Real sacrilege

Real sacrilege is also committed in three ways:

(a) By treating with irreverence sacred things, such as the sacraments, Holy Scripture, relics, sacred images.

It is a sacrilege to administer or to receive the sacraments in a state of mortal sin, to quote the words of Scripture for the purpose of making an obscene joke, to treat sacred images and relics with contempt.

(b) By theft of sacred objects. Sacrilegious theft is committed by stealing a sacred object from a sacred place, or a profane object from a sacred place, or a sacred object from a place that is not sacred, according to an old decree of canon law.¹ In the first of these cases a double sacrilege is committed, local and real, as when a chalice is stolen from the tabernacle; in the last case real sacrilege only is committed, as when a chalice is stolen from a priest’s room. Local sacrilege only is committed in the second case, and, indeed, according to a probable opinion, then only when the object stolen belongs to the sacred place, or has been entrusted specially to the sacred place for safe keeping. If a thief picks a pocket in church, his sin probably has not the malice of a grievous sin of sacrilege, although it may be grievous as against justice.

(c) By committing the sin of simony, the treatment of which is reserved for the next chapter.

¹ c. 21, C. 17, q. 4.

Theft of ecclesiastical property or wilful damage done to it is sacrilege, for although the money or other property belonging to the church is not sacred in itself, still by damaging or stealing it an injury is done to those sacred persons, places, and causes that are supported by church property. The private property belonging to a cleric is not ecclesiastical property, but only that which belongs to a church, Religious Order, or pious institution erected by episcopal authority. Theft, therefore, of the private money of a cleric is not sacrilege.

It is not lawful, except for clerics or others who have care of them, to touch the sacred vessels which are used to hold the Blessed Sacrament. Palls, corporals, and purificators should after use be washed by a cleric preparatory to their being washed in the ordinary manner. A violation, however, of these regulations would not be a grievous sin of itself; indeed, when there was a just cause, it would be no sin at all (Can. 1306).

I. A sacred thing is one which is ordered to divine worship, whether of itself, as the sacraments, or by the Church. But the Church orders a thing to divine worship by consecration, as sacred vessels; by constitutive blessing, as sacred vestments; or by mere destination, which occurs with goods that belong to the dominion of the Church or of a pious place (St. Alphonsus, III, 40).

II. Real sacrilege is committed:

1. By unworthily treating things sacred by their nature, or consecrated or blessed things. To this are referred: 1. invalid or unworthy administration and reception of the sacraments; 2. profanation of relics (cf. can. 1289, § 2), altars, images of the Saints, sacred oils, etc.; 3. illicit touching of the Holy Eucharist, of sacred vessels, etc. (cf. treatise on the Holy Eucharist and can. 1306); 4. abuse of Sacred Scripture, by twisting its words to an impious or obscene sense (St. Alphonsus, III, 40).

2. By applying to a profane use things sacred by their nature, or consecrated things, or things blessed by a constitutive blessing (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.; cf. can. 1150). This nevertheless seems lawful if they have lost their consecration or blessing; canon 1305 explains when this occurs.

3. By stealing sacred things, for example relics or ecclesiastical goods, provided these already belong to the dominion of the Church; otherwise if they are only owed but have not yet been handed over (St. Alphonsus, III, 42, 45, 532).

4. By exchanging a spiritual thing for a temporal price. This is real sacrilege, which is called simony; but it will be treated specifically.

Corollary. The circumstance of time induces a grave sin of sacrilege only insofar as the action, from the sense of the faithful and of the Church, involves an extraordinary repugnance with the mystery which is celebrated at some time, as if someone on Good Friday were to institute solemn banquets furnished with meats (St. Alphonsus, III, 46, 273).

In how many ways is real sacrilege committed? - Real sacrilege, generally speaking, can also be committed in three ways: 1. by treating sacred things unworthily. 2. by usurping them unjustly. 3. by selling and buying sacred things profanely, or simony. Hence real sacrilege is committed: 1. by unworthy administration or reception of the sacraments, which produce sanctity. And thus it would also be sacrilege to employ for the sacrifice sacred vessels, corporals, etc., enormously unclean; to leave consecrated particles to become corrupted in the pyx, etc. 2. by abuse of Scripture, by twisting its words, which signify something sacred, to vain things.

Trent, sess. 5, at the end, calls this usurpation rashness, and commands it to be punished. 3. by unworthy treatment of sacred images or ceremonies, which represent sacred things. 4. by profanation of vessels, instruments, and sacred ornaments, etc., which pertain to sacred worship; understand profanation concerning those which are accustomed to be consecrated or at least blessed. For Tamburini, Expl. Sacrif., l. 1, c. 2, teaches that it is not sin to use for weddings or common use carpets, candlesticks, a basin, indeed even a towel, etc., which mediately serve sacred ministry, unless it is done from some contempt at least implicit, as if you always and indifferently used the aforesaid things. 5. by theft and usurpation of ecclesiastical goods, which are deputed for worship and for the support of sacred ministers. 6. by theft and unworthy treatment of relics, which are particles of the Saints. 7. by defrauding the rights of the Church, for example by imposing taxes, etc. Struggl 15; L. 40, 48, 460; E. M.

To whom is it licit to touch sacred vessels? - To all and only clerics without special license; but it is venial, and if a cause is present, not even venial. This is also granted to regular lay sacristans, from the privilege of Sixtus IV, and also to nuns who are sacristans, from communication of privileges; likewise by custom and from necessity to lay oblates of more recent Congregations of priests who are sacristans, and to all who serve churches in clerical habit. The first washing of palls, corporals, and purificators is to be done by a sacred person, and it is the proper office of the subdeacon. The second and third washing can also be done by laypersons. The water of the washing is to be thrown into the sacrarium. C. Nemo 40, de Consecr., D. 1; Roman Pontifical, de Ordinat. subdiac.; S. R. C., 12 Sept. 1857, ad 26, n. 3059; L. l. 6, n. 387.

But it is permitted to all to touch other sacred things, of which sort are, for example, Agnus Dei medals, at least from present custom; relics of Saints, and consequently to carry them hanging from the neck; sacred ornaments, except those which immediately touch the Holy Eucharist. C. 41, de Consecr., Dist. 1; L. 48; l. 6, nn. 94, 382; l. 7, n. 340; E. M. Clerics initiated with first tonsure only can touch sacred vessels and sacred linens, and prepare the chalice in the sacristy, without special indult. S. R. C., 23 Nov. 1905, ad 1.

A deacon by reason of his ministry can, even when priests are present and outside the case of necessity, carry the Most Holy Sacrament from one altar to another. S. R. C., 23 Nov. 1906, ad 3. But to others, even subdeacons, it is not permitted to touch sacred vessels containing the Most Holy Sacrament, ibid.

What special cases are to be noted in real sacrilege? - He commits sacrilege who, vested for Mass, pollutes himself. Likewise a priest carrying the Most Holy Eucharist who sins carnally; or who pollutes himself within half an hour after Communion. But by no means he who sins carnally while carrying relics, agni Dei, etc., or on a feast day. The reason is that all these things seem to be per accidens with respect to carnal sin. Nor in reality is the sacred thing itself violated. On the contrary, in the first, second, and third case there would be grave irreverence toward the Most Holy Eucharist, and toward the sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacred vestments destined for offering it. Likewise he would not commit sacrilege who gave relics of the Saints to a mistress by title of simple donation. But otherwise, if he gave them as the price of sin; for then it would be sacrilege and simony.

To this, however, pertains solicitation to base things in Confession, namely when the confessor abuses the sacrament of penance for carnal sin; and the absolution of an accomplice in this, for most grave irreverence is inflicted on the sacrament. Elbel De Actib. hum. 104; Sporer 621; L. 463.

90. Corollaries. 1. Real sacrilege will be, in the present matter, the lustful handling of these objects, "as if on linens or vessels sacred vessels semen were poured forth, if a blessed candle, or, what is horrible, the sacred Eucharist were used for an amorous philtre, in order that thus the abused woman may be more vehemently inflamed with lust. He commits real sacrilege who lustfully handles images and relics of the saints, sacred vestments, rosaries, crosses, medals, or who, by gazing upon a sacred image of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, or some saint, defiles himself. In these cases the malice of sacrilege must be explained in confession. L. 456. 457. Cf. here n. 222.

287. • QUESTION 4. Whether injury to any goods whatsoever pertaining to Clerics constitutes sacrilege?

Resp. No, but only injury to goods which Clerics possess not in their own name but in the name of the Church, and of which they cannot dispose, because only these are sacred. - St. Lig. n. 42 and others commonly.

QUESTION 5. Whether sacred vessels and vestments can be converted to profane use?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the thing is so totally changed that it is reduced to common use, e.g., if a Chalice by fire or iron is made into a mass of silver.

But otherwise, if it is not totally changed. Hence it is not lawful from an old chasuble to repair profane garments, nor to apply the ornaments of Priests to profane uses. But otherwise concerning those which are not blessed, such as carpets and candlesticks. - St. Lig. n. 41.

QUESTION 6. Whether Chalices and other vessels, consecrated by sacred unction, whether they still retain consecration or not, before they are handed over to an artisan to be repaired, must be desecrated by a priest?

Resp. S. R. C., April 20, 1822. Negatively.

QUESTION 7. To whom is it lawful to touch sacred vessels?

Resp. To all and only Clerics without special permission. This is also granted to regular lay sacristans by privilege of Sixtus IV, and also to nun sacristans by communication of privileges. - St. Lig. n. 48. - Salmanticenses, and others commonly.

But it is lawful for all to touch other sacred things, of which sort are, e.g., an Agnus Dei, at least by today's custom, Relics of Saints, sacred ornaments, except those which immediately touch the Holy Eucharist.

b) A real sacrilege (sacrilegium reale) is committed by abusing or treating with irreverence sacred things, such as the Sacraments, sacramentals, sacred images, relics, Holy Scripture, sacred vessels or vestments; by stealing an object dedicated to God; by plundering or secularizing convents and pious foundations, etc.¹

¹ Thos. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Mor. Theol., Vol. I, pp. 228 sq.

551. Notion. Real sacrilege is the violation or unworthy treatment of a sacred thing.

Modes. Real sacrilege is committed in two ways: 1. by treating sacred things unworthily; 2. by usurping sacred goods. Some add: also by unlawfully buying or selling sacred things; but this is rather simony, concerning which treatment will be given below in n. 555ff.

All sacred things can be reduced to three categories, namely: 1. sacraments and sacramentals; 2. sacred vessels and ecclesiastical ornaments; 3. ecclesiastical goods.

552. 1. The unworthy treatment of the sacraments is the principal real sacrilege.

Among all unworthy treatments of the sacraments, the worst sacrilege is the reception and consecration of the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin, because the sacrament of the Eucharist surpasses all the others in dignity.⁸⁷¹ Other irreverences against the Eucharist are also reduced to the malice of sacrilege, for example, if the sacred species are cast away, or even are not renewed at the due time when there is danger of their corruption; if the lamp before the altar in which the Eucharist is reserved does not burn for a long time (an entire day); if unbecoming vessels, torn or unworthy vestments, or soiled linens are employed for the sacrifice of the Mass; if the Eucharist is administered by a minister who is in the state of mortal sin. All these matters will be treated specifically in the tract on the Eucharist. The unworthy reception, confecting, and administration of the other sacraments is also sacrilege. Probably the unworthy reception, confecting, and administration of diverse sacraments are not specifically diverse sacrileges. Some authors, however, except the unworthy treatment of the Eucharist, which they hold to be a sacrilege specifically distinct from sacrileges committed by the unworthy treatment of the other sacraments, at least if the sin of blasphemy is added in the injurious treatment of the Eucharist.⁸⁷² In practice it is altogether to be counseled that the penitent declare distinctly against which sacrament he committed sacrilege. The unworthy treatment of sacramentals is likewise reduced to sacrilege; rarely, however, does it constitute a grave sin if formal contempt is absent. Certainly it would be a sin if someone were to cast holy water into a latrine. But it is lawful from a reasonable cause to employ things that are simply blessed for decent profane uses. Thus, for example, when another light is lacking, it is lawful to employ a blessed candle in order to have light for study; likewise it is lawful to employ blessed salt for seasoning foods, and holy water for tempering wine.⁸⁷³

⁸⁷¹ Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 99, a. 3; 3, q. 73, a. 1 ad 2.

⁸⁷² Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, n. 522.

⁸⁷³ Cf. Noldin, De praeceptis n. 179.

553. 2. To employ consecrated sacred vessels, for example, a consecrated chalice, and blessed ecclesiastical ornaments, for example, a chasuble, for profane uses without the greatest necessity is a grave sacrilege.

Nevertheless, according to the present discipline it is lawful to employ vessels of this kind and other blessed things for profane use if their form has first been entirely destroyed, for example, if a chalice has been reduced to common material by the melting of the metal. Nevertheless this profane use is to be avoided according to one's ability. Thus, for example, it is unbecoming to employ sacred linens, even when torn and cut up, for making a shirt. In practice it is much better and more becoming to employ again, for fashioning other sacred things, the parts which belonged to sacred things, or to burn them.⁸⁷⁴ The practice of certain priests who sell old blessed or even consecrated ecclesiastical ornaments to Jews and other dealers in old goods is also evil and reprehensible. For experience establishes that an altogether insufficient price is often obtained for things sold in this way, and moreover that they are sometimes afterward treated irreverently. For the rest, it is not apparent (if there is question of grave matter) how alienators of this kind, acting without the previous permission of the competent authority, escape the excommunication imposed against those who alienate ecclesiastical goods.⁸⁷⁵ Ecclesiastical vessels and ornaments which are not blessed (with a constitutive blessing), such as candlesticks, seats, benches, curtains, etc., can for a reasonable cause be employed for a profane end, provided that such an end carries nothing dishonorable with it. Likewise, the wood and stones of a demolished church seem able to be employed for profane uses, because universal custom has mitigated the older, more severe canons in this matter.⁸⁷⁶

⁸⁷⁴ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 83, a. 3 ad 3; c. 39 de consecr. D. 1; St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 41.

⁸⁷⁵ Cf. concerning this censure below in the tract on censures.

⁸⁷⁶ Cf. c. 38 de consecr. D. 1; D'Annibale, Summula theol. mor. III, n. 16.

554. 3. The usurpation of sacred things and ecclesiastical goods is commonly called sacrilege in canon law.⁸⁷⁷

Those goods (whether movable or immovable) are considered ecclesiastical goods which belong to ecclesiastical institutes, for example, to churches, clerical seminaries, monasteries, etc., and the administration of which by law belongs to the Church; or, as St. Alphonsus⁸⁷⁸ says after St. Thomas: "those which pertain to the adornment of the church and of the ministers; then those which are deputed to the sustenance of the ministers." But the private goods of clerics and of other ecclesiastical persons are not ecclesiastical goods. The defrauding of ecclesiastical tithes is held by some authors to be true sacrilege; by others, however, it is called a sin of irreligion.⁸⁷⁹ The penalties imposed against usurpers of ecclesiastical goods will be treated in the tract on censures (cf. III, 512 and 518).

There are still several actions which possess to a greater or lesser degree the malice of sacrilege, for example, the abuse of the words of Sacred Scripture for jests,⁸⁸⁰ the irreverent treatment of relics, especially the theft of relics, the irreverent treatment of sacred images, etc. The gravity of the malice in these cases is to be weighed from the gravity of the irreverence voluntarily and knowingly inflicted.

⁸⁷⁷ Cf. the allocution of Pius IX, Quibus luctuosissimis, 5 September 1851. The word usurpation is taken here also for theft, detention, or defrauding; but not in that sense in which it is employed in the tract on censures, III, n. 525.

⁸⁷⁸ L.c. n. 42.

⁸⁷⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., and the authors cited there.

⁸⁸⁰ Noldin (l.c.) aptly observes: "Care must be taken that a jocular sense not be attached to the words of Sacred Scripture which occur in the Mass and Divine Office, lest occasion be given for distractions that will arise during prayer."

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).

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 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.

VII. The third species is real sacrilege, whereby a sacred thing is dishonorably treated. What sacred things are, both persons and place, has already been established above, and discussed in detail. They are divided into four degrees, as it were. First come the sacraments, of which the chief is the sacrament of the Eucharist, which contains Christ himself, by whom man is sanctified; then sacred vessels, sacred images, and the relics of the Saints; then the ornaments of the Church, or of its ministers, such as chasubles, veils, and other such things; and fourth, finally, movable or immovable goods set aside for the support of ministers, such as dedicated properties, first-fruits, and the like. Hence one who irreverently handles the sacraments, whether by receiving them, or by administering them unworthily, is stained with the gravest sacrilege; or if one throws them away, or tramples upon them. Although Christ the Lord is really present in the Eucharist, its unworthy treatment is nonetheless not called sacrilege against his most holy person directly — since he is not there in his own proper bodily form, as he is in heaven. For this reason the unworthy handling of the Eucharist is called a real sacrilege, not a personal one. One would likewise commit a grave sacrilege who used sacred vessels for drinking, or converted sacred vestments unworthily into his own clothing, or tore or cut them up.

VIII. To this also belongs the abuse of the words of Sacred Scripture. Wherefore those who twist sacred words to spread heresies, and to confirm them; who mix them into vulgar songs, or misuse them to compose slanderous pamphlets, or to express profane matters, are guilty of sacrilege. Their sacrilegious audacity is checked by the Council of Trent, in these words (session 4): "Wishing likewise to repress that impudence whereby the words and sentences of Sacred Scripture are twisted and turned to all manner of profane uses — namely, to scurrilous, fabulous, vain matters, flatteries, slanders, superstitions, godless and diabolical incantations, divinations, sortileges, and even to slanderous pamphlets — [the Synod] commands and enjoins, for the removal of such irreverence, that henceforth no one presume in any way to appropriate the words of Sacred Scripture to such and similar uses; so that all men of this kind — profaners and violators of the word of God — be restrained by the Bishops through penalties of law, or of their own discretion." There are, likewise, painters in certain cities of Italy who are accustomed to use sacred words to depict the shortcomings of preachers and other persons; and are therefore not free of the guilt of sacrilege. Sacrilege is again committed by those who defile sacred images with indecent and harlot-like nakedness. Guilty of sacrilege, too, are those who break, tear apart, or crush sacred images or relics.

IX. Sacrilege can also be committed by omission. Sacristans not infrequently commit this species of sacrilege, when they neglect the due vigilance owed in guarding the holy chrism and the Eucharist, using the keys prescribed by the sacred canons; when they fail to keep the corporals, sacred vessels, altars, and ecclesiastical vestments clean and neat, but instead hand them over, stained, dirty, and foul, for use in celebrating the unbloody sacrifice. Guilty of sacrilege, likewise, are those who negligently allow the sacred particles in the pyx to spoil.

X. Is the sacrilegious omission of the reception or administration of the sacraments at the due time, or under a pressing precept, [also a sacrilege]? Theologians dispute this on both sides. Some affirm that, since a person neglects to show the sacraments the reverence due them, he must be called sacrilegious. The more probable opinion, however, denies this — since, when someone fails to receive a sacrament, he does no injury at all to the sacrament itself; he merely transgresses the precept of receiving the sacraments. For this reason, one who merely omits [confession or communion] on a feast day is not to be deemed sacrilegious, but only a violator of the precept. Due reverence is indeed shown to the sacraments when they are received or administered worthily, holily, and rightly; but when they are neither administered nor received at all, there appears no reason to say that they are thereby unworthily treated.

VIII. The third species is real sacrilege, by which a sacred thing is treated unworthily. Sacred things are distinguished into four classes, as it were. 1. There come the sacraments. 2. Sacred vessels, sacred images, the relics of Saints. 3. The ornaments of the Church, or of the Ministers, such as chasubles, veils, and other things of this kind. 4. Movable or immovable goods deputed to the sustenance of ministers, such as Tithes, First-fruits, etc.

IX. To this too are referred the abuses of the words of sacred Scripture. Those who twist sacred words to spread heresies, who mix them into profane sermons, or abuse them to compose scurrilous pamphlets, or to express profane things, are sacrilegious, as is had in the Council of Trent, session 4.

Case.—Orlandus, grievously sick, was given the last sacraments in the morning by his parish priest. In the course of the same morning he sends for Raymond, another priest, and confesses with tears that in his confession the same morning he had purposely omitted a mortal sin, and hence had received the last sacraments unworthily.

Question.—What obligations arise therefrom:

1. For the sick Orlandus.

2. For the confessor Raymond?

Solution:

1. Orlandus manifestly is guilty of a threefold sacrilege, and has not fulfilled the Divine and ecclesiastical law of confessing his grievous sins in immediate danger of death and of receiving the holy Viaticum, for here, even more than in the case of the Easter Communion, the obligation is not satisfied by an unworthy reception, as is evident from the nature of the matter and also from the 55th of the propositions rejected by Innocent XI. (Denzinger, No. 1205). Hence, Orlandus is obliged, under grievous sin, to confess his sins validly and to receive worthily the holy Viaticum. As regards the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, the dying man is not strictly obliged per se to receive the same, as St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus (L. VI. n. 733 seq.) cum sententia communi teach, although a case when one per accidens is strictly obliged thereto may not infrequently occur.

Even though Orlandus received Extreme Unction unworthily, the sacrament was valid, and only its effects remain suspended owing to lack of the necessary disposition of the recipient. These effects become actual when the disposition previously lacking is produced, either by an imperfect contrition (attritio) combined with actual reception of the Sacrament of Penance, or by a perfect contrition coupled with intention to confess (per contritionem cum voto sacramenti) as is taught by theologians as so well founded an opinion that it may be regarded practically as certain. (Compare St. Alphonsus L. VI. n. 87 seq.) Therefore, in our case Extreme Unction need not be repeated, and would according to the Ritual be even unlawful: since in one and the same illness Extreme Unction must not be repeated unless the illness is of long duration, or unless the patient had meanwhile recovered, and is again in danger of death.

2. About the obligations, which the confessor Raymond has to fulfil, the following points should be noted: (a) Since he is not the parish priest of Orlandus his obligation to help the sick man out of his difficulty is not based upon motives of justice, but there is the obligation of charity. (b) This help consists before all in assisting the patient to make a good confession. This he may do without knowledge or permission of the parish priest, as it is generally taught that in the case of confessions of the sick, any approved priest, also any Order priest approved by the bishop, may in the diocese approbantis episcopi exercise his jurisdiction at all times and everywhere, without requiring the special permission of the sick man’s pastor or of his bishop: but in such cases the pastor should be made aware that the confession has been heard:“at least by a written notice to be left with the sick person himself” (Clement X., July 21, 1670). This notice to the pastor is in our case manifestly to be omitted, in order not to put opprobrium upon the penitent. (c) Regarding a repeated administration of the Viaticum, it is certain that the sacrilegiously received Communion does not, like Extreme Unction, produce its effects of grace subsequently when the lacking disposition has been supplied (S. Alph. L. VI. n. 87 cum sententia communi) and, therefore, it is necessary, unless special difficulties produce a moral impossibility which excuses. This necessity of again receiving the Viaticum is not to be urged upon one who is not aware of this obligation if there is reason to fear that, to the evident danger of his salvation, he would mala fide refuse to comply, as Lehmkuhl and others rightly observe.

If the dying man cannot be expected to live another day, a difficulty would occur in our case, with regard to the Church prohibition concerning the reception of holy Communion twice on one and the same day. But this difficulty disappears if we apply here the evidently correct principle: majus est praeceptum divinum sumendi viaticum, quam prohibitio ecclesiae bis in die communicandi.

A further difficulty lies in the danger for the secret of confession and the good name of Orlandus if on the same or on the following day he should receive the Viaticum for the second time. If to avoid this danger there is no other way, then, according to St. Alphonsus and others, the priest is allowed in such need to take holy Communion to the sick man secretly. Finally, one might find a new difficulty in the Church prohibition of giving the Viaticum without permission of the pastor. This permission, however, can and must in our case be presumed, since the authorities unanimously teach: “because then the will of the bishop or of the Pope is presumed” (S. Alph. L. VI. n. 236). Moreover, the pastor in administering Viaticum had exercised his authority, which does not extend to the repetition of the same, just as in an analogous case one who received Easter Communion unworthily in his parish church is obliged to repeat the same in a worthy manner, but may do so in any other church “quia jam a pastore sufficienter agnoscitur” (Marc n. 1572).

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.