Sacrilege by carnal sin

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.

I. Notion. Carnal sacrilege is the violation of a sacred person, thing, or place by a venereal act (St. Alphonsus III, 454). What persons, things, and places are sacred will be clear from what is to be said.

II. Division. Carnal sacrilege, like sacrilege taken generally, is divided into personal, local, and real.

III. Morality. Carnal sacrilege, besides the sin of lust, also involves a sin of irreligiosity. The reason is that the special shamefulness of lust is very repugnant to the sanctity of a sacred person, place, and thing (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 10, ad 3).

Corollary I. He commits personal carnal sacrilege who violates his own or another sacred person through lust.

I said a sacred person; now a person certainly becomes sacred through a public vow of chastity, whether solemn or simple. There is dispute about a private vow of chastity. Some¹ affirm, and judge that a peculiar sanctity belongs to the body by the very fact that through a vow of chastity it is dedicated to God. Others² deny this, because in their opinion a person, in order to become sacred, must be deputed to divine worship by public authority. In this opinion, the violation of a public vow and of a private vow differ in species, because in the former there is true sacrilege, while in the latter there is another sin against religion; and therefore it would not be enough to confess that one was bound by a vow. Nevertheless 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.

I said through lust; moreover an act of lust, both internal and external, violates one's own person; only an external act violates another person.

Hence he perpetrates personal carnal sacrilege: 1. a sacred person who sins against chastity; 2. every person who commits lust with a sacred person; if both are sacred, each is guilty of a double sacrilege; 3. a sacred person who, from an affection of libido, furnishes another person an occasion of sinning against chastity. Quite probably one must say otherwise if he proceeds from another motive. The reason is that an absolute affection of libido is specially repugnant to the sanctity of the person, but quite probably not an affection in a qualified sense, such as is involved in an act by which a sacred person, from a motive other than libido, furnishes someone an occasion of injuring chastity (St. Alphonsus III, 457).

One who is both a priest and a religious can indeed be called a sacred person by a twofold title; but that does not cause him, when sinning against chastity, to commit a double personal carnal sacrilege (St. Alphonsus III, 455).

Corollary II. He commits local carnal sacrilege who violates a sacred place through lust.

I said a sacred place; under this heading, as regards our matter, belong a church and a public oratory, provided they have been consecrated or solemnly blessed (cf. can. 1154 and 1191). There is rightly doubt about semi-public oratories and cemeteries, because the former are not deputed to divine worship in the same way (cf. can. 1191, § 1; 1196, § 2), while the latter are destined only for the burial of the faithful, and not for divine worship (cf. can. 1154).

I said through lust; by this word here understand an external sin of lust or immodesty. Hence he is guilty of local carnal sacrilege who in a sacred place perpetrates, for example, fornication, pollution, and so forth, or a gravely sinful act of immodesty, for example very indecent touches, obscene conversations, and so forth. Moreover, the things said more probably hold even if the sins are done secretly, because nonetheless they seem gravely repugnant to the sanctity of the place. Many teach the same concerning illicit conjugal intercourse (St. Alphonsus III, 458-462).

Internal sins do not violate the sanctity of a place, although he is guilty of local carnal sacrilege who desires an external carnal work to be performed in a sacred place, or who takes delight in such a work as performed in a sacred place (cf. St. Alphonsus III, 43).

Corollary III. He perpetrates real carnal sacrilege who abuses a sacred thing for a shameful sin; as if someone in confession solicits a penitent to shameful things. The same must be said of a priest who, vested in sacred vestments for celebrating, or carrying or distributing the Holy Eucharist, or - which you may also apply to a layperson - immediately after receiving the Holy Eucharist, should sin shamefully (St. Alphonsus III, 463; Homo Apostolicus, tr. 9, n. 23).

Note. The circumstance of time then constitutes carnal sacrilege when a shameful action has an extraordinary repugnance with the time, as if someone on Good Friday were to present obscene spectacles (cf. St. Alphonsus III, 46).

¹ Cajetan on II-II, q. 99, a. 1; Billuart, De temperantia, diss. 6, a. 8; cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 99, a. 3, ad 3; q. 154, a. 1, ad 3 and a. 10, ad 1; II Sent., dist. 38, q. 1, a. 3, quaestiuncula 2.

² Vermeersch, De castitate, n. 314.

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.

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.

44. 5. Concerning sacrilege. Sacrilegious luxury is the violation of a sacred person, place, or thing through a venereal act; concerning the threefold species of this sin it was said above, n. 930-934. The sin of solicitation participates in some way in the malice of sacrilege, by which the confessor abuses the sacrament of penance for a shameful sin (On Penance, n. 529).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Summula, vol. 3, no. 15.

² Theologia moralis, I, 527.

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

³ In the same place.

⁴ Ius decretalium, vol. 3, no. 455.

I. Sacrilege is the violation of the sacred; hence carnal sacrilege in a more general sense is the violation of the sacred by a venereal act (heiligschende onkuischheid). But as a person, or place, or thing can be sacred, so a threefold sacrilege, distinct in species, is enumerated: personal, local, and real. It is so much graver as the person, place, or thing is more sacred, and as the profanation is graver. Hence a threefold species of carnal sacrilege is also distinguished, just as of sacrilege in general.

The personal alone is, in the stricter sense, a species of lust and carnal sacrilege (vleeschelijke heiligschennis), since it has the notion of sacrilege from its very object, the person carnally violated; in the others, the violation of the sacred bears itself rather as a certain circumstance changing the species and acceding to the object.

II. Personal carnal sacrilege, as a sin consummated according to nature, is copulation with a person consecrated to God by a vow of chastity. It is sacrilege strictly so called if the vow is public, because by a public vow alone, emitted before the Church, some person is made sacred; otherwise, if the vow is private, there is at least complicity in the violation of a vow, which nevertheless pertains reductively to sacrilege, because it has a certain analogy with sacrilege.

Hence carnal sacrilege is committed not only when a sacred person acts luxuriously in himself or herself, whether externally or even internally, because thus that person violates himself or herself insofar as sacred; but also:

1. when a non-sacred person acts luxuriously upon a sacred person even resisting, because by the act he violates a sacred person;

2. a fortiori when a sacred person acts luxuriously upon a non-sacred person, who, if he or she voluntarily suffers this, cooperates at least in that person's sacrilege;

3. most of all when each person, as accomplice, is sacred; for then there is a twofold sacrilege. Yet one who is held to chastity by a twofold title, for example by priesthood and by religion, does not commit a twofold sacrilege, but one graver sacrilege, because he is obligated by one and the same formal motive.

III. Local carnal sacrilege (vleeschelijke kerk- of tempelontheiliging) is a completed act of lust, or one which proximately disposes to this, exercised in a sacred place, that is, a church or public oratory; for in such a base act of lust there is present a special repugnance to a sacred place.

IV. Real carnal sacrilege (vleeschelijke kelk-vaat-sacrament-enz. ontheiliging) is the use of a sacred thing for lust, for example to employ linens or sacred vessels for this, to promise a Mass as the price of a carnal act, and so forth. A special real sacrilege is the sin of solicitation, by which a confessor abuses the sacrament of penance for a base sin.

V. Observation. He who induces a sacred person to a sin of lust contracts the malice of sacrilege by reason of the object; on the contrary, this is not so of a sacred person who, without his own pleasure, induces another to some sin of lust not to be exercised with a sacred person.

787. Definition. Sacrilege (in the matter of lust) is violation of a sacred person, place, or thing, through a venereal act. It is a great sin (for holy things are to be treated holily), and contains a double malice, one against chastity, the other against religion, as is established from what was said n. 578.

Principles. I. Concerning a person, sacrilege is committed if someone sins lustfully while having a vow of chastity, or with one having it. Cf. n. 581.

Hence: 1. A priest sinning with a person consecrated to God is guilty of double sacrilege; because he injures religion in a double way. 2. More probably, a priest who is at once a religious, sinning against chastity, is guilty of only one sacrilege; because, although he remains bound to the vow of chastity by a double precept, nevertheless, because he sins against the same precept imposed twice from the same motive, he injures only one virtue of religion. 3. He who, bound by a vow of chastity, induces another to a sin of lust is guilty of sacrilege, at least if he induces from a positive affection toward lust, or with delay takes pleasure in another's carnal sin, or pollutes him with his hands, although without his own pleasure (III, 455-457; H. Ap., IX, 20).

788. II. Concerning a place, sacrilege is committed whenever an external lustful act is perpetrated in a sacred place. See n. 582.

Hence, voluntary pollution and fornication committed in a church are sacrilege; and so it is more probable, although the crime is hidden, and the church does not need reconciliation (as in notorious pollution or fornication). Likewise, according to the more probable and more common opinion, conjugal copulation which moral necessity does not excuse, such as danger of incontinence of the spouses, or their long confinement in a church; likewise more probably, gravely immodest acts, namely touches, kisses, obscene looks, as also obscene conversations; and the reason is because all these indecencies injure the reverence owed to a sacred place. But internal acts, such as desires and thoughts, are not sacrileges, unless they are concerned with sins to be committed externally, although hiddenly, in a sacred place (III, 458-462; Conf. dir., IX, 6, where useful things are given).

789. III. Concerning a thing, sacrilege is committed whenever there is abuse of a sacred thing for shameful things, for example solicitation in the confessional (cf. n. 583). - The same must be said of a priest who sins shamefully while vested for Mass, or while carrying the Eucharist, or after communion, as long as the sacred species remain (III, 463; H. Ap., IX, 23).

544. As regards 4. Violation of a solemn vow of chastity (the same applies to the vow solemnized in the reception of the subdiaconate) is certainly sacrilege. Thus all teach. The reason is that through such a vow a man is consecrated as a sacred person and altogether separated from profane persons. Sacrilegious lust is committed if any grave external sin against the sixth or ninth precept of the Decalogue is perpetrated by a sacred person or with such a person.⁸⁴² The truer and more common opinion teaches that even internal sins committed by a sacred person, for example, morose delectations and desires, are true sacrileges.⁸⁴³

More probably, violation of a simple but public vow of chastity made in approved congregations or in religious orders strictly so called (during the three years before solemn profession) is also true sacrilege. The reason is that persons bound by this vow are deputed to divine worship by the public authority of the Church; and, moreover, are separated from profane persons just as are the solemnly professed. Some authors teach the contrary, for example, Haine,⁸⁴⁴ who cites Sporer. Palmieri-Ballerini asserts that violation of a simple vow of chastity is a sin of perfidy and not of sacrilege.⁸⁴⁵

Violation of a private vow of chastity does not seem to be sacrilege in the proper sense, since through such a vow a man by no means becomes a sacred person. Hence spouses who by mutual consent made a vow of chastity and nevertheless used marriage do indeed sin against religion, but do not commit sacrilege properly so called. Thus holds the far more common opinion.⁸⁴⁶

It is asked whether a solemnly professed religious priest who sins gravely against chastity commits two sacrileges, since he has two vows: the one from religion and the other from having received the subdiaconate. St. Alphonsus⁸⁴⁷ rightly calls the negative opinion the truer; because, although such a priest is bound to chastity by a twofold precept, nevertheless these two precepts are diverse only materially, since they proceed from the same motive, namely, divine worship. Therefore, although such a religious priest by violating chastity sins more gravely, nevertheless he does not commit two distinct sacrileges; and consequently in confession he is not bound to say that he is a religious priest, but it suffices to confess either one: either the solemn vow made or the sacred order received.

⁸⁴² Therefore a sacred person commits sacrilege if he sins gravely by obscene words, or if he advises a lay person to commit a sin of lust with another lay person.

⁸⁴³ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 454. Cf. also the things said above in I, n. 397 concerning morose delectation.

⁸⁴⁴ Elem. Theol. mor. I, De pecc. q. 30.

⁸⁴⁵ Opus theol., De praec. Decal. tr. 6, n. 140.

⁸⁴⁶ Cf. Laymann, Theol. mor. l. 4, tr. 10, c. 7, n. 5, and Billuart, De relig. diss. 10, a. unicus.

⁸⁴⁷ L.c., n. 455.

702. 5. Carnal sacrilege is sacrilegious lust and is committed by the violation of a sacred person, place, or thing through a venereal act. It contains a twofold malice: one against chastity, the other against religion.

Personal sacrilege is committed when a person dedicated to God either through a public vow (solemn or simple) of chastity or through sacred order is contaminated by lust, whether internally through morose delectations, or externally through immodest acts committed either upon himself or upon another person. But if this other person is also sacred, then there is a twofold sacrilege, because two sacred persons are contaminated. Likewise sacrilege is committed if a non-sacred person has venereal desires toward a sacred person. Whether violation of a private vow of chastity is sacrilege properly so called is controverted; cf. above, n. 544.

Sufficient was already said above, n. 546, concerning local sacrilege.

Real sacrilege of lust is committed when sacred things are employed for a lustful act. A very grave example of this real sacrilege is solicitation to shameful things in the confessional. Whether pollution or fornicatory intercourse performed within a half-hour after Communion takes on the grave species of real sacrilege seems doubtful and not solidly proved, unless, however, such sins are committed with a willed relation to Communion.¹³⁶⁴

The ecclesiastical penalties against the diverse species of sacrilege are treated in their proper places.

¹³⁶⁴ See the diverse opinions concerning this matter in St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 463.

496. Definition. - Sacrilege (in matter of luxury) is the violation of a sacred person, place, or thing through a venereal act.

It is a great sin: for reason dictates that holy things are to be treated holily; and it contains a twofold malice, one against chastity, the other against religion.

Principles. - I. Concerning the person, sacrilege is committed if someone sins luxuriously having a vow of chastity, or with one having it. Hence a priest sinning with another sacred person commits a twofold sacrilege.

St. Alphonsus notes:¹ 1° "A Religious who is also a priest, by harming chastity, more probably commits one sacrilege"; because he offends one virtue of religion. - 2° "A priest inducing by his counsel a layman to fornicate commits sacrilege, if he induces him to lust from affection. Otherwise, if from another evil end."²

II. Concerning the place, every luxurious action in a sacred place will be sacrilege. Thus, for example, voluntary pollution in a church is sacrilege, although it is secret and the church does not need reconciliation, as it needs in notorious pollution.

Note. - 1° Lightly base touches in a church are more probably not sacrileges; because from them there does not result a great irreverence against a sacred place. 2° Enormously grave touches are commonly held as sacrileges; and St. Alphonsus affirms the same as absolutely more probable if the touches (likewise words and sight) are simply grave. 3° Internal acts are not sacrileges, if you except desires of sinning externally in a sacred place.³

III. "Concerning the thing, he commits sacrilege who abuses sacred things for base things. - The same must be said concerning a priest who sins basely vested for Mass, or while carrying the Eucharist, or immediately after Communion, for example, within half an hour."⁴

1013. Carnal sacrilege (vleeschelijke heiligschennis) is the violation of a sacred thing through a venereal act. It is a species of luxury, because when the act of one virtue or vice is ordered to the end of another, it assumes the species of that other, just as theft which is committed for the sake of adultery passes into the species of adultery. Therefore violation of the sacred which is committed for the sake of luxury passes into the species of luxury, and thus is sacrilegious luxury. By the name of the sacred, however, are understood a sacred person, a sacred place, and any sacred thing other than person and place. Therefore there is a threefold species of carnal sacrilege: personal, local, and real; and it is graver according as the person, place, or thing is more sacred, and according as the profanation is graver (n. 802-803).

1. A sacred person here is said to be one dedicated to God for preserving chastity by a public vow emitted before the Church, whether solemn or simple; for thus by public authority the person has been deputed to divine worship. Hence on this side sacrilege is committed:

a) when a sacred person is contaminated by luxury, whether internally through morose pleasures or consent to an act of luxury, or externally through immodest acts both in himself and toward another person even if not sacred;

b) when a non-sacred person desires a sacred person, or acts immodestly with that person; for although he is not sacred, nevertheless by affection or act he violates the sacred person. But if he merely suffers immodest things from a sacred person, he at least cooperates in that person's sacrilege;

c) when both accomplice persons are sacred, and then there is double sacrilege, because each commits his own sacrilege and cooperates in the sacrilege of the other; which must be declared in confession.

The violation of a private vow of chastity, although it is not established that it is sacrilege properly so called, nevertheless contains a distinct species of sin, namely against religion; and thus in some way reductively pertains to sacrilege.

2. A sacred place is a place deputed to divine worship by public authority, such as churches and cemeteries consecrated or blessed. Hence carnal sacrilege is committed by an external and complete carnal sin committed in a sacred place, or by immodest acts disposing altogether proximately to the complete act.

In the case, a sacred place is not judged to be the sacristy, adjacent rooms, cloister, tower, or exterior roof of the church.

3. Sacred things are violated by carnal sacrilege when immodest things are done concerning them or through their intervention; for example, if seed is poured out on sacred linens or vessels, if a sacred thing, especially the sacrifice of the Mass, is promised as the price of a carnal act, if a priest solicits a penitent in confession, etc.

It is not sacrilege to ask for something immodest by adjuration of God, or of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or of some saint, although it is blasphemous; likewise, to commit a sin of the flesh with relics or other sacred things hung around the neck or elsewhere, unless it is done in contempt of the sacred thing or the sacred thing is applied to the venereal act itself, because otherwise they are related to the sin of the flesh only concomitantly and materially.

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

I say. Copulation, pollution, or any gravely base touch had by a sacred person always includes a grave sin of sacrilege; because besides the virtue of chastity it also injures religion, which gravely obliges sacred persons to be treated reverently. But if a touch of this kind is exercised between two persons dedicated to God, a double sacrilege would be had. Concerning local sacrilege, however, it is certain that it is committed by copulation or pollution; but whether it is also admitted by touch, the Doctors are not of one opinion, as was said in n. 215. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 455 and following; and Hom. Ap., n. 22.

Sacrilege, insofar as it is a species of Luxury, is thus defined: It is a sin of Luxury by which a sacred person, or a holy place, is violated. So D. Bonaventure in the Mirror of the Soul, cap. 3, §. around the passage on touch. and p. p. Censil. sect. 24. and in the Compendium of Theology, lib. 3, cap. 21. D. Thomas art. 10. and others.

Therefore, whether a sacred person with a non-sacred one; or a non-sacred person with a sacred one; or anyone whatsoever is defiled in a sacred place, the sin of sacrilege is committed. By reason of persons, indeed, even kisses, touches, and thoughts are sacrileges: But whether spouses, joined together in a sacred place, are sacrilegious.

The first opinion is that this is always sacrilege. So Navarrus man. lat. cap. 57. num. 252. Henriquez lib. 11. de matrim. cap. 16. Cajetan sum. verb. Matrim. and others cited by Fagundez in the 6th precept, lib. 6, cap. 3, num. 9. Candelab. p. p. de matrim. num. 262. Sylvius in suppl. quaest. 64, art. 7.

The second opinion holds that it is only venial. So the Gloss. on cap. Ecclesiis de cons. nor does it displease Soto 4. dist. 32. art 3. quaest. unic.

The third opinion is that it is licit if done for a cause, and secretly, Angl. flor. p. p. de matr. quaest. 6. Poncius de matr. lib. 10. cap. 10. num. 15. Casp. de pec. disp. 2. n. 20. Rodriq. tom. 1. sum. cap. 242. n. 19. Vega tom. 1. sum. lib. 1. cap. 78. casu 1. Diana tom. 1. Tract. de circuns. resol. 19 and 26. Vasquez prima 2. quaest. 72. ar. 9. disp. 92. num. 6. Lopez p. p. Instr. cap. 82. Sanchez de matr. lib. 9. disp. 15. num. 10. Caramuel in reg. D. Benedicti, n. 1017. and he says it is the opinion of all Doctors of good name.

The fourth opinion is that there is no fault in a case of necessity, or a just cause; nor is the Church defiled, if it is done secretly; even if afterward it begins to become public; but if it is done without cause, it is always mortal, even if secret; and if it begins to be spread abroad, the Church is to be considered defiled. So Sylvester V. conssecr. 2, §. 5. Sa V. Debitum, coniug. num. 12. Rebel. 2. part. lib. 3. num. 5. Couar. 2. part. de sponsal. cap. 7, §. 2. Lessius tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 3. dub. 10. Toletus lib. 5. cap. 12. Castro lib. 1. de potestate leg. poenalis, cap. 3. docum. 2. Fagundez lib. 6. cap. 3. num. 11.

As to D. Bonaventure, in the Mirror of the Soul, cap. 3, §. around the passage on touch, when enumerating the sins occurring in marriage, he does not list copulation in a sacred place; yet soon after, defining sacrilege, he says: Sacrilege is committed when Virgins or widows dedicated to God are known carnally, or such things are carried out in a sacred place. Nor does he seem to be speaking of copulation, which is by its nature licit within marriage.

In truth, in the Compendium of Theological Truth, lib. 3, cap. 21. he holds it to be a sin, without explaining whether it is mortal if done in a sacred place out of an impulse of lust; and indeed, if it is done for a just cause, he does not judge it to be sacrilege. The same the holy Doctor sets forth in the Confessional, cap. 2. part. 14. where he says it is mortal if done from mere impulse of lust; but I see that he is speaking in the sense of Alexander of Hales.

Therefore, if it is done for a just cause, and secretly, there will be no fault, or violation of the Church; but otherwise if it is done publicly — for which it is enough that a bed has been publicly erected in the Church.

Nor is the reception of offspring, or sensible delight, a just cause. So Tolet. lib. 5. sum. cap. 12. Sylvester V. the conjugal debt, num. 5. Fagundez n. 12. Yet it is excused when rendered, as Lessius notes, Tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 3. dub. 12. Fagundez at the place cited.

A LEGITIMATE cause will be the danger of incontinence, or the avoidance of imminent pollution; for this is a spiritual good. Likewise a long siege in that place.

TOUCHES, however, kisses, and looks in the Church, outside the danger of pollution, are not sacrileges. So Sanchez lib. 9. de debito coniug. disp. 15. Cajet. tom. 1. opusc. tract. 17. opusc. 31. Navarrus on cap. Consideret. num. 20. and others with him, as Diana p. p. Tract. 17. resol. 23. who calls the opposite view scrupulous. Ledesma nevertheless adds, on the sacrament of Penance, cap. 19. unless obscene words have been uttered aloud; for then the sacred place is injured.

Now a SACRED place is a Church, whether blessed or consecrated. And indeed, if it is consecrated, it cannot be purified except by the Bishop of the place, or by another Bishop with his license, cap. Aqua on the consecration of Churches; nor can it be committed to a simple priest, except by the supreme Pontiff, according to the Gloss on cap. Aqua, Sylvester V. consecratio 2. quaest. 8. and it must be reconciled with water with wine, and blessed ash. But if it is not consecrated, it can be purged by a simple Priest with blessed water. And when the Church is violated, the cemetery also is violated, because the accessory follows the principal.

The QUESTION is also: whether one who is at once a priest and a professed religious is defiled by a twofold sacrilege.

The FIRST opinion is that it is a double sacrilege, because they are circumstances specifically diverse. So Sotus lib. 8. de Iust. quaest. 2. art. 3. Peter Ledesma on the sacrament of Penance, cap. 10. Paludanus 4. dist. 36. quaest. 4. art. 1. and others; and those also are held to assert this who say that the obligation of chastity in sacred orders arises from precept, not from vow: these are Valentia 4. part. disp. 9. quaest. 5. puncto 5. Sanchez lib. 7. de matr. disp. 29.

The SECOND opinion is that it is one sacrilege with an aggravating circumstance: So Azor cap. 27. quaest. 9. and Caramuel num. 998. Bassaeus V. Sacrileg. 2. num. 2.

The THIRD opinion is that there is only one, and therefore it is enough to confess the one. So Sanchez lib. 7. de matrim. disp. 27. Lessius tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 3. dub. 12. Corduba sum. quaest. 3. Cajet. 2. 2. quaest. 186. art. 9. Lud. Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 29. Ovandus in 4. dist. 25. q. un. Rodriq. tom. 1. sum. cap. 53. Henriq. lib. 5. cap. 5.

As to the holy Doctor, I judge him to be with this opinion; for he says that the priest and the Religious sin the same sin in the Confessional, cap. 2. particula 20.

From these things it follows that a Religious who fornicates need only say that he violated his vow of chastity; for solemnity is only an aggravating circumstance, not a necessary one, in the opinion of St. Bonaventure; this follows Filliucius tract. 30. on the sixth precept of the decalogue, cap. 7. Sanchez lib. 7. de matrim. disp. 27. num. 27. nor does Fagundez refuse it, lib. 6. cap. 7. num. 11. Henriq. lib. 2. de poen. cap. 5. num. 6. with the commentary litt. C. Corduba summa, quaest. 3.

THUS if they have a solemn and simple vow, it will be enough to say that they acted against the vow. So Sanchez, Henriquez at the places cited, and Fagundez num. 14.

The PUNISHMENTS of sacrilege are most grave. One who carnally knows a nun is punished with death; it is clear from the text in the Authentics on the most holy Bishops, § penult. and from the text in l. si quis in hoc genere, at the beginning of the Codex on Bishops, and Clerics. and cap. Si quis rapuerit, 27. quaest. 1. See Farinacius Tom. 4. quaest. 146. Clarus §. fornic. num. 14. Menoch. de arbitr. qq. num. 2. casu 389.

The goods also of the violator are applied to the monastery of that nun, as Farinacius notes, num. 9. and Fagundez num. 19.

By canon law, a layman is excommunicated, cap. Si qua monacharum 27. quaest. 1. yet not ipso facto, nor reserved to the Bishop, except after sentence passed; a cleric can be deposed, deprived of benefice, and thrust into a monastery. See Farinacius.