§ 2. On Sacrilege

578. DEFINITION. Sacrilege (a violation of the sacred), taken broadly, is called any sin against religion; taken strictly, it is the violation of a sacred thing.

Violation, that is, violence brought upon, or unworthy treatment, which can be committed not only by action, but also by omission of the reverence due to sacred things; of a thing, in the broad sense, under which also person and place come; sacred, that is, dedicated to God, and considered as such (III, 33 and 48).

Therefore, to discern whether some action is sacrilegious or not, there must be weighed: 1. from what head the thing is sacred and specially worthy of reverence, whether from divine institution or from ecclesiastical law; 2. whether the action specially wounds this sanctity of the thing; for otherwise it will not be sacrilege. Thus, for example, a religious is consecrated to God by the vow of chastity as to cleanness of the flesh, and therefore if he fornicates, he is sacrilegious; but otherwise, if he becomes drunk, if he is proud, if he lies, etc., because he is not considered consecrated for avoiding these things.

DIVISION. Sacrilege, by reason of the thing violated, is threefold: personal, by which a sacred person is violated; local, by which a sacred place is violated; real, by which a sacred thing, distinct from persons and places, is violated. By reason of manner, it is direct or indirect according as the violation of the sacred thing either is intended or is only advertently committed.

579. PRINCIPLES. I. Sacrilege is a sin, now from its genus, now from its whole genus mortal. For irreverence toward sacred persons, sacred places, or sacred things redounds upon God. If sacrilege is direct, smallness of matter is never given in it. If it is only indirect, it is grave or light according to the measure of the irreverence which is committed (III, 33). Cf. Vind. Alph., P. III, q. 3, a. 1, end.

580. II. Sacrilege differs in species according as it is personal, local, or real. The reason is that formally diverse is the sanctity which is wounded in the person, in the place, and in the sacred thing. For sanctity is in sacred persons formally, as in a subject; in a sacred place it is as in what contains holy persons, and in which worship is to be exhibited to God; but in sacred things, insofar as they cause or signify sanctity, or are ordered to holy things in another way (Salmant., tr. 21, c. 12, n. 16).

Let it be noted. 1. The three aforesaid species of sacrilege, more probably, are not subaltern species, as some say, but lowest species; therefore other circumstances are only aggravating, as St. Alphonsus more probably judges with St. Thomas, against Suarez, Busenbaum, and others. Hence, for example, "if someone violates a nun by beating her, or by lying with her, he commits one sacrilege formally" (III, 34). Wherefore it suffices, in either case, to say in confession: I committed sacrilege against a sacred person; and then to confess separately the sin against justice, or against chastity (III, 224).

2. In sacrilege, the guilt of violation is graver in the measure that the consecration is more intimate; and therefore personal sacrilege is graver than real and local sacrilege, just as, among real sacrileges, unworthy communion is the graver sin.

3. TIME is not the object of sacrilege: for example, he is not sacrilegious who sins on a feast day, as is commonly taught. Except, unless notable irreverence is brought upon divine worship, as if someone on Good Friday should exhibit comedies, public games, etc. (III, 46 and 273).

581. Personal sacrilege is an act by which a sacred person is violated. Moreover, persons are called sacred who are dedicated to God, whether through sacred ordination or through religious profession.

Personal sacrilege is committed in four ways: 1. by striking a cleric or religious, or by any violence which is brought upon them, against the privilege of the canon (cf. n. 1329); 2. by dragging a cleric, or a religious person, before a secular tribunal, against the privilege of the forum (n. 1321); 3. by imposing a servile burden, for example military service or a tax, upon a cleric, against the current privilege of personal immunity (n. 201); 4. by the lustful violation of a person consecrated to God by the vow of chastity (cf. n. 787). Consequently, it is not sacrilege to detract from a priest, because only his person is sacred, but not his reputation. But otherwise, if sacred persons are put in mockery, as often happens in carnival revels (de Privil., 18-24; Kon., n. 347).

Questions. - QUES. 1. Whether the violation of any vow whatsoever is sacrilege?

Resp. It is disputed. The Salmanticenses affirm, because through any vow whatsoever a person is dedicated to God in order to fulfill the vow. But Suarez and others deny, saying that it is only a sin of perfidy, or against fidelity due to God (III, 47; Vind. Alph., P. III, q. 2).

Note. Many authors call the violation of vows, in general, sacrilege. This is said less rightly if we take the notion of sacrilege strictly.

QUES. 2. Whether the violation of the vow of chastity is sacrilege?

Resp. 1. In the affirmative, if it is a question of a vow emitted conjointly with sacred order or with religious profession in some Congregation; for through such a vow, which the Church recognizes, the person certainly and publicly becomes sacred to God. This holds also for vows which are emitted for a time before definitive profession.

2. If it is a question of a vow emitted privately, some deny, because no one becomes sacred to God unless the Church intervenes; others, perhaps more probably, affirm, because through such a vow also the body is dedicated to God and contracts a peculiar sanctity. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1910, p. 378.

Note. 1. According to the opinion of all, the violation of a vow is a circumstance to be declared in confession, because there is in it a peculiar sin of infidelity (III, 47).

2. If someone is at once a priest and a religious and violates the vow of chastity, he commits only one sacrilege, because the twofold obligation is imposed upon him from the same formal motive. Cf. n. 627, 787, 2160, 2199, where useful things which pertain to this matter are added.

3. He who sacrilegiously violates the vow of chastity does not commit a twofold sin against religion: one of sacrilege, the other of perfidy; because the malice of perfidy, or infidelity, is absorbed by sacrilege (Vind. Alph., I, p. 228).

582. NOTIONS. Local sacrilege is the violation of a sacred place.

Sacred places, in the strict sense, are those which, by the authority of the Bishop through consecration or solemn blessing, have been deputed for public divine worship. Such places practically are: 1. a church and public oratory, from the interior roof even to the pavement; 2. a public cemetery (III, 38, 460).

As regards semi-public oratories, there is a question whether they are sacred places in the strict sense (Noldin, II, 178).

Sacred places, in the broader sense, insofar as the right of asylum belongs to them, are those which are deputed to divine worship by ecclesiastical authority, as cemeteries, even if polluted, churches not yet consecrated or blessed, the sacristy, the tower, the atrium, the contiguous enclosure of the church; likewise religious places, that is, monasteries, the Bishop's palace, the parochial house, hospices erected by authority of the Church. But otherwise concerning private oratories (III, 460).

Local sacrilege is committed in four ways: 1. By all sins by which a church or cemetery is polluted by canon law, even if they remain hidden and the church does not need reconciliation; namely voluntary homicide, injurious and copious shedding of human blood, voluntary and illicit emission of human seed, and the burial of an excommunicate to be avoided, or of an infidel¹ (cf. n. 1629).

2. By all sins which are done against the sanctity of a sacred place strictly so called, such as: external acts gravely base (III, 459, 461), spoliation, theft, brawls, stabling of horses, and things similar to these, already prohibited by natural law itself.

3. By profane acts which are prohibited by the law of immunity, such as walks in a sacred place strictly so called, markets, meals, shouting, the noise of secular judgments; unless a just cause excuses, as, for example, if another suitable place is lacking. But some moderate walking in a church, or private eating, even without necessity, does not seem to be a grave sin, if scandal, shouting, and contempt are absent. Likewise the sale of candles or images in a cemetery or at the doors of the temple.²

4. By violation of the right of asylum, that is, if persons fleeing to that place and enjoying legitimate refuge are drawn out violently or fraudulently, for example by preventing others from bringing food, from a sacred place, even taken broadly, or interdicted or polluted (III, 36, 38; de Privil., n. 25, 28). Cf. n. 201.

From these things it seems that a place less strictly sacred is violated only in the manner indicated under 4.

"Through merely internal acts the sanctity of a place is not violated; and therefore he does not commit sacrilege who in a church has the will of killing a man outside it. Otherwise, if someone outside the church proposes to kill in the church" (III, 43). Nor is theft committed in the sacristy, in cloisters, in an oratory of a private house, local sacrilege.

It is asked. Whether the theft of a profane thing in a CHURCH is sacrilege?

Resp. It is disputed. Lugo and others probably deny, unless the thing has been loaned to the church or received into custody. Many others more probably affirm, because it is said absolutely in canon law (Can. Quisquis, caus. 17, q. 4): "Sacrilege is committed by taking away 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" (III, 39). Cf. n. 903. - In practice, because the thing is doubtful, accusation of that circumstance is not to be urged.

583. NOTION. Real sacrilege is an act by which a sacred thing is violated: which here is understood as distinct from sacred persons and sacred places (III, 40).

Real sacrilege can also be done by mere omission, and indeed gravely, for example if those things which pertain to sacrifice, such as corporals and similar things, are very unclean. Yet rarely will there be grave sin through this negligence (III, 48).

There are, however, four kinds of sacred things, and hence four degrees of real sacrilege within the same species (2.2, q. 99, a. 3).

The first and highest place is held by the SACRAMENTS.

To the first degree of sacrilege therefore pertains every injury and every abuse of the sacraments, when namely they are knowingly made invalidly, administered unworthily, received, or otherwise treated unworthily, as if sacred oil were employed as profane. And since among all the sacraments the Eucharist is the chief, therefore among real sacrileges the gravest of all is that by which this sacrament is violated, for example if the sacred host is trampled underfoot. We say among real sacrileges, because it is not to be counted among personal ones. For although Christ the Lord is really present, nevertheless he does not exhibit himself after the manner of a person, or in the form of an animate thing, but after the manner of food and drink (Sylv., 2.2, q. 99, a. 3; Lessius, c. 45, de Irrelig., d. 3, n. 16).

The second place is held by SACRED VESSELS, for the ministry and use of the sacraments, under which corporals also are comprehended.

Consequently, it is sacrilege to use a consecrated chalice for drinking, as Belshazzar did with the vessels of Solomon's temple. Sacred vessels include crosses, sacred images, relics of Christ and of the Saints, sacred buildings and altars; for according to the use of the Church, they are esteemed as instruments of divine worship. To this also pertains blessed water, blessed oil. Likewise the sacred names of Christ and of the saints, the Most Holy Gospels, and all Sacred Scripture, hymns, ecclesiastical ceremonies, etc.; so that their unworthy treatments are sacrilegious, more or less, according as the things are more or less sacred, and according as the treatment is more or less unworthy. Thus, for example, it would be grave to abuse Sacred Scripture for dishonorable jokes, lies, heresies, or other sins; but venial to use the same sometimes for a joke, even an honorable one, if some irreverence is contained there (Salmant., tr. 21, c. 12, n. 32; Lehmk., I, 524).

The third place is held by all things which pertain to the adornment of altars and ministers, and are accustomed to be consecrated, or at least blessed with a constitutive blessing. Cf. n. 535.

If they are violated unworthily, for example if you use priestly vestments for profane uses, or for playful displays, violation of this sort is sacrilegious. Likewise, to touch with the bare hand, which nevertheless is permitted to all tonsured persons from the Decree of the S. R. C., Nov. 23, 1906, chalices, patens, altar stones anointed with chrism, unless a reasonable cause is present, as for regulars and nuns who are sacristans (Jaugey, de Relig., n. 476; Gen., I, 282, 3).

Finally the fourth place is held by ECCLESIASTICAL RIGHTS and GOODS, that is, goods, whether movable or immovable, which are deputed for the sustenance of the ministers of the Church, for the fabric of churches, and for the sustenance of the poor.

To this belong deposits in a church, pious legacies already possessed by the Church, etc. He who unjustly usurps these, suppresses, detains, occupies, defrauds, or destroys them, commits a qualified injustice which everywhere in canon law is called sacrilege (III, 40 and 42).

It is asked. Whether the wounding of any goods whatsoever belonging to clerics is sacrilege?

Resp. Negatively; but only the wounding of goods which clerics possess not in their own name, but in the name of the Church, and of which they cannot dispose; because these alone are sacred, as is commonly taught (III, 42).

Note. The penalties enacted against sacrilegious persons are recounted in the treatise on Censures; see n. 1319, 1320, 1321, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1329, 1332, 1342, 1347, 1348, etc.