastical immunity, or if things owed to them, for instance tithes, are withheld.

Fourthly, when someone violates a vow or an oath. But when a Cleric is given to thefts and trading, he does not sin by sacrilege, because by the force of their consecration to the holiness of their person they are not prohibited, but by the canons, lest he be impeded from Ecclesiastical revenues. Which Valencia noted quaest. 15. part. 1. Azorius lib. 9. cap. 17. quaesito 2. Tannerus d. 1. cited, num. 8.

The second species of sacrilege is the violation of a sacred thing, as distinguished from a person, and from a place. To this belongs first the abuse of the Sacraments. Secondly the profanation of sacred Vessels and Ornaments. Thirdly the violation, or contumelious destruction of sacred Images; as heretics do, and those who do such things are sent to the holy Office of the Inquisition, to which this pertains, as Diana teaches part. 4. Tract. 7. resol 9. for it smacks of Lutheranism; whatever Torreblanca may say. Fourthly the theft of sacred things. Fifthly the abuse of sacred things. To this they also refer Simony, of which we shall treat below.

The third species of sacrilege is the violation of a sacred place. To this pertain certain actions, such as profane songs, and fairs. Secondly certain particular actions, such as unjust homicide, the burial of an excommunicate, or an infidel, culpable effusion of blood, or of seed, in a temple, or consecrated place, yet not in a Monastery. Thirdly the theft of a sacred thing, or of things consigned to the Church. So D. Bonaventure in the places cited, and D. Thomas quaest. 99. art. 3. Cajet. there Sylvest. V. sacrileg. Azor. lib. 9. cap. 27. num. 7. Sà under the word immunitas, Valencia quaest. 15. puncto 1. Tanner. d. 5. quaest. 8. dub. 1.

D. Bonaventure adds that even to steal from a Church a thing not sacred, nor entrusted to the Church, is Sacrilege, to which Valencia and Sà subscribe, and Tanner. num. 12. and others hold it probable, who think the opposite. Fourthly a sacred place is violated by dragging away a person who has fled to it for refuge. Now such a place is any chapel whatsoever, where the Sacred rite is celebrated by the authority of the Bishop, and the cemetery, the monastery of Religious, the door, and portico of a Church, or annexed to a cemetery, the house of a Bishop, or of Cardinals, the house of a Church for the dwelling of clerics within thirty, or forty paces. Likewise a Hospital built by the authority of the Bishop, indeed by law a space of forty paces in circuit around a greater Church, or thirty around a lesser. Yet this is no longer observed, as Navarrus says in the Manual, cap. 25. num. 17. except as regards the bounds of cemeteries, enclosures, cloisters, steps and the like.

ALL enjoy this immunity, and only Christians free, except in some cases to be referred to below, sometimes even servants, even excommunicates, interdicted, suspended, indeed even the striker of a cleric, and every sacrilegious person, who however has not offended in a sacred place. Likewise one banned, a blasphemer, etc.

But heretics do not enjoy it, nor other infidels, unless they flee to the Church with the mind of becoming faithful; nor the waylaying robber, nor the nocturnal ravager of fruits, nor one who kills, maims, or commits any other grave thing in a sacred place, nor one who kills treacherously, or strikes so as to kill, according to many; nor those who by violence dragged out one who had taken refuge in a Church; nor those whom the Pontiff orders to be led out; nor Ecclesiastical persons with respect to their proper judge, as Navarrus pursues n. 19. and seqq. according to the cap. Definitio. cap. si quis contumax, cap. Deum, cap. Quisquis, cap. constituimus, cap. sicut antiquitus, 7. quaest. 4. in the Decretals under the title de immunitate Ecclesiae.

Yet Sà notes, from the Bull of Gregory XIV., that ravagers of fields, or those who kill treacherously, or assassins, or waylayers of roads, or heretics, or those guilty of lèse-majesty against a Prince, are to be handed over to the secular court with the leave of the Bishop.

You will ask first: whether a Judge who condemns an accused who has been sacrilegiously dragged away is bound to restitution to the heirs, or to the accused himself.

It is answered affirmatively, as is commonly held according to Valencia quaest. 15. puncto 1. Tanner. loc. cit. num. 18. although D. Thomas indicates the opposite quaest. 99. art. 2. ad 3. The reason is, because the accused has the right to be restored to the Church, as the cap. sicut antiquitus, 17. quaest. 4. provides.

You will ask secondly: whether all sacrilegious persons are excommunicated ipso facto.

It is answered, that strikers of clerics are excommunicated, cap. si quis suadente, 17. quaest. 4. Those who unjustly impose tolls on clerics, or Churches. Likewise those who violate the immunity of Ecclesiastical things, or persons, by the Bull of the Coena: Likewise invaders of the goods of the Church, by the Council of Trent sess. 22. cap. 11. de reform. Breakers into temples, and plunderers of Churches, by the common opinion of all. To these Azorius lib. 11. adds incendiaries of Churches, by the common opinion of the Canonists and Summists, with D. Bonaventure in Confessionali, cap. 3. particula 43. where it is added: From now on, after they have been published, they cannot be absolved except by the Apostolic See, extra, de sententia excommunicationis.

Yet others deny that these are excommunicated. So Cajetan, Navarrus, and Sylvester, according to Tannerus.

But the OTHER sacrilegious persons are not excommunicated ipso facto, but after a prior canonical fraternal admonition, unless they make satisfaction, they are to be excommunicated according to the cap. Quisquis 17. quaest. 4. de poena mortis, et pecuniaria, see D. Thomas quaest. 99. art. 4.

Now every sacrilege is a mortal sin; yet inadvertence, or the slightness of the matter, excuses. See Valencia puncto 2.

I treat of the species of sacrilege in their proper places.