Chapter — Koch–Preuss
Chapter III: Sacrilege
Opposed to sacrifice and vow are sacrilege and simony.
- Sacrilege (sacrilegium) may be defined as the actual desecration or irreverent treatment of sacred persons, places, or things. It is the exact counterpart of sacrifice and vow because through sacrifice and vow persons or objects are dedicated to God, whereas sacrilege desecrates and withdraws them from His service;—robs, as it were, the Almighty of that which rightfully belongs to Him; hence the German name “Gottesraub.”
- Sacrilege, as indicated, may be personal, real, or local. a) Personal sacrilege (sacrilegium personale) is committed by laying violent hands upon, or robbing, clerics or religious; by sins of impurity committed, either in deed or intention, by or with persons consecrated to God by the vow of chastity or by the law of celibacy (sacrilegium carnale); or by violating the privilege of clerical immunity from civil jurisdiction, as far as this immunity is still in force.
A violation of the simple vow of chastity, ac- cording to a probable opinion, is not a sacrilege in the proper sense of the term.
b) A real sacrilege (sacrilegium reale) is committed by abusing or treating with irreverence sacred things, such as the Sacraments, sacramentals, sacred images, relics, Holy Scripture, sacred vessels or vestments; by stealing an object dedicated to God; by plundering or secularizing convents and pious foundations, etc.1
1 Thos. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Mor. Theol., Vol. I, pp. 228 sq.
c) Local sacrilege (sacrilegium locale) is committed by polluting a church, public oratory, or cemetery, i. e., performing therein certain unbecoming actions or committing certain sins which, by their nature, or by special disposition of the law, are particularly repugnant to the reverence due to sacred places. Such sins are, e. g., the unjust shedding of human blood, consummated sins against chastity, and other indecent and irreverent acts.
“It is probable that only external, apparent, and consummated sins against chastity contract the grievous malice of sacrilege from being committed in a church; internal and secret or not consummated sins against purity, which do not pollute the church, probably do not contract the grave malice of sacrilege if they are committed there.”2
2 Ibid. Cfr. Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 189 sq.: “The illicit emission of human seed, which can take place either by voluntary pollution, by fornication, or by conjugal intercourse, which without necessity is unlawful in a church; necessity arising from danger of incontinence, however, renders it lawful even in a church; consequently, the church is not polluted by this intercourse. Other external sins of lust (touches, looks, filthy speech), although grave, are probably not grave sacrileges. But grave internal sins (impure thoughts and desires) are certainly not grave sacrileges, unless there is a desire for an act by which a church is polluted and that desire is conceived for committing the act within the church.”
- Of itself (ex genere suo), sacrilege is a mortal sin, because directly opposed to the virtue of religion, but on account of the smallness of the matter sometimes involved (parvitas materiae) admits of leniency. The most grievous species of sacrilege is the conscious and deliberate profanation of the Blessed Sacrament.3
3 1 Cor. XI, 27.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 99, art. 3: “The sin of sacrilege consists in this, that someone behaves irreverently toward a sacred thing. Reverence, however, is due to a sacred thing by reason of its sanctity. And therefore, according to the different character of the sanctity of sacred things toward which irreverence is shown, the species of sacrilege must be distinguished. For sacrilege is so much the graver, the greater the sanctity possessed by the sacred thing against which the sin is committed. . . . And therefore the sacrilege which is committed against this sacrament [the Eucharist] is the gravest of all.”—Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 275–281.—The New Code says that whoever “throws away the consecrated species, or carries them away or retains them for an evil purpose, is suspected of heresy; he incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a most special manner to the Apostolic See; he is infamous by the fact itself, and if a cleric he is furthermore to be deposed.” (Can. 2320.)
The very notion of sacrilege imports an act that is illicit and therefore sinful. To employ for profane purposes an object dedicated to the service of God, is not necessarily always a sacrilege. A church may, in case of necessity, be used as a storage house, or hospital, or dwelling without profanation, and even when the law requires that the ceremony of reconciliation be performed because of pollution, it is not always necessary to assume that a sacrilege has been committed. Similarly, any object dedicated to the service of God may be withdrawn from its proper use and employed for profane purposes without a sacrilege, as long as there is no evil intent.
To quote words from Sacred Scripture for other than immediately religious purposes can be regarded as sacrilegious only if it is done with lascivious intent, or in order to mock God or hurt the feelings of others.4
4 F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, p. 337.
READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 99.—St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 33 sqq. (ed. Gaudé, I, 390 sqq.).—F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 337 sqq.—J. B. Wirthmüller, Die moralische Tugend der Religion, pp. 598 sqq.—H. Spelmann, Der Gottesraub, Ratisbon 1878, pp. 173 sqq.—Sabetti-Barrett, Comp. Theol. Mor., pp. 211 sqq.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 249 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 186 sqq.