§ II. On Sacrilege

Sacrilege is the violation or unworthy handling of a sacred thing. A threefold kind is distinguished, namely personal, local, and real.

Here sacred is said of whatever is deputed to divine worship by public rite from divine or ecclesiastical institution, and therefore merits special reverence. Hence:

1st. Sacred persons are those who are deputed to divine worship by sacred tonsure or by religious vows.

2nd. Sacred places are those which are deputed to divine worship or the burial of the faithful by the consecration or blessing which approved liturgical books prescribe for this (Can. 1154).

3rd. Goods are called sacred which by consecration or blessing are destined for divine worship, as sacraments, consecrated vessels, relics or images of Saints; likewise those which pertain to the adornment of the Church or of ministers; finally ecclesiastical goods, even movable ones. Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 99, art. 3. - Can. 1497.

Things consecrated, or blessed with a constitutive blessing, are to be treated reverently and not employed for profane or non-proper use, even if they are in the ownership of private persons (Can. 1150).

I Say. Sacrilege, which indeed differs in species according as it affects a person, place, or sacred thing, because the sanctity itself of the person, place, or sacred thing morally differs one from another, is indeed a mortal sin from its genus, but not from its whole genus. The reason of the first is that it is opposed to the most excellent virtue, namely religion; and the reason of the second is that through sacrilege no injury is inflicted on God directly and immediately, and therefore smallness of matter is admitted in it.

Question 1. How are the diverse species of sacrilege committed?

Response 1st. Personal sacrilege is committed: 1st, by inflicting violent hands upon a Cleric or Religious; 2nd, by acting lustfully with persons dedicated to God by major orders or religious profession of vows, even by touches alone; 3rd, by subjecting ecclesiastical persons to the judgment of a forum, excepting cases foreseen by common law or a particular concordat, or even determined by special law, as among us was done by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 84. - But it will not be sacrilege to detract from a priest, because only his person is sacred, but not his reputation. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 35.

Response 2nd. Local sacrilege is committed by all sins by which a church is violated, namely homicide, injurious and grave shedding of blood, impious or sordid uses, burial of an infidel or of one excommunicated after sentence, provided the acts are certain, notorious, and posited in the church itself. From a church having been violated it does not thence follow that the cemetery has been violated. - Cf. Can. 1172. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 36.

It must be noted that there is a general decree, issued by command of Pius X on Dec. 10, 1912 by the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, by which any projections and cinematographic representations whatsoever are altogether prohibited from being done in a Church. - Acta Apos. Sedis, v. 4, p. 724.¹

Response 3rd. Real sacrilege is committed: 1st, by unworthy administration or reception of the sacraments; 2nd, by unworthy handling of sacred relics, images, etc.; 3rd, by profanation of sacred vessels, instruments, and ornaments; 4th, by theft of a thing pertaining to divine worship or to the church; 5th, by abuse of Scripture, for example, by twisting its words to vain things, etc.; 6th, by neglect of sacred vessels, corporals, etc., by those who ought religiously to care for these. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 40 and 48.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1087, n. 3.

Question 2. Is it sacrilege to violate a person bound by a simple vow of chastity outside religion?

Response. There is controversy; for some affirm, because, they say, a man is consecrated to God by any vow whatsoever of chastity; but others probably deny, because for rendering some person sacred, private will does not suffice, but public authority of the Church is required. - For the rest, all hold that violation of that vow contains a twofold malice, one against chastity, and the other against religion, and the whole controversy is whether the sin against religion is to be called true and strictly said sacrilege, or rather a sin of irreligiosity, or of perfidy toward God, or even sacrilege, but said in a broad sense. - Cf. Suarez, de Relig., tract. 3, lib. 3, chap. 1. Laymann, lib. 4, tr. 10, chap. 7, n. 2. - Baller., note (a), p. 259.

Question 3. Are all sins of luxury committed in a church sacrileges?

Response. Merely internal sins, namely morose delectation and desires of sinning externally outside the church, are not to be held as sacrileges, because they do not seem specially to affect the sacred place; but one must speak otherwise of desires of sinning externally in the church, whether these were conceived in it or outside it. But as to external sins, it is certain that sacrilege is committed by consummated acts, namely by voluntary pollution, fornication, etc., because by those acts the church is polluted. But whether it is committed also by other grave external sins, for example, gravely shameful touches, is controverted among the Doctors, and the negative opinion seems probable. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 43; and de sexto praec. Decal., n. 459.

Question 4. Is every theft in a church sacrilege?

Response. It is established that every theft of a sacred thing is sacrilege, and also of a thing not sacred but committed to the custody of a sacred place, as is clear from canon law, cap. Quisquis, 21, § 2, causa 17, question 4, where it is read: "Likewise sacrilege is committed by removing the sacred from a sacred place, or the non-sacred from a sacred place, or the sacred from a non-sacred place." - But as regards things which by chance or by accident are found in a church, as purses, a watch, etc., there is controversy; but the negative opinion is certainly probable. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 39.

Question 5. Can sacred vessels and vestments be converted into profane use?

Response. Affirmatively, if the thing is totally changed in such a way that it is reduced to common use, for example, if a chalice by fire or iron is made a mass of silver. But otherwise, if it is not totally changed. Hence it is not licit to mend profane garments from an old chasuble, nor to apply ornaments of priests to profane uses. But otherwise concerning those things which are not blessed, as carpets, candelabra. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 41.

Sacred things are not to be lent for a use which is repugnant to their nature (Can. 1537).

§ 1. Sacred furnishings blessed or consecrated lose blessing or consecration:

1st. If they have undergone such injuries or changes that they have lost their former form, and are no longer held suitable for their uses;

2nd. If they have been employed for indecorous uses or exposed for public sale (Can. 1305).

Question 6. Is it sacrilege to touch sacred vessels?

Response. Negatively, if it were done by clerics, or by lay regular sacristans, and also by nun sacristans. But if it were done by other lay persons, sacrilege would indeed be present, but would not exceed venial sin, and this too would cease when a reasonable cause intervenes. - But if the sacred vessels actually contain the most holy Eucharist, no one can touch them without grave sacrilege, except priests and deacons, excluding however the case of necessity and danger of profanation.

§ 1. Care must be taken lest the chalice with the paten and, before washing, the purificators, palls, and corporals which were employed in the sacrifice of the Mass, be touched except by clerics or by those who have their custody.

§ 2. Purificators, palls, and corporals employed in the sacrifice of the Mass are not to be handed over to be washed by lay persons, even religious, unless they have first been washed by a cleric constituted in major orders; but the water of the first washing is to be poured into the sacrarium, or, if this is lacking, into the fire (Can. 1306). Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 48; and de Euchar., nn. 382 and following.