What sacrilege is and its gravity

SACRILEGE is defined to be the irreverent treatment of sacred persons, places, and things. The irreverence consists in doing something which is specially repugnant to the sanctity of the object in respect of its sacred character. A person, place, or thing becomes sacred by being dedicated to the service of God by public authority, for it does not seem possible that the dedication of an object to God by private authority should be able to lay an obligation on others to treat it with the reverence due to sacred things. Such an effect requires public authority.

Objects become sacred in consequence of being dedicated to God’s service by an authorized person according to the form prescribed by the Church. Not every form of blessing, however, makes the blessed object sacred. We must distinguish between blessings which invoke the divine favour on the use of certain things, but which do not make them sacred, and blessings which hallow and consecrate the object so that it can no more be lawfully used for profane purposes. Food, or candles, or holy water, which are blessed in the former way, do not thereby become sacred, and may still be used for ordinary purposes; churches, chalices, and baptismal water are consecrated by special blessings and may only be used for the purposes to which they are dedicated (Can. 11471150).

The sanctity which belongs to a consecrated person is different from that which belongs to holy places, and this again is different from that which belongs to sacred things. So that the sins by which sacred persons, places, and things are violated are specifically different from each other. Theologians dispute whether these three species of sacrilege contain other lower species or whether they are themselves the lowest. Many of them hold that they are the lowest, and this seems to be the opinion of St Thomas.

Sacrilege in all its species is a grave sin of itself, inasmuch as irreverence shown to sacred things redounds to the dishonour of God, to whose service they are dedicated.¹

If, however, the matter be trivial, as, for example, some slight irreverence to the Blessed Sacrament, sacrilege will only be a venial sin.

¹ Summa, 2-2, q. 99, a. 3, ad 2.

What is sacrilege? - Sacrilege is the violation of a sacred thing, insofar as sacred; that is, of a thing dedicated to divine worship, taken not materially but formally, namely insofar as it is ordered to this worship. That is to say, for some action to be sacrilege, the thing must be violated in that by which it is sacred. Whence if someone speaks badly about someone who has a vow of chastity, his detraction does not assume the nature of formal sacrilege, because that person is sacred to God only as to bodily purity, but not as to integrity of reputation. Moreover, only that thing is properly judged sacred which is not sacred in just any way, or dedicated to divine worship in just any way, but by public rite and divine or ecclesiastical institution, or by the power of the Church, has been deputed to the worship of God. Therefore it is not sufficient that a thing has been simply blessed, namely by a merely invocative blessing, by which we pray for the good of a thing or person; but a constitutive blessing is necessary, by which a thing from profane becomes sacred, as can be seen in holy water or blessed candles. Indeed, even more, a constitutive blessing is necessary by which a thing is consecrated uniquely and perpetually to divine worship; and this is properly consecration, as sacred vessels, churches, priests, clerics. And thus it is not illicit "to throw to dogs the bones of a lamb or eggs which are blessed... just as it is also licit to use holy water and candles for profane use." L. l. c., n. 94. By the blessing of these things only the special assistance of God is invoked concerning the use of those same things. La-Croix, l. c., n. 227; Struggl 9; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 76, a. 1; q. 99, aa. 1, 2; Cajetan on 2. 2, q. 88, a. 11; L. l. 6, n. 94.

Blessing is numbered among the sacramentals. It is an invocation of good: one merely invocative; another constitutive, by which a thing from profane becomes sacred; another constitutive and consecrative, by which a thing is destined uniquely and in perpetuity to divine worship. Blessings which are made without sacred oils are called verbal; those made with these employed are real, and are accustomed to be called consecrations. Real blessings, or consecrations, are of the episcopal order; of verbal blessings, some are of the episcopal order, others of the presbyteral. Some presbyteral blessings are parochial, such as the blessing of bridegroom and bride, the blessing of a ship, of houses on Holy Saturday. Which verbal presbyteral and episcopal blessings there are must be deduced from the Ritual, Pontifical, and Missal; but parochial blessings are those which bear before themselves some jurisdiction.

Of how many kinds is sacrilege? - Sacrilege is threefold: personal, by which a person is violated; local, by which a place; real, by which other sacred things are violated. Sacrilege differs in species according as it affects a person, place, or sacred thing. This is established from the common authority of theologians, and because the sanctity of persons, places, and things is not the same. For a person, as the subject of sanctity, is formally and simply holy; holy, namely here, insofar as such a person is dedicated to divine worship in a special way and destined for some ministry of it. A place is holy insofar as it is containing persons, or insofar as it is dedicated to containing the people of God gathered for divine worship. A thing is holy by relation, by which it is ordered to sanctity, that is, insofar as it is destined for divine worship, and therefore in a certain more general way. Suarez, de Relig., tr. 3, l. 3, cc. 1, 5; Lugo, de Poenit., d. 10, n. 471; L. 48; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 99, a. 3.

What kind of sin is sacrilege? - Sacrilege is a special sin of irreligiosity, mortal from its genus, if the work is specially repugnant to the sanctity of the thing, because a sacred thing is violated, and this violation always involves by its nature a grave injury to God; and it is so much graver as the sacred thing itself obtains greater sanctity. Yet it can become light by reason of smallness of matter. If the work is specially, etc.; for if it is only generally repugnant to sanctity, for example in the way that all mortal sins are generally repugnant to the sanctity of the temple, it does not exceed venial sin, or it is a lightly aggravating circumstance. L. 33; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 99, aa. 2, 4; C. I. poen. 142; E. M.

Whether the three aforesaid species are subaltern or are lowest species? - This is from St. Alphonsus, n. 34: "The first opinion holds that they are subaltern, containing under themselves other lowest species. Thus Suarez, Palaus, Lessius, etc. And therefore they say that the striking of a cleric differs in species from concubinage with him. Yet the second opinion holds that they are lowest species. Thus Viva, Salmanticenses, Cajetan, etc.; so that if someone violates a nun by beating her or by lying with her, he formally commits one sacrilege. And thus S. Thomas thinks, 2. 2, q. 99, a. 3 ad 2, where he says: It is possible that two sins differ in species according to material acts, but agree in species according to one formal notion of sacrilege; for example, if someone has violated a nun by beating or by lying with her. And this is more probable."

Yet there are diverse grades in this threefold species of sacrilege, according to the difference of persons, places, and things. For sacrilege is so much graver as the thing against which one sins obtains greater sanctity. S. Th., ibid. But practically there is almost no difficulty, because often a sufficient judgment concerning the sin of sacrilege cannot be formed unless it is explained altogether in the individual case; for example, mere profanation of a sacred vessel, or its theft; theft of a sacred thing from a sacred place, and theft of a non-sacred thing from a sacred place; profanation of a church and its pollution; usurpation of ecclesiastical goods; irreverence toward images and relics of Saints; irreverence toward the sacraments, by reception, administration, or in another way; irreverence toward the Eucharist, which is more than sacrilege, because to other sacred things there is not owed the supreme adoration of latria which is owed to the Eucharist. Whence there is a certain greater irreligiosity against God himself or against the very person of Jesus Christ, and at the same time sacrilege against the reverence owed to the species, which are sacred things. Suarez, de Relig., t. 1, l. 3, cc. 5, 6; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 99, a. 3.

Is it sacrilege to sin mortally on a feast day? - R. A mortal sin committed on a feast day, since it excludes sanctity, is against the end of the observance of the feast day, namely that man be occupied with divine things. Yet it is not sacrilege. The reason is that the circumstance of a feast day is altogether extrinsic to sin, speaking per se, unless namely one sins precisely on account of the profanation of the feast day, or something is done from which notable irreverence is inflicted upon divine worship, as if someone on Good Friday should exhibit comedies, public games, etc. L. 46, 273; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 122, a. 4; 4 D. 32, a. 5, q. 2; Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, n. 515 seqq.; Suarez, de Relig., l. 3, c. 18, n. 22 seqq.

1. Sacrilege (sacrilegium) may be defined as the actual desecration or irreverent treatment of sacred persons, places, or things. It is the exact counterpart of sacrifice and vow because through sacrifice and vow persons or objects are dedicated to God, whereas sacrilege desecrates and withdraws them from His service;—robs, as it were, the Almighty of that which rightfully belongs to Him; hence the German name “Gottesraub.”

3. Of itself (ex genere suo), sacrilege is a mortal sin, because directly opposed to the virtue of religion, but on account of the smallness of the matter sometimes involved (parvitas materiae) admits of leniency. The most grievous species of sacrilege is the conscious and deliberate profanation of the Blessed Sacrament.³

³ 1 Cor. XI, 27.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 99, art. 3: “The sin of sacrilege consists in this, that someone behaves irreverently toward a sacred thing. Reverence, however, is due to a sacred thing by reason of its sanctity. And therefore, according to the different character of the sanctity of sacred things toward which irreverence is shown, the species of sacrilege must be distinguished. For sacrilege is so much the graver, the greater the sanctity possessed by the sacred thing against which the sin is committed. . . . And therefore the sacrilege which is committed against this sacrament [the Eucharist] is the gravest of all.”—Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 275–281.—The New Code says that whoever “throws away the consecrated species, or carries them away or retains them for an evil purpose, is suspected of heresy; he incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a most special manner to the Apostolic See; he is infamous by the fact itself, and if a cleric he is furthermore to be deposed.” (Can. 2320.)

The very notion of sacrilege imports an act that is illicit and therefore sinful. To employ for profane purposes an object dedicated to the service of God, is not necessarily always a sacrilege. A church may, in case of necessity, be used as a storage house, or hospital, or dwelling without profanation, and even when the law requires that the ceremony of reconciliation be performed because of pollution, it is not always necessary to assume that a sacrilege has been committed. Similarly, any object dedicated to the service of God may be withdrawn from its proper use and employed for profane purposes without a sacrilege, as long as there is no evil intent.

To quote words from Sacred Scripture for other than immediately religious purposes can be regarded as sacrilegious only if it is done with lascivious intent, or in order to mock God or hurt the feelings of others.⁴

⁴ F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, p. 337.

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).

Sacrilege is defined by D. Bonaventure in 3. dist. 37. dub. 7. and p. p. Centil. sect. 24. and 30. and in the Mirror of the Soul, cap. 2. It is the violation of a sacred thing, insofar as it is sacred, for it is called as it were the injury of a sacred thing.

Now a thing is sacred by the very fact that it is destined by some law to the worship of God. So D. Thomas art. 1. and 3. Cajetan here d. 5. Valencia quaest. 14. p. 1. Tannerus d. 5. quaest. 8. dub. 1.

Further, according to the diversity of things that are consecrated to God, the Doctors, with D. Bonaventure sect. 30. p. p. Centil. and D. Thomas art. 3., establish three kinds of sacrilege.

The first is if a sacred Person is violated. This happens first, when a sacred person, for instance a Cleric, is unjustly dragged to a secular tribunal, or struck, of which I shall treat when I deal with Censures.

Secondly, when a sacred person bound by a vow of chastity is defiled with lust, or sins in any way whatever against the vow of chastity.

Thirdly, when tributes and tolls are exacted from Clerics against the Ecclesiastical immunity, or if things owed to them, for instance tithes, are withheld.

Fourthly, when someone violates a vow or an oath. But when a Cleric is given to thefts and trading, he does not sin by sacrilege, because by the force of their consecration to the holiness of their person they are not prohibited, but by the canons, lest he be impeded from Ecclesiastical revenues. Which Valencia noted quaest. 15. part. 1. Azorius lib. 9. cap. 17. quaesito 2. Tannerus d. 1. cited, num. 8.

The second species of sacrilege is the violation of a sacred thing, as distinguished from a person, and from a place. To this belongs first the abuse of the Sacraments. Secondly the profanation of sacred Vessels and Ornaments. Thirdly the violation, or contumelious destruction of sacred Images; as heretics do, and those who do such things are sent to the holy Office of the Inquisition, to which this pertains, as Diana teaches part. 4. Tract. 7. resol 9. for it smacks of Lutheranism; whatever Torreblanca may say. Fourthly the theft of sacred things. Fifthly the abuse of sacred things. To this they also refer Simony, of which we shall treat below.

The third species of sacrilege is the violation of a sacred place. To this pertain certain actions, such as profane songs, and fairs. Secondly certain particular actions, such as unjust homicide, the burial of an excommunicate, or an infidel, culpable effusion of blood, or of seed, in a temple, or consecrated place, yet not in a Monastery. Thirdly the theft of a sacred thing, or of things consigned to the Church. So D. Bonaventure in the places cited, and D. Thomas quaest. 99. art. 3. Cajet. there Sylvest. V. sacrileg. Azor. lib. 9. cap. 27. num. 7. Sà under the word immunitas, Valencia quaest. 15. puncto 1. Tanner. d. 5. quaest. 8. dub. 1.

D. Bonaventure adds that even to steal from a Church a thing not sacred, nor entrusted to the Church, is Sacrilege, to which Valencia and Sà subscribe, and Tanner. num. 12. and others hold it probable, who think the opposite. Fourthly a sacred place is violated by dragging away a person who has fled to it for refuge. Now such a place is any chapel whatsoever, where the Sacred rite is celebrated by the authority of the Bishop, and the cemetery, the monastery of Religious, the door, and portico of a Church, or annexed to a cemetery, the house of a Bishop, or of Cardinals, the house of a Church for the dwelling of clerics within thirty, or forty paces. Likewise a Hospital built by the authority of the Bishop, indeed by law a space of forty paces in circuit around a greater Church, or thirty around a lesser. Yet this is no longer observed, as Navarrus says in the Manual, cap. 25. num. 17. except as regards the bounds of cemeteries, enclosures, cloisters, steps and the like.

ALL enjoy this immunity, and only Christians free, except in some cases to be referred to below, sometimes even servants, even excommunicates, interdicted, suspended, indeed even the striker of a cleric, and every sacrilegious person, who however has not offended in a sacred place. Likewise one banned, a blasphemer, etc.

But heretics do not enjoy it, nor other infidels, unless they flee to the Church with the mind of becoming faithful; nor the waylaying robber, nor the nocturnal ravager of fruits, nor one who kills, maims, or commits any other grave thing in a sacred place, nor one who kills treacherously, or strikes so as to kill, according to many; nor those who by violence dragged out one who had taken refuge in a Church; nor those whom the Pontiff orders to be led out; nor Ecclesiastical persons with respect to their proper judge, as Navarrus pursues n. 19. and seqq. according to the cap. Definitio. cap. si quis contumax, cap. Deum, cap. Quisquis, cap. constituimus, cap. sicut antiquitus, 7. quaest. 4. in the Decretals under the title de immunitate Ecclesiae.

Yet Sà notes, from the Bull of Gregory XIV., that ravagers of fields, or those who kill treacherously, or assassins, or waylayers of roads, or heretics, or those guilty of lèse-majesty against a Prince, are to be handed over to the secular court with the leave of the Bishop.

You will ask first: whether a Judge who condemns an accused who has been sacrilegiously dragged away is bound to restitution to the heirs, or to the accused himself.

It is answered affirmatively, as is commonly held according to Valencia quaest. 15. puncto 1. Tanner. loc. cit. num. 18. although D. Thomas indicates the opposite quaest. 99. art. 2. ad 3. The reason is, because the accused has the right to be restored to the Church, as the cap. sicut antiquitus, 17. quaest. 4. provides.

You will ask secondly: whether all sacrilegious persons are excommunicated ipso facto.

It is answered, that strikers of clerics are excommunicated, cap. si quis suadente, 17. quaest. 4. Those who unjustly impose tolls on clerics, or Churches. Likewise those who violate the immunity of Ecclesiastical things, or persons, by the Bull of the Coena: Likewise invaders of the goods of the Church, by the Council of Trent sess. 22. cap. 11. de reform. Breakers into temples, and plunderers of Churches, by the common opinion of all. To these Azorius lib. 11. adds incendiaries of Churches, by the common opinion of the Canonists and Summists, with D. Bonaventure in Confessionali, cap. 3. particula 43. where it is added: From now on, after they have been published, they cannot be absolved except by the Apostolic See, extra, de sententia excommunicationis.

Yet others deny that these are excommunicated. So Cajetan, Navarrus, and Sylvester, according to Tannerus.

But the OTHER sacrilegious persons are not excommunicated ipso facto, but after a prior canonical fraternal admonition, unless they make satisfaction, they are to be excommunicated according to the cap. Quisquis 17. quaest. 4. de poena mortis, et pecuniaria, see D. Thomas quaest. 99. art. 4.

Now every sacrilege is a mortal sin; yet inadvertence, or the slightness of the matter, excuses. See Valencia puncto 2.

I treat of the species of sacrilege in their proper places.

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

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

⁷ S. Thomas, II., II., q. 99, a. 1.

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

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

⁸ I Cor. 3: 16.

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

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

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

⁹ De Consid., lib. II., c. 13.

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

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

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

¹⁰ Leviticus 8.

¹¹ Ex. 30: 23.

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

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

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

¹³ Lib. 14, tract. 10, c. 7, n. 2.

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

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

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

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

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