|
Objection 1: It would seem that sacrilege is not the violation of a
sacred thing. It is stated (XVII, qu. iv [Append. Gratian,
on can. Si quis suadente]): "They are guilty of sacrilege who
disagree about the sovereign's decision, and doubt whether the person
chosen by the sovereign be worthy of honor." Now this seems to have
no connection with anything sacred. Therefore sacrilege does not
denote the violation of something sacred.
Objection 2: Further, it is stated further on [Append.
Gratian, on can. Constituit.] that if any man shall allow the
Jews to hold public offices, "he must be excommunicated as being
guilty of sacrilege." Yet public offices have nothing to do with
anything sacred. Therefore it seems that sacrilege does not denote the
violation of a sacred thing.
Objection 3: Further, God's power is greater than man's. Now
sacred things receive their sacred character from God. Therefore they
cannot be violated by man: and so a sacrilege would not seem to be the
violation of a sacred thing.
On the contrary, Isidore says (Etym. x) that "a man is said to
be sacrilegious because he selects," i.e. steals, "sacred
things."
I answer that, As stated above (Question 81, Article 5;
FS, Question 101, Article 4), a thing is called "sacred"
through being deputed to the divine worship. Now just as a thing
acquires an aspect of good through being deputed to a good end, so does
a thing assume a divine character through being deputed to the divine
worship, and thus a certain reverence is due to it, which reverence is
referred to God. Therefore whatever pertains to irreverence for
sacred things is an injury to God, and comes under the head of
sacrilege.
Reply to Objection 1: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. i,
2) the common good of the nation is a divine thing, wherefore in
olden times the rulers of a commonwealth were called divines, as being
the ministers of divine providence, according to Wis. 6:5,
"Being ministers of His kingdom, you have not judged rightly."
Hence by an extension of the term, whatever savors of irreverence for
the sovereign, such as disputing his judgment, and questioning whether
one ought to follow it, is called sacrilege by a kind of likeness.
Reply to Objection 2: Christians are sanctified by faith and the
sacraments of Christ, according to 1 Cor. 6:11, "But you are
washed, but you are sanctified." Wherefore it is written (1 Pt.
2:9): "You are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy
nation, a purchased people." Therefore any injury inflicted on the
Christian people, for instance that unbelievers should be put in
authority over it, is an irreverence for a sacred thing, and is
reasonably called a sacrilege.
Reply to Objection 3: Violation here means any kind of irreverence
or dishonor. Now as "honor is in the person who honors and not in the
one who is honored" (Ethic. i, 5), so again irreverence is in
the person who behaves irreverently even though he do no harm to the
object of his irreverence. Hence, so far he is concerned, he
violates the sacred thing, though the latter be not violated in
itself.
|
|