46. On Sacrilege

1. Theofridus, on feast days, is accustomed to go to Church, yet not with the mind of honoring God, but of seeing his betrothed, and inviting her to come together into another place. Hence during the whole time of the sacred functions he morosely feeds his eyes by looking at his betrothed, and in her, in his own mind, he takes complacence to himself, and with shameful touches upon himself he is venereally delighted.

2. Livonia and Vibiana stubbornly contend and quarrel with each other over the ownership of a certain prayer book, in church. Hearing the shouts, Andronicus, the church custodian, immediately runs up, who at once, with his staff, beats the women and casts them out of the church. But behold, while Livonia hastens to go out, she is driven against the door of the church and pours forth blood from her nostrils.

Q. 1. What is sacrilege, and what kind of sin? - 2. Is Theofridus guilty of sacrilege? - 3. What concerning Livonia, Vibiana, and Andronicus?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 94, 493 seqq., 800 seqq. - To the second: Theofridus did not commit grave sacrilege from this, that on feast days he frequents the church with the mind of feeding his eyes and inviting his betrothed there. The reason is that sacred time does not come among the things to be numbered as sacred things; for, granted that sacred things are done in it, nevertheless time itself is not consecrated. Likewise, he did not commit grave sacrilege by morosely looking at his betrothed in a sacred place, nor probably even by inviting her to copula to be had in another place, contempt and the will of dishonoring the sacred place nevertheless being excluded. The reason is that, as an external act, that look does not seem gravely to detract from the honor of the sacred thing, although by that look he sins gravely in his own mind. And the same seems to have to be said about that invitation, which, although in itself it is a grave sin, does not bring some special filthiness upon the sacred place. For look and speech do not seem so to affect the place that therefore it be held gravely befouled and profaned. Hence, all the more, the grave guilt of sacrilege is not had by interior complacence alone. But, by exercising gravely immodest touches upon his own body, at least more probably, he sinned gravely and sacrilegiously. The reason is that since acts of this sort, more material, contain grave turpitude, they are judged gravely to befoul and profane the Church. At least more probably; for the matter is not altogether certain. Whence Fr. Gury, in Cases of Conscience, in one place probably denies grave sin, but in another more probably affirms it. - Elbel 575, 576; G. 146, 281.

But what if Theofridus had also committed pollution in the Church? He indeed would have committed local sacrilege, and as many times as he repeated it, however secretly. The reason is that by this most shameful exterior sin the sacred place is affected with grave irreverence and filthiness. Yet the Church would not have been polluted, nor would there have been need of reconciliation, since it had not been public. I. M. V. 2, n. 641; Elbel 576, 282.

Likewise, "what is to be held concerning those who accuse themselves that in Church, during divine services, they have emitted flatus? R. This scruple is to be removed from them, lest thereafter perhaps they sin from an erroneous conscience, and it must be said that an emission of this sort, unless perhaps it were done from contempt or with scandal of hearers, is free from every fault." Elbel 577. The reason is that it is a certain natural necessity, and, according to the prudent estimation of men, no filthiness or turpitude is judged thence to be in the sacred place. But otherwise it would have to be said if, no natural necessity compelling, someone were to discharge his bowels in church, urinate, or vomit, or stable horses in it; since actions of this sort befoul the sacred place.

To the third. If the contention and quarrel of Livonia and Vibiana was grave, they committed grave sacrilege. From the case, a great tumult seems truly to have been present in the church; whence without doubt grave and sacrilegious irreverence was inflicted upon the church. But if the contention and quarrel had been only slight, only slight irreverence and malice of sacrilege is judged. But Andronicus, immediately running up and at once beating, is to be excused from every sacrilege and sin; because he surely did this impelled by zeal for divine honor and for his office; and therefore he did not act injuriously against the church. Therefore the Church was not polluted by that effusion of blood; for it was altogether accidental and beyond intention. Besides, the nostrils are too prompt an organ for pouring forth blood, so that it could properly be called an effusion of blood. - Elbel 578, 579; G. 283, 284; I. M. V. 2, n. 641.