VII. On Sacrilege

What is sacrilege? - Sacrilege is the violation of a sacred thing, insofar as sacred; that is, of a thing dedicated to divine worship, taken not materially but formally, namely insofar as it is ordered to this worship. That is to say, for some action to be sacrilege, the thing must be violated in that by which it is sacred. Whence if someone speaks badly about someone who has a vow of chastity, his detraction does not assume the nature of formal sacrilege, because that person is sacred to God only as to bodily purity, but not as to integrity of reputation. Moreover, only that thing is properly judged sacred which is not sacred in just any way, or dedicated to divine worship in just any way, but by public rite and divine or ecclesiastical institution, or by the power of the Church, has been deputed to the worship of God. Therefore it is not sufficient that a thing has been simply blessed, namely by a merely invocative blessing, by which we pray for the good of a thing or person; but a constitutive blessing is necessary, by which a thing from profane becomes sacred, as can be seen in holy water or blessed candles. Indeed, even more, a constitutive blessing is necessary by which a thing is consecrated uniquely and perpetually to divine worship; and this is properly consecration, as sacred vessels, churches, priests, clerics. And thus it is not illicit "to throw to dogs the bones of a lamb or eggs which are blessed... just as it is also licit to use holy water and candles for profane use." L. l. c., n. 94. By the blessing of these things only the special assistance of God is invoked concerning the use of those same things. La-Croix, l. c., n. 227; Struggl 9; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 76, a. 1; q. 99, aa. 1, 2; Cajetan on 2. 2, q. 88, a. 11; L. l. 6, n. 94.

Blessing is numbered among the sacramentals. It is an invocation of good: one merely invocative; another constitutive, by which a thing from profane becomes sacred; another constitutive and consecrative, by which a thing is destined uniquely and in perpetuity to divine worship. Blessings which are made without sacred oils are called verbal; those made with these employed are real, and are accustomed to be called consecrations. Real blessings, or consecrations, are of the episcopal order; of verbal blessings, some are of the episcopal order, others of the presbyteral. Some presbyteral blessings are parochial, such as the blessing of bridegroom and bride, the blessing of a ship, of houses on Holy Saturday. Which verbal presbyteral and episcopal blessings there are must be deduced from the Ritual, Pontifical, and Missal; but parochial blessings are those which bear before themselves some jurisdiction.

Of how many kinds is sacrilege? - Sacrilege is threefold: personal, by which a person is violated; local, by which a place; real, by which other sacred things are violated. Sacrilege differs in species according as it affects a person, place, or sacred thing. This is established from the common authority of theologians, and because the sanctity of persons, places, and things is not the same. For a person, as the subject of sanctity, is formally and simply holy; holy, namely here, insofar as such a person is dedicated to divine worship in a special way and destined for some ministry of it. A place is holy insofar as it is containing persons, or insofar as it is dedicated to containing the people of God gathered for divine worship. A thing is holy by relation, by which it is ordered to sanctity, that is, insofar as it is destined for divine worship, and therefore in a certain more general way. Suarez, de Relig., tr. 3, l. 3, cc. 1, 5; Lugo, de Poenit., d. 10, n. 471; L. 48; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 99, a. 3.

What kind of sin is sacrilege? - Sacrilege is a special sin of irreligiosity, mortal from its genus, if the work is specially repugnant to the sanctity of the thing, because a sacred thing is violated, and this violation always involves by its nature a grave injury to God; and it is so much graver as the sacred thing itself obtains greater sanctity. Yet it can become light by reason of smallness of matter. If the work is specially, etc.; for if it is only generally repugnant to sanctity, for example in the way that all mortal sins are generally repugnant to the sanctity of the temple, it does not exceed venial sin, or it is a lightly aggravating circumstance. L. 33; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 99, aa. 2, 4; C. I. poen. 142; E. M.

In how many ways is personal sacrilege committed? - Personal sacrilege is committed in three ways: 1. by laying violent hands upon a cleric or religious. 2. by lustfully violating persons dedicated to God, even by touches alone. 3. by subjecting ecclesiastical persons to the lay forum, against the privilege of exemption and immunity. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 99, a. 3; L. 35; Struggl 11.

In how many ways is local sacrilege committed? - Local sacrilege can likewise happen in a threefold way. 1. By profane actions which either by their nature or by prescription of law are opposed to the sanctity and immunity of the place, although the church is not polluted by them, such as public market, public banquets, theatrical plays, public outcries, secular parliaments, the noise of judgments, unless a grave cause excuses, etc. 2. By all sins by which a church is polluted by canon law, namely by the injurious and notorious shedding of human blood; illicit and notorious shedding of human seed; culpable and notorious homicide; burial of an excommunicate not tolerated, or of an unbaptized infidel in a church, even if such burial had been inculpable. 3. By all sins which are done against the immunity of asylum of a sacred place.

Local immunity is that by which one is forbidden to exercise profane things in places sacred to God, and especially to set fire to a church, break its doors, or exercise another violence in it. But immunity of asylum is that by which one is forbidden to violate the rights of asylum. C. 2, de Imm. in 6; C. 6, de Immun. eccl. Moreover asylum is a privilege by force of which security is furnished to evildoers fleeing to a sacred place, so that they cannot be violently dragged from there, except, however, in cases excepted by law. Suarez, de Relig., tr. 2, l. 3, c. 8; Gregory XIV, Const. Cum aliis; Benedict XIII, Const. Ex quo divina, 8 Id. June 1725; Clement XII, Const. In suprema; Benedict XIV, Const. Detestabilem, Const. Officii nostri; Trent, sess. 22, Decree de observ., etc.

But here it must be noted that where the discussion is of sacrilege on account of this violated immunity of a sacred place, the notion of sacred place extends much more broadly than when the discussion is of acts directly opposed to the sanctity of a sacred place, and it extends also to a place only religious, destined by the authority of the Church for a pious and religious use. For as to those acts by which a church can also be polluted, a sacred place means only the ambit of a place even simply blessed and deputed by the Bishop for divine offices or for burying the dead, from roof to pavement, even if interdicted and polluted. Therefore private oratories are excluded. But if the discussion is of the aforesaid immunity of a sacred place, this also comprehends the exterior parts of the church, the porch, for example, sacristy, tower, roof, subterranean crypts, stairs to the temple, and the whole exterior base. Cemeteries even separated from the Church are held in the same estimation, the Bishop's palace, indeed also the house of the pastor, if it is joined to the church, the convents of religious with barns, gardens, and all those things which are enclosed within their ambit, and finally hospices erected by the authority of the Bishop and having a chapel for celebrating. C. un., de Consecr. in 6; C. Ecclesiis 20, de Consecr., D. 2; C. Ecclesia fin., de Consecr.; C. 9, de Eccles. aedif.; L. 36-38, l. 3, n. 460; l. 6, nn. 366, 920; Struggl 13; Schmalz., l. 3, t. 40, nn. 72-77.

Any projections and cinematographic representations in churches are prohibited. S. C. Cons., 10 Dec. 1912; E. M.

In how many ways is real sacrilege committed? - Real sacrilege, generally speaking, can also be committed in three ways: 1. by treating sacred things unworthily. 2. by usurping them unjustly. 3. by selling and buying sacred things profanely, or simony. Hence real sacrilege is committed: 1. by unworthy administration or reception of the sacraments, which produce sanctity. And thus it would also be sacrilege to employ for the sacrifice sacred vessels, corporals, etc., enormously unclean; to leave consecrated particles to become corrupted in the pyx, etc. 2. by abuse of Scripture, by twisting its words, which signify something sacred, to vain things.

Trent, sess. 5, at the end, calls this usurpation rashness, and commands it to be punished. 3. by unworthy treatment of sacred images or ceremonies, which represent sacred things. 4. by profanation of vessels, instruments, and sacred ornaments, etc., which pertain to sacred worship; understand profanation concerning those which are accustomed to be consecrated or at least blessed. For Tamburini, Expl. Sacrif., l. 1, c. 2, teaches that it is not sin to use for weddings or common use carpets, candlesticks, a basin, indeed even a towel, etc., which mediately serve sacred ministry, unless it is done from some contempt at least implicit, as if you always and indifferently used the aforesaid things. 5. by theft and usurpation of ecclesiastical goods, which are deputed for worship and for the support of sacred ministers. 6. by theft and unworthy treatment of relics, which are particles of the Saints. 7. by defrauding the rights of the Church, for example by imposing taxes, etc. Struggl 15; L. 40, 48, 460; E. M.

Whether the three aforesaid species are subaltern or are lowest species? - This is from St. Alphonsus, n. 34: "The first opinion holds that they are subaltern, containing under themselves other lowest species. Thus Suarez, Palaus, Lessius, etc. And therefore they say that the striking of a cleric differs in species from concubinage with him. Yet the second opinion holds that they are lowest species. Thus Viva, Salmanticenses, Cajetan, etc.; so that if someone violates a nun by beating her or by lying with her, he formally commits one sacrilege. And thus S. Thomas thinks, 2. 2, q. 99, a. 3 ad 2, where he says: It is possible that two sins differ in species according to material acts, but agree in species according to one formal notion of sacrilege; for example, if someone has violated a nun by beating or by lying with her. And this is more probable."

Yet there are diverse grades in this threefold species of sacrilege, according to the difference of persons, places, and things. For sacrilege is so much graver as the thing against which one sins obtains greater sanctity. S. Th., ibid. But practically there is almost no difficulty, because often a sufficient judgment concerning the sin of sacrilege cannot be formed unless it is explained altogether in the individual case; for example, mere profanation of a sacred vessel, or its theft; theft of a sacred thing from a sacred place, and theft of a non-sacred thing from a sacred place; profanation of a church and its pollution; usurpation of ecclesiastical goods; irreverence toward images and relics of Saints; irreverence toward the sacraments, by reception, administration, or in another way; irreverence toward the Eucharist, which is more than sacrilege, because to other sacred things there is not owed the supreme adoration of latria which is owed to the Eucharist. Whence there is a certain greater irreligiosity against God himself or against the very person of Jesus Christ, and at the same time sacrilege against the reverence owed to the species, which are sacred things. Suarez, de Relig., t. 1, l. 3, cc. 5, 6; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 99, a. 3.

Is the violation of a person bound by a simple vow of chastity sacrilege? - The first probable opinion affirms, because a sin of a sacred person which is directly done against that sanctity by which he is consecrated and dedicated to God is true sacrilege. But a person is dedicated to God not only through sacred ordination or profession of the religious state, but also through participation in this state, such as a simple vow of chastity is, especially perpetual. Therefore. Indeed, any violation of a vow is truly and properly sacrilege, because anyone vowing dedicates himself to God as to that thing, if the vow is personal, and thus the person is sanctified as to the things promised by such vows; and similarly, if the vow is real, the thing promised to God is sanctified. Thus the Salmanticenses, tr. 21, c. 12, n. 22.

The second opinion, of Suarez and others, also probable, denies, because through a simple and private vow neither a thing nor a person is made sacred, but a public deputation of the Church is required, in order to preserve chastity. And the same holds as to other vows. In order, etc.; for even clerics constituted in minor orders are sacred persons, and priests of the Greek rite are also sacred persons; but because they have not been consecrated by the Church in order to preserve chastity, but only in order to divine worship, they do not incur the guilt of sacrilege properly such. Moreover, whoever is bound by a vow of chastity, as often as he violates it, certainly commits a twofold sin, namely against chastity and against religion, by not preserving fidelity to God. And the same is true in other vows. L. 47; l. 6, nn. 808, 809; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 88, a. 3; q. 97, proem.; q. 99, a. 3 ad 3; q. 154, a. 1 ad 3, a. 10 ad 2 and 3; 4 D. 38, q. 1, a. 3, q. 2, 3; Suarez, de Sacril., l. 3, c. 3; de Vot., l. 5, c. 3, n. 45; Laym., l. 4, tr. 10, c. 7, n. 4; Less., l. 2, c. 40; Struggl 9, 10.

Is a merely internal sin against chastity by a sacred person sacrilege? - There are not lacking those who deny, as Gury affirms, v. 2, n. 165, since chastity, according to which man is consecrated to God, regards rather exterior acts, which the Church is accustomed to touch by her laws, than interior acts per se. But the doctors commonly affirm, because through chastity the very person is consecrated to God. Yet this reason does not seem to prove the matter demonstratively. For although the very person is consecrated to God through that vow, nevertheless not every internal sin is therefore sacrilege, which would be the case if in reality the person himself were absolutely consecrated to God. Therefore it must altogether be held that the person himself is indeed consecrated to God through that vow, but as to chastity to be preserved. But that this extends also to internal acts is to be demonstrated; and it seems that it can be demonstrated from this, that since a simple vow of perfect chastity is so understood that it comprehends both internal and external acts, a fortiori it is necessary that a solemn vow, through which the person becomes sacred, comprehend both; and this vow is certainly more perfect. L. 554, 457; cf. here v. 2, n. 301.

Are all sins of lust committed in a church or cemetery sacrileges? - Merely internal sins are not to be held as sacrileges, because they do not seem specially to affect the sacred place, unless there is a desire of sinning externally in the sacred place itself. But if they are held as sacrileges, cf. 495, nevertheless this circumstance, as lightly culpable, is not necessarily to be disclosed in confession. Therefore the desire of sinning in a sacred place will be sacrilege, although had outside it; but not the desire conceived in a sacred place of sinning outside the same. Sacrilege, namely in the forum of conscience, not in fact. Of sinning in a sacred place, namely by an exterior sin which is local sacrilege.

As to external sins, it is certain that sacrilege is committed by consummated, notorious acts, namely by voluntary pollution, fornication, etc. Notorious; for if those sins are hidden, more commonly indeed and more truly it is affirmed that sacrilege is committed, but there are not lacking those who deny; cf. L. l. 3, n. 334, par. Absolute. But whether it is also committed by other grave external sins, for example gravely shameful touches, is controverted. St. Liguori, n. 459, Collet, etc., more probably affirm. But Sanchez, Tamburini, Bonacina, etc., not improbably deny. But others affirm concerning more immodest touches and deny concerning other acts. Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, n. 461 seqq. Several among St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 458, hand down as probable that, scandal being set aside, marital intercourse had in a church is never sacrilege. But others more commonly and more probably affirm this only in a case of necessity, for avoiding the danger of incontinence. L. 36, 43; l. 3, nn. 334, 458 seqq.; Elbel 575, 576; cf. here 805, 807.

Is every theft in a church sacrilege? - It is established that every theft of a sacred thing is sacrilege, and also of a non-sacred thing committed nevertheless to the custody of a sacred place. C. Quisquis 21, sec. 2, c. 17, q. 4: "Likewise sacrilege is committed by taking a sacred thing from a sacred place, or a non-sacred thing from a sacred place, or a sacred thing from a non-sacred place." But a sacred thing is understood as a thing given to God in some way; and a sacred place as a church.

As to things which are found in a church by chance or accidentally, such as purses, watches, etc., it is controverted. Some probably deny, because that circumstance of sacred place, since it is altogether accidental, causes no injury to the sacred place. Others probably affirm, because it is still verified that such a person steals a non-sacred thing from a sacred place. Besides, because although the thing is in the church accidentally, nevertheless that evil external action is still repugnant per se to the sacred place, insofar as sacred. Sanchez denies that stealing in the sacristy is local sacrilege. But it is certain that theft in cloisters is not sacrilege, nor in the oratory of a private house, which is not solemnly blessed by the rite prescribed for a public oratory in the Roman Ritual, but by the blessing which is had in the same Ritual for a new house or place. S. R. C., 5 June 1899, n. 4025. In the oratories of hospitals, seminaries, or hermitages, even if not blessed by the Bishop, Sanchez rightly thinks that thefts are sacrileges, because they are held as public. L. 39; Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, n. 469 seqq.; Struggl 14.

Does injury to any goods whatsoever pertaining to clerics constitute sacrilege? - R. Negative, but only injury to goods which clerics possess not in their own name, but in the name of the church, and concerning which they cannot dispose, because only these are sacred. L. 42; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 99, a. 3.

Can sacred vessels and vestments, and can churches, be converted to profane use? - R. To the first. Affirmative, if the thing is totally changed in such a way that it is reduced to common material; for example, if a chalice by fire or iron is made a mass of silver. But otherwise, if it is not totally changed. Hence it is not permitted to repair profane clothing from an old chasuble, nor to apply the ornaments of priests to profane uses. But otherwise concerning those things which are not blessed, such as carpets and candlesticks. "To use sacred vestments, even worn-out ones, for profane uses is mortal. Yet sacred vestments employed in profane uses do not lose their blessing." L. l. 6, n. 376. R. To the second. Likewise a consecrated church is not to be transferred to profane uses unless it has been profaned, has ceased to be a church, and the Apostolic approval is present. L. 31; l. 6, n. 371; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 2; 3 p., q. 83, a. 3 ad 3.

To whom is it licit to touch sacred vessels? - To all and only clerics without special license; but it is venial, and if a cause is present, not even venial. This is also granted to regular lay sacristans, from the privilege of Sixtus IV, and also to nuns who are sacristans, from communication of privileges; likewise by custom and from necessity to lay oblates of more recent Congregations of priests who are sacristans, and to all who serve churches in clerical habit. The first washing of palls, corporals, and purificators is to be done by a sacred person, and it is the proper office of the subdeacon. The second and third washing can also be done by laypersons. The water of the washing is to be thrown into the sacrarium. C. Nemo 40, de Consecr., D. 1; Roman Pontifical, de Ordinat. subdiac.; S. R. C., 12 Sept. 1857, ad 26, n. 3059; L. l. 6, n. 387.

But it is permitted to all to touch other sacred things, of which sort are, for example, Agnus Dei medals, at least from present custom; relics of Saints, and consequently to carry them hanging from the neck; sacred ornaments, except those which immediately touch the Holy Eucharist. C. 41, de Consecr., Dist. 1; L. 48; l. 6, nn. 94, 382; l. 7, n. 340; E. M. Clerics initiated with first tonsure only can touch sacred vessels and sacred linens, and prepare the chalice in the sacristy, without special indult. S. R. C., 23 Nov. 1905, ad 1.

A deacon by reason of his ministry can, even when priests are present and outside the case of necessity, carry the Most Holy Sacrament from one altar to another. S. R. C., 23 Nov. 1906, ad 3. But to others, even subdeacons, it is not permitted to touch sacred vessels containing the Most Holy Sacrament, ibid.

Is it sacrilege to sin mortally on a feast day? - R. A mortal sin committed on a feast day, since it excludes sanctity, is against the end of the observance of the feast day, namely that man be occupied with divine things. Yet it is not sacrilege. The reason is that the circumstance of a feast day is altogether extrinsic to sin, speaking per se, unless namely one sins precisely on account of the profanation of the feast day, or something is done from which notable irreverence is inflicted upon divine worship, as if someone on Good Friday should exhibit comedies, public games, etc. L. 46, 273; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 122, a. 4; 4 D. 32, a. 5, q. 2; Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, n. 515 seqq.; Suarez, de Relig., l. 3, c. 18, n. 22 seqq.