The Doctrine on Sacrilege in Moral Theology

It would be worth while for some modern Sir Henry Spelman to write a book on the history and fate of sacrilege in modern times. Starting from the first French Revolution, or even somewhat earlier, and continuing his narrative down to our own times, the writer would find only too abundant material for his purpose. In France, in Italy, and in Spain, especially, the material would be plentiful, and if the history of private owners of Church property is any reflex of that of those nations themselves, the moral that sacrilege does not prosper even in this world would be no less striking than it appears in the pages of the worthy knight of the time of Queen Elizabeth and King James I. Sir Henry points out that the immense treasure which the suppression of the monasteries put into the hands of Henry VIII melted away, nobody knew how; while rebellion and disaster followed quickly on the crimes by which the religious houses were robbed and destroyed. The property itself seemed to carry a curse with it, so that sterility, and death by violence became marked characteristics of the families that were enriched with abbey lands.

In one respect indeed the modern imitators of Henry VIII have improved on his example. Sir Henry tells us what became of the invaluable libraries which formed the chief treasure of the suppressed monasteries :

Yet the desolation was so universal, that John Bale doth much lament the loss and spoil of books and libraries in his Epistle upon Leland’s Journal, Leland being employed by the king to survey and preserve the choicest books in their libraries. If there had been in every shire of England (saith Bale) but one solemn library to the preservation of those noble works and preferment of good learning in our posterity, it had been yet somewhat; but to destroy all without consideration, it is, and will be unto England forever, a most horrible infamy amongst the grave seniors of other nations. Adding further, that they who got and purchased the religious houses at the dissolution of them, took the libraries as part of the bargain and booty,—reserving of those library books, some to serve their jakes, some to scour their candlesticks, and some to rub their boots, some they sold to the grocers and soapsellers, and some they sent over sea to the bookbinders; not in small numbers, but at times whole shipfuls, to the wondering of foreign nations. And after he also addeth, “I know a merchantman, which all this time shall be nameless, that bought the contents of two noble libraries for forty shillings each, a shame it is to be spoken: this stuff hath he occasioned instead of gray paper by the space of more than these ten years, and yet he hath enough for many years to come: a prodigious example is this, and to be abhorred of all men who love their nation as they should do.’’ And well he might exclaim, ‘‘a prodigious example,’’ it being a most wicked and detestable injury to religion and learning.’

1 History and Fate of Sacrilege, p. 149.

Nowadays books are valued by others, as well as by monks and churchmen, and so the books found in the monasteries suppressed by the state in our day are placed in public libraries, and the duplicate copies are thrown on the market, much to the benefit of the book collector.

As the student of moral theology is aware, there are many difficult questions concerning the doctrine of sacrilege. Doctors are not agreed even upon the definition of the term. Sir Henry Spelman, who was deeply read in the scholastic theologians and canonists, defines it as —“an invading, stealing, or purloining from God, any sacred thing, either belonging to the majesty of His Person, or appropriate to the celebration of His divine service.”² Thus there are two kinds of sacrilege; the first kind is committed “when the very Deity is invaded, profaned, or robbed of Its glory,” says Sir Henry. And so the sin of Lucifer and his angels, of our first parents, of Cain, of those destroyed by the flood, of the builders of the tower of Babel, of Nimrod, and of others, was a sin of sacrilege. “In this high sin,” he further says, “are blasphemers, sorcerers, witches, and enchanters ; and as it maketh the greatest irruption into the glorious majesty of Almighty God, so it maketh also the greatest divorce betwixt God and man.”³ In other words, as modern theologians say, all sins against the virtue of religion may be called sacrilege in the wider sense of the term. In this sense it is not a specific sin, but rather a genus containing under it many different species of sin.

² Ib., p. 1.

³ Ib., p. 2.

Sir Henry admits that this meaning of the term was not the common one with the schoolmen and canonists. “I come now,” he says, “to the second part, which indeed is that which the schoolmen and canonists only call sacrilege, as though the former were of too high a nature to be expressed in the appellation: so exorbitant a sin, as that no name can properly comprehend it: θεομαχία, a warring against God, and θεοβλαβεία, a direful violence upon Divine Majesty, a superlative sacrilege.”⁴ In the strict sense of the term, the specific sin of sacrilege is “a violating, misusing, or a putting away of things consecrated or appropriated to divine service or worship of God: it hath many branches — time, persons, function, place: and materially. All (saith Thomas Aquinas) that pertains to irreverent treatment of holy things, pertains to the injury of God, and comes under the character of sacrilege. . . . Sacrilege of time is, when the sabbath or the Lord’s day is abused or profaned: this God expressly punished in the stick-gatherer.”⁵

⁴ Ib., p. 12.

⁵ Ib., p. 12.

Sir Henry had good authority for considering that sins committed on Sunday partake of the malice of sacrilege, as being a desecration of time set apart for the service of God; but he knew of the contrary opinion, for he adds, quoting Soto,— Some canonists seem not to reckon this under the common kind of sacrilege. So that in all that followeth we shall run the broken way of the schoolmen and canonists.”⁶

⁶ Ib., p. 13.

However, “the broken way of the schoolmen and canonists ” is anything but straight or level at this point. The great variety of opinions concerning particular cases of sacrilege shows that it is not easy to say what constitutes the essence of the sin in all cases. What sort of violation or misuse of the person is requisite for sacrilege? Why is not detraction of a person consecrated to God sacrilege? Why is not blasphemy, or any grave sin committed by a priest sacrilege, since it is a violation of one consecrated to God? Then, what is necessary to constitute a person consecrated to God? Will a private vow suffice, and if not, why not? What sins committed in church are sacrilegious?

Is it possible to explain the nature of sacrilege so that it will be easier to see our way toward giving satisfactory answers to such questions as the above?

When an object is dedicated to the service of God, it acquires thereby a new dignity, it is stamped with the seal of God, it enters in a sense into the sphere of the divine. As such it is only right and proper that it should be treated with a certain reverence and respect, which are due in the first place and in the highest degree to God Himself, and secondarily to all that in any special way belong to God.⁷

⁷ S. Thomas, II., II., q. 99, a. 1.

To treat such an object dedicated to God without due reverence will in some degree be an act of irreverence toward God Himself, and so in some degree sinful. Such an act is a fault against that obligation which binds all God’s rational creatures to treat their Creator and all that in any special sense belong to Him with respect and deference. This motive St.

Paul uses to exhort the Corinthians to avoid sin, especially sins of the flesh.⁸

⁸ I Cor. 3: 16.

The Christian is by Baptism dedicated and consecrated to the service of God; he is the temple of the Holy Spirit; he is under a special obligation not to defile himself by sin. Sin in such a one is a desecration, a violation of what has been devoted to God’s service.

All this is perfectly true, but it is no more than saying that there is a special malice and deformity in sin committed by a Christian. That faculties and organs, which have been solemnly dedicated to the service of the All Holy, should be soiled by being employed in the service of the devil is a profaning of things sacred, and an act of disrespect to God to whom they belong.

In a still greater degree is there a special malice in the sins of a priest or of a religious. Both of these have received a special consecration to the service of God, over and above that by which they were dedicated to Him in Baptism. Both have consequently taken upon themselves special obligations of leading holy lives; sin is in a special manner unbecoming in them; it is a violation of what by so many titles belongs to God. However, this special malice which qualifies the sins of Christians, priests and religious, is to a greater or less degree common to all the sins which they commit. It is not a distinctive mark of any one sin, and so it cannot constitute the essence of the particular sin of sacrilege. At most it may be said that in a wide sense, the special consecration to God by which Christians, priests and religious, are devoted to His service, makes their sins partake somewhat of the nature of sacrilege, in the sense in which St. Bernard said that unseemly joking in the mouth of a priest is sacrilege.⁹

⁹ De Consid., lib. II., c. 13.

All this seems to show that the special sin of sacrilege does not consist in the violation of a person or thing which only in some general way has been dedicated to the service of God. A certain irreverence, it is true, characterizes any improper use of such person or thing, and such irreverence, indirectly at least, affects God Himself; but this cannot constitute the special malice which differentiates the specific sin of sacrilege.

Here we are considering those objects which of themselves are not sacred. There are, it is true, some things, which of their own nature and by their very institution belong wholly to God’s service, and have no other use but in His service. Such are the sacraments of the Church. They are the sacred means instituted by Christ for sanctifying the souls of men. They belong to the supernatural order by their very institution and aim. Any abuse of them is an act of disrespect to the God-Man who instituted them, it is a violation of that which by its very nature is holy. So that any abuse of the sacraments or the holy sacrifice of the Mass has in it all that constitutes the essence of sacrilege. There are, however, other objects which, although dedicated to God’s service yet of their own nature do not belong to the sphere of the divine. They enter into the sphere of the divine by the fact of their consecration. With regard to such objects, we have seen that the mere fact of their dedication in any general way is not of itself sufficient to cause any abuse of them to have the malice of the specific sin of sacrilege. Some other element is necessary for this. What is that element?

The answer to this question is indicated to us by the way in which persons, places and objects became holy and sacred under the Old Law. In the Book of Leviticus¹⁰ we are told how Aaron and his sons were consecrated to the service of God by Moses in a public and solemn manner prescribed by God Himself. The various instruments and objects of divine service were also solemnly anointed and dedicated to their sacred purpose by God’s own directions.¹¹

¹⁰ Leviticus 8.

¹¹ Ex. 30: 23.

They were thereby taken out of the category of things profane, and became holy, consecrated, to be touched and handled by no one who was not himself sanctified with special rites. The Temple with its divisions of various degrees of holiness, which implied various degrees of separation from things profane, and the very place on which the Temple was built, were dedicated in a solemn manner to God. By the act of consecration all the requisites of divine service were not merely dedicated to God, but they were publicly separated from the objects of everyday life; it was solemnly forbidden to treat them as objects of common use. The Temple was profaned and desecrated by the very entrance of the profane, the sacred vessels were profaned by common use, it was sacrilege for a non-consecrated person to presume to fulfil the office of a priest. By the consecration then of things to the service of God by duly appointed ministers according to the prescribed form, those things became sacred in a special sense, and an obligation was laid upon all to treat them with special reverence, inasmuch as they had been thus dedicated to God.

It is difficult to see how such an obligation could arise, unless it were imposed in some such way by competent authority. This seems to be in the mind of Suarez, when he says that no private dedication of one’s self to the worship of God is sufficient to make the person sacred, but that this effect must come from law.¹² When Laymann¹³ and other theologians quote the Roman civil law in proof of this, they seem to appeal to the nature of things, and to reason and common sense.

¹² De Relig., tract. III., lb. 3, c. 2, n. 1.

¹³ Lib. 14, tract. 10, c. 7, n. 2.

In the dedication of persons, places, and objects to the worship of God, the Christian Church was guided partly by what her Divine Founder had commissioned her to do, partly by the analogy of the Old Dispensation, partly by the natural fitness of things. In all that she did in this matter, she used the authority given to her by God Himself. And so from the earliest times there were in use in the Church special rites and ceremonies, not only for the solemn consecration of her ministers, but for the consecration of virgins, and for the dedication to God of all that was required for divine service. Although a priest might give a simple blessing, the authority of a bishop was usually required for the solemn consecration of things to God. For this, as under the Old Law, holy oil is commonly employed. And so we have the well-known distinction between benedictiones invocativæ and benedictiones consecrativæ. By the former, God’s blessing is invoked on the use of those things which are blessed, such as the food we eat, but they do not become holy and sacred thereby; whereas, by the latter, things are made holy and sacred, they are perpetually dedicated to the service of God, and can never again revert to profane uses, as is expressly laid down by the fifty-first Rule of Law in the Sixth Book of the Decretals.

And so a private dedication to God by private authority is not sufficient to constitute persons, places, and things holy and sacred in such a manner that the special sin of sacrilege is committed by abuse of them. Public ecclesiastical authority is required for this, and ordinarily a public, solemn rite is used, approved by competent authority. The Pope, indeed, as supreme legislator in the Church of God, is not subject to the provisions of positive ecclesiastical law, and he can consecrate things to God, and make them sacred by a mere act of his will;¹⁴ but subordinate ministers in the Church would seem to be bound to use the prescribed rites when they desire to consecrate things to God, and to make them sacred.

¹⁴ Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor., II., n. 586.

The particular aspect, too, in which an object is rendered sacred by consecration depends in great measure upon the intention of the Church. Thus by conferring minor orders, the Church makes the persons of clerics sacred in the sense that sacrilege is committed by bodily ill-treatment of them, but it is not sacrilege if they transgress the sixth commandment. On the other hand, sacred orders dedicate the cleric to the service of God by the observance of chastity, and sacrilege is committed by him if he violate that virtue.

It would appear, then, that if we prescind from things which of their own nature are holy and sacred, as for example, the sacraments, the holy sacrifice of the Mass, and the relics of the saints, and consider that larger class of objects which become sacred by consecration, the specific sin of sacrilege is a consequence of positive law. It is a transgression of the positive law which out of reverence for God, to whom the object has been solemnly dedicated in legal form, forbids certain actions with reference to that object. If those forbidden actions are performed, the sin of sacrilege is committed, a violation of a sacred object in that respect in which it has been made holy and sacred by the will and solemn dedication of the Church.

If this be the correct notion of sacrilege, it will be an easy matter to decide what particular sins fall under this specific head. To take the questions asked above: it is clear that detraction of a person consecrated to God is not sacrilege, because the Church has not specially forbidden that violation of his rights, moved thereto by the motive of reverence for God. For the same reason all grave sins committed by a priest are not so many sacrileges; but a violation of chastity, to the observance of which the Church has specially dedicated him, is sacrilege, in the specific sense of the term. It is clear, too, that a private vow of chastity does not consecrate the person to God; the authority of the Church must come in, as it does in the vow of chastity taken in the reception of sacred orders, and in profession in a religious order approved by the Church. Again, not all sins committed in church will have the malice of sacrilege in the strict sense, but only those that have been specially forbidden by the Church out of reverence for the house of God. Under this head will come all those sins by which the immunity of a sacred place is infringed, or by which a church is violated, so as to need reconciliation in due form. Theft of property belonging to the Church, or intrusted to the Church’s keeping, will be sacrilege, even though such property be not in itself sacred, because there is a law of the Church which specially forbids such theft, and makes it sacrilege.¹⁵

¹⁵ C. 3, C. XII., q. 2.

On the contrary, theft of a priest’s private moneys will not be sacrilege for the opposite reason. Nor will all sins committed on the Sunday be sacrilege, for though that day be specially dedicated to God’s service, yet there is no special law commanding us to keep the day holy by abstaining from all sin.

It will not be difficult to apply the same principles to other disputed cases, and if this be done, light will be thrown on some difficult questions of moral theology, and “ the broken way of the schoolmen and canonists” will be made somewhat more straight and more level for the bewildered beginner.