II. On Sacrilegious Copulation

314. - 1. Fornicatory copulation accomplished after Communion, before the sacred species have been corrupted, that is, within half an hour, takes on the grave species of real sacrilege. Cf. Noldin, De sexto praecepto, no. 26.

One who solicits in confession will also have become guilty of real sacrilege because of the abuse of the sacrament: Noldin, De sexto, no. 26, 4.

2. Copulation performed by a person, or with a person, who is bound by a vow of chastity is infected with a grave malice against religion, either from the violated vow or from complicity with the one violating it.

We said above, no. 233, how spouses sin against religion alone who have used matrimony against a valid and permanent vow.

Although the author of the sin sins more gravely than the accomplice, nevertheless, since the species of the sin, both theological and moral, is the same, this distinction can be omitted in confession.

But if both were bound by a vow, that twofold sin against religion will have to be accused just as double adultery must be. Cf. Cardinal de Lugo, De Paenitentia, disputation 17, nos. 135, 140.

3. Furthermore, if the vow has been perfectly or imperfectly solemnized by the reception of sacred order or by religious profession, even simple profession, the grave malice of personal sacrilege accrues. But because of the opinion of those who consider the violation of every vow, even a private one, to be sacrilegious, with consideration of its quality omitted, in practice it will be sufficient for the guilty person to say in confession: I had a vow.

N.B. Yet we hold this opinion to be intrinsically improbable; for no private person can make himself or a thing sacred.

4. One who is bound to chastity both by sacred order and as a religious contracts the same malice of sacrilege under a twofold title, which consequently he need not distinguish in confession.

5. One who induces a sacred person to a carnal sin is also sacrilegious because of complicity.

On the contrary, one who, bound by a vow of chastity, induces a person who is not sacred to a sin either solitary or with another person who is not sacred, is immune from personal sacrilege, provided he himself is not affected lustfully. Cf. Palmieri, Opus theologicum morale, vol. 2, treatise 6, no. 1024.

But if he has solicited in confession, he will have been guilty of real sacrilege. Cf. Noldin, De sexto, no. 26, 4.

6. Before the new Code of Canon Law, fornicatory copulation performed in a sacred place took on the grave species of local sacrilege, at least if it was public or notorious. For then the sacred place was polluted by the voluntary effusion of human semen, so that it required reconciliation. Wherefore that action, because of the reverence owed to a sacred place, was prohibited by positive law itself. We added "at least if it was public or notorious," because of the probable opinion of those who denied that grave local sacrilege was committed by occult actions.

Under the present law, in canon 1172, where the violations of a sacred place are enumerated, the voluntary effusion of semen is omitted. Nevertheless, public fornication will scarcely be without the note of impiety. Moreover, by an impious use a sacred place is violated. Add the enormous indecency in a sacred place of this sin, which supposes a base dealing with another person. Wherefore we judge that the grave rationale of local sacrilege is present in fornication which is committed in a sacred place. Approved doctors, however, require for grave local sacrilege an action by which the sacred place is polluted. Cf. Ballerini, Opus theologicum, vol. 2, no. 413, who cites them, although he keenly defends the opposite opinion. Below we shall treat of other sins against chastity under this respect.

But a sacred place is understood here as a church or public oratory dedicated to divine worship by consecration or at least by solemn blessing. For although cemeteries are placed among sacred places by canon 1154 and, according to canon 1207, are violated by the same acts by which churches are violated, nevertheless, because of the diverse respect, the grave malice of local sacrilege is not imputed to other actions which do not contain the canonical violation of a cemetery. Contrary to what, before the Code, Lehmkuhl ², after D'Annibale ¹, judged, we require at least a solemn blessing, since, before a dedication of this kind, we gather from canons 1154 and 1191, 2, that the place is not properly sacred.

¹ Summula, vol. 3, no. 15.

² Theologia moralis, I, 527.

Finally, we think that local sacrilege is committed only in a public oratory, because canon 1191 transfers the law of churches to public oratories alone; and semi-public oratories indeed can, but need not, be solemnly blessed. Wherefore, even if they have lost their blessing through violation, they need not be reconciled. We are confirmed by Lehmkuhl ³, who supposes a public oratory, and by Wernz ⁴, who applies what he declared concerning the pollution of a church, etc., only to public oratories solemnly blessed.

³ In the same place.

⁴ Ius decretalium, vol. 3, no. 455.