§ 1. On Sacrilege in General

536. Etymological notion. Sacrilege, according to the force of the name, signifies to take a sacred thing. The verb to take is understood as to take to oneself, or unduly to arrogate and seize, so that sacrilege signifies: unduly to arrogate a sacred thing to oneself. Therefore in the German language sacrilege is rightly called Gottesraub [robbery of God].

537. Definition. Sacrilege is defined by St. Thomas⁸²³ as: the violation of a sacred thing (formally as it is sacred).

Explanation. In a broad sense, every sin against the virtue of religion is indeed sacrilege, but in the strict sense sacrilege is not present unless a truly sacred thing is injured or treated unworthily. Under the name of a sacred thing, however, are also comprehended a sacred person and a sacred place; and these three are called sacred if by a public rite and by the authority of God or of the Church they have been dedicated to divine worship. Thus holds the common opinion. The reason is that not everyone can at will remove from the number of profane things whatever things he chooses and impress upon them the character of sanctity; rather, for this the authority of the Church is required. There are, however, some authors, for example, Cajetan,⁸²⁴ who think that any vow or private resolution devoting a thing to divine worship suffices to render it sacred, and consequently that the violation of any private vow, for example, of fasting, almsgiving, etc., is sacrilege. In practice this controversy is of little utility; for he who has violated a private vow must declare this violation in confession, but it matters little whether this violation is called sacrilege or by another name.

The violation committed in sacrilege is either physical or moral, and grave. For not every light unworthy treatment of a sacred thing is customarily called sacrilege; otherwise even conversations in church, light external irreverence against the sacraments, etc. would have to be called sacrileges, which nevertheless has not been received in usage. Moreover, it is to be noted that not every even grave violation of a sacred thing is sacrilege, but only that violation which injures the thing formally as it is sacred. Therefore it is necessary to attend to that for which the thing has been sanctified and whether action is taken precisely against it. Thus, for example, the person of a priest has been sanctified and is a sacred thing, but not his honor, reputation, or material goods. Therefore, he who injures the person of a priest by striking him, dragging him before a civil tribunal, compelling him to military service, or committing fornication with him commits sacrilege; but he who steals the private goods of a priest or defames him does not commit sacrilege, although he perhaps sins more gravely.⁸²⁵

⁸²³ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 99.

⁸²⁴ Cf. above, n. 403.

⁸²⁵ Cf. Billuart, De relig. diss. 10, a. unicus.

538. Division. A threefold sacrilege is distinguished: personal, local, and real, according as there is a threefold genus of sacred things: sacred persons, sacred places, sacred objects.

Lessius⁸²⁶ and others add sacrilege of sacred time, for example, to perform servile works on Sundays and feast days, to sin gravely on the day of Communion, or to become drunk on Good Friday. More correctly, however, this sacrilege of sacred time is not adopted as a distinct species; for although the circumstance of sacred time increases the malice of the sin, nevertheless it does not seem to constitute a new and distinct species of sacrilege, because acts of this kind are not accustomed to violate time insofar as and formally as it is sacred. It is otherwise if someone were to act precisely in order to violate sacred time, for example, if someone from hatred of religion becomes drunk on Good Friday.

Theologians dispute whether the three enumerated species of sacrilege are lowest species, or whether, on the contrary, within each species there are still lower species; for example, whether gravely to strike a priest is not only a different sin, but also a sacrilege specifically distinct from acting lustfully with him. All indeed teach that the acts themselves are diverse sins, and therefore in the case the striking and the lust must be declared distinctly; but St. Thomas⁸²⁷ seems to teach that these acts are not specifically diverse as sacrileges, saying: "Nothing prevents two things from being of one species according to something, and diverse according to another.... It is possible for two sins to differ in species according to the material acts, but to agree in species according to the formal notion of sacrilege; for example, if someone has violated a nun by striking her or by lying with her." St. Alphonsus⁸²⁸ calls this opinion the more probable. Hence in confession it must indeed be explained whether personal, local, or real sacrilege was committed, but other circumstances need not necessarily be declared, provided that the material acts are sufficiently explained. Therefore, if someone in a lengthy confession has already declared the individual sinful acts according to their other specific malices, but has forgotten to declare the circumstance of sacrilege, he is bound to nothing else than to add: in addition I committed so many grave personal, or local, or real sacrileges.⁸²⁹

⁸²⁶ Perhaps Lessius differs from the common opinion more in words than in reality, because he teaches that a violation of sacred time is reduced to the imperfect notion of sacrilege (De iust. et iure l. 2, c. 45, n. 18).

⁸²⁷ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 99, a. 3 ad 2.

⁸²⁸ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 34.

⁸²⁹ Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, n. 521.

539. The moral and specific malice of sacrilege. Sacrilege is from its genus a grave sin against the virtue of religion.

The reason is that persons, objects, and places sacred to God merit a special reverence, which sacrilege violates. A violation of this kind of itself inflicts grave irreverence upon God; for just as the honor of a master is injured if his servant is dishonored formally as his servant, or if his house or things are disfigured, so a fortiori God is dishonored if persons, places, or objects dedicated to Him are treated unworthily. Therefore in Sacred Scripture those who treated sacred things unworthily are gravely punished, for example, the sons of Aaron,⁸³⁰ the sons of Heli,⁸³¹ King Baltassar,⁸³² and those selling in the temple.⁸³³

Sacrilege admits slightness of matter, but it is not customary to call very small injuries to sacred things sacrileges, as, for example, if someone converses irreverently in a church (cf. above).

Personal, local, and real sacrileges differ from one another in species, as was already said above with the common opinion. Other things being equal, personal sacrilege is worse; next comes local sacrilege, and last real sacrilege. On this matter the Angelic Doctor writes most excellently:⁸³⁴ "According to the diverse notion of the sanctity of sacred things to which irreverence is shown, it is necessary that the species of sacrilege be distinguished. For a sacrilege is the graver, the greater the sanctity possessed by the sacred thing against which the sin is committed.... The sanctity of a place is ordered to the sanctity of man, who in the sacred place renders worship to God. For it is said: 'God chose not the people for the sake of the place, but the place for the sake of the people.'⁸³⁵ And therefore the sacrilege by which one sins against a sacred person is a graver sin than that by which one sins against a sacred place."

⁸³⁰ Lev. 10:1.

⁸³¹ 1 Kings 2:17; 4:11.

⁸³² Dan. 5:2ff.

⁸³³ John 2:14.

⁸³⁴ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 99, a. 3.

⁸³⁵ 2 Macc. 5:19.