Local sacrilege

Local sacrilege is also committed in three ways:

(a) By violating the immunity of sacred places as far as this is still in force. (b) By committing certain crimes in a church or public oratory, which has been consecrated or at any rate blessed, by which crimes they are polluted according to canon law. Those crimes are homicide, suicide, any shedding of blood by violence which constitutes a mortal sin, the putting of the church to impious and base uses, and the burial within a church or oratory of an unbaptized person, or of one who has been excommunicated after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence (Can. 1172).

(c) By performing certain actions and by committing certain sins which of their nature or by special disposition of law are especially repugnant to the reverence due to holy places, Sacrilege is thus committed by holding a public market in a church, or a banquet, or using it to stable horses or cattle. There is, to be sure, a special indecency and irreverence in committing any sin in church, but the malice contracted from this circumstance will only be mortal in certain special cases.

On this ground it is probable that only external and consummated sins against chastity contract the grievous malice of sacrilege from being committed in a church; internal or not consummated sins against purity probably do not contract the grave malice of sacrilege if they are committed there.

I. Sacred places are those which are deputed to divine worship or to the burial of the faithful by the consecration or blessing which the approved liturgical books prescribe for this (can. 1154). Moreover:

1. To this belong: 1. churches; 2. public oratories; 3. semi-public oratories blessed in the manner of churches; 4. cemeteries. But a sacred place, at least insofar as there is question of local sacrilege, should be taken strictly, that is, with the atrium, tower, sacristy and other annexed rooms, roof, upper part of the inner vault, and crypt beneath the pavement excluded.

2. To this do not belong: 1. semi-public oratories which have not been blessed in the manner of churches; 2. private or domestic oratories.

II. Local sacrilege is committed:

1. By violating a church, public oratory, or cemetery in such a way that they need reconciliation. But the violation of which we speak is done through the acts to be enumerated below, provided they are certain, notorious, and placed in the sacred place itself (can. 1172, § 1). They must be notorious, that is, either publicly perpetrated or afterwards made public. It does not suffice that they be known to a few, say three or four, even if they can be juridically proved (VI, 364). They must be placed in the sacred place itself, strictly taken. But the acts, according to the cited canon, are:

a) Homicide mortally evil. Here, however, with respect to place, note that it suffices, but is also required, that the crime be committed against a man existing in the sacred place. Therefore it does not suffice that the killer, existing in the sacred place, kill someone standing outside the sacred place; but it does suffice that one standing outside the sacred place kill another existing in the sacred place. Yet it is not required that death itself follow in the sacred place (St. Alphonsus, VI, 364).

b) A notable and gravely culpable shedding of blood. Here, however, as was said about homicide, it again suffices, but is also required, that the crime be perpetrated against a man standing in the church (St. Alphonsus, VI, 365).

c) An impious or sordid use, for example if heretical worship is exercised in the sacred place, or if it is turned into a stable (St. Alphonsus, III, 37).

d) Burial either of an infidel or of an excommunicated person after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, with the exception, according to many, of catechumens and of an infant whose parents, or at least one of them, is a member of the faithful (St. Alphonsus, VI, 366).

Note. When a church has been violated, the cemetery is not therefore judged violated, even if contiguous, and conversely (can. 1172, § 2).¹

2. By violating the right of asylum, which belongs to a church (can. 1179) and to a public oratory (can. 1191, § 1). The right of asylum consists in this, that accused persons who have fled to a church or public oratory are not to be removed from it, unless necessity urges, without the consent of the Ordinary, or at least of the rector of the church or public oratory (cited canon).

3. By breaking into or setting fire to a church, public oratory, or semi-public oratory blessed in the manner of churches.

4. By stealing from a church, public oratory, or semi-public oratory blessed in the manner of churches, a thing which has been entrusted to its custody or loaned for its use (St. Alphonsus, III, 39).

5. By exercising in a church, public oratory, or semi-public oratory blessed in the manner of churches, profane acts which are repugnant to the holiness of the place (cf. can. 1178). Such are banquets, profane games, trading, and fairs (cf. cited canon); likewise walking about during the divine offices, which nevertheless do not easily become mortal (St. Alphonsus, III, 36, 37; cf. St. Thomas, on 1 Cor., ch. 11, lect. 4).

6. By committing in a church, public oratory, or semi-public oratory blessed in the manner of churches, sinful acts which are gravely repugnant to the holiness of the place; such are, for example, a notable and gravely culpable shedding of blood, even if hidden; likewise acts of lust, concerning which more fully in the treatise on chastity.²

Note 1. All external sins are affected with some malice of sacrilege, but commonly only a slight one. But internal sins do not violate the holiness of a place, because they do not affect the place; nevertheless he is guilty of sacrilege who desires an external sacrilegious work, or who delights in a work of this kind as sacrilegious (St. Alphonsus, III, 43).

Note 2. The Sacred Consistorial Congregation decreed that any projections and cinematographic representations whatever are altogether to be prohibited in churches.³

¹ The reconciliation of a violated sacred place is discussed in the treatise on the Holy Eucharist. Others judge that local sacrilege is committed only through those acts which require the reconciliation of the place. But since other acts also are highly repugnant to the holiness of the place, the said opinion seems little to be approved.

² Cf. our little work De virtute castitatis et de vitiis oppositis, p. 32 sq.

³ December 10, 1912 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1912, p. 724).

In how many ways is local sacrilege committed? - Local sacrilege can likewise happen in a threefold way. 1. By profane actions which either by their nature or by prescription of law are opposed to the sanctity and immunity of the place, although the church is not polluted by them, such as public market, public banquets, theatrical plays, public outcries, secular parliaments, the noise of judgments, unless a grave cause excuses, etc. 2. By all sins by which a church is polluted by canon law, namely by the injurious and notorious shedding of human blood; illicit and notorious shedding of human seed; culpable and notorious homicide; burial of an excommunicate not tolerated, or of an unbaptized infidel in a church, even if such burial had been inculpable. 3. By all sins which are done against the immunity of asylum of a sacred place.

Local immunity is that by which one is forbidden to exercise profane things in places sacred to God, and especially to set fire to a church, break its doors, or exercise another violence in it. But immunity of asylum is that by which one is forbidden to violate the rights of asylum. C. 2, de Imm. in 6; C. 6, de Immun. eccl. Moreover asylum is a privilege by force of which security is furnished to evildoers fleeing to a sacred place, so that they cannot be violently dragged from there, except, however, in cases excepted by law. Suarez, de Relig., tr. 2, l. 3, c. 8; Gregory XIV, Const. Cum aliis; Benedict XIII, Const. Ex quo divina, 8 Id. June 1725; Clement XII, Const. In suprema; Benedict XIV, Const. Detestabilem, Const. Officii nostri; Trent, sess. 22, Decree de observ., etc.

But here it must be noted that where the discussion is of sacrilege on account of this violated immunity of a sacred place, the notion of sacred place extends much more broadly than when the discussion is of acts directly opposed to the sanctity of a sacred place, and it extends also to a place only religious, destined by the authority of the Church for a pious and religious use. For as to those acts by which a church can also be polluted, a sacred place means only the ambit of a place even simply blessed and deputed by the Bishop for divine offices or for burying the dead, from roof to pavement, even if interdicted and polluted. Therefore private oratories are excluded. But if the discussion is of the aforesaid immunity of a sacred place, this also comprehends the exterior parts of the church, the porch, for example, sacristy, tower, roof, subterranean crypts, stairs to the temple, and the whole exterior base. Cemeteries even separated from the Church are held in the same estimation, the Bishop's palace, indeed also the house of the pastor, if it is joined to the church, the convents of religious with barns, gardens, and all those things which are enclosed within their ambit, and finally hospices erected by the authority of the Bishop and having a chapel for celebrating. C. un., de Consecr. in 6; C. Ecclesiis 20, de Consecr., D. 2; C. Ecclesia fin., de Consecr.; C. 9, de Eccles. aedif.; L. 36-38, l. 3, n. 460; l. 6, nn. 366, 920; Struggl 13; Schmalz., l. 3, t. 40, nn. 72-77.

Any projections and cinematographic representations in churches are prohibited. S. C. Cons., 10 Dec. 1912; E. M.

Are all sins of lust committed in a church or cemetery sacrileges? - Merely internal sins are not to be held as sacrileges, because they do not seem specially to affect the sacred place, unless there is a desire of sinning externally in the sacred place itself. But if they are held as sacrileges, cf. 495, nevertheless this circumstance, as lightly culpable, is not necessarily to be disclosed in confession. Therefore the desire of sinning in a sacred place will be sacrilege, although had outside it; but not the desire conceived in a sacred place of sinning outside the same. Sacrilege, namely in the forum of conscience, not in fact. Of sinning in a sacred place, namely by an exterior sin which is local sacrilege.

As to external sins, it is certain that sacrilege is committed by consummated, notorious acts, namely by voluntary pollution, fornication, etc. Notorious; for if those sins are hidden, more commonly indeed and more truly it is affirmed that sacrilege is committed, but there are not lacking those who deny; cf. L. l. 3, n. 334, par. Absolute. But whether it is also committed by other grave external sins, for example gravely shameful touches, is controverted. St. Liguori, n. 459, Collet, etc., more probably affirm. But Sanchez, Tamburini, Bonacina, etc., not improbably deny. But others affirm concerning more immodest touches and deny concerning other acts. Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, n. 461 seqq. Several among St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 458, hand down as probable that, scandal being set aside, marital intercourse had in a church is never sacrilege. But others more commonly and more probably affirm this only in a case of necessity, for avoiding the danger of incontinence. L. 36, 43; l. 3, nn. 334, 458 seqq.; Elbel 575, 576; cf. here 805, 807.

Is every theft in a church sacrilege? - It is established that every theft of a sacred thing is sacrilege, and also of a non-sacred thing committed nevertheless to the custody of a sacred place. C. Quisquis 21, sec. 2, c. 17, q. 4: "Likewise sacrilege is committed by taking a sacred thing from a sacred place, or a non-sacred thing from a sacred place, or a sacred thing from a non-sacred place." But a sacred thing is understood as a thing given to God in some way; and a sacred place as a church.

As to things which are found in a church by chance or accidentally, such as purses, watches, etc., it is controverted. Some probably deny, because that circumstance of sacred place, since it is altogether accidental, causes no injury to the sacred place. Others probably affirm, because it is still verified that such a person steals a non-sacred thing from a sacred place. Besides, because although the thing is in the church accidentally, nevertheless that evil external action is still repugnant per se to the sacred place, insofar as sacred. Sanchez denies that stealing in the sacristy is local sacrilege. But it is certain that theft in cloisters is not sacrilege, nor in the oratory of a private house, which is not solemnly blessed by the rite prescribed for a public oratory in the Roman Ritual, but by the blessing which is had in the same Ritual for a new house or place. S. R. C., 5 June 1899, n. 4025. In the oratories of hospitals, seminaries, or hermitages, even if not blessed by the Bishop, Sanchez rightly thinks that thefts are sacrileges, because they are held as public. L. 39; Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, n. 469 seqq.; Struggl 14.

Can sacred vessels and vestments, and can churches, be converted to profane use? - R. To the first. Affirmative, if the thing is totally changed in such a way that it is reduced to common material; 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 permitted to repair profane clothing from an old chasuble, nor to apply the ornaments of priests to profane uses. But otherwise concerning those things which are not blessed, such as carpets and candlesticks. "To use sacred vestments, even worn-out ones, for profane uses is mortal. Yet sacred vestments employed in profane uses do not lose their blessing." L. l. 6, n. 376. R. To the second. Likewise a consecrated church is not to be transferred to profane uses unless it has been profaned, has ceased to be a church, and the Apostolic approval is present. L. 31; l. 6, n. 371; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 2; 3 p., q. 83, a. 3 ad 3.

What is the sacred place in local sacrilege? The sacred place here is understood only as a church, that is, a place consecrated by the Bishop for divine offices, or even simply blessed from roof all the way to pavement; and a cemetery, that is, a place blessed and deputed for burying the dead. Therefore private oratories are excluded, since they are not true churches; all other parts of the church also are excluded which are by no means contained between roof and pavement, such as cells, cloister, sacristies, dormitory, the roof above the church, the door outside the threshold of the church, the atrium. L. 460.

Are internal sins in a sacred place sacrileges? - Merely internal sins are not to be held as sacrileges, gravely such, because they do not seem specially to affect the sacred place, unless there is a desire of sinning externally in the sacred place itself, even if that desire is had outside the place; for it is then sacrilege in affection. For since irreverence consists in fact, sacrilege cannot be in reality. Cf. 502.

What about external sins? - As regards external sins it is certain among all that sacrilege is committed through consummated acts, namely through voluntary pollution, fornication, etc. Here it must be noticed that many from St. Alphonsus 458 probably hold that sacrilege is committed in a church only through public emission of seed, which is prohibited by ecclesiastical law. But others probably say that even hidden emission is sacrilege. For although by ecclesiastical law the sacred place is not polluted, nevertheless the sanctity of the sacred place is violated. And concerning marital intercourse others likewise hold that, scandal being set aside, it can never be sacrilege; others still hold that through hidden marital intercourse sacrilege is committed, and the church is polluted, unless it is done from moral necessity; nevertheless, since it is a hidden crime, there is no obligation of abstaining from divine offices. L. 36, 334, 458; l. 6, n. 920; Cf. here 502.

Besides consummated acts, is sacrilege committed through other grave external sins not consummated? Some more probably affirm, because of themselves they import grave irreverence against the sacred place. Others not improbably deny, because only that has the nature of sacrilege which the sacred canons forbid; and by these only emission of seed is prohibited, as polluting the sacred place. L. 459, 461; Spor. 619. "Yet Lugo and others generally deservedly make exception, unless someone exercises immodest acts of this sort in a sacred place with great irreverence of the church, as if he publicly touched a prostitute immodestly before the altar, if he exhibited lascivious comedies in a sacred temple, etc.; for then it would not be denied that the crime of sacrilege properly is committed; for a grave irreverence would be done to divine worship, to which the sacred place has been deputed and consecrated." Sporer ib. But if sacrilege is irreverence, this does not seem to be lacking, and it is grave, in base looks, conversations, touches, if they are grave and manifest. Cf. here 502.

1. A certain anarchist was attempting to place an explosive ball in a certain hidden corner of the church. Arcadius, the parish priest, saw him, and immediately summoned the soldiers who were guardians of public order; entering the church, some extinguished the lit ball, others seized the anarchist, and, his hands having been well bound, brought him to the Quaestor.

It is asked: Whether Arcadius and the soldiers violated the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum and incurred excommunication?

R. Negatively. In the Case there is no question of a guilty person fleeing to the church lest he be seized there by force. But there is question of a wicked man who attempts to profane the church with great harm to it, and perhaps also with great harm to persons. Wherefore Arcadius, the parish priest, by immediately summoning the soldiers to seize the criminal man and to prevent so great a harm, acts altogether rightly. Cf. Commentar. in C. Apostolicae Sedis n. 50; I. M. 1187.

c) Local sacrilege (sacrilegium locale) is committed by polluting a church, public oratory, or cemetery, i. e., performing therein certain unbecoming actions or committing certain sins which, by their nature, or by special disposition of the law, are particularly repugnant to the reverence due to sacred places. Such sins are, e. g., the unjust shedding of human blood, consummated sins against chastity, and other indecent and irreverent acts.

“It is probable that only external, apparent, and consummated sins against chastity contract the grievous malice of sacrilege from being committed in a church; internal and secret or not consummated sins against purity, which do not pollute the church, probably do not contract the grave malice of sacrilege if they are committed there.”²

² Ibid. Cfr. Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 189 sq.: “The illicit emission of human seed, which can take place either by voluntary pollution, by fornication, or by conjugal intercourse, which without necessity is unlawful in a church; necessity arising from danger of incontinence, however, renders it lawful even in a church; consequently, the church is not polluted by this intercourse. Other external sins of lust (touches, looks, filthy speech), although grave, are probably not grave sacrileges. But grave internal sins (impure thoughts and desires) are certainly not grave sacrileges, unless there is a desire for an act by which a church is polluted and that desire is conceived for committing the act within the church.”

545. Notions. Local sacrilege is the violation of a sacred place or of local immunity. A sacred place in the strict sense is said to be one which by the authority of the Church is deputed to divine worship or to the burial of the faithful through the consecration or blessing which the approved liturgical books prescribe for this.⁸⁴⁸ Such sacred places are churches, public oratories, and blessed cemeteries. Since semipublic and private oratories need not necessarily be blessed,⁸⁴⁹ they are not to be numbered among sacred places in the strict sense.

Religious places and pious places must be distinguished from sacred places. Religious places are those in which works of piety and mercy are exercised habitually and by office, and which have been erected with the authority or express permission of the bishop. Such religious places are monasteries, hospitals erected by the authority of the Church, seminaries of clerics, the bishop's palace, etc. To these religious places, which are sometimes called sacred in a broader sense, the right of asylum and the privilege of immunity are customarily competent. Pious places are those which without the intervention of the Church have been deputed to the exercise of pious works, for example, private oratories, civil orphanages, civil cemeteries, etc.

⁸⁴⁸ Code of Canon Law, c. 1154. Some authors, such as Laymann and Billuart (l.c.), do not require sacred places to be blessed, but this opinion does not seem true.

⁸⁴⁹ Code of Canon Law, c. 1196.

546. The modes by which local sacrilege is committed are the following:

1. Pollution of a sacred place, which only the following four acts cause, provided that they are certain, notorious, and performed in the church:⁸⁵⁰

a) Unjust homicide, even without the shedding of blood, for example, by strangulation.

Every killing (even suicide) perpetrated with full deliberation in a church, unless it is done for just defense with the moderation of blameless defense, is sacrilege. But in order that a killing be said to have been perpetrated in a church, it is required and suffices that the proximate cause of death, for example, a wound or poison, be received in the church, although death occurs outside the church.⁸⁵¹

b) The unjust and copious shedding of human blood.

Therefore, if someone, for example, because of a light slap received in church sheds blood from his nostrils, neither pollution nor local sacrilege is present, since this does not arise except from a grave and unjust wounding.

c) Several impious or sordid actions which either from their own nature or from a special prohibition of the Church are opposed to the sanctity of a sacred place.

The Second Council of Lyons (1274) enumerates such actions: secular trials, both civil and criminal, commercial dealings, fairs, profane theatrical performances, public assemblies of profane societies, banquets, etc.⁸⁵²

On the occasion of funerals or festivities, the banners of societies manifestly opposed to the Catholic religion or whose statutes have been condemned must not be admitted into a church. If banners bearing manifestly impious or perverse emblems are carried in a funeral procession, the clergy are to withdraw from it.⁸⁵³ Dramatic performances by cinematographs and other projections are prohibited in churches.⁸⁵⁴

The stabling of horses, human filth, and dances greatly injure the sanctity of a sacred place. Privately eating something in sacred places, however, does not exceed a venial sin; indeed, when a reasonable cause is present (for example, if workmen labor in a church and cannot easily leave), it is no sin. Selling candles or devotional articles in a cemetery or in the atrium of a church is tolerated in some regions. Actions of this kind can more readily be permitted in a cemetery than in a church. But if cemeteries are not blessed, but civil, as often happens today, then they are no longer sacred places.

d) The burial of an infidel or an excommunicated person, but only after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence.

⁸⁵⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 1172, § 1.

⁸⁵¹ c. 4, X 3, 4, and Many, De locis sacris n. 31.

⁸⁵² c. 2, in VI 3, 23.

⁸⁵³ Cf. Holy Office, 4 April 1887 and 24 November 1897, and Sacred Congregation of Rites, 26 March 1924.

⁸⁵⁴ Sacred Consistorial Congregation, 10 December 1912 (Act. Ap. Sed. IV [1912], 724).

547. Note. 1. All the enumerated actions pollute a sacred place and require its reconciliation, provided, however, that they were certain, notorious, and performed in the church itself. When notoriety is lacking, pollution is not indeed caused, but sacrilege more probably remains.

2. A church is no longer polluted through a gravely sinful emission of human seed, as was decreed in the old law; but such a sin nevertheless seems to constitute true sacrilege, since the Code of Canon Law has changed nothing in this matter. Therefore, for example, if someone, even in a secret manner, procured sinful pollution for himself in a church, he must declare in confession the circumstance of the sacred place.⁸⁵⁵ Whether other grave external sins of lust committed in a sacred place (touches, looks, lascivious conversations), apart from danger of pollution, are true sacrileges in the strict sense is controverted. St. Alphonsus⁸⁵⁶ calls the affirmative opinion the more probable; and it is much better that the circumstance of the sacred place be declared in these sins, both because grave scandal has often arisen from them and because otherwise the confessor cannot judge well concerning the state of the penitent. Some authors hold as probable that acts of this kind are not sacrileges strictly so called, and therefore that the circumstance of the sacred place need not necessarily be declared.⁸⁵⁷ Sins of lust perpetrated merely internally in a sacred place are not sacrileges in the strict sense. What older authors say concerning lawful conjugal intercourse in a sacred place can scarcely occur in our times.

⁸⁵⁵ Vermeersch teaches the contrary, Theol. mor. II, n. 268, and IV, n. 100.

⁸⁵⁶ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 459.

⁸⁵⁷ Thus Noldin, De praeceptis n. 178; Tanquerey, De virt. relig. n. 933; and several older authors cited by St. Alphonsus, l.c.

548. 2. Grave theft committed in a sacred place.

For thus it is established in the Decree of Gratian:⁸⁵⁸ "Sacrilege is committed by taking away the sacred from a sacred place, or the non-sacred from a sacred place, or the sacred from a non-sacred place." The sacred is taken away from a sacred place, for example, if someone steals a consecrated chalice from a church. Those most wicked men take away the non-sacred from a sacred place who approach a church full of people in order to commit thefts upon the faithful staying there.⁸⁵⁹ Several authors, however, for example, Lugo,⁸⁶⁰ Tamburinus,⁸⁶¹ Lessius,⁸⁶² and Noldin,⁸⁶³ think that a theft committed in a sacred place is a grave sacrilege only when the thing taken away is joined to the sacred place by some special bond, and therefore either belongs to the sacred place or at least has been entrusted to its custody. The opposite opinion, which St. Alphonsus⁸⁶⁴ calls more probable and which is more conformable to the text of canon law⁸⁶⁵ cited above, teaches that every grave theft committed in a sacred place is a true sacrilege. Hence, if someone has stolen another's purse (which contains a large sum of money) in a church, he probably must declare the circumstance of the sacred place in confession.

If someone steals the sacred from a non-sacred place, for example, a consecrated chalice in a lay house, he does not commit local sacrilege, but real sacrilege.

⁸⁵⁸ c. 21, C. 17, q. 4.

⁸⁵⁹ Taschendieb [pickpocket].

⁸⁶⁰ De sacr. poenit. disp. 16, n. 470.

⁸⁶¹ Method. conf. l. 2, c. 8, n. 5.

⁸⁶² De iust. et iure l. 2, c. 45, n. 14.

⁸⁶³ De praeceptis n. 178.

⁸⁶⁴ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 39; cf. also Billuart, De relig. diss. 10, a. unic.

⁸⁶⁵ The text cited is not, indeed, from John VIII, as Gratian seems to suppose, but from Ivo of Chartres; cf. Berardi, Gratiani Canones genuini, etc., III, 344 (Turin ed., 1752).

549. 3. Violation of local immunity.

Local immunity is a privilege granted to some place, by force of which several profane actions are prohibited in it (cf. above, n. 546) and the right of asylum is granted. The privilege of immunity belongs not only to sacred places, but also to religious places.⁸⁶⁶ Cf. above. The right of asylum was already received in the customs and laws of ancient peoples, and especially among the Hebrews.⁸⁶⁷ At that time this right was very useful, since criminal justice was sometimes excessively severe. In the Middle Ages several crimes were designated which could not claim the right of asylum for themselves, for example, blasphemy, perjury, usury, etc. The right of asylum is in itself very fitting, especially as regards sacred places. For in this way a public profession is made of the reverence due to those places, and earthly justice, as it were, reverently bows itself before divine justice, which judges all the guilty in equity. In our times the right of ecclesiastical asylum is scarcely recognized anywhere by civil governments. Almost the sole exception is the Vatican palace, which still has the privilege of extraterritoriality. The law of asylum is to be observed at least as regards its substance even in our days, insofar as this is possible;⁸⁶⁸ and therefore care is to be taken according to one's ability that a criminal man not be seized by violence in a church during divine offices, or that he not be seized without the consent of the Ordinary or at least of the rector of the church. Certain civil governments also observe this practice.

Wonderful to say! Although the right of ecclesiastical asylum is recognized almost nowhere, the right of civil asylum still exists under a diverse form. Thus, for example, consular houses situated in foreign cities possess the right of asylum, at least for political crimes; if someone flees to a warship⁸⁶⁹ of another nation, he cannot be seized unless the consent of the government to which the warship belongs has first been obtained.⁸⁷⁰

⁸⁶⁶ Cf. c. 21, C. 17, q. 14.

⁸⁶⁷ Cf. Ex. 21:13; Deut. 19:2ff.

⁸⁶⁸ Cf. Holy Office, 22 December 1880; Code of Canon Law, c. 1179.

⁸⁶⁹ Kriegsschiff [warship].

⁸⁷⁰ Cf. Staatslexikon, s.v. Asylrecht [right of asylum].

550. Note. The actions indicated in the two preceding numbers do not cause sacrilege unless they were perpetrated strictly in a sacred place, that is, within the boundaries of the sacred place; or, if there is question of churches, in the space which is enclosed by the walls, floor, and ceiling of the church. Therefore sacrilege is not present if, for example, the shedding of blood was done in the sacristy, or in the portico, or in an underground crypt, or in the tower, or above the ceiling, etc. The actions indicated in the third number, or the violation of immunity, constitute sacrilege even if they were done not strictly within the space of the sacred place, but also in adjoining places. For the rest, sacrilege because of the violation of immunity rarely occurs today, as has been said.

S. Th. II-II, q. 99.

800. Sacrilege is said of him who gathers or steals sacred things; whence etymologically it is the theft of a sacred thing, but by extension of signification it is every violation of the sacred (heiligschennis). It is called:

1. Violation, that is, any unworthy and irreverent treatment had in a quasi-violent mode; and thus it is distinguished from blasphemy, which is irreverent and contumelious speech. "But just as honor is in the one honoring, not in the one who is honored, so also irreverence is in him who bears himself irreverently, although it harms in no way him to whom he exhibits irreverence. Therefore, so far as concerns himself, he violates the sacred thing, although it is not violated in itself" (a. 1, ad 3).

2. Of the sacred, that is, of something ordered or deputed to divine worship, not indeed by private devotion, but by public rite or institution of God or of the Church (a. 1). Moreover these words are to be taken formally: not every violation of a thing which is sacred is sacrilege, but only that by which the sacred thing is violated in that in which it is sacred. Thus, for example, defamation or theft committed against a priest is not sacrilege, because it does not touch the sacred person insofar as he is sacred (a. 3, ad 3).

Therefore sacrilege is such irreverence committed against something sacred as is specially repugnant to its sanctity.

801. Sacrilege is a sin against religion. - "For just as from the fact that something is ordered to a good end it obtains the account of good, so also from this, that something is deputed to the worship of God, it becomes something divine; and thus a certain reverence is owed to it, which is referred to God. And therefore everything which pertains to irreverence toward sacred things (as such) pertains to injury to God, and has the account of sacrilege" (a. 1).

Moreover it is a special sin, because in it "there is found a special account of deformity, by which, namely, a sacred thing is violated through some irreverence... And it is opposed to religion... for if someone violates a sacred thing, by this very fact he acts against reverence for God, and thus sins by irreligiosity" (a. 2).

This is the formal account which is proper to sacrilege, which namely constitutes it and distinguishes it from other sins, although it can be found in sins of diverse genus, homicide, luxury, theft, etc.; for "nothing prevents one special account of sin from being found in several genera of sins, according as diverse sins are ordered to the end of one sin,... and in this mode, in whatever genus of sin someone acts against the reverence due to sacred things, he formally commits sacrilege, although materially there are diverse genera of sins there" (ad 2).

802. Sacrilege is divided into personal, local, and real, by reason of the sacred object which is violated. - These differ in moral species, because a diverse account of sanctity is found in person, place, and sacred thing (a. 3 and ad 1), according as sanctity is in them subjectively and formally, or contentively and extrinsically, or effectively, at least by destination and ordination to the worship of God.

Probably they are lowest species which are not subdivided into other species, so that under the account of sacrilege it is the same sin in species to violate a nun by striking or by lying with her (ad 2); nevertheless often a sacrilegious action must be specified more because of other adjoined species, for example, of luxury, theft, etc.

803. Sacrilege is a mortal sin from its genus, because it is opposed to religion in a most grave matter, though sometimes in a light matter (Lev. X, 1; I Kings II, 17; IV, 11; Dan. V, 2; Jn. II, 14). Moreover it is so much the graver:

1. as the sacred thing against which one sins obtains greater sanctity.

Thus personal sacrilege is graver than local; likewise among real sacrileges, the gravest are those which are committed against the sacraments by which man is sanctified and which contain grace itself; then those which are done against consecrated vessels, against images and relics, against the ornament of the Church or of ministers, or finally against ecclesiastical goods. - The gravest of all is personal sacrilege against Christ in His proper species, but now it is real against the Eucharist which contains the body of Christ (III, q. 80, a. 5).

2. as the profanation is graver, that is, as the sacrilegious action contains greater irreverence and is more repugnant to the sanctity of the thing violated.

Whence the devastation of a church is graver than a small striking of a cleric; to break images of saints is greater than to approach the Eucharist without devotion or to touch it.

804. Personal sacrilege is the violation of a sacred person; but a person becomes sacred by reason of the clerical state, and by reason of vows of poverty, continence, and obedience emitted in an approved religion of either sex. Such sacrilege is committed:

1. By violent laying on of hands or real injury against a sacred person, namely, violation of the privilege which is called of the canon from Lateran Council II, can. 15; which is mortal if it brings grave harm to his body or liberty or dignity (can. 119 and 2343).

2. By injury to the privilege of the forum or ecclesiastical immunity, insofar as it exists in a region, for example, by drawing clerics to secular tribunals (can. 120-121 and 2341).

3. By lustful treatment, begun or consummated, internal or external, of a person who precisely according to chastity to be observed is consecrated to God, not indeed by a private vow but by public authority, whether by reception of sacred order or by admission to the religious state (can. 132 and 1308, § 1). But if the sin is committed between two persons, sacrilege is contracted by both, not only, namely, by the sacred person but also by the other accomplice;¹ but if both are sacred, the malice will be of twofold sacrilege; but if one is sacred by a twofold title, because it is from one motive of religion, one sacrilege is committed.

¹ Thus also a non-sacred person, desiring a sacred person, is guilty of sacrilege, not by reason of himself but by reason of the object; likewise if he is the cause that the sacred person commits sacrilege. On the contrary, a sacred person inducing a non-sacred person to luxury without delectation.

4. Likewise by violation of the other vows of religion, namely, poverty and obedience, by which, as by the vow of chastity, persons are consecrated to God.

As we have already noted, it is required that sacrilege affect the person formally as sacred: thus calumny uttered by a priest or against a priest, although it is aggravated by this circumstance, does not have the proper malice of sacrilege.

805. Local sacrilege is committed by violation of a place, not indeed consecrated by a private person, but by the authority of the Church or deputed by solemn blessing for performing public rites, namely, a church, a public oratory, and a blessed cemetery (can. 1154, 1191 and 1207):

1. By acts by which a sacred place is polluted, enumerated in the text of canon 1172 (cf. 1207), namely, a) by the delict of homicide; b) by injurious and grave shedding of blood; c) by impious or sordid uses to which the sacred place has been assigned, for example, dishonest dances, a grave brawl, stabling, or prostitution; d) by burial of an infidel, or of an excommunicated person after declaratory or condemnatory sentence. These acts, in order that a church be held juridically violated, must be certain, notorious, and placed in the church itself; but even if they are not notorious, they remain sacrilegious: for they are not sacrilegious because on account of them the Church is declared violated, but conversely. These are of themselves mortal.

2. By violation of ecclesiastical immunity, for example, unjust breaking in, devastation, spoliation, overturning of altars, violation of the right of asylum (can. 1179); and consequently by theft of a sacred thing or of a thing handed over to the custody of the Church, committed in a sacred place. These of themselves are mortal.

3. By acts which dishonor the sacred place: a) By all sins, not indeed internal sins, but external sins which, from the fact that they are perpetrated in a sacred place, contract a special malice of sacrilege, even mortal, because of special repugnance with the sanctity of the place, such as worship of an idol or demon, sins of immodesty manifestly grave in the account of an external act, namely, consummated acts and those which proximately dispose to them.

b) By various external actions not sinful but profane, some of which are per se forbidden under grave obligation, such as profane judgments, public markets, profane games, dances, profane spectacles, banquets, public shoutings and runnings about, etc. (can. 1178); others per se under light obligation: conversation, private eating, a private pact entered into without commotion, walking about, etc., unless there is an excusing cause.

But since favors are to be broadened, odious things restricted, it follows that under the name of sacred place there are also comprehended cells, the cloister, sacristy, tower, church forecourts, if it is a question of the right of asylum; they are not comprehended if it is a question of acts which dishonor a sacred place or by which it is polluted.

806. Real sacrilege is constituted by violation of things which by public authority pertain to divine worship or are proximately referred to it:

1. By unworthy reception, ministration, treatment, simulation of sacraments; likewise by profanation of sacramentals. Concerning these things it will be spoken particularly in the treatise on the Sacraments.

2. By unworthy treatment of sacred vessels or blessed ornaments. This can be grave: thus it would be mortal to convert a chalice or pyx to profane uses (can. 1150 and 1296); to use a vessel, corporal, and ornaments altogether unclean; for a non-deacon to handle without necessity vessels immediately containing the holy Eucharist; or light: thus it would be venial without necessity to employ a blessed candle for profane use, to drink blessed water for thirst, to drive away flies with a blessed ornament, for one who does not have power to touch a chalice, sacred vessels, corporals (can. 1306). In doubt, the matter often depends upon the intention of the agent or common estimation.

3. By profanation of relics and images, for example, by treating them badly, breaking them, stealing them, deputing them to sordid uses, scattering or throwing away relics, painting or sculpting images indecorously.

4. By abuse of the Sacred Books (Council of Trent, sess. 4, at the end), which is only venial, unless it is done for shameful and lascivious things or for confirming errors.

5. Finally by destruction of a church, and by usurpation, theft, destruction, injury, alienation without permission, of ecclesiastical goods, namely, those which are deputed to the ornament of the temple, sacred ceremonies, or the sustenance of ministers as such; but not of those things which are personal to clerics, or which are destined for the church but have not yet come into its dominion.

807. Observations. - 1. If sacred things have been totally changed, their violation or employment for profane use is no longer sacrilege, for example, if a chalice is altogether broken or melted down, unless sometimes by reason of scandal; likewise if they are no longer sacred because they have lost consecration or blessing, or because their form has now been perfectly changed (can. 1305): then they can freely be employed for profane uses, yet not for sordid uses (can. 1510).

2. Time is not consecrated to God in a special mode: he who violates a sacred day by sinning, although on this account he can sin more gravely, nevertheless does not commit sacrilege, because no special consecration is present; unless contempt or notable irreverence toward something sacred accedes, or scandal for the faithful, as on Good Friday to perform comedies or ludicrous spectacles.

3. When a church has been violated, the cemetery, even if contiguous, is not on this account judged violated, and conversely (can. 1172, § 2).

4. Penalties are inflicted in law for sacrilege; and indeed for sacrilege in general (can. 2325), real sacrilege (can. 2320-2322), local sacrilege (can. 2328-29), personal sacrilege (can. 2341 and 2343), sacrilege against ecclesiastical goods (can. 2345-47).

1. Hence in law it is said: sacrilege is committed by taking away either the sacred from the sacred (namely, real and local), or the non-sacred from the sacred (local sacrilege, if the thing has been entrusted to the Church), or the sacred from the non-sacred (real sacrilege).

Anselm, a priest, having discovered that the cover of the sepulcher of the relics in the high altar of his church had been broken into two parts, the effect of a heavy blow, though it had not been removed from its place, asked his bishop to reconsecrate the altar. The bishop, however, either because he was enfeebled by age and sickness, or because he learned that the altar-slab had two very large piercings, gave to the priest a portable altar-slab of almost the same dimensions, with which Anselm was directed to replace the broken cover. When Anselm found that this was somewhat too broad and too deep he cut a little from around its borders, and so from both its surfaces diminished a little of its thickness that it might fit into the hollow of the altar.

Now the question is asked:

1. When and under what circumstances did portable altars first come into use, and how does the Latin Church differ from the Greek on this subject?

2. What conditions desecrate a fixed or movable altar, and should the fixed altar, in the above case, be considered desecrated?

3. Does the double piercing mentioned in the above case desecrate the altar?;

4. Does the portable altar in the above case lose its consecration?

Answer 1.—A portable altar from its very name is one that can be carried from one place to another. It is opposed to a fixed altar, which has a determined place in a church, and is secured to the floor. The sepulcher of the relics rests upon a small stone, variously called the sacred stone, altar-stone, a carrying stone, traveling altar, portable altar, pilgrimage altar, for the reason that they are chiefly used by missionaries and those engaged in traveling and enjoy the privilege of a portable altar. This altar should have sufficient space to hold at least the chalice and host. As to their first usage the well-known Marténe writes as follows in his “Ancient Ecclesiastical Rites,” Part ii, Bk. ii, Chap. 17:

“Besides fixed altars, there are others called portable, traveling, or pilgrimage altars, the origin of which according to some goes as far back as the eighth century. Rather, they date back to the very beginning of the Church. There can be no doubt that portable altars were used before fixed altars, for the reason that in the early days of the Church there were no temples, no permanent or fixed places for the sacred mysteries, but as Eusebius says, in Bk. 7, Chap. 22, quoting the words of Dionysius of Alexandria, “Any place at all, a field, a forest, a ship, a stable, a prison, a temple, could serve as places for the sacred mysteries” and because of this fact it was necessary that portable altars be easily carried to any one place. After the persecutions ceased and wealthy princes built magnificent Basilicas, the altars, which up to this period were movable, became fixed, and as a result traveling altars became less used. A little later, because of the necessity of traveling and the scarcity of fixed and consecrated altars, traveling altars again came into use. Whence Ven. Bede says: “Daily they offer to God the sacrifice of the loving Victim, carrying with them the little cups and altars each consecrated in turn.”

Altars or tables of this kind were made from marble, blockstone, porphyry, jasper, alabaster, onyx, crystal, wood, or ebony. They were rectangular in form and rested either on wooden tables or some more or less expensive foundation.

According to the present laws of the Church portable altars must be made of stone; they must contain the relics of some saint and be consecrated by a bishop.

Among the Greeks instead of traveling altars, Antimensia are used. These consist of precious linens containing the holy relics, anointed with sacred oil by the blessing of a bishop at a special Mass for that purpose.

In the Russian Orthodox Church a temple can not be consecrated unless it contains at least one of these linens.

In the Syrian Church small tables of wood may be used in place of the Antimensia, in case of necessity.

Answer 2.—Any altar, whether fixed or movable, is held to be desecrated if:

1. It become broken. Now the break in itself may be serious by reason of the size of the fracture or serious by reason of its location, even though in itself the break may by no means be considerable.

2. If the relics have been removed or even if the sepulcher has been opened.

3. If the sepulcher itself has been broken or its cover, or if it has only been removed.

4. If the altar slab has been entirely removed from the lower structure.

5. If the upper part of the altar has been injured. Therefore, because of these laws the altar in the above case has been desecrated.

Answer 3.—It is said in the above case that the altar slab had two large piercings. In this case the same conditions obtain that affect the altar by reason of a break. These conditions we have seen in the preceding question. And so I consider that the altar has been desecrated.

Answer 4.—The portable altar given to Anselm, and which was mutilated by him in his ignorance, has become desecrated according to the above laws, and therefore the priest Anselm dare not celebrate Mass on said altar.

It happens not infrequently that portable altars, or altar-stones, upon which the Sacrifice of the New Law is offered to God, are not found in the condition which the precepts of the Church require, and it will therefore be of benefit and advantage to present here briefly the ecclesiastical rules regarding construction and the possible execration of portable altars.

A portable, or movable altar (altare portatile, mobile, also altare viaticum), is, as well known, a square stone with a smooth surface, blessed by the bishop with the special rite prescribed by the Church, which, if required, may be transferred from one to another altar, or another place allowed by the Church for the celebration of holy Mass. This stone, so that it may not be easily injured, is usually of marble (cement slabs are allowable, but not slabs of plaster or pumice-stone, S. R. C., April 29, 1887). For this reason the oldest ecclesiastical law books provide: Altaria, si non fuerint lapidea, chrismatis unctione non consecrentur, Dist. I. c. XXXI. de Consecr.; it must be of size sufficiently large that at holy Mass chalice and paten, at least for their larger part, may be placed upon it; it must at the same time be of depth allowing the sepulchrum (confessio) to be cut into it.

The sepulchrum is, according to recent practise, a receptacle hewn out at the upper surface of the altar-stone in the form of a small square, in which, at the consecration of the altar-stone, relics of saints, together with their authentication, are deposited by the bishop, whereupon the sepulchrum is covered with a tightly closing piece of stone, called the operculum (also sigillum altaris), which is well cemented to lock the sepulchre tightly and securely.

As the Canon Law ordains it is not lawful to celebrate Mass at an unconsecrated altar, and since it often becomes necessary to remove the altar-stone from the altar-table (mensa), and transfer it to another altar, care should be taken in so inserting the altar-stone in the altar-table that it can be easily taken out. For this reason, the altar-stone should not be masoned into the table, nor fastened with cement, because this would cause difficulty in removing it—might even cause the desecration of the altar-stone. Moreover, the altar-stone should be raised a little above the level of the altar-table so as to make its location easily discernible for placing chalice and paten upon the same.

The altar being the most important and essential part of the Church, because it represents mystically that exalted altar upon which the High Priest of the New Law offered Himself to His heavenly Father for the sins and the salvation of mankind, and because this sacred Sacrifice is in an unbloody manner daily repeated in the Catholic Church, special care should be taken so that the erection of altars in churches and chapels strictly corresponds to liturgical precept. Since the altar-stone, with its relics of saints, forms the most essential part of the altar it is necessary that the priest from time to time, especially if the church be damp, examine whether the altar-stone has not become injured, or even desecrated.

In order that this inspection of the altar-stone, to be undertaken not only occasionally by the pastor, but also on occasion of canonical visitations, may be done properly and satisfactorily, we will here state the chief things to be considered in determining the desecration of portable altars. Desecration is to be considered as established:

1. If the piece of stone (operculum, sigillum altaris), which closes the scpulchrum, has in any way, or for any cause, been removed, and if in consequence the sepulchrum has been opened. (S. R. C,, September 23, 1848; and August 12, 1858.)

2. If this locking-stone of the sepulchrum, through some mischance, has been broken or cracked, and thus the sepulchrum has been opened. (S. R. C., September 23, 1848.)

3. If this stone locking the sepulchrum is still there, but has become loose, making it doubtful whether the sepulchrum has not been opened. If it can be ascertained that an opening of the sepulchrum has not taken place, that merely the fastenings of the cover gave way in the course of time, or that the loosening of the cement was caused by careless handling of the altar-stone, then the altar does not lose its consecration, and any priest may undertake the recementing, but the sepulchrum must not be opened in the process, because otherwise desecration would take place. (S. R. C., March 14, 1861; September 25, 1875.)

4. A portable altar must be positively regarded as desecrated, and in all such cases be reconsecrated, if the sepulchrum is broken open and the relics removed, even if other authenticated relics are substituted (S. R. C., May 23, 1835; December 7, 1844, and May 23, 1846). (If the episcopal seal is broken or destroyed, the altaris not thereby desecrated of itself. S.R.C., March 11, 1837), provided neither the sepulchrum is broken open nor its cover injured.

5. A portable altar is to be considered as desecrated if the sepulchrum is shattered. (S. R. C., September 23, 1848, and August 12, 1858.)

6. If such a considerable portion of the altar-stone has broken off that the remaining portion will no longer suffice to hold chalice and paten. (S. R.C., March 3, 1821.)

7. If, in consequence of injury to the altar-stone, one of the parts that have been anointed has disappeared, which may easily happen to corners of altar-stones. (S. R. C., October 6, 1837.)

8. If the stone is so completely cracked in two that it can no longer be considered as a whole, even though the break cannot well be noticed. (S. R. C., August 31, 1867; March 3, 1821.)

On the other hand, an altar-stone does not lose consecration: (a) When merely a small portion of the same, for instance, of a corner, is broken off, or has in course of time crumbled away.

(b) If the wooden frame or back of an altar-stone is separated from it.

(c) If an altar-stone is lifted from its cavity in the altar-table and transferred to another altar, provided the sepulchrum is not broken open in this process, nor the relics lost. (S. R. C., June 21, 1710; and December 7, 1844.)

(d) If the church has been profaned, because in this case only immovable altars are desecrated.

The principles just stated are to be remembered whenever doubt arises as to whether an altar is desecrated or not. Since the sepulchrum with its relics forms the most important part of the portable altar or altar-stone, and as it is evident from what has been said that it can be very easily injured, it is incumbent upon pastors not to neglect the altar-stones of their churches, and to make sure frequently that they are not desecrated and that the sepulchrum is not injured. This is especially necessary if church or altar are damp, or if the sexton and his assistants are careless, as unfortunately happens often, in cleaning and decorating the altar. Their attention should be drawn to the fact that the altar-stone must be protected by every precaution. If the priest finds altar-stone or sepulchrum injured in any way at all, he should at once refer the matter to the ordinary and ask for instructions. Until these arrive, Mass should not be celebrated upon such altar, especially if the desecration is probable, unless the damaged altar-stone can be replaced by another one in proper condition.