|
Objection 1: It would seem that the punishment of sacrilege should
not be pecuniary. A pecuniary punishment is not wont to be inflicted
for a criminal fault. But sacrilege is a criminal fault, wherefore it
is punished by capital sentence according to civil law [Dig. xlviii,
13; Cod. i, 3, de Episc. et Cleric.]. Therefore sacrilege
should not be awarded a pecuniary punishment.
Objection 2: Further, the same sin should not receive a double
punishment, according to Nahum 1:9, "There shall not rise a
double affliction." But sacrilege is punished with excommunication;
major excommunication, for violating a sacred person, and for burning
or destroying a church, and minor excommunication for other
sacrileges. Therefore sacrilege should not be awarded a pecuniary
punishment.
Objection 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Thess. 2:5):
"Neither have we taken an occasion of covetousness." But it seems
to involve an occasion of covetousness that a pecuniary punishment
should be exacted for the violation of a sacred thing. Therefore this
does not seem to be a fitting punishment of sacrilege.
On the contrary, It is written [XVII, qu. iv, can. Si quis
contumax]: "If anyone contumaciously or arrogantly take away by
force an escaped slave from the confines of a church he shall pay nine
hundred soldi": and again further on (XVII, qu. iv, can.
Quisquis inventus, can. 21): "Whoever is found guilty of
sacrilege shall pay thirty pounds of tried purest silver."
I answer that, In the award of punishments two points must be
considered. First equality, in order that the punishment may be
just, and that "by what things a man sinneth by the same . . . he
may be tormented" (Wis. 11:17). In this respect the fitting
punishment of one guilty of sacrilege, since he has done an injury to a
sacred thing, is excommunication [Append. Gratian. on can. Si
quis contumax, quoted above] whereby sacred things are withheld from
him. The second point to be considered is utility. For punishments
are inflicted as medicines, that men being deterred thereby may desist
from sin. Now it would seem that the sacrilegious man, who reverences
not sacred things, is not sufficiently deterred from sinning by sacred
things being withheld from him, since he has no care for them.
Wherefore according to human laws he is sentenced to capital
punishment, and according to the statutes of the Church, which does
not inflict the death of the body, a pecuniary punishment is
inflicted, in order that men may be deterred from sacrilege, at least
by temporal punishments.
Reply to Objection 1: The Church inflicts not the death of the
body, but excommunication in its stead.
Reply to Objection 2: When one punishment is not sufficient to
deter a man from sin, a double punishment must be inflicted.
Wherefore it was necessary to inflict some kind of temporal punishment
in addition to the punishment of excommunication, in order to coerce
those who despise spiritual things.
Reply to Objection 3: If money were exacted without a reasonable
cause, this would seem to involve an occasion of covetousness. But
when it is exacted for the purpose of man's correction, it has a
manifest utility, and consequently involves no occasion of avarice.
|
|