Sacrilege

174. Notion. In the broader sense sacrilege is any sin against religion, in which sense also divination, magic, blasphemy, etc., are sacrileges; but strictly and properly sacrilege is defined as: the unworthy treatment of a sacred thing. Therefore sacrilege is committed by any action by which the reverence owed to sacred things is injured.

a. Sacred thing is here taken broadly, so that under this name are comprehended sacred persons, sacred places, and sacred things: for these three are accustomed to be consecrated to God and His worship.

b. That is called a sacred thing which by the authority of God or of the Church has been deputed to divine worship. Therefore a person who by private purpose or vow has dedicated himself to God is not properly called sacred, but only that person who by the public authority of the Church has been consecrated to the worship of God.

c. So that it can be known whether some action is sacrilegious, attention must be given: a. to that for which the thing which is violated has been consecrated; b. whether the action is against that for which the thing has been consecrated. For only those actions committed by a sacred person or against a sacred person are sacrileges which injure him in that in which he is sacred. Thus a priest by fornicating commits sacrilege, because he has been consecrated to God for living chastely; by blaspheming or making himself drunk he does not commit sacrilege, because he has not been consecrated to God for avoiding these sins. Likewise sins, besides those to be enumerated below, which are committed against a priest, such as calumnies and insults, are not sacrileges, because these do not injure the sacred person himself, but his external goods: reputation and honor.

175. Division of sacrilege. A threefold sacrilege is distinguished: personal, local, and real, according as there is a threefold genus of sacred things: sacred persons, sacred places, and sacred things.

a. Besides these, however, there is no other sacred thing whose violation constitutes sacrilege, for example time, which is called sacred: for time is not in a special way consecrated to God. Therefore he does not commit sacrilege who sins on a feast day, or in Lent, or on the day of holy communion, nor must there be opened in confession the circumstance of the sacred time at which the sin had been committed.

b. Yet it is admitted that it is a grave sin to exhibit public games on Friday in Parasceve, such as are customarily exhibited on carnival days, especially if this is prohibited by a special law, not because irreverence is inflicted upon sacred time, but because irreverence is inflicted upon the Passion of the Lord and grave scandal is given to the faithful.

176. Moral and specific malice. 1. Sacrilege is a sin against religion, grave from its genus: for from the fact that something has been deputed to divine worship, special reverence is owed to it, and if this is injured, the irreverence redounds upon God; but it admits smallness of matter, because the irreverence which is inflicted on things consecrated to God affects God Himself only mediately.

2. Personal, real, and local sacrilege differ from each other in species, because, since there are three diverse genera of sacred things, the virtue of religion is injured by this threefold sacrilege in a morally diverse way.

And indeed all agree in this affirmation; but whether those three species of sacrilege are the lowest species, or whether in each one circumstances must be admitted which change the species of sacrilege, authors do not agree. Suarez affirms this latter opinion;¹ but to St. Alphonsus, who followed St. Thomas,² the denying opinion seems more probable (n. 34). Therefore according to him, he commits the same sacrilege specifically who violates a nun by striking her or by fornicating with her, and he who treats some sacrament or sacred image irreverently. And indeed we can follow this opinion in practice.

¹ Suarez, De religione, tr. 3, l. 3, c. 1, n. 8.

² St. Thomas, II-II, q. 99, a. 3, ad 2.

177. On personal sacrilege. 1. Personal sacrilege is defined as: violation of a sacred person. A twofold consecration of persons must be distinguished: one by which a person through ordination, to which tonsure also is referred, or through admission to the religious state, is deputed to divine worship; the other by which through a public vow of chastity, emitted either in sacred ordination or in religious profession, both solemn and simple, he is consecrated to God for preserving chastity.

2. The actions by which personal sacrilege is committed are three:

a. Violent laying on of hands upon a cleric or religious against the privilege of the canon.

b. Usurpation of jurisdiction over ecclesiastical persons by dragging them to a secular tribunal against the privilege of the forum, or by imposing on them a servile burden, for example of military service or of tribute, against ecclesiastical immunity, unless the Church consents.

c. A sin of lust committed by a person consecrated to God for preserving chastity, against the vow of chastity. Here it must be noted: a. that sacrilege is committed not only by the sacred person, but also by that one who, even if he is not sacred, participates in the sin of lust; wherefore, if this latter person also is sacred, a double sacrilege is committed on both sides; b. that by a sacred person sacrilege is committed not only through external sins, but also through merely internal sins against chastity.

Whether violation of a simple and private vow of chastity is sacrilege. It is certain that that violation is sacrilege in the broader sense; therefore he who violates a private vow of chastity commits a twofold sin, against chastity and against religion. That this violation is sacrilege strictly such must indeed be denied from the definition of a sacred person; yet because to St. Alphonsus (n. 35) it is more probable that sacrilege is committed also through injury of a vow of chastity privately emitted by a person, the affirming opinion can be held in practice as probable.¹

¹ Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 386 ff.

178. On local sacrilege. 1. Local sacrilege is the violation of a sacred place.

a. A sacred place in the strict sense is called that place which by the authority of the Church has been deputed to divine worship, and therefore consecrated or at least blessed. In this sense sacred places are churches, public oratories (not private nor semi-public), and cemeteries. A religious or sacred place in the broader sense is called any place destined by the authority of the Church for a pious and religious use, as the palace of a bishop, a parochial house, a seminary, a monastery, a hospital erected by the authority of the Church which has an oratory for celebrating, etc.

From a sacred and religious place there must be distinguished a pious place, which without the authority and intervention of the Church has been erected for exercising pious works, as a private oratory, a hospital erected by laymen.

b. Because sacrilege is committed by violation of the sanctity and immunity of a sacred place, there must be distinguished the sacred place to which sanctity belongs and the sacred place to which immunity belongs. Sanctity belongs only to a place strictly sacred, and indeed from the ceiling down to the pavement, even if it is interdicted or polluted; therefore sacrilege because of injured sanctity of a sacred place is committed only within this area. But immunity belongs also to a place sacred in the broader sense, and to a strictly sacred place also in its exterior parts, such as are the portico, sacristy, tower, roof above the church, underground crypt, stairway, and door of the church.

2. The actions by which local sacrilege is committed are these four.

First of all there must be noted the doctrine of those who with de Lugo¹ teach that all sins committed in a sacred place have some notion of sacrilege, because it is against the reverence owed to a sacred place that a place destined for the worship of God be converted into a place of divine offense; but grave sacrilege to be declared in confession is committed especially by those actions which by positive law are prohibited from being done in a church, of which kind are the four following.

a. Sins by which a church is polluted, even if they remain hidden and therefore the church is not in fact polluted.

The sins by which a church (oratory and cemetery) is polluted, if they have become notorious by notoriety of law or of fact, are these five:

a. Unjust shedding of human blood: therefore if blood is shed in a church either by chance or for just defense, it is not polluted. Besides, copious shedding of blood is required, and that the wound at least be inflicted in the church, even if the blood is poured out outside the church. Hence the shedding of human blood which happens, for example, from the nose or teeth because of a slap inflicted, neither pollutes the church nor consequently constitutes sacrilege in the said sense.

b. Unjust homicide, even without shedding of blood: therefore if a just homicide were done in a church, the church would not be polluted; but it suffices that the cause of death be placed in the church, even if death follows outside the church.

c. Illicit effusion of human seed, which can happen either through voluntary pollution, or through fornication, or through conjugal intercourse, which apart from necessity is illicit in a church; but necessity because of the danger of incontinence renders it licit even in a church; therefore by this licit intercourse the church is not polluted.

Other external sins of lust (touches, looks, filthy speech), although grave, probably are not grave sacrileges. But grave internal sins (impure thoughts and desires) certainly are not grave sacrileges, unless there is a desire of an act by which the church is polluted, and this desire is conceived of perpetrating that act within the church.

d. Burial of an excommunicated person, which must be understood of ecclesiastical burial, and indeed of a person specially and by name excommunicated. The burial of others in a sacred place is indeed interdicted, but from this the church or cemetery is not polluted.

e. Burial of a non-baptized person, which must be understood of pagans, Jews, and other unbelievers, whose burial in a sacred place causes that place itself to be polluted. As for the infants of the faithful who die without baptism, probably their burial in a sacred place does not induce its pollution.²

b. Profane actions, even indifferent ones, which either by their nature or from the prohibition of the Church are opposed to the sanctity of a sacred place, such as judicial actions and markets, public banquets, theatrical plays, secular parliaments, and generally all those actions, whether illicit or profane, which according to the common estimation of men are very unbefitting to the sanctity of the place, such as stabling of horses, evacuations of nature, dances, grave quarrels, etc.

a. To eat something privately in a church, even without necessity, does not exceed venial sin.³

b. It is customary to permit that plays which conduce to fostering piety be performed in church, and in like manner literary exercises.

c. Laymann judges that, if it happens without disturbance of the divine offices, it can be permitted, or at least tolerated, that in a cemetery or in the temple itself candles or other things which pertain to the devotion of the people be sold.⁴

c. Theft committed in a sacred place; yet in order that by theft perpetrated in a sacred place grave sacrilege be committed, it is required that the thing taken be grave and be joined by some special bond with the church, and therefore either belong to the church or at least be entrusted to its custody or use.

By law sacrilege is committed by taking away 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;⁵ by these words it is significantly said "from a sacred place," not "in a sacred place," so that it may be signified that theft committed in a sacred place is not sacrilege unless the thing taken belongs in some way to the church. Therefore he who in a church steals the purse of a rich man does not commit local sacrilege; but he who steals a sacred thing from a sacred place commits a double sacrilege, real and local.

d. Actions by which the immunity of a sacred place is violated, therefore actions by which the right of asylum is injured.

Ecclesiastical immunity is a privilege by which ecclesiastical things (persons, things, places) are free from certain burdens which are customarily imposed on other things in civil society. Local ecclesiastical immunity comprises the privilege granted to sacred places, by which criminals fleeing thither cannot be dragged out by lay power. This privilege is called the right of asylum. Although civil laws today do not acknowledge the right of asylum, nevertheless the Church does not yield her right unless she has derogated from it by concordats; indeed she inflicts excommunication on all who, by rash daring, order the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum to be violated, or violate it.⁶

Note. By burning or breaking into a sacred place real sacrilege is committed: for the place is injured insofar as it is a sacred thing.

¹ De poenit., disp. 16, n. 466.

² Schmalzgrueber, in l. 3, t. 40, n. 47.

³ Cf. Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 266.

⁴ Laymann, l. 4, tract. 10, c. 7, n. 9.

⁵ c. Quisquis 21, c. 17, q. 4.

⁶ Constit. Apostolicae sedis, II, 5.

179. On real sacrilege. Real sacrilege is committed especially in three ways: a. by treating sacred things unworthily; b. by usurping sacred things unjustly; c. by buying or selling sacred things against the prohibition of the Church, which is the sin of simony.

Sacred things are of two genera: some which are ordered to divine worship by their essence, others which are so ordered only by the dedication of the Church. Of these, some (for example, sacred vessels) are deputed to divine worship by special consecration; others (as ecclesiastical goods) without special consecration. The former serve this end proximately, the latter only remotely. Therefore sacred things are:

1. The sacraments, of which the chief is the sacrament of the Eucharist.

a. Therefore sacrilege is committed: a. if the sacraments are invalidly confected, unworthily ministered, or unworthily received; b. if the sacred species are not renewed in their time with danger of corruption; c. if the most holy sacrament is left for a longer time (a whole day) without a burning lamp; d. if the most holy Eucharist is touched irreverently, but most of all if it is trampled upon or employed for superstitions; e. if vessels, corporals, etc., very unclean are employed for the sacrifice of the Mass.

b. Although Christ the Lord is really present in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, nevertheless the violation of this sacrament is not personal sacrilege, but real, because Christ in this sacrament does not exhibit Himself in His own person, but under inanimate species.¹

2. Sacred objects: sacred vessels, altars, crosses, images of saints, sacred oils, relics, Sacred Scripture, sacred buildings, and blessed things.

a. Grave sacrilege is committed: a. if sacred vessels which immediately serve for the sacred ministry, and therefore are accustomed to be consecrated or at least blessed, are employed for profane uses, for example chalices for banquets; but to employ for profane uses vessels which serve only mediately in the sacred ministry, such as cruets, a basin, etc., would not be a sin; b. if sacred oils, relics, sacred images are profaned by throwing away the former or by breaking images from contempt, etc.

b. Grave sacrilege is committed if the words of Sacred Scripture are employed for indecent and vain things; it would be venial if they were employed for jokes otherwise honorable. But if the words of Sacred Scripture are not employed for mere jokes, but for expressing one's own meanings by the words of Sacred Scripture, even all fault of irreverence can be absent, especially if the words of Christ the Lord Himself are not usurped and this is not done rather often and as if from custom. Yet one must take care lest a joking meaning be placed under the words of Sacred Scripture which occur in Mass and the divine office, lest an occasion be given for distractions that will arise during prayer. To employ fragments of books in which sacred words are contained for profane uses, if this is done without contempt, is not a profanation of Sacred Scripture and therefore not sacrilege. The same must be said concerning images of saints which are not blessed.²

c. It must be noted that no irreverence is committed if bones of meats or shells of eggs which are customarily blessed at Easter time are thrown away, because the blessing does not fall upon the bones or shells, but upon the meats and eggs. Likewise no irreverence is committed if things simply blessed (by an invocative blessing) are applied to profane but nevertheless decent uses, as if blessed candles are employed for having light for study, or holy water for mixing wine, or blessed salt for seasoning foods.³

3. Ornaments of the church or of ministers, which are customarily blessed, such as priestly vestments.

a. Sacrilege is committed: a. if these things are treated unworthily from contempt; b. if they are employed for profane uses. But to employ for profane uses those things which are not customarily blessed, for example curtains, candelabra, etc., to employ them for weddings, would not be a sin.

b. Negligence which is committed in cleaning and cleansing altars, images, or sacred utensils, and in cleaning and repairing sacred vestments, will not be mortal unless the sacred vessels are notably unclean or the vestments notably torn.

c. The canons of the ancient law severely prohibit sacred things ever to be employed for profane uses, not even when their form has been changed, for example stones and wood of a demolished church or worn-out vestments, but they ought either to be burned or employed for other sacred uses. But by contrary custom it has happened that sacred things, even if before they had been consecrated or blessed, are today licitly employed for profane uses, provided their form is first changed. Therefore stones and wood of a demolished church can be sold, and sacred vessels first melted down and vestments first cut apart can be employed for other uses.⁴

4. Ecclesiastical goods, under which name are counted:

a. Goods both movable and immovable of the Church, which are deputed for the sustenance of ministers, for the fabric of the church, or for other sacred uses; but not the goods of the ministers of the Church themselves.

Yet in order that sacrilege be committed by their theft or unjust detention, it is required that the goods have already passed into the dominion of the Church; therefore a legacy left to the Church is not yet a sacred thing unless it has been handed over to the Church.

b. Goods which pertain to some ecclesiastical institute, such as a monastery, a hospice, etc. For since these goods from the will of the donors are destined to no use except a pious one and have been accepted by the Church for this end, they are counted among sacred things, and their theft, detention, or defrauding is everywhere in law called sacrilege.

¹ Cf. Lessius, l. 2, c. 45, dub. 3, n. 16.

² Scavini, Theologia mor. universa, 4th ed., Milan: Oliva, 1890, II, n. 130.

³ Cf. Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 1, n. 227.

⁴ Cf. Gennari, Consultazioni moral. canon. liturg., 2nd ed., Rome: Monitore ecclesiastico, 1901, pr. 2, cons. 33.

180. Whether it is licit to touch sacred vessels. a. Consecrated vessels which are destined immediately to contain the most holy Eucharist, likewise corporals and purificators which after sacred use have not yet been washed, only clerics (even of first tonsure) can touch licitly; the same is granted by privilege to regular lay sacristans and to nun sacristans. Therefore this is not licit for secular lay persons without special faculty, but it does not exceed venial sin, and if a cause is present, it is not even venial.

b. Corporals and purificators before use, vessels and ornaments which do not immediately touch the most holy Eucharist, likewise other sacred things (Agnus Dei, relics, etc.), all can touch licitly.

a. Therefore if palls, corporals, and purificators which have already served for sacred use must be washed, their first washing must be done by a sacred person (this is the office of the subdeacon), and the water of the washing must be sent into the sacrarium.

b. Some authors (Lacroix, Suarez, Pasqualigo) probably affirm that the first washing can also be done by inferior clerics, indeed by tonsured clerics.¹

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 387.

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.

Personal sacrilege is committed in three ways:

(a) By violating the privilege of the canon, by which it is forbidden under pain of excommunication to lay violent hands on the clergy or on religious (Can. 2343).

(b) By violating the privilege of the immunity of the clergy from civil jurisdiction, as far as this is still in force (Can. 120).

(c) When persons consecrated to God by the vow of chastity violate their vows. Such persons are all those who are in sacred orders, and all religious who take public vows even though they be simple and not solemn. All sins, therefore, against purity, whether internal or external, which these persons commit, or which others commit with them, are sacrileges. It is a disputed point among theologians whether a private vow of chastity makes the person sacred, so that sins committed against the vow are sacrilegious. Both opinions are extrinsically probable, though the negative view seems more in accordance with what was said above, in keeping with the common teaching of divines. The question is not of great practical importance, since sins committed against chastity by those who are under a private vow have certainly a twofold malice, one against chastity, and the other against religion; and sins against religion are called sacrileges in a wide sense,

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.

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).

By sacrilege is here understood the violation by carnal sin of a. person, place, or object, consecrated to God. The doctrine concerning it will be sufficiently clear from what was said above under the First Commandment.

(St. Thomas, II-II, q. 99; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, lib. III, nn. 33-48; Homo Apostolicus, tr. 4, n. 39.)

I. Notion. Sacrilege is the violation of a sacred thing insofar as it is sacred. It is said:

1. Violation; in what ways this can have place will be said immediately.

2. Of a sacred thing; but the word thing is taken broadly for anyone or anything that is sacred.

3. Insofar as it is sacred. Namely, not every violation or irreverent treatment of a thing which is sacred is sacrilege, but only when a sacred thing is violated in that in which it is sacred, or when "one acts directly against its holiness" (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 99, a. 3, ad 3). For this reason it must be carefully noted to what a thing has been sanctified, and whether action is taken against that. Thus, for example, a religious through a solemn vow of chastity has been sanctified for cleanness of the flesh, and therefore he will be sacrilegious if he fornicates; otherwise if he detracts, lies, perjures himself, etc., because he has not been sanctified for these things¹ (St. Alphonsus, III, 33).

¹ Cf. Cajetan, in II-II, q. 99, a. 3.

II. Division. Sacrilege is distinguished as threefold: "personal, by which a person is violated; local, by which a place is violated; and real, by which other things are violated" (St. Alphonsus, III, 33).

III. Morality. The malice of sacrilege consists in this, that irreverence toward a sacred thing redounds upon God himself (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 99, a. 1). But it is a special sin distinct from other sins opposed to religion. For "wherever a special account of deformity is found, there it is necessary that there be a special sin, because the species of anything is chiefly considered according to its formal account...; but in sacrilege there is found a special account of deformity, namely that a sacred thing is violated by some irreverence; and therefore it is a special sin" (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 99, a. 2). Moreover:

1. Sacrileges for the most part are gravely evil; nevertheless some admit smallness of matter, as for example sacrilegious theft.

2. The sacrileges enumerated above, according to authors, differ in species, because they violate holiness formally diverse. Namely, formal holiness inheres in persons; but holiness in a qualified sense inheres in places and things; in places, indeed, insofar as they contain holy things; in things, insofar as they are referred to the sanctification of man. Moreover, these things are explained otherwise by others (St. Alphonsus, III, 33; cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 99, a. 3), and especially if there is speech about places and things, they are truly difficult to understand. Who, for example, will have clearly perceived the specific difference of sacrilege in the violation of a sacred place, in the taking away of an ecclesiastical good, in the act of perverting the words of Sacred Scripture, etc., etc.? Yet I hesitate to depart from the opinion which seems common.

3. The species enumerated above seem to be the lowest, so that each does not have diverse species under itself. The reason is that the diverse modes by which a person, place, or thing is violated violate one and the same holiness of the person, place, or thing, and therefore agree according to the formal account of sacrilege (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 99, a. 3, ad 3; St. Alphonsus, III, 34). Hence one who, for example, violently treats a cleric commits a sacrilege of the same species as one who lies with a person bound by a public vow of chastity.

4. With respect to the greater or lesser malice of individual sacrileges, I note:

a) Personal sacrilege of itself is graver than local sacrilege, because the holiness of a place is ordered to the holiness of the person who shows worship to God in a sacred place; concerning real sacrilege, the same cannot generally be said.

b) In the individual species there are diverse grades according to the diversity of persons, places, and sacred things. But among sacred things are contained the sacraments, sacred vessels, images, relics, ornaments, and ecclesiastical goods (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 99, a. 3).

¹ Cf. Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis, II, c. 2; Coconnier, L'hypnotisme franc; Gutberlet, Der Kampf um die Seele, eighth lecture; Schutz, Der Hypnotismus; N. K. Stemmen, 1906, p. 218.

² Cf. Holy Office, August 4, 1856 (Collectanea, n. 1128); July 26, 1899 (Collectanea, n. 2061).

³ Cf. Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis, I, n. 227 sq.; Schneider, Der neuere Geisterglaube; Surbled in Ami du Clerge, 1901, p. 470; Ned. Kath. Stemmen, 1906, p. 337; 1916, p. 343 sq.; 1917, p. 143 sq.; Roure, Le merveilleux spirite.

II. Personal sacrilege is committed:

1. By violating the privileges of clerics, which are the privilege of the canon, of the forum, of personal immunity, and of competent benefice (cf. can. 119-123). But the violation of the said privileges contains sacrilege, not because the person under the aspect of the privilege is deputed to divine worship, but because a right is granted to him from a motive of religion; and this is something sacred, annexed to the person, so that the person is violated if the right is violated.

2. By luxuriously violating a sacred person, one's own or another's, whether by reason of a vow of chastity emitted, or by reason of major Order received. It is said:

a) A sacred person by reason of a vow of chastity emitted. Now a person certainly becomes sacred through a public vow of chastity, whether solemn or simple. Canon 132 indeed speaks only of the obligation of chastity annexed to major Orders; but it is commonly extended to all public vows of chastity, or in other words also to the vow of chastity of religious. There is dispute concerning a private vow of chastity (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 99, a. 3, ad 3; in IV Sent., dist. 38, q. 1, a. 3, quaestiunc. 2, ad 1; St. Alphonsus, III, 47). Some affirm and judge that a peculiar holiness belongs to the body by the very fact that through a vow of chastity it is dedicated to God. Others deny this, because in their opinion a person, in order to become sacred, must be deputed by public authority to divine worship. In this opinion the violation of a public and a private vow differ in species, because in the former there is true sacrilege, in the latter another sin against religion, so that it would not suffice to confess that one was bound by a vow. Yet carnal sacrilege does not differ in species according as it was committed by a person bound by a solemn vow or by a person bound by a simple public vow, for example a religious of simple vows. Finally, the violation of a vow other than chastity does not involve sacrilege (St. Alphonsus, III, 47).

b) A sacred person by reason of major Order received (can. 132, § 1). Major Order received suffices, even if someone in receiving major Order had excluded the vow of chastity.

c) By luxuriously violating. Moreover, both an internal and an external act of lust violates one's own person; only an external act violates another person.

Corollary. Personal carnal sacrilege is perpetrated by: 1. a sacred person¹ who sins against chastity; 2. every person who commits lust with a sacred person; if each is sacred, each is guilty of a twofold sacrilege; 3. a sacred person who, from an affection of lust, gives another person an occasion of sinning against chastity. It must be said sufficiently probably otherwise if he proceeds from another motive. The reason is that an absolute affection of lust is specially repugnant to the holiness of the person, but not, sufficiently probably, an affection in a qualified sense, such as is involved in an act by which a sacred person, from a motive other than lust, gives someone an occasion of violating chastity (St. Alphonsus, III, 457).

One who is at the same time a priest and a religious can indeed be called a sacred person by a twofold title; nevertheless, by sinning against chastity he commits only one personal carnal sacrilege, because the communicated holiness is not distinguished as twofold (St. Alphonsus, III, 455).

¹ Understand here and in what follows a sacred person, whether by reason of a vow of chastity or by reason of major Order received.

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).

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).

Canon 2325 establishes generally: "One who has perpetrated sacrilege is to be punished by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault, without prejudice to the penalties established by law against certain sacrileges." These must now be discussed.

I. Penalties against personal sacrilege are:

1. One who, contrary to the prescription of canon 120, has dared to drag before a lay judge one of the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or Legates of the Apostolic See, or major officials of the Roman Curia for affairs pertaining to their office, or his own Ordinary, contracts by the fact itself an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner; if he drags another Bishop, even merely titular, or an Abbot or Prelate nullius, or one of the supreme superiors of religions of pontifical right, he contracts by the fact itself an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See; finally, if, without having obtained permission from the Ordinary of the place, he drags another person enjoying the privilege of the forum before a lay judge, a cleric indeed incurs by the fact itself suspension from office reserved to the Ordinary, while a layman is to be punished by his own Ordinary with fitting penalties according to the gravity of the fault (can. 2341).

2. One who has laid violent hands on the person of the Roman Pontiff contracts an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special manner, and is by the fact itself to be avoided. One who lays violent hands on the person of a Patriarch, Archbishop, or Bishop, even only titular, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner. One who lays violent hands on the person of other clerics or of religious of either sex contracts by the fact itself an excommunication reserved to his own Ordinary, who besides may punish him with other penalties, if the matter requires, according to his prudent judgment (can. 2343).

3. Clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars or nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, and likewise all those presuming to contract marriage, even only civilly, with any of the aforesaid persons, incur an excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See. Professed members of perpetual simple vows, both in Orders and in religious Congregations, and likewise all those presuming to contract marriage, even only civilly, with any of the aforesaid persons, contract an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Ordinary (can. 2388; cf. can. 2359).

II. Penalties against local sacrilege are:

1. Violators of a church or cemetery, of whom in canons 1172 and 1207 (n. 616), are to be punished by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the delict with an interdict from entering a church and other fitting penalties (can. 2329).

2. Those who have dared to command or compel that ecclesiastical burial be given to infidels, apostates from the faith, or heretics, schismatics, or others, whether excommunicated or interdicted, contrary to the prescription of canon 1240, § 1, contract an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one. But those spontaneously giving burial to the same persons contract an interdict from entering a church reserved to the Ordinary (can. 2339).

III. Penalties against real sacrilege are:

1. One who has thrown away consecrated species, or has carried them off or retained them for an evil end, is suspected of heresy; he incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a most special manner to the Apostolic See; he is by the fact itself infamous, and if a cleric he is furthermore to be deposed (can. 2320).

2. One not promoted to the sacerdotal order, if he has simulated the celebration of Mass or heard a sacramental confession, contracts by the fact itself an excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See; and besides, a layman indeed is to be deprived of a pension or office, if he has one in the Church, and is to be punished with other penalties according to the gravity of the fault; but a cleric is to be deposed (can. 2322; cf. can. 2366 and 2367).

3. Those who, by themselves or through others, usurp or detain goods or rights belonging to the Roman Church are subject to an excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See; and if they are clerics, they are besides to be deprived of dignities, benefices, offices, and pensions, and declared incapable of the same (can. 2345). One who has presumed, by himself or through others, to convert and usurp for his own uses other ecclesiastical goods of any kind, or to impede the fruits or revenues of those goods from being received by those to whom they belong by law, is subject to excommunication until he has restored the goods themselves completely, removed the aforesaid impediment, and then obtained absolution from the Apostolic See. But if he has been patron of the same church or goods, he exists by that very fact deprived also of the right of patronage. Moreover a cleric committing this delict or consenting to it is besides to be deprived of any benefices, is to be rendered incapable of any others, and, even after full satisfaction and absolution, is to be suspended from the execution of his orders at the discretion of his Ordinary (can. 2346).

4. But if the Apostolic beneplacitum required for alienating ecclesiastical goods according to the norm of canons 534, § 1 and 1532 has knowingly been omitted, all who are guilty in any way, whether by giving, by receiving, or by offering consent, incur besides an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one (can. 2347, 3°).

Sacrilege.—Sacrilege in the wide sense is any sin against the virtue of religion. But in the strict sense, in which it is now taken, it is defined as “the violation of a sacred thing.”

(a) Sacrilege is against a thing, that is, against some person, place or object dedicated to divine worship as a possession of God. Sacrilege differs from the two previous sins of irreligiosity (namely, temptation of God and perjury); for they are against the reverence due to God Himself, while sacrilege is against the reverence due to things on account of their use in the worship of God.

(b) It is against a sacred thing, that is, against the sanctity which a thing acquires from its dedication to God (e.g., when a church or a chalice is consecrated to divine worship, when a virgin is dedicated to God by vow), or from the immunity or privilege conferred on it by the Church on account of its dedication to God (e.g., the clerical privileges of forum and of canon in Church Law). But sacrilege is present only when a sacred thing is attacked in that special quality or relation in which it is sacred. Hence, he who violates the chastity of a virgin consecrated to God is guilty of sacrilege, since it is her chastity that was vowed to God; he who strikes her is also guilty of sacrilege, since he attacks the sacred immunity which the law confers on her; he who calumniates her or steals from her is not guilty of sacrilege, since her name and goods are not consecrated to divine worship nor protected by its special sacredness in law.

(c) Sacrilege is a violation, that is, an action or omission physically or morally injurious to the sacred character of a person, place or thing. The difference between the injury done in sacrilege and that done in simony is that the former injustice belongs to the class of wrongs inflicted in involuntary commutations, such as theft or robbery (see 1748, 1815), whereas the latter injustice pertains to the category of wrongs perpetrated in voluntary commutations, such as buying, selling, or lending. In both cases there is an injury to the property or possession of God, but the difference is that in sacrilege the parties involved are the sacrilegious person acting as aggressor against God, in simony the parties are two men bargaining together to buy and sell the sacred things of God.

What Kind of Consecration Must Be Violated to Constitute Sacrilege?—There are various opinions about the kind of assignment to worship necessary for the sacredness which is injured by sacrilege.

(a) The opinion that seems to be common today holds that the assignment must be made through some public rite or consecration on the part of the Church. Hence, according to this view, the violation of a private vow or resolution is not sacrilegious, but rather perfidious or disloyal. The argument for this opinion is that the public acceptance of the Church, which has control over divine worship, is a necessary factor in making anything sacred to that worship; and that many absurdities would follow from the principle that each individual has the power to give the sacredness in question to his own person, acts or possessions.

(b) According to a stricter opinion, no public assignment is necessary if the consecration is a personal one; and hence the violation of even a private vow of chastity would be sacrilegious. The argument is that even a private vow affecting the person sets it apart as a sacred thing.

(c) According to a still stricter view, no public assignment to worship is necessary, whether the consecration be personal or non-personal, and hence even the violation of a vow to fast would be sacrilegious. The argument is that anything set apart for God’s honor, either publicly or privately, becomes sacred to Him.

Is Sacrilege a Special Sin?—(a) As regards its matter or subject sacrilege may be called, though improperly, a general sin, in the sense that many different classes of sins may be sacrilegious (e.g., murder is sacrilegious when a sacred person is killed, lust is sacrilegious when a person vowed to God is violated; theft is sacrilegious when objects consecrated to divine worship are stolen, etc.).

(b) As regards its form or essence, and hence properly speaking, sacrilege is a special sin, because there is a peculiar deformity contained in the very nature of sacrilege that is not in other sins, namely, the disrespect shown to God through contempt for things that are sacred to Him. Moreover, there may be a sin of sacrilege that is separate from other sins, such as murder, lust, and theft, for example, when the right of asylum is violated.

The Species of Sacrilege.—(a) Personal sacrilege is committed when the sacredness of a person is violated. This happens in the first place when bodily or real harm (e.g., gravely sinful striking, citing before a secular tribunal, subjecting to civil duties or burdens, such as military service) is done to a cleric; and in the second place when a grave sin of unchastity is committed by or with a person dedicated to God by a vow (at least by a public vow) of chastity. Sacrilege committed through bodily or real harm is treated by canonists under the questions of the privileges of canon (Canon 119), forum (Canon 120), immunity (Canon 121). Sacrilegious impurity committed with a person vowed to chastity and sacrilegious impurity committed by a person vowed to chastity are grave sins of lust, even though they be only of thought or desire.

(b) Local sacrilege is committed when the sacredness of a place is injured. A place is considered sacred or religious when it possesses sanctity as being consecrated or blessed for divine worship or for burial of the faithful, namely, churches, public or semi-public oratories, and consecrated cemeteries. Injury is done to the holiness of the place by desecration or profanation. Desecration is the performance in a sacred place of a notorious act of irreverence which so spiritually contaminates it that the divine offices may not be lawfully celebrated therein until the rite of reconciliation has been performed. Canon 1172 enumerates four causes of desecration: the crime of homicide; the injurious and serious shedding of human blood; impious or sordid uses (e.g., if a church were turned into a brothel or gambling den, a dump, or cattle stable), and burial of an infidel or person excommunicated by condemnatory or declaratory sentence. Profanation of a sacred place is a disregard for the religious respect or immunity due to it which in some way materially contaminates it (e.g., if a church is not kept nice and clean; if markets and fairs are held in its precincts; if it is used for shows, plays, moving pictures, banquets, court proceedings; if the right of asylum is violated; if the church is broken into, seriously defaced, burned). These matters are treated more fully in commentaries on Canons 1172 sqq.

(c) Real sacrilege is committed when the sacredness of an object is violated. An object is sacred when it contains the Author of holiness or confers holiness (viz., the Eucharist and the other Sacraments), when it is naturally related to the Sacraments or sacred persons (e.g., the sacred vessels, images and relics of the Saints), when it is set aside for the uses of worship (e.g., holy water and other sacramentals, candles for the altar) or the maintenance of the Church or its ministers (viz., movables and immovables of a parish, money left for the support of the clergy, seminarians, etc.). Injury is done to the holiness of an object by unworthy treatment or by unjust damage or conversion. Examples of unworthy treatment are the following: the invalid or sinful administration or reception of a Sacrament, parodies of Sacred Scripture, scandalous manner of enacting sacred rites or saying prayers, use of sacred chalices or other sacred vessels or of blessed articles for profane purposes, use of unblessed holy articles for sordid or ignoble purposes, handling of chalices, etc., by those who have no right to touch sacred vessels (Canon 1306). Examples of unjust damage or conversion are: contemptuous breaking or burning of relics, oils, pictures used for worship; theft of moneys or goods belonging to the Church.

Special Cases Regarding Local Sacrilege.—Local sacrilege is not committed by every sin, even though grave, that is done in a holy place, for the character of this sacrilege is that it be such an injury to the sacredness of the place as to make what should be hallowed seem horrible, or contemptible, or common. Hence, there is no sacrilege in detractions, lies, perjuries, blasphemies, or in most internal sins, when committed in a church or cemetery. But there are two kinds of sins which are sacrilegious profanations of holy places, namely, theft and impurity.

(a) Theft in a holy place is certainly sacrilegious when the thing taken is sacred (e.g., a chalice, money in the votive stands). It is probably not sacrilegious when the thing taken is not sacred (e.g., the pocketbook of a person kneeling in the church), and if the thing taken was not left in the custody of the place. This matter, however, is disputed.

(b) Impurity, if external and perfect (voluntaria effusio seminis), is sacrilegious, though under the Code it does not seem to be a desecration. The same is probably true of external but imperfect sins (such as touches, looks, words, gestures). Internal acts of impurity are not sacrilegious, unless they include a desire to sin externally in a holy place.

Cases Wherein There Is No Sacrilege.—In the following cases no sacrilege is committed:

(a) when the thing violated is not sacred. There is no personal sacrilege in an act of unchastity committed by a person privately vowed to chastity (common opinon). While some authors teach that personal sacrilege is committed by the violation of poverty and obedience (see Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis II, n.804, 4), it seems better to hold the opposite opinion and restrict personal sacrilege to violations of chastity by persons with religious vows or admitted to the religious state. There is no local sacrilege in the profane use of a place devoted to works of piety but not specially set apart for them by Church authority (such as a private oratory, or a hospital conducted by the laity), nor in the burial of infidels in an unblessed graveyard. There is no real sacrilege in profane use of things which are not set apart exclusively for sacred use (e.g., to use the candelabra and candles of the altar to read by in one’s room), or which have not been made sacred (e.g., to steal money promised but not delivered to the Church or the personal belongings of a cleric);

(b) when the thing injured is sacred, but the action or omission is not opposed to the attribute in which it is holy, or to a law made to ensure respect for it. Thus, a person who has the vow of chastity does not commit sacrilege if he becomes intoxicated or uses profane language, for he was not consecrated against those sins; a sacred place is not sacrilegiously violated by an act not opposed to its holiness or the respect demanded for it by the law (e.g., organ recitals or awards for Christian Doctrine in church, sale of candles in the vestibule, physical violence against a disturber of divine service). Sacrilege is not done in reverently destroying an old and tattered vestment, in respectfully handling agnus deis, relics, unused palls, and other objects that may be touched by all.

Sacredness as Aggravating Circumstance of Sin.—But a sin that is not sacrilegious is often made worse by reason of the sacredness of some thing with which the sin is connected. (a) Thus, the sin is aggravated by such circumstances as person and place. In this way it is worse for a person vowed to God to blaspheme or lie than for one who has no vow; it is worse to carry on frivolous or calumnious conversations in church than on the street. (b) The sin receives the additional malice of sacrilege if the sinner expressly intends the circumstance of time, place, etc., in order to show contempt. Thus, it is not sacrilege to get drunk on a Sunday or holyday, unless one wishes by the sin to show dishonor to the sacred time; it is not sacrilege to conduct oneself with levity in church, unless one wishes by the levity to show contempt for the place.

The Malice of Sacrilege.—(a) The moral malice of sacrilege is that of irreligiousness (see 2299). The three kinds of sacrilege (personal, local and real) are commonly regarded as three distinct species of sin; for, just as injuries done to a man’s person, to his immovable property, and to his movable goods are looked upon in law as different kinds of offenses, so are injuries offered to the ministers of God, the house of God, and the objects used in the service of God unequal in the dishonor which they give to God before the public. More probably there are no sub-species of these three classes of sacrilege. Hence, in so far as the disrespect to God is concerned, there seems no essential difference between the sin of violating and that of striking a consecrated virgin.

(b) The theological malice of sacrilege is mortal from the nature of the sin. Just as it is gravely insulting to a man to treat his representatives or his home or chattels with contempt, likewise disrespect for the things of God is disrespect for God Himself. The seriousness of sacrilege is seen from the punishments visited on Core, Dathan and Abiron (Num., xvi), on the sons of Heli (I Kings, ii. 17, iv. 11), on King Balthasar (Dan., v. 2 sqq.), and on the sellers in the temple (John, ii. 14). Sacrilege may be venial, however, on account of the imperfection of the act (e.g., when one strikes a priest without reflecting that he is a clergyman) or the smallness of the matter (e.g., to quote Scripture in a decent joke, to use altar linen that is only slightly soiled or torn, to touch the chalice without permission, to steal a few pennies from a church).

Conditions that Govern Gravity of Sacrilege.—To decide in a concrete case whether a sacrilege is gravely or lightly sinful, one should consider the internal state of mind of the offender and the external character of the offense. (a) Thus, if the purpose is directly and formally to dishonor God, the sin is grave, but, if there is some other purpose, it may be light. (b) If the thing dishonored is more closely related to God, or if the act of dishonor is in public estimation more insulting, the sin is more serious. Unworthy treatment of the Eucharist is the worst of sacrileges; ill-usage of a sacred person is worse than disrespect for a sacred place; treading the Sacred Species under foot is more contemptuous than an unworthy Communion, etc.

Carnal Sacrilege.—Carnal sacrilege is the violation by an act of impurity of the sacredness of a person, place or thing.

(a) It is a violation of sacredness, and thus it is a special sin, adding irreligion to lust (see 2308 sqq.).

(b) It is an act of impurity, internal or external, consummated or non-consummated. The impurity, however, must be so related to that which is sacred as to treat its sanctity with injury or contempt (formal disrespect), and there is no sacrilege if the impurity is associated with something holy in such a way as not to show any notable irreverence (material disrespect).

(c) Its first species is personal sacrilege, and it is committed by a sacred person (see 2309) when he is impure internally or externally, or by a non-sacred person when in desire or act he commits impurity with a sacred person. If two sacred persons sin together, there is a double sacrilege, which multiplies the sin.

(d) Its second species is local sacrilege, and is committed when an impure act is done in a sacred place (2311) in such a way as to show formal disrespect. Hence, consummated acts done in a church are sacrilegious, and the same is probably true of non-consummated acts, at least if they are of an enormous kind (e.g., a lascivious dance), and even of internal desires to sin in the sacred place. But impure thoughts or passing glances of prurient curiosity in a church are not sacrilegious.

(e) Its third species is real sacrilege, and it occurs when impurity is committed in such a way as to show formal disrespect to a sacred object (2311). Hence, there is sacrilege of this kind when one commits impurity immediately after Communion, or when one uses the Sacrament of Penance as a means to solicit impurity. But the fact that a person commits impurity while wearing a scapular is not sacrilegious, unless contempt for the scapular was intended.

How are the aforesaid circumstances to be considered? - They are not to be taken insofar as the substance of the act depends on them, but insofar as they accidentally affect it. Otherwise they would no longer have the notion of circumstances. - Therefore:

1. Who does not signify the substance of the one acting, but his quality or condition, for example, that he is bound by a vow, joined in marriage, a public magistrate, etc. To this circumstance Lugo, De Poenit. d. 16. n. 200, brings back the habit of sin; for through it is explained how someone is disposed to sin more easily. The circumstance of person, generally speaking, does not transfer sin into another species, unless the sin is directly opposed to a union, office bringing a special obligation, vow, or state; as if a priest fornicates, it passes into sacrilege, but if he blasphemes, he is guilty only of blasphemy, just as another blaspheming. Malach. 2:1. 8; C. Trid. sess. 22. C. 1 de R.; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 45. a. 4, q. 110. a. 4 ad 5; Lugo De Poenit. d. 16. s. 4.

2. What and about what likewise does not express the substance of the effect or object, but its quality or quantity, for example in theft it does not denote that the stolen thing belongs to another, for this pertains to the very substance of the act, but that it is sacred or profane, of great or small quantity, with damage thereby to a poor person, to wards, to girls to be married, with scandal of many, etc. The circumstance what and about what can easily be species-changing. But what, that is, the effect, when it is foreseen and willed, draws into its own species. To this circumstance can be brought back how often, or the multiplication of acts. Nevertheless S. Th. did not count it among the circumstances. And the reason is that circumstances are around the same act. But the number of operations does not stand around one and the same operation. For a second theft is not a circumstance of the first, or conversely; nor the third of the second, and so on. From this it follows that, because someone is no less bound to confess the second sin than the first, and no less the hundredth than any other, it is not enough to say that he stole many times, but he must explain how many times he stole, if he remembers the number; and if he does not remember, he must express how frequently, so that a probable number may be had. Lugo l. c. s. 4. § 7. s. 5. 6. 9.

3. Where does not signify bare place; for it is certain that every act of man happens somewhere; but the quality of the place, for example, that it is public, whence scandal arises; that it is sacred, whence sacrilege is had, etc. The circumstance of a sacred place, although it aggravates all sins accidentally, nevertheless draws only those into the species of grave sacrilege which are directly opposed to the sanctity of the place, or to the immunity annexed to it, such as effusions of blood or of human seed, which impede the divine worship to be exhibited there, for which the place is directly sanctified, and violent removals, which are contrary to immunity. Lugo l. c. s. 10.

4. By what aids signifies accidental instruments, or means, which the one acting used, for example, if someone used sacred vessels for poisoning, employed the aid of the devil, induced other men by command or counsel to the execution of sin. Although this circumstance sometimes seems to relate to sin merely materially, nevertheless sometimes it also changes the species. Lugo l. c. n. 475. 476.

5. Why denotes not the intrinsic end of the work, for this pertains to the substance of the act, but the extrinsic end, and that of the one acting, as if someone steals in order to get himself drunk. Why can manifestly give another species to an act. Lugo l. c. n. 477 seq.

6. How designates the accidental mode by which the interior act of the will is done, for example, intensely or remissly, from contempt, from levity, from ignorance, from fear, from passion. It also designates the mode of the exterior action, for example, that you killed by poison, by the sword, with cruelty and savagery, etc. How, although ordinarily aggravating or diminishing sin, can sometimes also give species. - Lugo l. c. n. 497 seq.; Laym. l. 3. de Iust. tr. 3. p. 3. c. 4. n. 1; Tambur. Meth. Confess. l. 2. c. 6. n. 2; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 66. a. 3 ad 1, a. 4.

7. When signifies the quality or quantity of time, for example, on a feast day, of Communion, of Holy Week; for a long time, for a short time. The circumstance of sacred time aggravates sin, but does not add the grave species of sacrilege, unless it is done in contempt of the sacred time. Lugo l. c. n. 515 seq.; Lessius on q. 7; Cajetan on the same q.; L. 1. 6. n. 923; S. Th. 4. D. 32. q. 1. a. 5, q. 4. Sol. 2.

Note: If someone married sins with a married woman, or one having a vow of chastity sins with one also having a vow of chastity, he admits a double sin, by reason of marriage and vow. "For the prior malice is against the fidelity which he owes to his wife.... But the latter is insofar as he is the cause, by his cooperation, that his accomplice violates the laws of marriage." Likewise "one species of malice is contracted from the violation of one's own vow; but another from cooperation in the violation of the vow of someone to whose observance I am not held by vow, as is established." Lugo, l. c., n. 140, 141; L. l. 2, n. 46; l. 3, n. 456.

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.

In how many ways is personal sacrilege committed? - Personal sacrilege is committed in three ways: 1. by laying violent hands upon a cleric or religious. 2. by lustfully violating persons dedicated to God, even by touches alone. 3. by subjecting ecclesiastical persons to the lay forum, against the privilege of exemption and immunity. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 99, a. 3; L. 35; Struggl 11.

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.

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.

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 the violation of a person bound by a simple vow of chastity sacrilege? - The first probable opinion affirms, because a sin of a sacred person which is directly done against that sanctity by which he is consecrated and dedicated to God is true sacrilege. But a person is dedicated to God not only through sacred ordination or profession of the religious state, but also through participation in this state, such as a simple vow of chastity is, especially perpetual. Therefore. Indeed, any violation of a vow is truly and properly sacrilege, because anyone vowing dedicates himself to God as to that thing, if the vow is personal, and thus the person is sanctified as to the things promised by such vows; and similarly, if the vow is real, the thing promised to God is sanctified. Thus the Salmanticenses, tr. 21, c. 12, n. 22.

The second opinion, of Suarez and others, also probable, denies, because through a simple and private vow neither a thing nor a person is made sacred, but a public deputation of the Church is required, in order to preserve chastity. And the same holds as to other vows. In order, etc.; for even clerics constituted in minor orders are sacred persons, and priests of the Greek rite are also sacred persons; but because they have not been consecrated by the Church in order to preserve chastity, but only in order to divine worship, they do not incur the guilt of sacrilege properly such. Moreover, whoever is bound by a vow of chastity, as often as he violates it, certainly commits a twofold sin, namely against chastity and against religion, by not preserving fidelity to God. And the same is true in other vows. L. 47; l. 6, nn. 808, 809; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 88, a. 3; q. 97, proem.; q. 99, a. 3 ad 3; q. 154, a. 1 ad 3, a. 10 ad 2 and 3; 4 D. 38, q. 1, a. 3, q. 2, 3; Suarez, de Sacril., l. 3, c. 3; de Vot., l. 5, c. 3, n. 45; Laym., l. 4, tr. 10, c. 7, n. 4; Less., l. 2, c. 40; Struggl 9, 10.

Is a merely internal sin against chastity by a sacred person sacrilege? - There are not lacking those who deny, as Gury affirms, v. 2, n. 165, since chastity, according to which man is consecrated to God, regards rather exterior acts, which the Church is accustomed to touch by her laws, than interior acts per se. But the doctors commonly affirm, because through chastity the very person is consecrated to God. Yet this reason does not seem to prove the matter demonstratively. For although the very person is consecrated to God through that vow, nevertheless not every internal sin is therefore sacrilege, which would be the case if in reality the person himself were absolutely consecrated to God. Therefore it must altogether be held that the person himself is indeed consecrated to God through that vow, but as to chastity to be preserved. But that this extends also to internal acts is to be demonstrated; and it seems that it can be demonstrated from this, that since a simple vow of perfect chastity is so understood that it comprehends both internal and external acts, a fortiori it is necessary that a solemn vow, through which the person becomes sacred, comprehend both; and this vow is certainly more perfect. L. 554, 457; cf. here v. 2, n. 301.

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.

Does injury to any goods whatsoever pertaining to clerics constitute sacrilege? - R. Negative, but only injury to goods which clerics possess not in their own name, but in the name of the church, and concerning which they cannot dispose, because only these are sacred. L. 42; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 99, a. 3.

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.

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.

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.

What is sacrilege? - Sacrilege, insofar as it is a sin of lust, is the violation of a sacred place, thing, or person through a venereal act. Therefore besides sin against chastity, it also embraces sin against religion. Sacrilege "can be placed as a species of lust," because chastity consecrated to divine worship is violated. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 10; L. 454.

What is personal sacrilege? - Carnal and personal sacrilege "properly and in rigor is called illicit intercourse or any sin of the flesh of a person bound and consecrated to God by a solemn vow of chastity, as through profession of an approved religion, or through reception of sacred order from the subdiaconate inclusively. The reason is that sacrilege properly and in rigor is the violation of a sacred thing; but a sacred thing is properly called that which by public authority and rite has been instituted and consecrated to the worship of God. But by the solemn vow alone of profession, or of sacred order, a person is consecrated to the worship of God by the public authority of the Church, solemnly accepting that vow in the place of God; not likewise by a simple vow privately emitted. Therefore sin of the flesh of a sacred person bound by only a simple vow of chastity is not, in rigor, sacrilege properly so called, since it is not of a sacred person; nevertheless it is a special sin against the virtue of religion and the 2nd precept of the Decalogue, namely violation of a vow and promise made to God, and therefore also necessarily to be explained in Confession, according to all." Sporer 615. Cf. here 500.

You will resolve: Hence he who is bound by a solemn vow of chastity and sins carnally perpetrates a sin containing triple malice: of immodesty against chastity; of infidelity against God, because of non-fulfillment of the promise made to Him; of sacrilege because of violation or profanation of a person consecrated to God. But the gravity of sacrilege has a threefold degree if he has an accomplice: 1. Grave, if the carnal sin is of a non-sacred person with a sacred person. 2. More grave, if it is of a sacred person with a non-sacred person. 3. Most grave, if it is of a sacred person with a sacred person. L. 456.

Note: It is probable that there is no need to express whether the vow was solemn or simple, because the opposite opinion is also probable, namely that the violation of a sacred person bound by a simple vow of chastity is true sacrilege. Likewise it is not necessary to say if the person is sacred by a double title, for example because he is a religious and priest, because one constituted in sacred orders, more probably and more truly, is bound to chastity only by reason of the vow annexed to the order; this is gathered from C. Cum olim de Cler. coniug. L. 454, 455. Cf. here 500.

"It is altogether to be held that a religious commits sacrilege who is morosely delighted concerning the carnal sin of another, or who pollutes another with his hands, even without his own pleasure." L. 457. Likewise he commits sacrilege who induces a sacred person to a sin of lust, although he himself does not sin with that person; for he cooperates in sacrilege. On the contrary, it is sufficiently probable that he does not commit sacrilege who, having a vow of chastity, by his counsel induces another to carnal sin, because one emitting a vow of chastity regards not another's chastity but only his own; hence then he would sin by scandal. Understand, however, if he did this for another end than from positive affection of lust; otherwise he would now sin directly against his own chastity, of which he emitted a vow. L. 457. Personal sacrilege in affection would be if someone polluted himself by thinking with pleasure of a Saint, male or female, or, what is most horrible, of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself or of the Blessed Virgin herself.

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.

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.

1. Theofridus, on feast days, is accustomed to go to Church, yet not with the mind of honoring God, but of seeing his betrothed, and inviting her to come together into another place. Hence during the whole time of the sacred functions he morosely feeds his eyes by looking at his betrothed, and in her, in his own mind, he takes complacence to himself, and with shameful touches upon himself he is venereally delighted.

2. Livonia and Vibiana stubbornly contend and quarrel with each other over the ownership of a certain prayer book, in church. Hearing the shouts, Andronicus, the church custodian, immediately runs up, who at once, with his staff, beats the women and casts them out of the church. But behold, while Livonia hastens to go out, she is driven against the door of the church and pours forth blood from her nostrils.

Q. 1. What is sacrilege, and what kind of sin? - 2. Is Theofridus guilty of sacrilege? - 3. What concerning Livonia, Vibiana, and Andronicus?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 94, 493 seqq., 800 seqq. - To the second: Theofridus did not commit grave sacrilege from this, that on feast days he frequents the church with the mind of feeding his eyes and inviting his betrothed there. The reason is that sacred time does not come among the things to be numbered as sacred things; for, granted that sacred things are done in it, nevertheless time itself is not consecrated. Likewise, he did not commit grave sacrilege by morosely looking at his betrothed in a sacred place, nor probably even by inviting her to copula to be had in another place, contempt and the will of dishonoring the sacred place nevertheless being excluded. The reason is that, as an external act, that look does not seem gravely to detract from the honor of the sacred thing, although by that look he sins gravely in his own mind. And the same seems to have to be said about that invitation, which, although in itself it is a grave sin, does not bring some special filthiness upon the sacred place. For look and speech do not seem so to affect the place that therefore it be held gravely befouled and profaned. Hence, all the more, the grave guilt of sacrilege is not had by interior complacence alone. But, by exercising gravely immodest touches upon his own body, at least more probably, he sinned gravely and sacrilegiously. The reason is that since acts of this sort, more material, contain grave turpitude, they are judged gravely to befoul and profane the Church. At least more probably; for the matter is not altogether certain. Whence Fr. Gury, in Cases of Conscience, in one place probably denies grave sin, but in another more probably affirms it. - Elbel 575, 576; G. 146, 281.

But what if Theofridus had also committed pollution in the Church? He indeed would have committed local sacrilege, and as many times as he repeated it, however secretly. The reason is that by this most shameful exterior sin the sacred place is affected with grave irreverence and filthiness. Yet the Church would not have been polluted, nor would there have been need of reconciliation, since it had not been public. I. M. V. 2, n. 641; Elbel 576, 282.

Likewise, "what is to be held concerning those who accuse themselves that in Church, during divine services, they have emitted flatus? R. This scruple is to be removed from them, lest thereafter perhaps they sin from an erroneous conscience, and it must be said that an emission of this sort, unless perhaps it were done from contempt or with scandal of hearers, is free from every fault." Elbel 577. The reason is that it is a certain natural necessity, and, according to the prudent estimation of men, no filthiness or turpitude is judged thence to be in the sacred place. But otherwise it would have to be said if, no natural necessity compelling, someone were to discharge his bowels in church, urinate, or vomit, or stable horses in it; since actions of this sort befoul the sacred place.

To the third. If the contention and quarrel of Livonia and Vibiana was grave, they committed grave sacrilege. From the case, a great tumult seems truly to have been present in the church; whence without doubt grave and sacrilegious irreverence was inflicted upon the church. But if the contention and quarrel had been only slight, only slight irreverence and malice of sacrilege is judged. But Andronicus, immediately running up and at once beating, is to be excused from every sacrilege and sin; because he surely did this impelled by zeal for divine honor and for his office; and therefore he did not act injuriously against the church. Therefore the Church was not polluted by that effusion of blood; for it was altogether accidental and beyond intention. Besides, the nostrils are too prompt an organ for pouring forth blood, so that it could properly be called an effusion of blood. - Elbel 578, 579; G. 283, 284; I. M. V. 2, n. 641.

83. Sacrilege, insofar as it is a sin of lust, is the violation of a sacred place, thing, or person through a venereal act; therefore besides sin against chastity it also embraces sin against religion. St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 10; L. 454.

84. Concerning a sacred person. Proposition. Carnal and personal sacrilege "properly and strictly is called illicit intercourse, or any sin of the flesh, of a person bound and consecrated to God by a solemn vow of chastity, as by profession of an approved Religion, or by reception of sacred Order from the subdiaconate inclusively. The reason is that sacrilege properly and strictly is violation of a sacred thing; but a sacred thing is properly called one which by public authority and rite is instituted and consecrated to the worship of God; but by solemn vow alone of profession or of sacred order a person is consecrated to the worship of God by the public authority of the Church, solemnly accepting that vow in the place of God; not likewise by a simple vow privately emitted. Wherefore a sin of the flesh of a person bound to chastity by a simple vow alone is not indeed strictly a sacrilege properly so called, since it is not of a sacred person; nevertheless it is a special sin against the virtue of Religion and the second precept of the Decalogue, namely violation of a vow and of a promise made to God, and therefore it must also necessarily be explained in confession according to all." Sporer, 615; Sanchez, de Matr., l. 7, D. 27, n. 17 seqq.; Suarez, de Relig., T. 1, Tr. 3, l. 3, c. 2 and 3. But since the solemn vow of chastity is a vow of perfect chastity, as a simple vow of perfect chastity includes external and internal acts, so also and much more does a solemn vow; and consequently a merely internal sin against chastity of a person sacred to God is also sacrilege.

85. Corollaries. Hence one bound by a solemn vow of chastity who sins carnally perpetrates a sin containing threefold malice: of immodesty against chastity; of infidelity against God, on account of non-fulfillment of the promise made to him; of sacrilege on account of violation or profanation of a person consecrated to God. But the gravity of sacrilege is of three degrees, if it has an accomplice: 1. grave, if the carnal sin is of a non-sacred person with a sacred one; 2. graver, if it is of a sacred person with a non-sacred one; 3. gravest, if it is of a sacred person with a sacred one. Cf. here n. 67; L. 456.

Note. 1. It is probable that there is no need to express whether the vow was solemn or simple, because the opposite opinion is also probable, namely that violation of a sacred person bound by a simple vow of chastity is also true sacrilege. Nor likewise is it necessary to say if the person is sacred by a double title, because he is a religious and a priest, because one constituted in sacred orders is more probably and truly held to chastity only by reason of the vow annexed to the Order, as is gathered from Cap. Cum olim 6, de Cleric. coniug.; Sanchez, l. c.; L. 454, 455; Lugo, de Poenit., D. 16, n. 146-150.

2. "It must altogether be held that a religious commits sacrilege who would be lingeringly delighted concerning the carnal sin of another, or who would pollute another with his hands, even without his own delectation." L. 457. Likewise he commits sacrilege who induces a sacred person to a sin of lust, although he himself does not sin with that person; for he cooperates in sacrilege. G. 424. On the contrary, it is sufficiently probable that he does not commit sacrilege who, having a vow of chastity, by his counsel induces another to carnal sin, because one emitting a vow of chastity regards not another's chastity, but only his own. Whence then he would sin by scandal. Understand, however, if he did this for another end than from positive affection of lust; otherwise he would now sin directly against his own chastity, of which he emitted the vow. Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 8; Ithurriaga, Cas. 53, n. 29; Lugo, l. c., n. 151 seqq.; L. 157.

3. Personal sacrilege in affection would be present if someone polluted himself by thinking with delectation of a male Saint or a female Saint, or, what is most horrible, of Our Lord Jesus Christ himself or of the Blessed Virgin herself.

86. Concerning place. Proposition 1. Sacred place here is understood only as church, that is, a place consecrated by the Bishop for divine offices, or even simply blessed from roof all the way to pavement; and cemetery, that is, a place blessed and deputed for burying the dead. Wherefore private oratories are excluded, since they are not true churches, nor are they 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., June 7, 1899, n. 4025. Also excluded are all other parts of the church which are in no way contained within the 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; Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 8.

87. Proposition 2. Merely internal sins are not to be held as sacrileges, at least not as gravely such, because they do not seem especially to affect the sacred place, unless there is had a desire of sinning externally in the sacred place itself, even if that desire is had outside the sacred place; for then it is sacrilege in affection. But as regards external sins, it is certain among all that grave sacrilege is committed by consummated acts, namely by voluntary pollution, fornication. Here it must be observed: 1. that several from St. Alphonsus, 438, probably hold that sacrilege in a church is committed only by public effusion of semen, although others probably say that even occult effusion and illicit intercourse are grave sacrilege; Lugo, de Poenit., D. 16, n. 462, affirms this to be more common and truer. - 2. That several apud the same Holy Doctor hand down as probable that, scandal being prescinded, marital intercourse had in a church is never sacrilege. L. 36, 334, 434, 458, and l. 6, n. 920. And others more probably deny this, unless it is done from moral necessity, that is, "on account of the long sojourn of a spouse in a church." Lugo, de Poenit., D. 16, n. 463. But whether, besides these consummated acts, grave sacrilege is committed by other grave external non-consummated sins is disputed. Some probably affirm, others probably deny. L. 459; Sporer, 619; Billuart, l. c.; Lugo, l. c., n. 464, 466; Suarez, de Relig., T. 1, tr. 2, l. 3, c. 7. "Yet Lugo and others passim rightly except the case unless someone exercises immodest things of this kind in a sacred place with great irreverence to the church, as if he were publicly to touch a prostitute immodestly before the altar, if he were to exhibit lascivious comedies in a sacred temple, etc.; for then it must not be denied that properly a crime of sacrilege is committed, because grave irreverence would be done to divine worship, to which the sacred place is deputed and consecrated." Sporer, ibid.; Billuart, l. c.; Suarez, l. c.

88. Note. Through voluntary and illicit effusion of semen the church remains polluted, so that one would have to abstain from divine offices, if this became known, until the church itself is reconciled. C. unic., de Consecr. Eccl., in 6.

89. Concerning things. Proposition. By the name of sacred thing is understood any other object, sacred or holy, distinct from a sacred person and place, as in this matter especially "the sacraments themselves, by which man is sanctified, hold the highest place; the chief of these is the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which contains Christ himself. And therefore the sacrilege which is committed against this sacrament is the gravest among all. But after the sacraments, consecrated vessels for the reception of the sacraments hold the second place, and sacred images themselves and relics of the Saints, in which in some way the very persons of the Saints are venerated and honored; then those things which pertain to the adornment of the Church and of the ministers." St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 99, a. 3; Laymann, l. 4, Tr. 10, c. 7, n. 12, 13.

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.

284. • Sacrilege is the violation or unworthy handling of a sacred thing. It is distinguished as threefold: 1. personal; 2. local; 3. real.

Principles. - I. Sacred here is said of whatever is deputed to divine worship by a public rite from divine or ecclesiastical institution, and for that reason merits special reverence. - St. Thomas 2. 2. q. 99. art. 3.

Hence 1. Sacred persons are those who are deputed to divine worship by sacred tonsure, or by religious vows.

2. Sacred places are those which by public authority of the Church are dedicated to divine worship, as churches, cemeteries, public chapels, even those not consecrated or blessed; but not private chapels.

3. Sacred things are those which pertain to divine worship or are proximately referred to it, as the Sacraments, consecrated vessels, Relics or images of Saints; likewise those things which pertain to the adornment of the Church or of ministers; and finally ecclesiastical goods, even movable ones. - St. Thomas ibid., etc.

II. Sacrilege is a mortal sin from its kind, because it is opposed to the most excellent virtue, namely religion, and for the most part regards grave matter. - Nevertheless it can become light by reason of smallness of matter, or imperfection of the act. - St. Lig. n. 33, etc.

III. Sacrilege differs in species according as it affects a person, a place, or a sacred thing ¹; hence in confession these circumstances are to be explained. - St. Lig. n. 34. - St. Thomas ibid., etc.

¹ Although Suarez (De Relig. Tract. 3. Lib. 3. Cap. 1. n. 8) notes that the sufficiency of this division is not to be demanded with speculative rigor, and that no reason is given for this partition according to matter except that this magisterial division is commonly admitted, and is accommodated to explaining all sacrileges and comprehending them under certain heads, and to excluding whatever does not pertain to sacrilege; nevertheless (ibid. Cap. 5) he adheres to the common opinion, which recognizes in this threefold partition a threefold distinct species of sacrilege, and therefore holds that it must be explained in confession.

But it must be added with St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3. n. 34) that it is more probable that these species of sacrilege are not subaltern, but lowest species; for which opinion those words of St. Thomas make (2. 2. q. 99. art. 3. ad 2): And thus likewise it is possible that two sins differ in species according to the material acts, but agree in species according to one formal notion of sacrilege, for instance if someone should violate a nun by striking her or by lying with her.

285. You will resolve. - 1. Personal sacrilege is committed 1. by laying violent hands on a Cleric or Religious; 2. by lustfully violating persons dedicated to God, even by mere touches; 3. by subjecting ecclesiastical persons to the judgment of the forum. - But it will not be sacrilege to detract from a priest, because only his person is sacred, but not his reputation. - St. Lig. n. 35.

2. Local sacrilege is committed 1. by all sins by which a Church is polluted by Canon Law, namely by the shedding of blood and of human seed, by homicide, by the burial of an excommunicated person or infidel in a Church; 2. by all sins which are committed against the immunity ² and sanctity of a sacred place, such as breaking in, spoliation, theft, quarrels, and the like; 3. by actions unbecoming to the sanctity of the place, such as trading, clamors, the noise of trials, unless a grave cause excuses. - St. Lig. n. 36.

² Where there is question of sacrilege on account of the violated immunity of a sacred place, the notion of a sacred place extends much more widely than when there is question of acts directly opposed to the sanctity of a sacred place. For as regards these acts, by which a Church can also be polluted, sacred place means only the enclosure of a blessed place deputed for divine offices or for burying the dead, from roof down to pavement. But if the discussion is about the immunity of a sacred place, here the exterior parts of the Church also are included: the porticoes, e.g., the sacristy, tower, roof, subterranean crypts, stairs to the church, and the whole exterior base. Cemeteries even separated from the Church are held in the same reckoning, the Bishop's palace, and even the house of the parish priest, if it is joined to the Church, the convents of Religious with barns, gardens, and all those things which are enclosed by their precinct, and finally hospitals erected by authority of the Bishop and having a chapel for celebrating.

3. Real sacrilege is committed 1. by unworthy administration or reception of the Sacraments; 2. by unworthy handling of sacred Relics, images, etc.; 3. by profanation of sacred vessels, instruments, and ornaments; 4. by theft of a thing pertaining to divine worship or to the Church; 5. by abuse of Scripture, e.g., by twisting its words to vain things, etc.; 6. by negligence concerning sacred vessels, corporals, etc., in those who ought to care for these things religiously. - St. Lig. n. 40 and 48.

286. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether the violation of a person bound outside Religion by a simple vow of chastity is sacrilege?

Resp. It is controverted. The 1st OPINION affirms, because through any vow of chastity whatsoever a man is truly consecrated to God. For one's own will suffices for consecrating one's own acts to God, just as public authority is sufficient for public consecration. - Billuart, diss. 10. - St. Lig. n. 47, as more probable ³.

³ This opinion has against it the common doctrine of Theologians, which defines sacrilege as the violation of a sacred thing, understanding under this name of sacred thing not only things, but also persons and places which by some special reason are destined for divine worship. But if there is discussion of sacred persons, Not every private devotion, as Suarez well says (De Sacrileg. Lib. 3. Cap. 2. n. 1), or purpose of dedicating oneself wholly to divine worship constitutes a sacred person, but it is necessary that such a consecration of the person be made by law. But this consecration is made either by sacred ordination in clerics, or by dedication to the perpetual worship of God in some state approved by the Church (Suarez, ibid. n. 1 and 4). Therefore a person is never made sacred unless he has been dedicated to divine worship by the public law of the Church, either through reception of sacred Order or through a religious state, as Laymann says (Lib. 4. Tr. 10. c. 7. n. 4), and as Cap. Duo sunt 7. Caus. 12. q. 1 also suggests.

And indeed St. Alphonsus seems to have preferred the opposite opinion, relying on the doctrine which the Salmanticenses (Tr. 21. Cap. 12. n. 22) attributed to St. Thomas, as if the violation of any vow were truly and properly sacrilege. But in fact, just as the same men (ibid. n. 21) falsely ascribe this opinion both to Azor and Bonacina, who hand down nothing of this kind, and to Lessius, who on the contrary writes expressly (Lib. 2. Cap. 45. n. 11) that it is called sacrilege rather improperly, so they wrongly invoke St. Thomas for it, and gratuitously imagine for themselves that the Holy Doctor, when (2. 2. q. 99. a. 3. ad 3) he names a virgin dedicated to God, understood this of a virgin bound by a simple vow. For the opposite is clear not only from the parallel place 2. 2. q. 154. a. 10. ad 2 and 3, where he more clearly names a person specially consecrated, but especially from a comparison made with 4. Dist. 38. q. 1. art. 3. q. 2 and 3, and 2. 2. q. 154. art. 1. ad 3; but also, and much more evidently, from his general doctrine, which does not bring back violation of a vow (2. 2. q. 88. a. 3) to the species of sacrilege, but to the vice opposed to fidelity. Moreover (2. 2. q. 97. Prooem.) he counts infidelity in promises, no otherwise than perjury, among sins which pertain directly to irreverence toward God, and altogether distinguishes them from sins which pertain to irreverence toward sacred things, of which sort sacrilege is by its own nature and definition. Therefore the reason collapses, namely the authority of St. Thomas, on account of which St. Alphonsus inclined to that opinion. Compare Suarez (De Sacril. Lib. 3. Cap. 3 and De voto Lib. 5. Cap. 3. n. 4 and 5), who also from the doctrine of St. Thomas plainly shows how greatly Cajetan hallucinated, who (Comm. ad 2. 2. q. 99. a. 3) was the first to bring in the anomalous opinion which recalls to sacrileges any infractions whatsoever of any vow, which for that reason Billuart also (De Relig. Dissert. 10) admits to be foreign to the common opinion, although he himself preferred to except the vow of chastity, less noticing that the condition of any private vow whatsoever, as regards making a thing sacred, is altogether equal. And this also shines forth from this, that by the consent of all sacrilege concerning persons truly sacred is committed not only through acts opposed to chastity, but also through violent laying on of hands upon them. But no one has regarded as guilty of sacrilege him who has laid hands upon a person obliged by a private vow of chastity.

This also is added, finally, that nowhere, as Suarez notes (De voto Lib. 5. Cap. 3. n. 4), is it found in the Canons that by a simple vow alone (unless, namely, a special consecration or handing over intervenes) a thing or person is made sacred. But with private vows of this kind no handing over of a thing or person is joined. The reason is that God does not accept these oblations or donations through Himself, but, as Suarez says (De Stat. Relig. Lib. 2. Cap. 7. n. 12), if anything is given to Him or for His worship, He wills it to be given to His ministers, so that it may be accepted and administered by them in His name; and otherwise the donation made is vain and void, as being foreign to the ordinary providence of God. From these things the same Suarez (ibid. n. 13) concludes that in this that opinion proceeds rightly... which establishes a difference between the simple and solemn vow of chastity; because a simple vow is only a promise not joined with a handing over; but a solemn vow of chastity always has some handing over joined to it, which is made not immediately to God, but through His ministers, and is accepted through them, and therefore the thing thus handed over to God remains under their care and governance.

Moreover, the opinion of which Suarez speaks here is that which he himself elsewhere (De Voto Lib. 1. Cap. 14. n. 7) had called common to very many Doctors, and among these also to St. Thomas, who hands down the reason for the difference between each vow, namely solemn and simple, which elsewhere (4. Dist. 38. Q. 1. a. 2. q. 2) he calls private, in this way (Quodl. 3. a. 18): The reason for this diversity is that a solemn vow has a promise with a certain handing over; hence a vow of continence is not solemnized except by the reception of sacred Order..., or by profession according to a certain rule, and the reception of the habit of the Professed.... But a simple vow has a promise without handing over. But it is manifest that after someone not only promises to someone a thing which was within his power, but also hands it over, he cannot afterward give it to another...; and even if afterward he should wish to donate it to another, the second donation is not valid.... But he who promises something to someone, but has not yet handed it over, if afterward he actually hands it over to another, although he breaks the fidelity of the promise, nevertheless the second donation is valid. And hence elsewhere (4. Dist. 38. Q. 1. art. 3. q. 2. ad 1) he adds: In like manner a simple vow obliges, just as betrothals do; and in the same way, comparing a solemn vow elsewhere with marriage, he concludes (2. 2. Q. 154. art. 1. ad 3) that the sacrilege which is committed in the violation of such a woman is a certain spiritual adultery.

But by no means should you think it must be feared that through these things the doctrine, now common and certain after the Constitutions of Boniface VIII and Gregory XIII, is perhaps weakened, namely that the solemnity of vows and the force attached to them of producing certain effects is to be derived merely from ecclesiastical law. And indeed how would Suarez, as we have seen, have said that the difference between a solemn and a simple vow is rightly established by those Doctors, if this were repugnant to the doctrine of the Apostolic Constitutions just mentioned, which in the same place he defends with all his strength? It must be noted, namely, what the same Suarez most learnedly premisses in these words when he is about to call that doctrine to examination (cit. cap. 7. Lib. 2. Tract. de Stat. Relig.): For accurately investigating the truth or probability of such an opinion, I suppose that IN TWO WAYS that handing over can be understood to incapacitate the person for marriage, EITHER FROM ITS OWN NATURE AND THEREFORE BY NATURAL DIVINE LAW, OR FROM THE INSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. Having premised these things, he adds that concerning the former manner the whole controversy exists, and that it is attacked by Scotus, Paludanus, and many other authors, although by reasons in his judgment less firm, for which then he himself (ibid. from n. 14) substitutes more efficacious ones from the Apostolic Constitutions. Therefore, provided that you hold that the incapacity for marriage which is attached to a solemn vow is to be derived from the institution of the Church, you can most rightly retain, even in the judgment of Suarez himself, that difference between a solemn and simple vow which we have said was commonly admitted by the Doctors.

Since, moreover, the discussion has fallen upon the doctrines of Suarez, it will be useful to hint in passing that there is by no means a need to embrace also that opinion of the Excellent Doctor by which he establishes that the nature or essence of the solemnity of vows consists in the power of voiding certain acts contrary to vows, or, as he himself speaks (De Stat. Relig. Lib. 2. Cap. 14. n. 10), in the force of incapacitating the person for certain moral effects, namely of bringing it about that those solemnly professed are incapable of contracting marriage, or of acquiring ownership, or of entering firm contracts; as if, namely, a vow could not be solemn unless it produced these effects. This opinion, as it is not supported by any solid reason, so it labors under many difficulties and disadvantages, and these not light.

Therefore it seemed otherwise to very weighty Theologians, such as Michael Medina, theologian of the Council of Trent, Cardinal Bellarmine, Gabriel Vasquez, John Azor, Cardinal De Lugo, John Malderus, etc., that this matter ought to be determined. And since from the Apostolic Constitutions we find the scholastics of the Society of Jesus incapable of marriage; and moreover the Formed Coadjutors of the same Society are declared incapable not only of marriage, but also of any ownership and property whatsoever, although both are bound to the same Society by simple vows only; while on the other hand many examples prove that at other times solemn vows in the Church did not obtain these effects, it is easy to conclude that that force of voiding certain acts is not necessarily implanted in, and in a certain manner essential to, the solemnity of vows itself, but comes to it extrinsically from a positive decree of the Church, whose right and power it is, as Bellarmine says (De Matrim. Lib. 1. Cap. 21), to render contracts of this kind legitimate or illegitimate by her decree, by making them altogether valid or invalid. And lest perhaps you conclude that therefore no distinction remains between a solemn and simple vow, compare those things which the praised Bellarmine, wisely in his usual manner, discusses at the end of the cited Chapter.

** A few things concerning the argument of this Note had been inserted in the Edition of the year 1866. Then more fully (Edition of the year 1869) the difficulty of certain persons in France introduced the necessity of explaining and confirming them, as if that Note detracted from the most true doctrine which holds that the solemnity of vows is of ecclesiastical law; which difficulty indeed also deterred Sanchez (De Matr. Lib. 7. Disp. 25. n. 14) from the opinion set forth above, which otherwise (ibid. n. 7) he shows to be the most common and to have been that of St. Thomas. But now behold, the VV. oppose to these things no fewer than twenty-eight columns. To what end? Namely that they may conclude that what St. Alphonsus says after the Salmanticenses is more probable, that even the violation of a simple vow is sacrilege. This conclusion indeed, as to practice, would conclude nothing. And indeed, if you suppose, e.g., that the sin of sacrilege is reserved, this probability would not forbid a simple Confessor from being able to absolve from the violation of a simple vow. But the VV. did not devote their labors, as would have been desirable, to recalling the question to its own principles, which they could have seen indicated at the beginning of the Note, and thus shedding some light upon it; but merely they heaped up from every side shreds of Authors which with some appearance might seem somehow to disagree with the opinions of this Note, as they almost always do. Therefore it will be better not to omit that which was of greatest importance. For if the question is recalled to its own principles, it will soon become clear what judgment must be made concerning that enormous mass of twenty-eight columns, and concerning all those texts or shreds of Authors.

It must first be premised that the name sacrilege is used both in a strict sense and in a broad one; but in this latter sense any sin against the virtue of Religion has been accustomed to be called sacrilege. See Azor (P. 1. L. 9. c. 27. q. 1), Filliuccius (Tr. 24. C. 9. n. 220), Palaus (Tr. 17. D. 1. Q. 2. C. 1. init.), Tamburini (Dec. L. 2. C. 6. § 3. n. 1), Catalani (Part. 2. Q. 7. C. 1. n. 1), Mazzotta (Tr. 2. D. 1. Q. 2. C. 1. init.), etc. In this sense, therefore, perjury, blasphemy, idolatry, etc., can be called sacrilege. - But in the strict sense, and insofar as it is a special sin, sacrilege is called the violation of a sacred thing. Thus Palaus (l. c.): Therefore the proper meaning of sacrilege is that which is taken from the injury or violation of a sacred thing, distinct from God: thus St. Thomas, RECEIVED BY ALL, 2. 2. q. 99. a. 1 and 3.

There follows a question of the highest importance: What comes under the name of a sacred thing? Laymann answers (Lib. 4. Tr. 10. Cap. 7. n. 2) that properly that thing alone is considered sacred WHICH BY PUBLIC RITE OR INSTITUTION HAS BEEN DEPUTED TO THE WORSHIP OF GOD, as the jurists teach in L. In tantum, and L. Sacra ff. de divisione rerum. Palaus has the very same thing (l. c. § 1. n. 1), Voit (T. 1. n. 465), Suarez (De Rel. Tr. 3. L. 3. C. 1), Struggl (Tr. 5. Q. 6. art. 2. n. 9), Filliuccius (l. c.), Azor (l. c.), etc. And in fact the texts cited by Laymann agree. For L. Summa 1. ff. de divis. rer.: Some things are of divine right..., such as sacred things: whence that statement of St. Thomas (2. 2. q. 99. a. 1): From the fact that something is deputed to the worship of God, it is made something divine. And L. Sacra 9. ff. De divis. rer. has it thus: Sacred places are those which have been publicly dedicated. And § 1: It must be known that a place can become sacred when the Prince has dedicated it, or has given the power of dedicating it. And L. In tantum § 3. ff. eod.: Sacred things, however, are those which have been publicly consecrated, not privately: therefore if someone privately shall have constituted something sacred for himself, it is not sacred, but profane.

And from these things it is clear why Laymann (l. c.) added: A thing or person is not made sacred by any private purpose or vow whatsoever, but it is necessary that it have a public consecration by law, or deputation to the worship of God. And Suarez (l. c. C. 2. n. 1): Not every private devotion or purpose of devoting oneself wholly to divine worship constitutes a sacred person, but it is necessary that such a consecration of the person be made by law. And Filliuccius (l. c. n. 224): Not every private devotion or purpose of dedicating oneself to God constitutes a sacred person, but it is required that it be made according to the use of the Church and juridically.

Hence follows the consequence that a private vow of itself makes neither the thing vowed nor the person vowing sacred, because here no public and juridical deputation, dedication, or consecration of the thing or of the person to the worship of God intervenes. Therefore violation of a vow of this kind is indeed a sin against the virtue of Religion, because it involves a great irreverence toward God by breaking the fidelity given to Him; and insofar as it is a sin against the virtue of Religion, it can also be called sacrilege in that broad sense in which we have said that perjury, idolatry, divination, vain observance, blasphemy, etc., are called sacrilege; but it can in no way be called sacrilege in that strict sense by which violation of a sacred thing is denoted.

When, therefore, on account of a violated vow of chastity, which is the question, will sacrilege properly so called be present? Resp. When by juridical dedication to the worship of God a person has been consecrated, not in just any manner, but in order to preserve chastity perpetually. I have said, not in just any manner; because, e.g., clerics constituted in minor orders are sacred persons; but because they are not yet consecrated to preserving chastity, just as neither are priests of the Greek rite, hence by violating chastity they do not incur the guilt of sacrilege properly so called. Therefore there is required consecration in order to preserving continence, which has place 1. in sacred ordination, and 2. in religious profession.

Indeed, if it is asked whether the reason of sacrilege in the injury of chastity is to be derived rather from the nature of a vow, even a solemn one, or from the constitution of the Church ordering continence to the worship of God, we ought to conclude that the guilt of sacrilege proceeds from this ordinance of the Church. For let it now pass that the guilt of sacrilege is incurred also by those who, although they are truly Religious, are still bound only by simple perpetual vows; concerning which matter see Suarez and Filliuccius (ll. cc.). But this is more clearly evident from the doctrine of Theologians, which St. Alphonsus also (Lib. 6. n. 808 and 809) maintains, namely that a priest is to be said no less guilty of sacrilege because of violation of chastity, even if he is thought to be bound to preserving chastity not by force of any vow, but only by ecclesiastical law.

Therefore let it be concluded that, if the question is brought back to its own principles, no reason is available why the injury of a simple and private vow should have attached to it the guilt of sacrilege properly taken.

But for passing judgment concerning the weight of the authority of so many Writers, which is objected against this conclusion, it is better to inquire in what sense authors use the word sacrilege; indeed whether it is certain that they noticed the different sense in which it is used; furthermore whether they prefer any, or the genuine, notion of a sacred thing; and then whether they have weighed whence persons are made sacred. Finally, even if they have rightly premised those notions, whether they then determined coherently concerning individual matters, or whether they permitted themselves to be carried away by the authority of others, with the matter in no way weighed.

The 2nd OPINION, not less probable, denies, because by a simple vow of chastity a person is not made sacred; for public deputation by the Church is required for consecrating any person. - Elbel, n. 584.

But whoever is bound by a vow of chastity, as often as he violates this, certainly commits a twofold sin, namely one against chastity, and the other against Religion. - Lacroix, l. 3. n. 55. QUESTION 2. Whether all sins of lust committed in a Church or cemetery are sacrileges?

Resp. 1. Merely internal sins are not to be held as sacrileges, because they do not seem specially to affect the sacred place, unless there is an external desire of sinning in the sacred place itself. - Thus commonly. - St. Lig. n. 462. - But if they are held as sacrileges, nevertheless this circumstance, as being lightly culpable, is not necessarily to be disclosed in confession. Likewise, sacrilege will be a desire of sinning in a sacred place held outside that place, but not a desire conceived in a sacred place of sinning outside the same. - St. Lig. n. 462.

Resp. 2. As regards external sins, it is certain that sacrilege is committed by consummated acts, namely by voluntary pollution, fornication, etc. This is openly clear from Canon Law ⁴. But whether it is also committed by other grave external sins, e.g., gravely shameful touches, is controverted. St. Lig. n. 459, Collet, etc., more probably affirm. Sanchez, Tamburini, Bonacina, etc. deny, however, not improbably ⁵.

⁴ The sole chapter De Consecr. in VI, C. Si Ecclesia fin. De Consecr., and C. Ecclesiis 20. De Consecr. Dist. 2 are usually cited. But in fact these texts have only this: that a Church polluted by the spilling of seed needs reconciliation.

⁵ The principle on which that opinion rests you have in Sanchez (De Matrim. Lib. 9. Disp. 15. n. 4), namely that this malice and special deformity does not arise from the law of nature, but from the statute of the Church alone; but no ecclesiastical law is found prohibiting these things from being done in a sacred place except the texts ... which establish that a Church is violated by the shedding of blood or seed. But this principle utterly recoils from the common sense of men. For certain actions are so shameful in themselves, or at least profane, that even if the Church's prohibition is set aside, they are unbecoming to the sanctity of sacred places, and are so opposed to this that, if they are perpetrated in those places, they are judged to detract from the honor and reverence due to them; and this, truly, not only the Christian people, but even the heathens themselves recognized by the natural light of reason and always professed. For it is indecent in itself that a place deputed to prayer and divine worship be converted into a place of sinning and offending the same God, as Lugo says (De Poenit. Disp. 16. n. 466). Moreover the malice of this irreverence, as the same Lugo cleverly notes (l. c.), does not appear opposed to any virtue except religion on account of the special reverence which is owed to a sacred place, and therefore it does not appear to belong to any species of sin, besides sacrilege.

There is also the disadvantage of the opposite opinion. For the ecclesiastical law from which those theologians draw the notion of sacrilege speaks merely of the necessity of reconciling a Church; whence the first authors of this doctrine, Cajetan (Opusc. Tom. 1. Resp. 12) and Navarrus (In C. Consideret n. 20), infer that sacrilege is had only in an act by which a place is made unsuitable for divine worship. But from this flows the consequence which Pontius (De Matr. Lib. 10. Cap. 10. n. 15) with others drew: that no crime of lust, even the most unspeakable, perpetrated in a church, can be held and called sacrilegious if the shedding of seed remains hidden; since if this is entirely concealed, or becomes known only to some few, the church does not need reconciliation. Hence two absurdities spontaneously flow. First, that no action in itself, while it remains hidden, will be sacrilegious. Then, that an action will not be sacrilegious as long as it remains hidden; but afterward it will become sacrilegious if perhaps the crime, which long remained hidden, comes to the knowledge of many.

Hence the truer doctrine must be considered that which Lugo handed down (l. c.), namely that, ignorance and inadvertence being set aside, all sins committed in churches include some special irreverence; and although this is not always grave, but can be light and therefore not necessarily to be explained in confession, nevertheless it pertains to the malice of sacrilege.

It must not here be passed over in silence that St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3. n. 485), after the Salmanticenses (Tract. IX. Cap. 15. n. 61-62), hands down as probable that, scandal apart, marital intercourse had in a Church is never sacrilege. But this opinion has no foundation, besides fallacious citations. For the doctors cited by the Salmanticenses in fact affirm this only concerning a case of necessity. But the circumstance of scandal does not of itself introduce the malice of sacrilege.

** On the occasion of this Note, the VV. wrote thirty-two columns (Pag. 205-221), yet with no other profit than that the bulk of the book was not a little increased.

And indeed as to the first part of the Note, the VV. remark that the opinion of Sanchez is also rejected by St. Alphonsus; nevertheless they add that it is less rightly explained in the Note. But, I ask, could it have been explained more rightly than by faithfully transcribing the words of Sanchez?

They wish to prove this by adducing the conclusion of Suarez (De Relig. Tr. 2. Lib. 3. c. 7. n. 11), that it seems more probable that immodest touches, especially the graver ones and those in dishonorable parts, are grave sacrileges. Then they add: Therefore he judges the opposite probable. I answer: I deny the consequence; for the VV. themselves immediately before report these words of Suarez: I say: every sin, at least an external one, done in a Church has thence some malice, at least venial. Therefore from those words of Suarez it follows indeed that the fault of sacrilege is probably not mortal, but not that the principle of Sanchez is probable. Indeed Sanchez himself, little consistent with himself (l. c. n. 21), admits that because of irreverence toward the place there is a venial fault. I have said, little consistent with himself; for if he derives the fault from irreverence, therefore from natural law, and not from positive law alone, he admits that a shameful act has sacrilegious malice; therefore he himself condemns his own principle.

The VV. then add (Pag. 208) that the opinion of Cajetan and Navarrus is less rightly explained in the Note. Resp. In the Note it is said that, according to the mind of Cajetan and Navarrus, sacrilege is had only in an act by which a place is made unsuitable for divine worship. But the VV. (Pag. 210) write thus: From this doctrine of Cajetan and Navarrus... it follows that, for sacrilege, it is always required that the sin be such that divine worship is impeded: because the Church..... has prescribed that, once the crime has been perpetrated, the sacred place be reconciled. Therefore by their own testimony the VV. admit that the opinion of Cajetan and Navarrus is rightly explained in the Note.

To these things the VV. undertake to defend the opinion of Pontius (Pag. 212), although they not only admit that rather few have admitted it, but add that it is commonly rejected, and must altogether be rejected. Nevertheless they contend that from it those two absurdities of which the Note speaks do not follow. - Resp. As to the first absurd consequence, namely that no action, however shameful, be it even the unspeakable crime of sodomy or bestiality, would ever be sacrilegious as long as it remains hidden, the VV. say nothing. Will that saying hold here or not: He who is silent seems to consent, even if they did not conceal their inclination to deny? - But as to the second absurdity, namely that an action would not be sacrilegious as long as it remains hidden, but would become sacrilegious if perhaps the crime which long remained hidden comes to the knowledge of many, the VV. observe (ibid.) that, according to the mind of Pontius, one is not sacrilegious in the forum of conscience if someone exercises fornication in a Church without contempt, if the crime remains hidden; but if afterward the crime becomes known, he is reputed sacrilegious in the external forum, and punished as such, because it is presumed to have been done with contempt. - Resp. Thus the absurdity is not avoided, but doubled. For Pontius surely must be understood of formal contempt; for otherwise, if you understand him also of virtual contempt, the question would now be about one who performs shameful things in a Church without any advertence to irreverence; but thus it would be altogether ridiculous to oppose the opinion of Pontius to the opinions of others. Therefore the opinion of Pontius will be this: that he is guilty of sacrilege, whoever exercises fornication in a temple with the direct intention of dishonoring the temple; but that he is not guilty of sacrilege, if he indeed knows that through his shameless acts he dishonors the sanctity of the temple, yet does not directly intend this. But 1. even this is said absurdly, that he is not guilty of irreverence who knows that he acts irreverently, although he does not directly intend this. And what is sacrilege except irreverence toward a sacred place? But 2. not even if formal contempt is present will the crime of fornication be sacrilegious according to the mind of Pontius. For he contends that sacrilege does not exist unless the reverence which the Church requires by positive precept, and on account of whose violation the temple must be reconciled, is injured. But, as he himself reasons (Lib. 10. C. 10. n. 15), the Church is judged to be polluted by the spilling of seed because it brings irreverence, and reverence consists also in the common estimation of men; it is therefore necessary that this quasi-defamation of the Church be notorious. Therefore if the crime remains hidden, sacrilege will be absent; and then, if it becomes notorious after the crime has long lain hidden, behold the absurdity of an act which was not sacrilegious and afterward becomes sacrilegious by becoming known.

Afterward the VV. write (Pag. 213) that they cannot sufficiently marvel that in the Note against the others there is invoked as the truer doctrine the one which Lugo hands down. For, they say, Lugo S.J. judges the doctrine of Sanchez to be truer, namely that touches, looks, and shameful words, provided they are not done with danger of pollution... do not have the species of GRAVE SACRILEGE. - Resp. The VV. themselves (Pag. 214) report the words by which Lugo S.J. teaches that all sins contract from a sacred place some special irreverence, and that this, although light, pertains to the species of sacrilege. Moreover that all sins contract from a sacred place some malice of sacrilege, at least light, is not opposed to the assertion that the aforesaid looks, touches, and words do not have grave malice of sacrilege. Therefore the VV. can well restrain themselves, without any risk, from that immense astonishment.

Finally, the VV. (Pag. 215-221) undertake, through fourteen columns, to attack the last little part of the Note, in which it is said that, with no other foundation except fallacious citations, after the Salmanticenses it is handed down by St. Alphonsus as probable that, scandal apart, marital intercourse had in a Church is never sacrilege. And the reason is given in the Note, because the Authors cited by the Salmanticenses affirm this only concerning a case of necessity. Resp. The VV. themselves (Pag. 220) write: This opinion supposes that intercourse is exercised in the Church on account of an URGENT CAUSE. But if the matter so stands, why do they attack the Note, which says only that the opinion is based on false citations, the opinion which contends that intercourse in a Church is lawful even outside the case of an urgent cause or necessity? Besides, from so many Authors whom the VV. cite, only Pontius, and after him Perez, dared to affirm this. - But if there are any who say that it is in some manner probable, or not improbable, we find that this is always based on false citations of others, which one can see heaped up not only among the Salmanticenses, but also in Pontius. And the VV. too wished to contribute their token, citing for that opinion the Summa Rosella, Sa, and Soto. Let them consult that Summa (V. Consecratio § 1. n. 9), Emmanuel Sa (V. Debitum coniugale n. 12), and Soto (In 4. Sent. Dist. 32. art. 3. penult. col.), and they will find that the opposite is most manifestly handed down by them.

QUESTION 3. Whether every theft in a Church is sacrilege?

Resp. 1. It is certain that every theft of a sacred thing is sacrilege, and also of a non-sacred thing, but one committed to the custody of a sacred place, as is clear from Canon Law C. Quisquis, 21. § 2. causa 17. Quaest. 4, where it is read: 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.

Resp. 2. As regards things which are found in a Church by chance or per accidens, such as purses, a watch, etc., it is controverted. More probably it is denied with Lugo, Azor, Lessius, etc., against Laymann and others ⁶.

⁶ From the doctrine set forth it must better be said that even these thefts, from the circumstance of a sacred place, are not lacking the malice of sacrilege; yet since this is light, it will not necessarily have to be expressed by the penitent.

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.

424. • Sacrilege, insofar as it is a sin of lust, is the violation of a sacred person or place through a venereal act.

Sacrilege, besides sin against chastity, also embraces sin against Religion or against the reverence owed to God, and therefore also to sacred places.

Resolves. - 1. A person consecrated to God who sins with another of the same condition commits double sacrilege, because he offends Religion doubly. - St. Lig., n. 456.

2. A priest who is also a Religious, who sins against chastity, more probably does not commit double sacrilege; because although from a double title he remains bound by the vow of chastity, nevertheless he sins against the same formal precept, or one imposed from the same motive. - St. Lig., n. 455.

3. He is sacrilegious who by counsel induces a sacred person to a sin of lust, although he himself does not sin with that person; because he cooperates in that person's sin.

4. Voluntary pollution in a Church is sacrilege, although it is secret, and although the Church does not need reconciliation, as it does need it in notorious pollution.

5. Touches lightly base in a Church, according to the more common opinion, are not grave ¹, because from them there does not result great irreverence toward the sacred place. But otherwise, if they are enormously grave. - But if they are simply grave, a double opinion is given: as St. Lig. affirms as absolutely more probable, because dishonorable touches have the same malice as copula itself, and although by these acts the Church is not violated, nevertheless grave irreverence is inflicted on it. The holy Author says the same about gravely obscene words and looks, n. 459-461, and Hom. apost., n. 22. - But internal acts, or thoughts, or wicked desires had in a Church are not grave sacrileges, if you except desires of sinning externally in the Church itself. - St. Alph., n. 462, and Hom. apost., ibid.

¹ It is said that they are not grave sacrileges, because some malice of sacrilege, if sin is committed in a church, is never not present; nevertheless this is not always grave and to be expressed in confession. See the things noted above at n. 286, q. 2, resp. 2.

929. 1. Notion. Sacrilege is properly called the violation, or unworthy treatment, of a sacred thing or person, insofar as it is sacred.

(a) A thing or person is called sacred which, by the authority of God or of the Church, has been deputed for divine worship: therefore a purpose or vow made privately does not suffice for this.

(b) For sacrilege it is required that the thing or person be violated insofar as sacred, that is, precisely under that respect under which it was consecrated to God. Thus a priest by fornicating commits sacrilege, because he has been consecrated that he might live continently; but he does not commit sacrilege by blaspheming, by being proud, by being angry, because he has not been specially deputed to avoiding these sins.

930. 2. Species. A threefold sacrilege is distinguished: personal, real, and local, according as a person, thing, or place is violated.

(A) Personal sacrilege is the violation of a sacred person. Moreover a person becomes sacred by reason of the clerical state, or by reason of the vow of chastity emitted in solemn religion.¹ He who has emitted a vow privately or in a simple congregation, and afterward violates chastity, indeed sins against religion by violating the faith given to God, and therefore ought to accuse the circumstance of the vow, but more probably he does not commit sacrilege properly so called, since he is not a sacred person by the authority of God or the Church.

¹ Certain persons add that even a private vow, and a fortiori a simple vow emitted in a Congregation, makes the person vowing sacred, and therefore its violation is sacrilegious. This indeed is probable, but the contrary is held by the more probable opinion, which Ballerini-Palmieri defends, n. 386-390, with the authors there cited.

Personal sacrilege can be committed in three ways: (a) by laying violent hands upon a cleric or religious, against the privilege of the canon; (b) by usurping jurisdiction over ecclesiastical persons, where ecclesiastical immunity still flourishes, for example by drawing clerics to a secular tribunal, against the privilege of the forum, or by enrolling the same into military service, against the privilege of immunity; (c) by a sin of lust committed either by a person consecrated to God by chastity, or with such a person; hence, if each is sacred, a double sacrilege is committed on each side. According to the common and true opinion, a sacred person commits sacrilege not only by external sins, but also by merely internal sins against chastity, provided true consent is given to them.

931. (B) Real sacrilege is that which is concerned with sacred things. Now things can be sacred in a fourfold way:

(a) From divine institution itself, such as the sacraments, which cannot be administered or received unworthily without sacrilege, as is more fully declared in the Treatise on the Sacraments. Under this head sacrilege is also incurred if knowingly and willingly the sacred species are not renewed at the opportune time, with danger of corruption; if the sacred Eucharist is touched or treated irreverently, etc. Likewise if the words of Sacred Scripture are mocked or applied to dishonorable uses.

(b) From consecration or blessing, those things are sacred which are sanctified by the prayers of the Church, as are sacred buildings, altars, sacred vessels, baptismal water, chrism and holy oils, liturgical vestments used in sacred functions, holy water and blessed things. Therefore those commit sacrilege who use these things for profane and indecent uses, or with contempt and mockery.²

² Those also commit sacrilege who pollute a church; concerning this see the Canonists, especially S. Many, Praelect. de Locis sacris, Paris, 1904, n. 30-40.

(c) From representation, images of Christ, of Blessed Mary and of the Saints, crosses, even not blessed, are called sacred. To this also belong sacred relics, which not only recall the saints to memory, but also once were informed by a holy soul. Therefore those are sacrilegious who use these things irreverently.

(d) From destination, ecclesiastical goods, both movable and immovable, are called sacred, which are deputed for sacred or pious uses, when they have already been accepted by the Church for this end, and therefore not only those things which serve divine worship, but also for the support of ministers, the fabric of the church, ecclesiastical hospitals and hospices, etc.; indeed those things which have been deposited in a church or handed over in pledge. Therefore those are sacrilegious who unjustly invade or usurp these goods. But if someone steals in a church a thing which belongs to a private person, but by no means to the church, more probably he does not commit sacrilege.³

³ Many, op. cit., n. 45.

932. (C) Local sacrilege is the violation of a sacred place; therefore it is equated with real sacrilege, since a sacred place is a thing; yet it is treated specifically on account of the special difficulties which occur in this matter.

A sacred place is properly called one which has been deputed to divine worship by episcopal authority, for example churches, cemeteries, public oratories, but not private ones. In a broader sense a place deputed to pious use by the authority of the Church is also called sacred, as the palace of the bishop, a parish house, a seminary, a monastery; but not a place destined for pious works by private authority. Against a place sacred in the broad sense, sacrilege was formerly committed by violating the right of asylum. But today, from can. 1179, the right of asylum belongs only to churches, in this sense, that those who have fled to them are not to be drawn out from there, unless necessity urges, without the assent of the Ordinary or at least the rector of the church.

933. A sacred place properly so called can be violated in four ways:

(a) By sins by which a church or cemetery is polluted, even if they remain hidden, and therefore the church is not polluted from them, namely voluntary and injurious homicide, gravely culpable shedding of human blood, impious or filthy uses, burial of an excommunicated person to be avoided or of an infidel.⁴

⁴ Concerning this see Many, op. cit., n. 47-61; n. 30-40 and n. 147.

(b) By profane actions which, from their nature, ecclesiastical law, or common estimation, dishonor the sanctity of the place, as markets, games, banquets, vain conversations, secular meetings, the clamor of judgments, etc., unless urgent necessity excuses. - Sometimes, however, literary or musical exercises are permitted, especially when they tend to fostering religion; likewise the sale of candles and other things pertaining to exciting devotion is tolerated, but, in all these things, care must be taken lest the house of God become a house of trade.

(c) By theft of a sacred thing, in the sense explained above; likewise by burning or breaking into a sacred place.

(d) By actions by which the right of asylum is violated, where it still flourishes.

Other sins committed in a sacred place do not contract the grave malice of sacrilege, necessarily to be explained in confession; but they bear before themselves some special indecency, on account of the circumstance of the sacred place, and thus put on the venial malice of sacrilege.

934. 3. Malice of sacrilege. (A) Sacrilege is a mortal sin from its genus against religion. For he who treats a sacred thing unworthily, insofar as it is sacred, by that very fact offends God Himself, to whom the thing is dedicated. - The sin is grave from its genus, because the precept of religion obliges under grave sin. Yet smallness of matter can be given, from the fact that the sacred thing serves divine worship more remotely, or the irreverence committed, all things considered, is judged light.

Hence, for judging concerning the gravity of the sin, three things especially ought to be attended to: (a) the sanctity of the person, thing, or place: the fault is graver insofar as the person or thing was more proximately dedicated to God; (b) the sacrilegious action, which is graver if greater irreverence is committed, according to the common estimation of the pious; (c) the intention of the agent, who can intend irreverence more or less directly, more or less distinctly.

Opposed to sacrifice and vow are sacrilege and simony.

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.”

2. Sacrilege, as indicated, may be personal, real, or local. a) Personal sacrilege (sacrilegium personale) is committed by laying violent hands upon, or robbing, clerics or religious; by sins of impurity committed, either in deed or intention, by or with persons consecrated to God by the vow of chastity or by the law of celibacy (sacrilegium carnale); or by violating the privilege of clerical immunity from civil jurisdiction, as far as this immunity is still in force.

A violation of the simple vow of chastity, ac- cording to a probable opinion, is not a sacrilege in the proper sense of the term.

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.

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.”

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.

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 99.—St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 33 sqq. (ed. Gaudé, I, 390 sqq.).—F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 337 sqq.—J. B. Wirthmüller, Die moralische Tugend der Religion, pp. 598 sqq.—H. Spelmann, Der Gottesraub, Ratisbon 1878, pp. 173 sqq.—Sabetti-Barrett, Comp. Theol. Mor., pp. 211 sqq.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 249 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 186 sqq.

I. Notions. 1. Historically, sacrilege, already among the pagans, was first said of theft of a sacred thing, by which the sanctity which ought to have protected the thing kept by the temple, by the church, was violated. Hence sacrilege occurs by every and only action by which a sanctity publicly protected, as such, is violated.

2. Therefore broadly sacrilege is any sin against the virtue of religion; strictly it is the violation of a sacred thing, or such irreverence committed toward a sacred thing or person as specially conflicts with its sanctity.

3. Sacrilege supposes a sacred thing or person, i.e., one dedicated to divine worship. A deputation of this kind requires a public institution either of God or of the Church. For no thing can be called sacred unless all must hold and treat it as sacred. This demands the use of jurisdiction or public power. In the New Testament, God Himself or Christ made some things sacred, i.e., the Sacraments; but ecclesiastical power made others. The sanctity whose origin is divine is more intrinsic, so that the corresponding violations can be estimated more from the very nature of the thing. For sacrilege further supposes an action directly opposed to the quality which has been put into the thing in order to the worship of God, or which is done against that which, under the same relation, has been prescribed positively or negatively. Therefore many things, we do not say all, depend upon the positive determination of the Church. Thus, why it is sacrilege to strike a priest, but not to calumniate him, no ratio "a priori" can be given: it is so because it has thus been established by the Church, so that the person is reckoned sacred in himself, not in his reputation.

II. Division. By the ancient division received in the canons prior to the Code, sacrilege is distinguished as personal, by which a sacred person is violated; local, by which a sacred place; real, by which sacred things are violated.

But is this division formal and ultimate? St. Thomas, 2, 2, q. 99, art. 3, seems to estimate it as formal, because a diverse ratio of sanctity formally exists in persons, in places, and in things. Cajetan, on this place, declares this with sufficient hesitation in this way: the sanctity of a person alone is formal and absolute; the sanctity of a place proceeds from the fact that it is containing of persons, or because it is deputed to sacred actions to be performed there; the sanctity of things, however, is relative, insofar as either they make holy, for instance the sacraments, or they are ordered to holy persons. - But why the sanctity of a place should be shown to be formally diverse from the sanctity of things under such a respect does not really appear, and seems capable of being safely denied, so that the threefold genus is reduced to a twofold genus.

Moreover, a probable opinion holds this specification as ultimate, so that if, in the declaration of sin, the circumstance of sacrilege has been omitted, the defect can be supplied by saying: I committed personal or real sacrilege. - Certainly in examples of sacrilege, for example in unworthy communion and in the profanation of a sacred vessel, great diversities are found, so that you would say with enough difficulty that they are of one genus. Yet the diversity is rather in the action than in the formal violation of sanctity. But in a sacrilegious abuse of the Eucharist, violation of absolute sanctity seems to concur with relative sanctity. Wherefore because of the twofold ratio of sacrilege, this violation will have to be accused. In other actions, another species will often concur. Thus he who contemptuously tramples an image will also be guilty of blasphemy; he who has stolen a sacred thing will at the same time be unjust.

Suarez, Rel., Tr. 3, L. 3, c. 1, n. 6-8, denies that any ratio of this partition can be given, and thinks formal distinctions are rather to be repeated from the mode in which a sacred thing is constituted and by which that sanctity is violated. Nevertheless, in c. 5 he adheres to the common opinion, especially because of ecclesiastical laws. Yet if a sacred place is violated as another sacred thing, as if you destroy a temple as you could break sacred vessels, then, according to Suarez, l. c. n. 7, it would be the same sacrilege.

Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 383, observe that sacrilegious deeds are accused in practice in such a way that anxiety about specification need not be had.

It will also help to have noted this, in order that we may acquire a more distinct notion of sacrileges: the sanctity of a person is more partial; the sanctity of a place is more extrinsic and of positive law (while now the whole consecrated temple is of the same sanctity, and a place is not reputed sacred because of the reserved Eucharist, could not the law have declared holy a space of a certain extension around the tabernacle?); the sanctity of a thing can be so total that every profane use is held as sacrilegious. Moreover, the very right of the Church in sacred places or things is wholly sacred, so that every violation of the Church's right is to be called sacrilegious.

III. Gravity. No one doubts that sacrilege is grave of its genus. Yet, because not God Himself in Himself but some creature is violated, slight matter is had: concerning this the faithful, especially boys and adolescents, are to be opportunely admonished, lest, struck by the terror of the name, they hold everything, for example a small theft of money offered in church, as grave and dare not accuse it.

IV. Cases of sacrilege. In a general ratio, a mode of treating a sacred person, place, or thing which flows from contempt of the sacred quality is sacrilegious. It remains now that we consider the actions which, done in themselves or even from a diverse intention, are to be condemned of sacrilege.

1. Personal sacrilege is committed: a) by a real injury inflicted upon a cleric or religious of either sex (c. 119); b) by the lustful pleasure of a cleric constituted in major order, or of a person who is bound by a public vow of chastity (cf. cc. 132, 1308, §1).

A real injury, since it embraces all exterior actions which by deeds, not words, are injurious to body, to liberty, or to dignity, contains blows, which are punished in c. 2343, and which by some, for example by Arregui, n. 194, are presented as a distinct ratio of sacrilege. Cf. Wernz, Ius Decr., t. 2, nn. 163-165.

Because of lustful pleasure, both the sacred person and the accomplice contract the malice of sacrilege. And according to the common opinion, internal sins also are to be noted with sacrilege.

This sacrilege requires carnal delight of the sacred person. Wherefore a sacred person who, without his own lust, persuades a non-sacred person to a carnal sin is not sacrilegious. On the contrary, a non-sacred person who persuades a sacred person to lust is sacrilegious. If both persons are sacred, a twofold sacrilege will have to be declared. Cf. De castitate, n. 314.

Since sacrilege supposes a sacred person, and no one can make himself sacred by a private vow, violation of a private vow of chastity cannot be sacrilegious. Cf. Wernz, Ius decr. VI, n. 335. Yet the authority of St. Alph., L. 3, n. 47, brings it about that many still acknowledge probable sacrilege in every violation of a vow of chastity. Cf. Ferreres, I, 372; Arregui, n. 194. This opinion brings this advantage: that a layman, a religious, and a priest can accuse a carnal sin in the same way by adding: I have a vow of chastity.

What is certain is that the lust of a priest who is at the same time a religious makes one sacrilege, since formally the same sanctity has been induced under a twofold title.

c) Violation of the privilege of forum, insofar as that still has force, was also thought to be sacrilegious. The same is defended today, for example by Ferreres, I, 372; Arregui, n. 194; Gen., I, 289, although the note of sacrilege is not mentioned in can. 2341, by which the privilege of forum is sanctioned.

2. Local sacrilege supposes a sacred place. From c. 1154, those places are sacred which by consecration or blessing are deputed to divine worship or to the burial of the faithful; i.e., a church or oratory endowed with public blessing and a blessed cemetery.

a) It is committed principally by actions which the Church has prohibited as specially repugnant to the sanctity of the place. Such are actions by which a sacred place is violated, i.e., the crime of homicide, under which name here suicide also must be understood; injurious and grave shedding of blood; - impious and sordid uses; - burial of an infidel or of an excommunicated person after condemnatory or declaratory sentence (c. 1172).

Although just killing, for example the execution of a capital sentence, cannot constitute the crime of homicide, as we have noted in Epitome, II, 489, 2, b, nevertheless it will scarcely fail to be an impious use by which a sacred place is violated.

Furthermore, a sacred place is not violated except through an act that is certain, notorious, and placed in the sacred place itself; it does not suffice that it be done in the sacristy.

Less than personal or real sacrilege, local sacrilege seems to us to cohere with the very nature of things, so that it must be known from the definition of the Church. Wherefore, although several, for example Gury-Ball., I, 286; Lehmk., I, 526; Arregui, n. 191, speak more severely, we think no other actions are to be held as sacrileges on account of repugnance with the sanctity of the place, unless by canonical definition they violate the sacred place per se. Therefore we approve the formula of Wernz, t. 6, n. 335: "Local sacrilege is committed: 1. by crimes in the Church by which the sacred place is polluted." - And in reality, since sacrilege is defined as violation of a sacred thing, and the Code enumerates the actions by which a sacred place is violated, what else should we think of adding? Wherefore voluntary emission of human seed, unless from the adjuncts it ends in a sordid and impious use of the church, does not now seem to be held as local sacrilege.

b) From prior law they hold that local sacrilege is also committed by violation of the immunity or exemption of the church from civil authority and jurisdiction. For the sacred right of the Church is violated. As is plain, that rule does not fall upon acts which in the region where they are done are practically tolerated, for instance the exaction of taxes.

c) And likewise they speak of violation of the tempered right of asylum, which c. 1179, limited to a church or public oratory, thus defines: "The church enjoys the right of asylum, so that the guilty who have fled to it are not to be taken away from there, unless necessity urges, without the assent of the Ordinary or at least of the rector of the church." The right of asylum, as it previously was, is explained by Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 419-422.

Profane acts will be sacrilegious if they are impious or sordid uses.

Although the destruction of a church is of itself sacrilegious, nevertheless in war it is lawful to attack a church which is to enemies in place of a fortress. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 423.

3. Real sacrilege is committed: a) by unworthy reception, handling, and administration of the sacraments. An impious abuse of the Eucharist is also opposed to the office of latria; and special penalties, chiefly excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See, are decreed by c. 2320 against him who has thrown away the consecrated species or has taken them away or retained them for an evil end.

The turpitude of carnal sin brings it about that he who voluntarily pollutes himself shortly after communion, within half an hour, or when vested for celebrating sacred rite; or who sins carnally while he carries the Eucharist or celebrates Mass, is judged guilty of sacrilege according to the common estimation.

b) By profanation of sacred vessels and instruments, which are customarily at least blessed.

c) By violation or unworthy treatment of sacred images and relics; by abuse of Sacred Scripture, for example to establish heresies or filthy things.

d) By theft of a sacred thing or of a thing which had been handed over to the church to be kept. Wherefore they call sacrilegious one who steals a sacred thing from a sacred place, a sacred thing (ecclesiastical goods) from a non-sacred place, or a non-sacred thing (a deposit, money kept in church) from a sacred place. This last, not inelegantly, several ascribe to local sacrilege.

Therefore note that not every theft in a church is sacrilegious, but it is required that the thing taken by theft pertain in some way to the church, at least as kept there. Cf. Lugo, Paen., d. 16, n. 476.

Various corollaries or scholia. 1. Not every violation of ecclesiastical goods is sacrilegious, but of those goods which are deputed to divine worship, insofar as they pertain to building and adorning churches, to sacred ceremonies, or to sustaining the ministers of the church as such. Not to hand over legacies left to the Church, or not to pay owed tithes, is not sacrilege, because they are not yet in the possession of the Church. To steal an ecclesiastical revenue already received by a priest is not sacrilege, because it has already come into his private dominion. But it will be sacrilege to usurp an ecclesiastical benefice, to steal Mass stipends not yet distributed, or common goods destined to feed religious. Cf. St. Alph., l. 3, n. 42; Ball.-Palm., II, n. 428. Lehmk., I, 523, is more severe.

2. Titius, bound by a vow of chastity, if he contracts marriage, is sacrilegious, because he receives a sacrament unworthily; at the same time he sins against religion insofar as he violates his vow. Moreover, whoever knowingly contracts marriage with a diriment impediment is sacrilegious insofar as he invalidates a sacrament.

3. Since a Greek priest is not consecrated to the worship of God by a vow of continence, his carnal sin contains an aggravating circumstance, but not the specific malice of sacrilege. Cf. Ball.-Palm., II, n. 391, from Tamburini, in Decalogum, L. 2, c. 6, §3, n. 3-5.

4. To use sacred books or sacred images for sordid uses, several, to whom Lehmk., I, 524, adheres, estimate as sacrilege. We think this is true, at least when they are whole, but not when they have been sufficiently destroyed by tearing. Nor will this be grave unless contempt is added. Moreover, those things are sacred which are destined to pious use.

5. Abuse of Sacred Scripture for pleasantries that are not filthy is sacrilegious; yet one does not sin gravely. Indeed, every irreverence can sometimes be absent, as if the occasion of the pleasantry is less the sacred text than the common version; for example if "the congregation of bulls among the cows of the peoples" is set forth as the most ancient congregation.

6. Omission itself, when it contains irreverence toward a sacred thing, takes on the ratio of sacrilege: as if you allow things which look proximately to the sacrifice to be very unclean, if you celebrate without sacred vestments. Lehmk., I, 522, 3; Ball.-Palm., etc.

7. Of itself, a sin committed on a feast day is not sacrilegious, although it is increased by an aggravating circumstance. Yet in a Christian society, certain actions peculiarly repugnant to the sanctity of the day can take on that malice, as if you disturb the sacred mourning of Good Friday by public games. A contemptuous intention can brand other actions, for example certain banquets, with this note.

Concerning the touch of sacred furnishings. the Code states these things in c. 1306, §1: "Care must be taken that the chalice with the paten, and, before washing, the purificators, palls, and corporals which have been used in the sacrifice of the Mass, not be touched except by clerics or by those who have custody of them." Understand touch by the bare hand. This canon permits tonsured clerics and even lay sacristans; this was the custom of several places. And a just cause excuses the venial fault of this contact; wherefore sacred vessels which must be handed over to a craftsman to be repaired are not to be execrated (S. R. C. 20 Apr. 1822: Decr. auth. n. 2620, and tom. IV, p. 223).

The prohibition does not affect merely blessed vessels, such as a ciborium after purification. While they contain the sacred species it would be mortal, without necessity, not merely to touch but to handle the sacred vessels.

The same canon, §2, adds: "Let purificators, palls, and corporals used in the sacrifice of the Mass not be handed over to be washed by lay persons, even religious, unless they have first been washed by a cleric constituted in major orders; moreover, let the water of the first washing be put into the sacrarium, or, if this is lacking, into the fire." These things also are a light precept. If a sacrarium and availability of fire are lacking, the water seems able to be put into a similar place, for example into the foundations of a chapel, into a cemetery.

Concerning the profane use of sacred furnishings. 1. By a general edict, c. 1296, §1, forbids sacred furnishings to be used for profane uses; and this urges more with respect to furnishings which must be blessed or consecrated and are used in public worship. As long as such a furnishing retains its consecration or blessing, to use it for common and profane use would be sacrilege. Moreover, that which has been used for indecorous uses or exposed to public sale actually loses its blessing or consecration (c. 1305, §1).

The principle itself is set forth in c. 1150: "Consecrated things or things blessed by constitutive blessing are to be treated reverently and are not to be used for profane or improper use, even if they are in the ownership of private persons."

2. A constitutive blessing of a sacred thing is distinguished from an invocative blessing, for instance of a house, ship, or animal, which in no way impedes the profane uses of the thing. Nor is every profane use of a sacred thing excluded with the same severity. Certainly to use blessed things indifferently for sacred and profane uses savors of a certain contempt to be blamed venially. But, on some occasion or for some cause, to drink blessed water (acqua santa) to quench thirst, to light a blessed candle for carrying out a profane work at night, to drive away flies with a blessed branch, to fill the room of a sick person with the odor of blessed incense, will not be a sin.

3. It will also more easily be lawful to use non-blessed things which mediately serve the sacred ministry, carpets, candlesticks, a basin, indeed also a towel, for weddings or for common honest use.

4. Sacred things wholly changed so that they have been reduced to common matter, for example sacred vessels by the melting of the metal, can be used for every use.

The ancient canons, c. Ligna, 37, and Altaris, 38, Consecr. D. 1, forbade that certain woods of a consecrated church be destined to any utility other than sacred utility. Today, however, c. 1187 permits that the church itself which can no longer in any way be used for divine worship, if every access to repairing it is cut off, be reduced by the Ordinary himself to a profane but not sordid use.

5. Concerning sacred things, for instance priestly vestments, which have merely lost their blessing, there is not, or has not been, one opinion. Some recognize light sacrilege in profane use: St. Alph. 1.3.41; D'Ann. III, 16, notes 36 and 37; others speak doubtfully: thus Lehmk. I, 524; others judge it probable that today the rigor has been so tempered that, setting aside contempt or scandal, such things can be converted without sin into profane use. Wherefore it is lawful that, as the stones, wood, and remaining matter of a destroyed church are sold at auction for any uses whatever, sacred vestments consumed by use, with their form nevertheless changed, receive a civil or profane utility. Thus C. Gennari, Consult. can. ed. 2, II, p. 201-205, who confirms his opinion by the opinion of the Roman liturgical academy.

The action of the confessor must be such that he introduce no vain scruples, but, on the other hand, prudently inculcate reverence for every sacred or blessed thing, and not allow pious usages to perish which, although they are not strictly prescribed, nevertheless proceed from veneration of divine worship.

Penal sanctions. The delict ¹ of sacrilege must be punished by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault by the general canon 2325, "without prejudice to the penalties established by law against" certain "sacrileges."

Special penalties. a) The penalty of excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See is established against him "who has thrown away the consecrated species or taken them away or retained them for an evil end" (c. 2320). Besides, he is suspected of heresy, infamous by the law itself, and a cleric besides is to be deposed. - To throw away is not simply to place outside the ciborium or pyx, even with the intention of stealing the sacred vessel, but to scatter with contempt, either from the vile place where, or from the mode in which. - To take away, to retain for an evil end: this is to carry with oneself or keep at one's own place for an evil end of impious, lustful abuse, etc. - Since retention completes the taking away, he who takes away and retains is guilty of only one delict. - This delict is in no way committed by him who, lest he complete a sacrilegious communion, draws the host from his mouth and treats it reverently until he can restore it.

b) Violation of a church or cemetery is said to be punishable by interdict from entrance into the church (Th. mor. III, 913) and by other fitting penalties by the Ordinary (c. 2329).

c) Real injury against the Supreme Pontiff is punished by excommunication latae sententiae most specially reserved, and the guilty person is by the fact itself to be avoided; against the person of a Cardinal, Legate of the Supreme Pontiff, Patriarch, Archbishop, Bishop even titular, by excommunication latae sententiae specially reserved to the Holy See; against other clerics or religious of either sex, by excommunication reserved to the proper Ordinary.

For lay or non-exempt religious, the Ordinary is the Bishop or quasi-bishop of the place (c. 2343).

d) Violation of the privilege of forum (III, 12), completed by a daring act, c. 2341, according to the grade of the cleric, is punished either by excommunication specially or simply reserved to the Holy See, or by suspension from office reserved to the Ordinary if the guilty person is a cleric, or by penalties ferendae sententiae, if he is a layman (III, 12; 916, 8; 919, 5; 924, II).

e) The marriage which clerics in sacred orders or solemnly professed religious presume to attempt, even only civilly, and the persons who presume to attempt marriage with them even only civilly, is punished by excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Holy See. If it concerns those professed of perpetual simple vows who presume to contract marriage even only civilly, or the persons who contract with them, the excommunication latae sententiae is reserved to the Ordinary (c. 2388) III, 137.

f) He who, not being a priest, simulates the celebration of Mass or receives sacramental confession, is punished by excommunication latae sententiae specially reserved to the Holy See, besides deposition ferendae sententiae if he has been a cleric. If he is a layman, let him be deprived of pension or office and be punished by other proportionate penalties (c. 2322).

g) Those usurping or retaining, by themselves or through others, goods and rights pertaining to the Roman Church are subject to excommunication latae sententiae specially reserved to the Holy See, besides penalties ferendae sententiae against clerics (c. 2345). - Those presuming, by themselves or through others, to convert and usurp ecclesiastical goods of any kind for their own uses, or to impede lest their fruits or revenues be received by those to whom they pertain by law, are excommunicated by excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See, from which they cannot be absolved as long as the injustice has not been wholly repaired, or such reparation seriously promised, if reparation is actually impossible. Besides, a patron by the fact itself is deprived of his patronage (c. 2346). Other penalties ferendae sententiae are added. - Those omitting, when it is required, the Apostolic beneplacitum for alienating ecclesiastical goods are punished by excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one. Other penalties are added against those alienating illegitimately. Cf. Theol. mor. III, 923; Epitome Iuris can. III, 547.

¹ A delict is "an external violation of a penal law, done with evil deceit" (D'Ann., in C. J. [OCR uncertain: Sftih.], n. 6).

578. DEFINITION. Sacrilege (a violation of the sacred), taken broadly, is called any sin against religion; taken strictly, it is the violation of a sacred thing.

Violation, that is, violence brought upon, or unworthy treatment, which can be committed not only by action, but also by omission of the reverence due to sacred things; of a thing, in the broad sense, under which also person and place come; sacred, that is, dedicated to God, and considered as such (III, 33 and 48).

Therefore, to discern whether some action is sacrilegious or not, there must be weighed: 1. from what head the thing is sacred and specially worthy of reverence, whether from divine institution or from ecclesiastical law; 2. whether the action specially wounds this sanctity of the thing; for otherwise it will not be sacrilege. Thus, for example, a religious is consecrated to God by the vow of chastity as to cleanness of the flesh, and therefore if he fornicates, he is sacrilegious; but otherwise, if he becomes drunk, if he is proud, if he lies, etc., because he is not considered consecrated for avoiding these things.

DIVISION. Sacrilege, by reason of the thing violated, is threefold: personal, by which a sacred person is violated; local, by which a sacred place is violated; real, by which a sacred thing, distinct from persons and places, is violated. By reason of manner, it is direct or indirect according as the violation of the sacred thing either is intended or is only advertently committed.

579. PRINCIPLES. I. Sacrilege is a sin, now from its genus, now from its whole genus mortal. For irreverence toward sacred persons, sacred places, or sacred things redounds upon God. If sacrilege is direct, smallness of matter is never given in it. If it is only indirect, it is grave or light according to the measure of the irreverence which is committed (III, 33). Cf. Vind. Alph., P. III, q. 3, a. 1, end.

580. II. Sacrilege differs in species according as it is personal, local, or real. The reason is that formally diverse is the sanctity which is wounded in the person, in the place, and in the sacred thing. For sanctity is in sacred persons formally, as in a subject; in a sacred place it is as in what contains holy persons, and in which worship is to be exhibited to God; but in sacred things, insofar as they cause or signify sanctity, or are ordered to holy things in another way (Salmant., tr. 21, c. 12, n. 16).

Let it be noted. 1. The three aforesaid species of sacrilege, more probably, are not subaltern species, as some say, but lowest species; therefore other circumstances are only aggravating, as St. Alphonsus more probably judges with St. Thomas, against Suarez, Busenbaum, and others. Hence, for example, "if someone violates a nun by beating her, or by lying with her, he commits one sacrilege formally" (III, 34). Wherefore it suffices, in either case, to say in confession: I committed sacrilege against a sacred person; and then to confess separately the sin against justice, or against chastity (III, 224).

2. In sacrilege, the guilt of violation is graver in the measure that the consecration is more intimate; and therefore personal sacrilege is graver than real and local sacrilege, just as, among real sacrileges, unworthy communion is the graver sin.

3. TIME is not the object of sacrilege: for example, he is not sacrilegious who sins on a feast day, as is commonly taught. Except, unless notable irreverence is brought upon divine worship, as if someone on Good Friday should exhibit comedies, public games, etc. (III, 46 and 273).

581. Personal sacrilege is an act by which a sacred person is violated. Moreover, persons are called sacred who are dedicated to God, whether through sacred ordination or through religious profession.

Personal sacrilege is committed in four ways: 1. by striking a cleric or religious, or by any violence which is brought upon them, against the privilege of the canon (cf. n. 1329); 2. by dragging a cleric, or a religious person, before a secular tribunal, against the privilege of the forum (n. 1321); 3. by imposing a servile burden, for example military service or a tax, upon a cleric, against the current privilege of personal immunity (n. 201); 4. by the lustful violation of a person consecrated to God by the vow of chastity (cf. n. 787). Consequently, it is not sacrilege to detract from a priest, because only his person is sacred, but not his reputation. But otherwise, if sacred persons are put in mockery, as often happens in carnival revels (de Privil., 18-24; Kon., n. 347).

Questions. - QUES. 1. Whether the violation of any vow whatsoever is sacrilege?

Resp. It is disputed. The Salmanticenses affirm, because through any vow whatsoever a person is dedicated to God in order to fulfill the vow. But Suarez and others deny, saying that it is only a sin of perfidy, or against fidelity due to God (III, 47; Vind. Alph., P. III, q. 2).

Note. Many authors call the violation of vows, in general, sacrilege. This is said less rightly if we take the notion of sacrilege strictly.

QUES. 2. Whether the violation of the vow of chastity is sacrilege?

Resp. 1. In the affirmative, if it is a question of a vow emitted conjointly with sacred order or with religious profession in some Congregation; for through such a vow, which the Church recognizes, the person certainly and publicly becomes sacred to God. This holds also for vows which are emitted for a time before definitive profession.

2. If it is a question of a vow emitted privately, some deny, because no one becomes sacred to God unless the Church intervenes; others, perhaps more probably, affirm, because through such a vow also the body is dedicated to God and contracts a peculiar sanctity. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1910, p. 378.

Note. 1. According to the opinion of all, the violation of a vow is a circumstance to be declared in confession, because there is in it a peculiar sin of infidelity (III, 47).

2. If someone is at once a priest and a religious and violates the vow of chastity, he commits only one sacrilege, because the twofold obligation is imposed upon him from the same formal motive. Cf. n. 627, 787, 2160, 2199, where useful things which pertain to this matter are added.

3. He who sacrilegiously violates the vow of chastity does not commit a twofold sin against religion: one of sacrilege, the other of perfidy; because the malice of perfidy, or infidelity, is absorbed by sacrilege (Vind. Alph., I, p. 228).

582. NOTIONS. Local sacrilege is the violation of a sacred place.

Sacred places, in the strict sense, are those which, by the authority of the Bishop through consecration or solemn blessing, have been deputed for public divine worship. Such places practically are: 1. a church and public oratory, from the interior roof even to the pavement; 2. a public cemetery (III, 38, 460).

As regards semi-public oratories, there is a question whether they are sacred places in the strict sense (Noldin, II, 178).

Sacred places, in the broader sense, insofar as the right of asylum belongs to them, are those which are deputed to divine worship by ecclesiastical authority, as cemeteries, even if polluted, churches not yet consecrated or blessed, the sacristy, the tower, the atrium, the contiguous enclosure of the church; likewise religious places, that is, monasteries, the Bishop's palace, the parochial house, hospices erected by authority of the Church. But otherwise concerning private oratories (III, 460).

Local sacrilege is committed in four ways: 1. By all sins by which a church or cemetery is polluted by canon law, even if they remain hidden and the church does not need reconciliation; namely voluntary homicide, injurious and copious shedding of human blood, voluntary and illicit emission of human seed, and the burial of an excommunicate to be avoided, or of an infidel¹ (cf. n. 1629).

2. By all sins which are done against the sanctity of a sacred place strictly so called, such as: external acts gravely base (III, 459, 461), spoliation, theft, brawls, stabling of horses, and things similar to these, already prohibited by natural law itself.

3. By profane acts which are prohibited by the law of immunity, such as walks in a sacred place strictly so called, markets, meals, shouting, the noise of secular judgments; unless a just cause excuses, as, for example, if another suitable place is lacking. But some moderate walking in a church, or private eating, even without necessity, does not seem to be a grave sin, if scandal, shouting, and contempt are absent. Likewise the sale of candles or images in a cemetery or at the doors of the temple.²

4. By violation of the right of asylum, that is, if persons fleeing to that place and enjoying legitimate refuge are drawn out violently or fraudulently, for example by preventing others from bringing food, from a sacred place, even taken broadly, or interdicted or polluted (III, 36, 38; de Privil., n. 25, 28). Cf. n. 201.

From these things it seems that a place less strictly sacred is violated only in the manner indicated under 4.

"Through merely internal acts the sanctity of a place is not violated; and therefore he does not commit sacrilege who in a church has the will of killing a man outside it. Otherwise, if someone outside the church proposes to kill in the church" (III, 43). Nor is theft committed in the sacristy, in cloisters, in an oratory of a private house, local sacrilege.

It is asked. Whether the theft of a profane thing in a CHURCH is sacrilege?

Resp. It is disputed. Lugo and others probably deny, unless the thing has been loaned to the church or received into custody. Many others more probably affirm, because it is said absolutely in canon law (Can. Quisquis, caus. 17, q. 4): "Sacrilege is committed by taking away 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" (III, 39). Cf. n. 903. - In practice, because the thing is doubtful, accusation of that circumstance is not to be urged.

583. NOTION. Real sacrilege is an act by which a sacred thing is violated: which here is understood as distinct from sacred persons and sacred places (III, 40).

Real sacrilege can also be done by mere omission, and indeed gravely, for example if those things which pertain to sacrifice, such as corporals and similar things, are very unclean. Yet rarely will there be grave sin through this negligence (III, 48).

There are, however, four kinds of sacred things, and hence four degrees of real sacrilege within the same species (2.2, q. 99, a. 3).

The first and highest place is held by the SACRAMENTS.

To the first degree of sacrilege therefore pertains every injury and every abuse of the sacraments, when namely they are knowingly made invalidly, administered unworthily, received, or otherwise treated unworthily, as if sacred oil were employed as profane. And since among all the sacraments the Eucharist is the chief, therefore among real sacrileges the gravest of all is that by which this sacrament is violated, for example if the sacred host is trampled underfoot. We say among real sacrileges, because it is not to be counted among personal ones. For although Christ the Lord is really present, nevertheless he does not exhibit himself after the manner of a person, or in the form of an animate thing, but after the manner of food and drink (Sylv., 2.2, q. 99, a. 3; Lessius, c. 45, de Irrelig., d. 3, n. 16).

The second place is held by SACRED VESSELS, for the ministry and use of the sacraments, under which corporals also are comprehended.

Consequently, it is sacrilege to use a consecrated chalice for drinking, as Belshazzar did with the vessels of Solomon's temple. Sacred vessels include crosses, sacred images, relics of Christ and of the Saints, sacred buildings and altars; for according to the use of the Church, they are esteemed as instruments of divine worship. To this also pertains blessed water, blessed oil. Likewise the sacred names of Christ and of the saints, the Most Holy Gospels, and all Sacred Scripture, hymns, ecclesiastical ceremonies, etc.; so that their unworthy treatments are sacrilegious, more or less, according as the things are more or less sacred, and according as the treatment is more or less unworthy. Thus, for example, it would be grave to abuse Sacred Scripture for dishonorable jokes, lies, heresies, or other sins; but venial to use the same sometimes for a joke, even an honorable one, if some irreverence is contained there (Salmant., tr. 21, c. 12, n. 32; Lehmk., I, 524).

The third place is held by all things which pertain to the adornment of altars and ministers, and are accustomed to be consecrated, or at least blessed with a constitutive blessing. Cf. n. 535.

If they are violated unworthily, for example if you use priestly vestments for profane uses, or for playful displays, violation of this sort is sacrilegious. Likewise, to touch with the bare hand, which nevertheless is permitted to all tonsured persons from the Decree of the S. R. C., Nov. 23, 1906, chalices, patens, altar stones anointed with chrism, unless a reasonable cause is present, as for regulars and nuns who are sacristans (Jaugey, de Relig., n. 476; Gen., I, 282, 3).

Finally the fourth place is held by ECCLESIASTICAL RIGHTS and GOODS, that is, goods, whether movable or immovable, which are deputed for the sustenance of the ministers of the Church, for the fabric of churches, and for the sustenance of the poor.

To this belong deposits in a church, pious legacies already possessed by the Church, etc. He who unjustly usurps these, suppresses, detains, occupies, defrauds, or destroys them, commits a qualified injustice which everywhere in canon law is called sacrilege (III, 40 and 42).

It is asked. Whether the wounding of any goods whatsoever belonging to clerics is sacrilege?

Resp. Negatively; but only the wounding of goods which clerics possess not in their own name, but in the name of the Church, and of which they cannot dispose; because these alone are sacred, as is commonly taught (III, 42).

Note. The penalties enacted against sacrilegious persons are recounted in the treatise on Censures; see n. 1319, 1320, 1321, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1329, 1332, 1342, 1347, 1348, etc.

346. • Sacrilege is the violation or unworthy treatment of sacred things. It is distinguished as threefold: 1° personal; 2° local; 3° real.

Principles. - I. Sacred here is called whatever is deputed to divine worship from divine or ecclesiastical institution, and therefore deserves special reverence. - St. Thomas.¹

Hence 1° Sacred persons are those who are deputed to divine worship through Sacred Tonsure, or through religious vows, or more probably also through any vow of chastity.

2° Sacred places are those which by the authority of the Church are dedicated to worship, as temples and public chapels (not private ones), yet consecrated or blessed; likewise blessed cemeteries. L. IV. 460.

3° Sacred things are those which pertain to divine worship or are proximately referred to it, as Sacraments, consecrated vessels, Relics or images of Saints; likewise those things which pertain to the adornment of the Church or of ministers; finally ecclesiastical goods, even movable ones. - St. Thom.²

II. Sacrilege is a mortal sin from its genus, because it is opposed to the most excellent moral virtue, namely Religion, and for the most part regards grave matter. - Yet it can become light by reason of smallness of matter or imperfection of the act.³

III. Sacrilege differs in species according as it affects a person, place, or sacred thing; hence in confession those circumstances must be explained. - St. Alph.⁴ St. Thom.⁵

347. You will resolve. - 1° Personal sacrilege is committed: 1) by inflicting violent hands on a Cleric or Religious; 2) by any sin of luxury perpetrated by or with a person bound by a vow of chastity; 3) by violation of personal immunity. - But it will not be sacrilege to detract from a priest, because his person alone is sacred, but not his reputation.⁶

2° Local sacrilege is committed: 1) by all sins by which a Church is polluted by Law, namely by illicit shedding of human blood or seed, homicide, or burial of an excommunicated person or infidel in the Church; 2) by all sins which are done against the immunity and sanctity of a sacred place, as breaking in, despoiling, theft, quarrels, and similar things; 3) by actions unbecoming the sanctity of the place, as are markets, assemblies, and the din of judgments, unless a grave cause excuses.¹

3° Real sacrilege is committed: 1) by unworthy administration or reception of the Sacraments; 2) by unworthy treatment of sacred Relics, images, etc.; 3) by profanation of sacred vessels, instruments, or ornaments; 4) by theft of a thing pertaining to divine worship or to the Church; 5) by abuse of Scripture, for example by twisting its words to vain things, etc.; 6) by neglect of sacred vessels, corporals, etc., in those who ought to care for these things religiously.²

348. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Is violation of a person bound by a simple vow of chastity outside Religion sacrilege?

Resp. It is controverted. The more probable opinion of St. Alph.³ affirms, because through any vow of chastity man is truly consecrated to God. For one's own will suffices for consecrating one's own acts to God, while for public consecration public authority is required.⁴ See p. LXXXIX. 7.

Besides, whoever is bound by a vow of chastity, as often as he violates this, certainly commits a twofold sin: namely one against chastity, and the other against Religion. - Lacroix.⁵

Quaer. 2° Are all sins of luxury committed in a Church or cemetery sacrileges?

Resp. 1° 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. - Thus commonly.⁶

Resp. 2° As to external sins, it is certain that sacrilege is committed through consummated acts, namely through voluntary pollution, fornication, etc. This is openly clear from Canon Law. But whether it is also committed through other grave external sins, for example gravely impure touches, is controverted. St. Alph.,⁷ Collet, etc., more probably affirm.

Quaer. 3° Is every theft in a Church sacrilege?

Resp. 1° It is established that every theft of a sacred thing is sacrilege, and also theft of a non-sacred thing nevertheless committed to the custody of a sacred place, as is clear from Canon Law.¹

Resp. 2° As to things which by chance or by accident are found in the Church, as purses, a watch, etc., it is probably controverted on both sides.

349. • Quaer. 4° Does the injury of any goods whatever belonging to Clerics constitute sacrilege?

Resp. Negatively, but only injury of goods which Clerics possess not in their own name but in the name of the Church, and of which they cannot dispose, and of those which pertain to the adornment of the church, because these alone are sacred.² (II) p. 479.

Quaer. 5° To whom is it licit to touch sacred vessels?

Resp. If they actually contain the Blessed Sacrament, outside a case of necessity or danger of profanation, it is licit for no one, without grave sin, to touch them, even mediately, except for a priest or deacon; otherwise, for all Clerics without special permission. The same is licit for sacristans, whether regular laymen, or oblates of secular congregations, or nuns; likewise for those who in clerical dress serve churches. For other laymen it is prohibited under venial sin to touch them immediately, unless a reasonable cause excuses.³

But it is licit for all to touch other sacred things, of which sort are, for example, Agnus Dei, at least from modern custom, Relics of Saints, sacred ornaments, except those which immediately touch the holy Eucharist, as, for example, corporals, palls, purificators after use and before washing. But the first washing of these must be performed by a cleric in sacred orders, yet probably it can also be performed by a tonsured cleric; but it cannot be done without venial sin by a layman, or even by a nun or pious women living a common life under rule;⁴ but the second and third washing, although more suitably done by a cleric, can nevertheless be done without sin even by a layman. It would also be venial not to throw the water of the washing into the sacrarium.⁵

Since this article is rather long, for the sake of greater clarity it is divided into four paragraphs: 1. sacrilege in general; 2. personal sacrilege; 3. local sacrilege; 4. real sacrilege.

536. Etymological notion. Sacrilege, according to the force of the name, signifies to take a sacred thing. The verb to take is understood as to take to oneself, or unduly to arrogate and seize, so that sacrilege signifies: unduly to arrogate a sacred thing to oneself. Therefore in the German language sacrilege is rightly called Gottesraub [robbery of God].

537. Definition. Sacrilege is defined by St. Thomas⁸²³ as: the violation of a sacred thing (formally as it is sacred).

Explanation. In a broad sense, every sin against the virtue of religion is indeed sacrilege, but in the strict sense sacrilege is not present unless a truly sacred thing is injured or treated unworthily. Under the name of a sacred thing, however, are also comprehended a sacred person and a sacred place; and these three are called sacred if by a public rite and by the authority of God or of the Church they have been dedicated to divine worship. Thus holds the common opinion. The reason is that not everyone can at will remove from the number of profane things whatever things he chooses and impress upon them the character of sanctity; rather, for this the authority of the Church is required. There are, however, some authors, for example, Cajetan,⁸²⁴ who think that any vow or private resolution devoting a thing to divine worship suffices to render it sacred, and consequently that the violation of any private vow, for example, of fasting, almsgiving, etc., is sacrilege. In practice this controversy is of little utility; for he who has violated a private vow must declare this violation in confession, but it matters little whether this violation is called sacrilege or by another name.

The violation committed in sacrilege is either physical or moral, and grave. For not every light unworthy treatment of a sacred thing is customarily called sacrilege; otherwise even conversations in church, light external irreverence against the sacraments, etc. would have to be called sacrileges, which nevertheless has not been received in usage. Moreover, it is to be noted that not every even grave violation of a sacred thing is sacrilege, but only that violation which injures the thing formally as it is sacred. Therefore it is necessary to attend to that for which the thing has been sanctified and whether action is taken precisely against it. Thus, for example, the person of a priest has been sanctified and is a sacred thing, but not his honor, reputation, or material goods. Therefore, he who injures the person of a priest by striking him, dragging him before a civil tribunal, compelling him to military service, or committing fornication with him commits sacrilege; but he who steals the private goods of a priest or defames him does not commit sacrilege, although he perhaps sins more gravely.⁸²⁵

⁸²³ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 99.

⁸²⁴ Cf. above, n. 403.

⁸²⁵ Cf. Billuart, De relig. diss. 10, a. unicus.

538. Division. A threefold sacrilege is distinguished: personal, local, and real, according as there is a threefold genus of sacred things: sacred persons, sacred places, sacred objects.

Lessius⁸²⁶ and others add sacrilege of sacred time, for example, to perform servile works on Sundays and feast days, to sin gravely on the day of Communion, or to become drunk on Good Friday. More correctly, however, this sacrilege of sacred time is not adopted as a distinct species; for although the circumstance of sacred time increases the malice of the sin, nevertheless it does not seem to constitute a new and distinct species of sacrilege, because acts of this kind are not accustomed to violate time insofar as and formally as it is sacred. It is otherwise if someone were to act precisely in order to violate sacred time, for example, if someone from hatred of religion becomes drunk on Good Friday.

Theologians dispute whether the three enumerated species of sacrilege are lowest species, or whether, on the contrary, within each species there are still lower species; for example, whether gravely to strike a priest is not only a different sin, but also a sacrilege specifically distinct from acting lustfully with him. All indeed teach that the acts themselves are diverse sins, and therefore in the case the striking and the lust must be declared distinctly; but St. Thomas⁸²⁷ seems to teach that these acts are not specifically diverse as sacrileges, saying: "Nothing prevents two things from being of one species according to something, and diverse according to another.... It is possible for two sins to differ in species according to the material acts, but to agree in species according to the formal notion of sacrilege; for example, if someone has violated a nun by striking her or by lying with her." St. Alphonsus⁸²⁸ calls this opinion the more probable. Hence in confession it must indeed be explained whether personal, local, or real sacrilege was committed, but other circumstances need not necessarily be declared, provided that the material acts are sufficiently explained. Therefore, if someone in a lengthy confession has already declared the individual sinful acts according to their other specific malices, but has forgotten to declare the circumstance of sacrilege, he is bound to nothing else than to add: in addition I committed so many grave personal, or local, or real sacrileges.⁸²⁹

⁸²⁶ Perhaps Lessius differs from the common opinion more in words than in reality, because he teaches that a violation of sacred time is reduced to the imperfect notion of sacrilege (De iust. et iure l. 2, c. 45, n. 18).

⁸²⁷ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 99, a. 3 ad 2.

⁸²⁸ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 34.

⁸²⁹ Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, n. 521.

539. The moral and specific malice of sacrilege. Sacrilege is from its genus a grave sin against the virtue of religion.

The reason is that persons, objects, and places sacred to God merit a special reverence, which sacrilege violates. A violation of this kind of itself inflicts grave irreverence upon God; for just as the honor of a master is injured if his servant is dishonored formally as his servant, or if his house or things are disfigured, so a fortiori God is dishonored if persons, places, or objects dedicated to Him are treated unworthily. Therefore in Sacred Scripture those who treated sacred things unworthily are gravely punished, for example, the sons of Aaron,⁸³⁰ the sons of Heli,⁸³¹ King Baltassar,⁸³² and those selling in the temple.⁸³³

Sacrilege admits slightness of matter, but it is not customary to call very small injuries to sacred things sacrileges, as, for example, if someone converses irreverently in a church (cf. above).

Personal, local, and real sacrileges differ from one another in species, as was already said above with the common opinion. Other things being equal, personal sacrilege is worse; next comes local sacrilege, and last real sacrilege. On this matter the Angelic Doctor writes most excellently:⁸³⁴ "According to the diverse notion of the sanctity of sacred things to which irreverence is shown, it is necessary that the species of sacrilege be distinguished. For a sacrilege is the graver, the greater the sanctity possessed by the sacred thing against which the sin is committed.... The sanctity of a place is ordered to the sanctity of man, who in the sacred place renders worship to God. For it is said: 'God chose not the people for the sake of the place, but the place for the sake of the people.'⁸³⁵ And therefore the sacrilege by which one sins against a sacred person is a graver sin than that by which one sins against a sacred place."

⁸³⁰ Lev. 10:1.

⁸³¹ 1 Kings 2:17; 4:11.

⁸³² Dan. 5:2ff.

⁸³³ John 2:14.

⁸³⁴ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 99, a. 3.

⁸³⁵ 2 Macc. 5:19.

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 the violation or unworthy handling of a sacred thing. A threefold kind is distinguished, namely personal, local, and real.

Here sacred is said of whatever is deputed to divine worship by public rite from divine or ecclesiastical institution, and therefore merits special reverence. Hence:

1st. Sacred persons are those who are deputed to divine worship by sacred tonsure or by religious vows.

2nd. Sacred places are those which are deputed to divine worship or the burial of the faithful by the consecration or blessing which approved liturgical books prescribe for this (Can. 1154).

3rd. Goods are called sacred which by consecration or blessing are destined for divine worship, as sacraments, consecrated vessels, relics or images of Saints; likewise those which pertain to the adornment of the Church or of ministers; finally ecclesiastical goods, even movable ones. Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 99, art. 3. - Can. 1497.

Things consecrated, or blessed with a constitutive blessing, are to be treated reverently and not employed for profane or non-proper use, even if they are in the ownership of private persons (Can. 1150).

I Say. Sacrilege, which indeed differs in species according as it affects a person, place, or sacred thing, because the sanctity itself of the person, place, or sacred thing morally differs one from another, is indeed a mortal sin from its genus, but not from its whole genus. The reason of the first is that it is opposed to the most excellent virtue, namely religion; and the reason of the second is that through sacrilege no injury is inflicted on God directly and immediately, and therefore smallness of matter is admitted in it.

Question 1. How are the diverse species of sacrilege committed?

Response 1st. Personal sacrilege is committed: 1st, by inflicting violent hands upon a Cleric or Religious; 2nd, by acting lustfully with persons dedicated to God by major orders or religious profession of vows, even by touches alone; 3rd, by subjecting ecclesiastical persons to the judgment of a forum, excepting cases foreseen by common law or a particular concordat, or even determined by special law, as among us was done by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 84. - But it will not be sacrilege to detract from a priest, because only his person is sacred, but not his reputation. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 35.

Response 2nd. Local sacrilege is committed by all sins by which a church is violated, namely homicide, injurious and grave shedding of blood, impious or sordid uses, burial of an infidel or of one excommunicated after sentence, provided the acts are certain, notorious, and posited in the church itself. From a church having been violated it does not thence follow that the cemetery has been violated. - Cf. Can. 1172. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 36.

It must be noted that there is a general decree, issued by command of Pius X on Dec. 10, 1912 by the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, by which any projections and cinematographic representations whatsoever are altogether prohibited from being done in a Church. - Acta Apos. Sedis, v. 4, p. 724.¹

Response 3rd. Real sacrilege is committed: 1st, by unworthy administration or reception of the sacraments; 2nd, by unworthy handling of sacred relics, images, etc.; 3rd, by profanation of sacred vessels, instruments, and ornaments; 4th, by theft of a thing pertaining to divine worship or to the church; 5th, by abuse of Scripture, for example, by twisting its words to vain things, etc.; 6th, by neglect of sacred vessels, corporals, etc., by those who ought religiously to care for these. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 40 and 48.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1087, n. 3.

Question 2. Is it sacrilege to violate a person bound by a simple vow of chastity outside religion?

Response. There is controversy; for some affirm, because, they say, a man is consecrated to God by any vow whatsoever of chastity; but others probably deny, because for rendering some person sacred, private will does not suffice, but public authority of the Church is required. - For the rest, all hold that violation of that vow contains a twofold malice, one against chastity, and the other against religion, and the whole controversy is whether the sin against religion is to be called true and strictly said sacrilege, or rather a sin of irreligiosity, or of perfidy toward God, or even sacrilege, but said in a broad sense. - Cf. Suarez, de Relig., tract. 3, lib. 3, chap. 1. Laymann, lib. 4, tr. 10, chap. 7, n. 2. - Baller., note (a), p. 259.

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 4. Is every theft in a church sacrilege?

Response. It is established that every theft of a sacred thing is sacrilege, and also of a thing not sacred but committed to the custody of a sacred place, as is clear from canon law, cap. Quisquis, 21, § 2, causa 17, question 4, where it is read: "Likewise sacrilege is committed by removing the sacred from a sacred place, or the non-sacred from a sacred place, or the sacred from a non-sacred place." - But as regards things which by chance or by accident are found in a church, as purses, a watch, etc., there is controversy; but the negative opinion is certainly probable. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 39.

Question 5. Can sacred vessels and vestments be converted into profane use?

Response. Affirmatively, if the thing is totally changed in such a way that it is reduced to common use, 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 licit to mend profane garments from an old chasuble, nor to apply ornaments of priests to profane uses. But otherwise concerning those things which are not blessed, as carpets, candelabra. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 41.

Sacred things are not to be lent for a use which is repugnant to their nature (Can. 1537).

§ 1. Sacred furnishings blessed or consecrated lose blessing or consecration:

1st. If they have undergone such injuries or changes that they have lost their former form, and are no longer held suitable for their uses;

2nd. If they have been employed for indecorous uses or exposed for public sale (Can. 1305).

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.

I. Sacrilege is the violation of a sacred thing. A thing is considered sacred which is dedicated to divine worship. And so, says the Angelic Doctor (II-II, q. 99, art. 1): "Everything that pertains to irreverence toward sacred things pertains to an injury against God, and has the character of sacrilege."

II. St. Thomas distinguishes a threefold sacrilege (II-II, q. 99, art. 3), which theologians commonly describe further. The first is an injury inflicted upon a sacred person, such as a Cleric, Religious, or Nun; or fornication with a person bound by a vow of chastity. The second concerns a sacred place, such as a church or cemetery. The last is committed against sacred things, and things specially dedicated to divine worship, such as the sacraments, chalices, vestments destined for the performance of sacred rites, images of the Saints, relics, and the like. That this division is into members specifically distinct is taught by St. Thomas in the same place, and theologians commonly follow him — since, the Angelic Doctor says, given the differing rationale of the sanctity of sacred persons, places, and things, toward which irreverence is shown, it is necessary that the species of sacrilege be distinguished accordingly; for sacrilege is the graver, the greater the sanctity of the sacred thing against which one sins. Now sanctity is attributed both to sacred persons and to sacred places, and to certain other sacred things. But the sanctity of a place is ordered toward the sanctity of the man who, in that sacred place, renders worship to God.

III. It is said in 2 Maccabees 5 that the Lord chose the nation, not the place, on account of the nation; and so, for this reason, the Angelic Doctor's teaching holds that the sacrilege by which one sins against a sacred person is judged graver than that by which one sins against a sacred place. This is briefly summarized as follows: the ground of sanctity is different in each case. For a person is holy absolutely and formally; a place is called holy because holy persons dwell there, and worship is shown to God in it; the sacraments contain holiness in themselves; sacred things are ordered toward the sanctity of the persons, place, and worship. There is no need to dwell longer here on this scholastic dispute.

It is also disputed whether this division is into lowest, or "atomic," species, or into subalternate ones. St. Thomas teaches that these species of sacrilege are lowest, or atomic — within any one of which, however, different degrees of sacrilege can be found. For he says in the body of the article: "There are, nevertheless, within either species of sacrilege, different degrees, according to the difference of persons and of sacred places. Likewise, within the same species of sacrilege, according to the difference of sacred things; among which the sacraments themselves hold the highest place — the chief of which is the sacrament of the Eucharist, which contains Christ himself, by whom man is sanctified; and there are also other sacred things, concerning which the third species of sacrilege is committed, which nonetheless can vary in degree accordingly." Similarly, the same Angelic Doctor adds (loc. cit., ad 2): "Two sins can likewise differ in species according to one material aspect, while agreeing in species according to a single formal ground — as, for instance, if someone violates a Nun by striking her, or by lying with her."

IV. Having explained the generic notion, and division, of sacrilege, it remains to run through, as briefly as possible, the sacrileges contained under each species. Under the first species, which concerns sacred persons, is included the injury inflicted upon a Cleric, Religious, or Nun — which can occur in four ways. First, if such sacred persons are violently struck. Second, if they are brought before a lay court. Third, if taxes and tribute are imposed on them without legitimate authority. Fourth, if fornication, or unchastity, is committed with persons bound by a vow of chastity — for the violation of any vow is sacrilege. To this species of sacrilege also belongs the immodesty committed by a confessor with his spiritual daughter — since St. Thomas says (Supplement, III Part, q. 56, art. 2, ad 8) that a certain bond, similar to a spiritual kinship, is contracted through penance between a consenting woman and the priest, such that carnal union with her would be as much a sin as if it were with his own spiritual daughter. Hence carnal commingling with a spiritually united person is likewise [sacrilege], just as spiritual kinship is contracted in solemn baptism and confirmation between the godparents and the baptized and confirmed person, and between the father and mother of the one baptized and confirmed.

V. To the second species of sacrilege are referred all those things committed against the reverence owed to a sacred place. This sacrilege is committed in several ways. First, if someone burns, breaks into, or demolishes a sacred place, or destroys its altars. Second, if someone forcibly drags a man away from a church, even one destroyed, or polluted, or under interdict, or from its cemeteries, atrium, or cloister, or from any place adjoining it not otherwise separate; likewise if from Oratories legitimately erected, from Bishops' palaces, from Convents of Religious and their enclosed precincts. Third, if someone kills a man, or by violence sheds human blood; if someone commits an act of pollution, whether public or secret. Fourth, if people conduct trade, business, and feasts in churches, hold plays, and engage in shameless and indecent conversation there. Fifth, if someone commits theft in a church. Theologians dispute, however, whether it is sacrilege to steal something not sacred — say, a purse — in a sacred place. But, setting aside the disputes of certain casuists, we must hold to what is established, as we read in the constitution of Pope John VIII (cause 17, q. 4, ch. Quisquis): "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." The law is clear, and cannot be evaded by any sound interpretation. Whoever, then, steals money from a rich man in a church commits sacrilege. If things entrusted to the Church's keeping, or for its adornment, are stolen, sacrilege is likewise committed.

VI. Does one who harbors internal, vicious acts thereby contract the malice of sacrilege? One who, outside a sacred place, has the will to kill, steal, or fornicate within a sacred place, commits sacrilege — since the internal act is of the same species as the external one, and this is the more common opinion. But one who, while actually present in a sacred place, deliberates fornicating, stealing, or killing outside a sacred place, is free of sacrilege, since the sanctity of the place is not violated by an internal act, if external acts are absent. This opinion is quite common. It seems to me, however, difficult to hold, from the very principle stated, that the sanctity of the place is not violated. For a temple is instituted so that in that particular place we may worship God with special worship — not merely external, but especially internal — since we ought to submit our mind to God even more than our body. Why, then, should one who defiles his mind in this sacred place, whether internally or externally, not be considered guilty of sacrilege? It seems to me, then, altogether obvious that whoever, while in a church, forms a deliberate resolve to fornicate, steal, or kill outside it, is not free of the guilt of sacrilege.

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.

XI. Theologians inquire what sin sacrilege is: all agree that it is, by its very kind, mortal — and the graver, the holier the sacred thing that is violated. It can be venial either on account of the smallness of the matter, or on account of a lack of due consideration. In confession, the circumstance of sacrilege must always be disclosed.

XII. The penalties established against the sacrilegious are of two kinds: pecuniary, and spiritual. The pecuniary penalties do not require a judge's sentence before they take effect. The spiritual penalties, which are incurred ipso facto, are excommunication, which those who violate ecclesiastical immunity incur, and likewise those who lay violent hands on Clerics; those, too, who usurp Church goods, impose tribute on ecclesiastical persons, or drag them before a secular court; and finally, those who break down doors to plunder sacred things. Other penalties may be imposed at the judge's discretion.

I. Question I. What is the temptation of God? Answer. It is a disordered proof, or experiment, of some divine perfection, by words or deeds. The word disordered distinguishes licit temptation from illicit. It is licit when, urgent necessity pressing, it is done by God's instinct — as when Abraham, Gideon, Elias, and several other holy men obtained a pledge that God would be propitious to them in arduous trials. But it is illicit and disordered when, without necessity and from mere caprice, an experiment is made of some divine perfection — of justice, of mercy, of omnipotence. This temptation is twofold: express, as when someone throws himself headlong from a window with the intention of testing whether God is willing to free him. The other is tacit, and interpretative, when someone acts in such a way that from the deed it is gathered that he wills to tempt God. By this reasoning, he tempts God who, without necessity, exposes himself to grave danger, hoping to be freed by God. When someone tempts God with deliberate mind, it is a grave fault; if with a half-deliberate mind, for the most part light.

II. Question II. Does he tempt God who contends to manifest his innocence by the proof of hot iron or boiling water? Answer. The true and common opinion affirms it. For natural means are at hand by which innocence can be manifested — namely spontaneous confession, and the proof of witnesses — as St. Thomas proves, II-II, q. 95, art. 8, ad 3. The examples of the adulterous woman to be tested by bitter waters, as is had in Numbers 5, and of the Monk suspected of theft, commanded to manifest his innocence by receiving the Eucharist, as is established in the chapter Saepe, question 2, cause 5, are of no weight. For the precept concerning the adulterous woman was ceremonial, which has been abrogated. To the second authority St. Thomas answers, III, q. 80, art. 6, ad 3, that those decrees have been abrogated by the contrary documents of the Roman Pontiffs. For Pope Stephen says: "of hot iron," etc., and the same is had extra, On purgations, chapter Ex tuarum: "For in all such things there seems to be a temptation of God. Whence they cannot be done without sin." That if miracles were sometimes seen in these proofs, God worked them for the defense of the innocence of the accused, the sin being permitted in the men making the trial.

III. He who offers a miracle to be worked by God, that he may convert a Heretic, tempts God: because there are readily available most luminous arguments of truth by which the catholic Religion can be confirmed. That if holy men have sometimes shown these miracles to Heretics, this happened by a singular instinct of God. Nothing, however, forbids that with humble obedience and due submission such miracles sometimes be sought from God.

IV. Question III. What is sacrilege, and of how many kinds? Answer. Sacrilege is the violation of a sacred thing. A thing is called sacred which is deputed to divine worship. And therefore everything that pertains to irreverence toward sacred things pertains to injury against God, and has the character of sacrilege, says the Angelic Doctor, II-II, q. 99, art. 1.

V. St. Thomas distinguishes a threefold sacrilege, in the same place, article 3. The first is an injury inflicted upon a sacred person, such as a Cleric, a Monk, a Nun, or fornication with a person bound by a vow of chastity. The second regards a sacred place, such as a Church or a Cemetery. The third is committed against sacred things, singularly dedicated to divine worship, such as the sacraments, chalices, vestments destined for the performance of sacred rites, images of the Saints, relics, etc.

VI. The first sacrilege against sacred persons can be committed in four ways: 1. If such sacred persons are forcibly detained and struck. 2. If they are brought before a lay tribunal. 3. If, without legitimate authority, tributes and taxes are imposed upon them...

upon them. 4. If fornication or unchastity is committed with persons bound by a vow of chastity. To this species of sacrilege is also reduced unchastity committed by a Confessor with a spiritual daughter.

VII. The second species of sacrilege is committed in many ways as well. 1. If someone burns, breaks, or tears down a sacred place, or demolishes altars. 2. If, from a Church even threatening ruin, or polluted, or interdicted, and from its cemeteries, courtyards, cloister, and any place not separated from it — likewise from Oratories founded by legitimate authority, from Bishops' palaces, from the Convents of Regulars and their enclosed precincts — someone forcibly drags out a man. 3. If someone kills a man there, or forcibly sheds human blood there; if someone commits voluntary pollution, either openly or secretly. 4. If someone conducts trade and markets in a Church, opens banquets, games, shameful conversations, and theatrical scenes. 5. If someone steals in a Church 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.

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.

X. Sacrilege can also be committed by omission. Guilty of this sacrilege are sacristans who neglect to guard, with due vigilance, the sacred chrisms and the Eucharist, with locks applied according to the prescriptions of the sacred canons; likewise while they do not keep the Corporals, sacred vessels, altars, and ecclesiastical vestments clean and neat, but offer them stained, soiled, and filthy for performing the unbloody sacrifice. They are also sacrilegious, if they negligently allow the sacred particles to spoil in the pyx.

XI. Sacrilege is by its nature a deadly crime. It can be venial on account of either lack of deliberation or parvity of matter. There are penalties of two kinds enacted against the sacrilegious. Some are pecuniary, which are not inflicted before the judge's sentence; others are spiritual, which the sacrilegious undergo by the very fact, and are as follows: excommunication enacted against strikers of Clerics; likewise against those who violate ecclesiastical immunity, usurp the immovable goods of the Church, impose tributes on ecclesiastical persons, and bring them before a lay tribunal; and against those who break down the doors of a Church to steal sacred things.

If by the Justinian law the gates of cities, and other places, enjoy that immunity, that it is a wicked thing to offer any violence to them, how much rather will it be execrated to bring into common use those things which are consecrated to God; whence from every age SACRILEGE has been counted among the most nefarious sins, being plainly opposed to the very dictamen of nature: of how many kinds it is, or what its nature is, I shall indicate here in few words.

Titius, a priest and a solemnly professed religious, sometimes fell into grave sins, both internal and external, against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue. While he confesses them to confessors who do not know the condition of the penitent, in declaring the sins he sometimes says only that he is a priest, without saying that he is also a religious; sometimes only that he is a religious, without making mention of the priesthood; sometimes that he is a professed religious; indeed, once, although he confesses grave internal sins against the sixth commandment, he says nothing about his condition. Afterward, however, while he consults approved authors, he begins to doubt the integrity of his confessions. Hence it is asked:

1. What is sacrilege?

2. Who is a sacred person?

3. In what ways is a sacred person violated by the sin of sacrilege?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. This question is answered in “Manual of Moral Theology,” vol. i, p. 226.

2. Who is a sacred person?

A sacred person is one who has been specially consecrated to God by the authority of the Church for a particular purpose, as for the observance of chastity. In the matter of sacrilege the term also signifies one who enjoys the privilege of personal inviolability, so that by ecclesiastical law those who use violence against him or who convene him before the civil courts contrary to privilegium fori are guilty of sacrilege.

3. In what ways is a sacred person violated by a sin of sacrilege?

Persons who have been consecrated to God for the observance of chastity commit a sin of sacrilege if they violate chastity even in thought. This is communis et certa doctrine, says Lehmkuhl.¹ Sacrilege is also committed by using violence against clerics and religious contrary to privilegium canonis, as also by violating privilegium fori, as far as it is still in force. These different ways of committing personal sacrilege probably are not distinct species of the sin; they are merely different acts belonging to the same species of sacrilege, according to St. Thomas.²

1 Vol. i, no. 385.

2 II-II, question 99, article 3, reply to objection 2.

4. The case. Titius satisfies his obligations by saying that he is a priest, or by saying that he is a Religious, without saying that he is professed. “It is probable that there is no need to express whether the vow was solemn or simple; just as there is no need if he is consecrated by a double title, for example, because he is a priest and a religious: because there is morally one malice in number.”³

3 St. Alphonsus, book iii, no. 454.

He does not satisfy the obligation of integrity by confessing internal sins against chastity without saying anything about his condition, or at least that he is under a vow of chastity when the confessor knows nothing about his state of life. Of course if the confessor knows that he is a priest, what he said would suffice.

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.

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

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

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

1 History and Fate of Sacrilege, p. 149.

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

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

² Ib., p. 1.

³ Ib., p. 2.

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

⁴ Ib., p. 12.

⁵ Ib., p. 12.

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

⁶ Ib., p. 13.

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

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

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

⁷ S. Thomas, II., II., q. 99, a. 1.

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

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

⁸ I Cor. 3: 16.

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

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

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

⁹ De Consid., lib. II., c. 13.

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

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

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

¹⁰ Leviticus 8.

¹¹ Ex. 30: 23.

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

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

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

¹³ Lib. 14, tract. 10, c. 7, n. 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹⁵ C. 3, C. XII., q. 2.

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

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

While the Protestant Reformation was being hatched in Germany grave religious and moral disorders were not unknown even in Italy. At the beginning of the sixteenth century an official of the Holy Office in Lombardy reported to the Holy See that many men and women in that province openly abandoned the Christian religion and adopted Satan for their lord and patron. They used spells and practised magical arts for the destruction of cattle and the fruits of the earth. They abused the Christian Sacraments, and especially the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. The official complained that not only laymen, but ecclesiastics also, denied that he had authority to deal with such cases. He therefore requested the Pope to declare and confirm his authority to punish such crimes and excesses. This was done by the issue of a Brief by Pope Julius II. The authority conferred by this Brief was extended to the officials of the Holy Office in other provinces of Italy by Pope Adrian VI in 1522. In 1677 complaints were made that consecrated Hosts were stolen and then kept or given to others for an evil purpose. The spiritual penalties inflicted for such offences by the officials of the Holy Office were found to be insufficient to prevent them, and Innocent XI ordered such as had been proved guilty of such crimes by the Holy Office to be handed over to the secular arm to be dealt with by the more rigorous methods of secular justice. Alexander VIII, Benedict XIV, and Clement XIII found it necessary to repeat the injunctions of their predecessors in this matter, and to make them more clear and precise.

Abuse of the Blessed Sacrament is not unknown even in our days, but the Church cannot avail herself of the secular arm for the punishment and suppression of such spiritual offences. And yet it was well that she should show her horror of such crimes in the new Code of Canon Law. This she has done in Canon 2320, which may be translated as follows:

“Anyone who throws away the consecrated elements, or takes them away or retains them for an evil purpose, is suspected of heresy, incurs at once excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See, is ipso facto infamous, and if a cleric he must be deposed.”

The severity of the penalties inflicted by this Canon shows how grievously in the eyes of the Church are all serious sins committed against the Blessed Sacrament. Still, the only crimes which are expressly punished by the Canon are the throwing away of the consecrated species, or the taking of them away or the retaining of them for a bad purpose. One has heard of the Blessed Sacrament being found on the floor of the church; someone must have thrown it there. Again, one has heard of the Blessed Sacrament being taken home in the handkerchief, and kept there. It could not have been taken or kept for a good purpose. Such abuses of the Blessed Sacrament as those actions contain are expressly penalized by the Canon. Persons who have committed any of these actions are declared in the first place to be suspected of heresy. The term, like those which follow, is technical, and is explained in Canon 2315. There it is laid down that one who is suspected of heresy, and who does not remove the cause of suspicion after being admonished, is excluded from acting in the ecclesiastical courts, from the administration of Church property, from the office of sponsor in baptism or confirmation, from voting in ecclesiastical elections, and exercising the rights of patronage. Moreover, if he is a cleric, after admonition has been repeated without fruit, he is to be suspended from divine offices, so that he can neither administer the sacraments nor preach. Finally, if, after being suspected of heresy for six months, he has not amended, he becomes obnoxious to the penalties of heresy and is to be treated as a heretic.

One who has been guilty of any of the crimes mentioned above incurs by the very fact excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See. This implies that he cannot be absolved by anyone else without very special faculties. In danger of death, indeed, he may be absolved by any priest, but if he recovers he is bound to have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary under pain of falling again under the same censure.

The Canon declares anyone who has been guilty of any of the above crimes to be infamous with the infamy of law. It declares him to have lost all reputation which he enjoyed before, and by ecclesiastical law he becomes subject to many disabilities. He is irregular, disqualified for ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices, dignities; after sentence of the court he cannot vote in canonical elections, nor act as sponsor in baptism or confirmation. He cannot exercise the right of patronage, he is not admitted to appear as a witness in an ecclesiastical trial, nor as an expert or arbiter; if the infamy is publicly known he ought to be refused Holy Communion.

Finally, if the delinquent is a cleric, he must be deposed. By deposition a cleric is permanently deprived of all offices, benefices, dignities, pensions, and functions in the Church and becomes incapable of acquiring them in future. But he is not deprived of the clerical privileges nor reduced to the state of a layman, and he remains subject to the obligations of celibacy and the recitation of the divine Office.