|
Objection 1: It would seem that the species of sacrilege are not
distinguished according to the sacred things. Material diversity does
not differentiate species, if the formal aspect remains the same. Now
there would seem to be the same formal aspect of sin in all violations
of sacred things, and that the only difference is one of matter.
Therefore the species of sacrilege are not distinguished thereby.
Objection 2: Further, it does not seem possible that things
belonging to the same species should at the same time differ
specifically. Now murder, theft, and unlawful intercourse, are
different species of sin. Therefore they cannot belong to the one same
species of sacrilege: and consequently it seems that the species of
sacrilege are distinguished in accordance with the species of other
sins, and not according to the various sacred things.
Objection 3: Further, among sacred things sacred persons are
reckoned. If, therefore, one species of sacrilege arises from the
violation of a sacred person, it would follow that every sin committed
by a sacred person is a sacrilege, since every sin violates the person
of the sinner. Therefore the species of sacrilege are not reckoned
according to the sacred things.
On the contrary, Acts and habits are distinguished by their objects.
Now the sacred thing is the object of sacrilege, as stated above
(Article 1). Therefore the species of sacrilege are distinguished
according to the sacred things.
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the sin of sacrilege
consists in the irreverent treatment of a sacred thing. Now reverence
is due to a sacred thing by reason of its holiness: and consequently
the species of sacrilege must needs be distinguished according to the
different aspects of sanctity in the sacred things which are treated
irreverently: for the greater the holiness ascribed to the sacred thing
that is sinned against, the more grievous the sacrilege.
Now holiness is ascribed, not only to sacred persons, namely, those
who are consecrated to the divine worship, but also to sacred places
and to certain other sacred things. And the holiness of a place is
directed to the holiness of man, who worships God in a holy place.
For it is written (2 Macc. 5:19): "God did not choose the
people for the place's sake, but the place for the people's sake."
Hence sacrilege committed against a sacred person is a graver sin than
that which is committed against a sacred place. Yet in either species
there are various degrees of sacrilege, according to differences of
sacred persons and places.
In like manner the third species of sacrilege, which is committed
against other sacred things, has various degrees, according to the
differences of sacred things. Among these the highest place belongs to
the sacraments whereby man is sanctified: chief of which is the
sacrament of the Eucharist, for it contains Christ Himself.
Wherefore the sacrilege that is committed against this sacrament is the
gravest of all. The second place, after the sacraments, belongs to
the vessels consecrated for the administration of the sacraments; also
sacred images, and the relics of the saints, wherein the very persons
of the saints, so to speak, are reverenced and honored. After these
come things connected with the apparel of the Church and its
ministers; and those things, whether movable or immovable, that are
deputed to the upkeep of the ministers. And whoever sins against any
one of the aforesaid incurs the crime of sacrilege.
Reply to Objection 1: There is not the same aspect of holiness in
all the aforesaid: wherefore the diversity of sacred things is not only
a material, but also a formal difference.
Reply to Objection 2: Nothing hinders two things from belonging to
one species in one respect, and to different species in another
respect. Thus Socrates and Plato belong to the one species,
"animal," but differ in the species "colored thing," if one be
white and the other black. In like manner it is possible for two sins
to differ specifically as to their material acts, and to belong to the
same species as regards the one formal aspect of sacrilege: for
instance, the violation of a nun by blows or by copulation.
Reply to Objection 3: Every sin committed by a sacred person is a
sacrilege materially and accidentally as it were. Hence Jerome
[St. Bernard, De Consideration, ii, 13] says that "a trifle
on a priest's lips is a sacrilege or a blasphemy." But formally and
properly speaking a sin committed by a sacred person is a sacrilege only
when it is committed against his holiness, for instance if a virgin
consecrated to God be guilty of fornication: and the same is to be
said of other instances.
|
|