Chapter II — On sacrilege, and its species

I. Sacrilege is the violation of a sacred thing. A thing is considered sacred which is dedicated to divine worship. And so, says the Angelic Doctor (II-II, q. 99, art. 1): "Everything that pertains to irreverence toward sacred things pertains to an injury against God, and has the character of sacrilege."

II. St. Thomas distinguishes a threefold sacrilege (II-II, q. 99, art. 3), which theologians commonly describe further. The first is an injury inflicted upon a sacred person, such as a Cleric, Religious, or Nun; or fornication with a person bound by a vow of chastity. The second concerns a sacred place, such as a church or cemetery. The last is committed against sacred things, and things specially dedicated to divine worship, such as the sacraments, chalices, vestments destined for the performance of sacred rites, images of the Saints, relics, and the like. That this division is into members specifically distinct is taught by St. Thomas in the same place, and theologians commonly follow him — since, the Angelic Doctor says, given the differing rationale of the sanctity of sacred persons, places, and things, toward which irreverence is shown, it is necessary that the species of sacrilege be distinguished accordingly; for sacrilege is the graver, the greater the sanctity of the sacred thing against which one sins. Now sanctity is attributed both to sacred persons and to sacred places, and to certain other sacred things. But the sanctity of a place is ordered toward the sanctity of the man who, in that sacred place, renders worship to God.

III. It is said in 2 Maccabees 5 that the Lord chose the nation, not the place, on account of the nation; and so, for this reason, the Angelic Doctor's teaching holds that the sacrilege by which one sins against a sacred person is judged graver than that by which one sins against a sacred place. This is briefly summarized as follows: the ground of sanctity is different in each case. For a person is holy absolutely and formally; a place is called holy because holy persons dwell there, and worship is shown to God in it; the sacraments contain holiness in themselves; sacred things are ordered toward the sanctity of the persons, place, and worship. There is no need to dwell longer here on this scholastic dispute.

It is also disputed whether this division is into lowest, or "atomic," species, or into subalternate ones. St. Thomas teaches that these species of sacrilege are lowest, or atomic — within any one of which, however, different degrees of sacrilege can be found. For he says in the body of the article: "There are, nevertheless, within either species of sacrilege, different degrees, according to the difference of persons and of sacred places. Likewise, within the same species of sacrilege, according to the difference of sacred things; among which the sacraments themselves hold the highest place — the chief of which is the sacrament of the Eucharist, which contains Christ himself, by whom man is sanctified; and there are also other sacred things, concerning which the third species of sacrilege is committed, which nonetheless can vary in degree accordingly." Similarly, the same Angelic Doctor adds (loc. cit., ad 2): "Two sins can likewise differ in species according to one material aspect, while agreeing in species according to a single formal ground — as, for instance, if someone violates a Nun by striking her, or by lying with her."

IV. Having explained the generic notion, and division, of sacrilege, it remains to run through, as briefly as possible, the sacrileges contained under each species. Under the first species, which concerns sacred persons, is included the injury inflicted upon a Cleric, Religious, or Nun — which can occur in four ways. First, if such sacred persons are violently struck. Second, if they are brought before a lay court. Third, if taxes and tribute are imposed on them without legitimate authority. Fourth, if fornication, or unchastity, is committed with persons bound by a vow of chastity — for the violation of any vow is sacrilege. To this species of sacrilege also belongs the immodesty committed by a confessor with his spiritual daughter — since St. Thomas says (Supplement, III Part, q. 56, art. 2, ad 8) that a certain bond, similar to a spiritual kinship, is contracted through penance between a consenting woman and the priest, such that carnal union with her would be as much a sin as if it were with his own spiritual daughter. Hence carnal commingling with a spiritually united person is likewise [sacrilege], just as spiritual kinship is contracted in solemn baptism and confirmation between the godparents and the baptized and confirmed person, and between the father and mother of the one baptized and confirmed.

V. To the second species of sacrilege are referred all those things committed against the reverence owed to a sacred place. This sacrilege is committed in several ways. First, if someone burns, breaks into, or demolishes a sacred place, or destroys its altars. Second, if someone forcibly drags a man away from a church, even one destroyed, or polluted, or under interdict, or from its cemeteries, atrium, or cloister, or from any place adjoining it not otherwise separate; likewise if from Oratories legitimately erected, from Bishops' palaces, from Convents of Religious and their enclosed precincts. Third, if someone kills a man, or by violence sheds human blood; if someone commits an act of pollution, whether public or secret. Fourth, if people conduct trade, business, and feasts in churches, hold plays, and engage in shameless and indecent conversation there. Fifth, if someone commits theft in a church. Theologians dispute, however, whether it is sacrilege to steal something not sacred — say, a purse — in a sacred place. But, setting aside the disputes of certain casuists, we must hold to what is established, as we read in the constitution of Pope John VIII (cause 17, q. 4, ch. Quisquis): "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." The law is clear, and cannot be evaded by any sound interpretation. Whoever, then, steals money from a rich man in a church commits sacrilege. If things entrusted to the Church's keeping, or for its adornment, are stolen, sacrilege is likewise committed.

VI. Does one who harbors internal, vicious acts thereby contract the malice of sacrilege? One who, outside a sacred place, has the will to kill, steal, or fornicate within a sacred place, commits sacrilege — since the internal act is of the same species as the external one, and this is the more common opinion. But one who, while actually present in a sacred place, deliberates fornicating, stealing, or killing outside a sacred place, is free of sacrilege, since the sanctity of the place is not violated by an internal act, if external acts are absent. This opinion is quite common. It seems to me, however, difficult to hold, from the very principle stated, that the sanctity of the place is not violated. For a temple is instituted so that in that particular place we may worship God with special worship — not merely external, but especially internal — since we ought to submit our mind to God even more than our body. Why, then, should one who defiles his mind in this sacred place, whether internally or externally, not be considered guilty of sacrilege? It seems to me, then, altogether obvious that whoever, while in a church, forms a deliberate resolve to fornicate, steal, or kill outside it, is not free of the guilt of sacrilege.

VII. The third species is real sacrilege, whereby a sacred thing is dishonorably treated. What sacred things are, both persons and place, has already been established above, and discussed in detail. They are divided into four degrees, as it were. First come the sacraments, of which the chief is the sacrament of the Eucharist, which contains Christ himself, by whom man is sanctified; then sacred vessels, sacred images, and the relics of the Saints; then the ornaments of the Church, or of its ministers, such as chasubles, veils, and other such things; and fourth, finally, movable or immovable goods set aside for the support of ministers, such as dedicated properties, first-fruits, and the like. Hence one who irreverently handles the sacraments, whether by receiving them, or by administering them unworthily, is stained with the gravest sacrilege; or if one throws them away, or tramples upon them. Although Christ the Lord is really present in the Eucharist, its unworthy treatment is nonetheless not called sacrilege against his most holy person directly — since he is not there in his own proper bodily form, as he is in heaven. For this reason the unworthy handling of the Eucharist is called a real sacrilege, not a personal one. One would likewise commit a grave sacrilege who used sacred vessels for drinking, or converted sacred vestments unworthily into his own clothing, or tore or cut them up.

VIII. To this also belongs the abuse of the words of Sacred Scripture. Wherefore those who twist sacred words to spread heresies, and to confirm them; who mix them into vulgar songs, or misuse them to compose slanderous pamphlets, or to express profane matters, are guilty of sacrilege. Their sacrilegious audacity is checked by the Council of Trent, in these words (session 4): "Wishing likewise to repress that impudence whereby the words and sentences of Sacred Scripture are twisted and turned to all manner of profane uses — namely, to scurrilous, fabulous, vain matters, flatteries, slanders, superstitions, godless and diabolical incantations, divinations, sortileges, and even to slanderous pamphlets — [the Synod] commands and enjoins, for the removal of such irreverence, that henceforth no one presume in any way to appropriate the words of Sacred Scripture to such and similar uses; so that all men of this kind — profaners and violators of the word of God — be restrained by the Bishops through penalties of law, or of their own discretion." There are, likewise, painters in certain cities of Italy who are accustomed to use sacred words to depict the shortcomings of preachers and other persons; and are therefore not free of the guilt of sacrilege. Sacrilege is again committed by those who defile sacred images with indecent and harlot-like nakedness. Guilty of sacrilege, too, are those who break, tear apart, or crush sacred images or relics.

IX. Sacrilege can also be committed by omission. Sacristans not infrequently commit this species of sacrilege, when they neglect the due vigilance owed in guarding the holy chrism and the Eucharist, using the keys prescribed by the sacred canons; when they fail to keep the corporals, sacred vessels, altars, and ecclesiastical vestments clean and neat, but instead hand them over, stained, dirty, and foul, for use in celebrating the unbloody sacrifice. Guilty of sacrilege, likewise, are those who negligently allow the sacred particles in the pyx to spoil.

X. Is the sacrilegious omission of the reception or administration of the sacraments at the due time, or under a pressing precept, [also a sacrilege]? Theologians dispute this on both sides. Some affirm that, since a person neglects to show the sacraments the reverence due them, he must be called sacrilegious. The more probable opinion, however, denies this — since, when someone fails to receive a sacrament, he does no injury at all to the sacrament itself; he merely transgresses the precept of receiving the sacraments. For this reason, one who merely omits [confession or communion] on a feast day is not to be deemed sacrilegious, but only a violator of the precept. Due reverence is indeed shown to the sacraments when they are received or administered worthily, holily, and rightly; but when they are neither administered nor received at all, there appears no reason to say that they are thereby unworthily treated.

XI. Theologians inquire what sin sacrilege is: all agree that it is, by its very kind, mortal — and the graver, the holier the sacred thing that is violated. It can be venial either on account of the smallness of the matter, or on account of a lack of due consideration. In confession, the circumstance of sacrilege must always be disclosed.

XII. The penalties established against the sacrilegious are of two kinds: pecuniary, and spiritual. The pecuniary penalties do not require a judge's sentence before they take effect. The spiritual penalties, which are incurred ipso facto, are excommunication, which those who violate ecclesiastical immunity incur, and likewise those who lay violent hands on Clerics; those, too, who usurp Church goods, impose tribute on ecclesiastical persons, or drag them before a secular court; and finally, those who break down doors to plunder sacred things. Other penalties may be imposed at the judge's discretion.