§ 2. On Personal Sacrilege

540. Notion. Personal sacrilege is the violation of a sacred person. Now a person becomes sacred and is separated from profane persons in two ways, namely, a) through the clerical state; b) through the religious state.

Modes. Personal sacrilege can be committed in four ways:

1. by laying violent hands upon clerics or religious persons of either sex. More briefly it can be said: Sacrilege is committed through violation of the privilege of the canon.

2. by unlawfully dragging the same persons before a secular tribunal. More briefly: Sacrilege is committed through violation of the privilege of the forum.

3. by unduly exacting from the same persons tributes, taxes, or military service. More briefly: Sacrilege is committed through violation of the privilege of immunity.

4. by committing acts of lust with a person bound by a public vow of chastity. Therefore not only does the sacred person himself commit sacrilege, but also perhaps his lay accomplice.

541. As regards 1. Canonists treat more broadly of the privilege of the canon (so called because it is contained in canon law, c. 29, C. 17, q. 4, and Code of Canon Law, c. 119).⁸³⁶ The following are to be noted briefly:

a) Sacrilege is committed through all sinful real acts of violence (but not verbal ones) which are inflicted upon the person, or even upon things so adhering to the person that the violence redounds upon the very person of the cleric or religious. Such acts of violence are, for example, to strike, spit upon, soil with mud and other filth, tear out hair, rend clothing, etc.

b) For sacrilege it is required that these acts of violence have been done with grave sin. For if such acts of violence were done in a lawful manner, for example, because of legitimate defense, just correction, jest, or ignorance, neither sacrilege nor an ecclesiastical censure is present.

c) The privilege of the canon is enjoyed by a) all clerics, that is, those who have received the clerical tonsure; b) all religious persons of either sex who live in approved orders, congregations, or pious societies.⁸³⁷ Attend, however, that clerics and religious in some cases lose the privilege of the canon and the other clerical privileges.⁸³⁸ Concerning the penalties enacted in c. 2343 against violators of the privilege of the canon, see below in the treatise on censures.

⁸³⁶ Cf. our Manual of Canon Law, q. 63.

⁸³⁷ Code of Canon Law, cc. 614 and 680.

⁸³⁸ Cf. our Manual of Canon Law, q. 64.

542. As regards 2. The privilege of the forum is the exemption of ecclesiastical persons from the jurisdiction of the secular forum. This privilege is no longer customarily recognized by civil tribunals today, but nevertheless it exists. Therefore the Code of Canon Law, c. 120, §§ 2 and 3, decrees: "Cardinals, Legates of the Apostolic See, Bishops, even titular ones, Abbots or Prelates nullius, major Superiors of religious institutes of pontifical right, and major Officials of the Roman Curia concerning affairs pertaining to their office cannot be summoned before a lay judge without permission of the Apostolic See; the others enjoying the privilege of the forum, without permission of the Ordinary of the place⁸³⁹ in which the case is conducted. Nevertheless, the Ordinary, especially when the plaintiff is a layman, should not deny this permission without a just and grave cause, particularly when he has vainly devoted his efforts to composing the controversy between the parties. If nevertheless they are summoned by one who has obtained no prior permission, they can, by reason of necessity and to avoid greater evils, appear, but the Superior from whom permission was not obtained must be informed." Violators of the privilege of the forum are punished by diverse penalties, concerning which there will be discussion below in III, n. 510. In some regions the privilege of the forum has been abolished by force of a concordat or of a legitimate custom. There, therefore, these penalties are not incurred.

⁸³⁹ Cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis III, 556.

543. As regards 3. The privilege of immunity is threefold: local, real, and personal. Local immunity is a right granted to some sacred place, by force of which all actions that injure the reverence due to that place are forbidden there. Violation of this immunity pertains to local sacrilege, concerning which below. Real immunity is the right by which the goods of churches and monasteries are free from lay jurisdiction and from tributes and civil actions. Violation of this immunity pertains to real sacrilege, concerning which likewise below. Personal immunity is exemption from civil duties and especially from military service.⁸⁴⁰ Several governments in our days do not recognize this immunity of clerics. The Roman Curia issued wise ordinances for clerics and regulars who are compelled to perform military service.⁸⁴¹

⁸⁴⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 121.

⁸⁴¹ Cf. Holy Office, 1 September 1904; Sacred Congregation of Religious, 29 December 1909; Pontifical Commission, 15 July 1919.

544. As regards 4. Violation of a solemn vow of chastity (the same applies to the vow solemnized in the reception of the subdiaconate) is certainly sacrilege. Thus all teach. The reason is that through such a vow a man is consecrated as a sacred person and altogether separated from profane persons. Sacrilegious lust is committed if any grave external sin against the sixth or ninth precept of the Decalogue is perpetrated by a sacred person or with such a person.⁸⁴² The truer and more common opinion teaches that even internal sins committed by a sacred person, for example, morose delectations and desires, are true sacrileges.⁸⁴³

More probably, violation of a simple but public vow of chastity made in approved congregations or in religious orders strictly so called (during the three years before solemn profession) is also true sacrilege. The reason is that persons bound by this vow are deputed to divine worship by the public authority of the Church; and, moreover, are separated from profane persons just as are the solemnly professed. Some authors teach the contrary, for example, Haine,⁸⁴⁴ who cites Sporer. Palmieri-Ballerini asserts that violation of a simple vow of chastity is a sin of perfidy and not of sacrilege.⁸⁴⁵

Violation of a private vow of chastity does not seem to be sacrilege in the proper sense, since through such a vow a man by no means becomes a sacred person. Hence spouses who by mutual consent made a vow of chastity and nevertheless used marriage do indeed sin against religion, but do not commit sacrilege properly so called. Thus holds the far more common opinion.⁸⁴⁶

It is asked whether a solemnly professed religious priest who sins gravely against chastity commits two sacrileges, since he has two vows: the one from religion and the other from having received the subdiaconate. St. Alphonsus⁸⁴⁷ rightly calls the negative opinion the truer; because, although such a priest is bound to chastity by a twofold precept, nevertheless these two precepts are diverse only materially, since they proceed from the same motive, namely, divine worship. Therefore, although such a religious priest by violating chastity sins more gravely, nevertheless he does not commit two distinct sacrileges; and consequently in confession he is not bound to say that he is a religious priest, but it suffices to confess either one: either the solemn vow made or the sacred order received.

⁸⁴² Therefore a sacred person commits sacrilege if he sins gravely by obscene words, or if he advises a lay person to commit a sin of lust with another lay person.

⁸⁴³ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 454. Cf. also the things said above in I, n. 397 concerning morose delectation.

⁸⁴⁴ Elem. Theol. mor. I, De pecc. q. 30.

⁸⁴⁵ Opus theol., De praec. Decal. tr. 6, n. 140.

⁸⁴⁶ Cf. Laymann, Theol. mor. l. 4, tr. 10, c. 7, n. 5, and Billuart, De relig. diss. 10, a. unicus.

⁸⁴⁷ L.c., n. 455.