The crime of profaning sacred things, or things devoted to God. The ancient church distinguished several sorts of sacrilege.
The first was the diverting things appropriated to sacred purposes to ther uses.
2. Robbing the graves, or defacing and spoiling the monuments of the dead.
3. Those were considered as sacrilegious persons who delivered up their Bibles and the sacred utensils of the church to the Pagans, in the time of the Dioclesian persecution.
4. Profaning the sacraments, churches, altars, &c.
5. Molesting or hindering a clergyman in the performance of his office.
6. Depriving men of the use of the Scriptures or the sacraments, particularly the cup in the eucharist. The Romish casuists acknowledge all these but the last.
By: Joseph Jacobs, Judah David Eisenstein
The act of profaning or violating sacred things. The prohibition of sacrilege was primarily in connection with the sanctuary (Lev. xix. 8, xxi. 23). The services in the Tabernacle or Temple could not be relegated to any one other than the priesthood (ib. xxxi. 17; Num. i. 51), nor could anything used in the sanctuary be appropriated for common purposes. Even the following for secular use of the formula of the sacrificial incense was prohibited (Ex. xxx. 32, 37). It was equally forbidden to copy the model of the Tabernacle or Temple,the candlestick, or any of the holy vessels; and the use of such vessels except in the sacred services was especially prohibited. If a man unintentionally committed a trespass on any of the sacred things or sacrifices he was required to make full restitution, with the addition of one-fifth of the amount of the damage, and to offer a sacrifice in expiation of the sin (Lev. v. 15, 16). Joshua consecrated the spoils of Jericho to the treasury of the sanctuary; and Achan, who committed a trespass in stealing some of them, suffered capital punishment (Josh. vi. 17, 24; vii. 20-25).
"Me'ilah."
The Talmud treatise Me'ilah explains the nature and details of trespass in regard to holy things. According to R. Akiba, any benefit derived from a sacred thing is punishable under the law of me'ilah. The ḥakamim divide me'ilah into (1) benefits and (2) damages to the value of a peruṭa (the smallest copper coin). Under this classification the use of gold vessels or ornaments of the sanctuary for profit is forbidden; but the use of garments or eatables is permitted provided they will not be damaged or consumed to the value of a peruṭa (Me'i. v. 1). The amount of the profit or of the damage is to be paid in full with the addition of one-fifth; and a sacrifice worth two silver shekels must be offered for the sinful trespass ("asham me'ilah"). The law against sacrilege in the sanctuary applies to the sacred things pertaining to the sacrifices on the altar ("ḳodshe mizbeaḥ"), and to the sacred treasures and the material for repairing the sanctuary ("ḳodshe bedeḳ ha-bayit"). For larceny of the Temple sacred vessel called "ḳiswah" (bowl for libation), the culprit may, if caught in the act, be killed by zealots (Sanh. ix. 6, 81b; see Rashi ad loc.). This, however, is explained by Geiger as an exceptional punishment provided in the case of Sadducees, who opposed the water libation (see Suk. 48a). "One who profanes sacred things has no share in the world to come" (Ab. iii. 15).
The opinion prevails, however, that the law concerning sacrilege lapsed when the Temple was destroyed, and that it has no force in exilic times. It is not operative in the synagogue, which is considered merely as a charitable institution; and its infraction is liable to civil action only (Shulḥan 'Aruk, Ḥoshen Mishpaṭ, 95, 1; 212, 8; Asheri, Responsa, rule 13, Nos. 1, 8). Nevertheless, the house of prayer or of learning may not be made a drinking-place, nor may it be commonly used as a conveniently short passageway ("compendiaria"; Ber. 62b). Scrolls of the Law that become unfit for reading, mantles of the Law, and covers of holy books (Meg. 26b), as well as all unused Hebrew manuscripts and torn leaves of printed books containing the name of God ("shemot") are placed in the genizah, it being considered sacrilege to make indiscriminate use of them.
Grave and Corpse.
The Rabbis extend the law of sacrilege to the cemetery, and prohibit the derivation of any benefit from a corpse, a coffin, a shroud, or a grave. No frivolity, feeding of cattle, picking of flowers, or cutting of trees is permitted in the cemetery, nor may a canal for the purposes of irrigation be run through it (Meg. 29a). The disinterment of a body, except under certain conditions and regulations, is prohibited. Wood, straw, or other merchandise may not be stored in the cemetery (Shulḥan 'Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, 361, 364, 368).
Contempt of Scripture.
Another sort of sacrilege is the bringing into contempt of things that are holy. The first record of such a sacrilegious act is that of Esau selling his birthright (Gen. xxv. 33). The literary misuse of the Holy Scriptures is sacrilege: "No one may recite the Song of Solomon as he would secular poetry, or quote verses at inappropriate times or in drinking-places. When this occurs the Torah laments and complains before the Almighty, saying: 'Master of the world! Thy children have made a lyre of me for the amusement of the scorners'" (Sanh. 101a). Imitation of the style of the Bible or even of the Talmud was looked upon as sacrilege. Moses Ḥayyim Luzzatto was censured for such an act of sacrilege. It is claimed that he composed 150 psalms in the style of the Book of Psalms, and that he did not dare publish them for fear of incurring from the Jewish community a charge of contempt (F. Delitzsch, "Zur Gesch. des Jüdischen Poesie," p. 90, Leipsic, 1836; "Toledot M. Ḥ. Luzzatto," Lemberg, 1879); at any rate two such psalms by him appeared in print (in "Bikkure ha-'Ittim," 1827, vii. 99). In 1863 M. L. Lilienblum composed "Massa' Polin," a poem against the Polish revolt, with vowels and accents in the style of the Scriptures, which style of imitation was condemned by the Rabbis ("Ḥaṭṭe'ot Ne'urim," pp. 45, 48, 69, Vienna, 1876). The Talmudic imitation of Masseket Kelim by Rabbi Gershon Enoch Henach was censured and its sale forbidden by the rabbinate of Wilna because in form and style the book resembled the ordinary Gemara. It was sacrilege, the Rabbis claimed, to put the work of Rabina and R. Ashi on a level with the work of a latter-day rabbi ("Ha-Maggid," xix. [1875], Nos. 32, 33; "Ha-Lebanon," xi., No. 34; Hillel Noah Steinschneider, "'Ir Wilna," p. 60, Wilna, 1900).
For sacrilege in profaning the name of God see Blasphemy; for sacrilege in dedicating a book to God see Prefaces and Dedications. See also Desecration; Disinterment; Me'ilah.
(Latin: sacer, sacred; legere, to purloin)
The violation or irreverent treatment of sacred persons, places, or things. To be a sacrilege, this violation or irreverent treatment must touch that formality in the object by which it is sacred. Sacrilege is a sin opposed to the virtue of religion, and as such is a grave sin in grave matter. The definition suggests the threefold division of sacrilege; viz., personal, an irreverent treatment of sacred persons, such as the violent laying of hands on clerics or religious; local, a violation of a sacred place, such as committing certain crimes, as homicide in a church; real, a violation of sacred things, such as the unworthy reception of a sacrament of the living, or simony.
(Lat. sacrilegium, robbing a temple, from sacer, sacred, and legere, to purloin.)Sacrilege is in general the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object. In a less proper sense any transgression against the virtue of religion would be a sacrilege.Theologians are substantially agreed in regarding as sacred that and that only which by a public rite and by Divine or ecclesiastical institution has been dedicated to the worship of God. The point is that the public authority must intervene; private initiative, no matter how ardent in devotion or praiseworthy in motive, does not suffice. Attributing a sacred character to a thing is a juridical act, and as such is a function of the governing power of the Church.It is customary to enumerate three kinds of sacrilege: personal, local, and real. St. Thomas teaches (Summa, II-II, Q., xcix) that a different sort of holiness attaches to persons, places, and things. Hence the irreverence offered to any one of them is specifically distinct from that which is exhibited to the others. Suarez (De Religione, tr. iii, 1-3) does not seem to think the division very logical, but accepts it as being in accord with the canons.Personal Sacrilege. Personal sacrilege means to deal so irreverently with a sacred person that, whether by the injury inflicted or the defilement caused, there is a breach of the honour due to such person. This sacrilege may be committed chiefly in three ways: by laying violent hands on a cleric or religious. This constitutes an infraction of what is known as the privilege of the canon (privilegium canonis), and is visited with the penalty of excommunication; by violating the ecclesiastical immunity in so far as it still exists. Clerics according to the old-time discipline were entitled to exemption from the jurisdiction of lay tribunals (privilegium fori). The meaning, therefore, is that he who despite this haled them before a civil court, otherwise than as provided by the canons, was guilty of sacrilege and was excommunicated; by any sin against the vow of chastity on the part of those who are consecrated to God -- such are those in sacred orders (in the Latin Church) and religious, even those with simple vows, if these are perpetual. The weight of opinion amongst moralists is that this guilt is not contracted by the violation of a privately-made vow. The reason seems to be that, while there is a breach of faith with Almighty God, still such a vow, lacking the indorsement and acceptance of the Church, does not make the person formally a sacred one; it does not in the juridical sense set such an one apart for the worship of God. It need hardly be noted that the partners of sacred persons in sins of this kind are to be adjudged equally guilty of sacrilege even though their status be a purely lay one.Local Sacrilege. Local sacrilege is the violation of a sacred place. Under the designation "sacred place" is included not only a church properly so-called even though it be not consecrated, but merely blessed, but also public oratories as well as cemeteries canonically established for the burial of the faithful. Four species of this crime are ordinarily distinguished: the theft of something found in and specially belonging to the church; the infringing of the immunity attaching to sacred places in so far as this prerogative still prevails. It should be observed that in this case the term "sacred place" receives a wider comprehension than that indicated above. It comprises not only churches, public chapels, and cemeteries, but also the episcopal palace, monasteries, hospitals erected by episcopal authority and having a chapel for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice, and also the person of the priest when he is carrying the Blessed Sacrament. To all of these was granted the right of asylum the outraging of which was deemed a sacrilege; the commission within the sacred precincts of some sinful act by which, according to canon law, the edifice is esteemed polluted. These acts are homicide, any shedding of blood reaching to the guilt of a grievous sin, any consummated offence against chastity (including marital intercourse which is not necessary), the burial within the church or sacred place of an unbaptized person or of one who has been excommunicated by name or as a notorious violator of the privilege of the canon; the doing of certain things (whether sins or not), which, either by their own nature or by special provision of law, are particularly incompatible with the demeanour to be maintained in such a place. Such would be for instance turning the church into a stable or a market, using it as a banquet hall, or holding court there indiscriminately for the settlement of purely secular affairs.Real Sacrilege. Real sacrilege is the irreverent treatment of sacred things as distinguished from places and persons. This can happen first of all by the administration or reception of the sacraments (or in the case of the Holy Eucharist by celebration) in the state of mortal sin, as also by advertently doing any of those things invalidly. Indeed deliberate and notable irreverence towards the Holy Eucharist is reputed the worst of all sacrileges. Likewise conscious maltreatment of sacred pictures or relics or perversion of Holy Scripture or sacred vessels to unhallowed uses, and finally, the usurpation or diverting of property (whether movable or immovable) intended for the maintenance of the clergy or serving for the ornamentation of the church to other uses, constitute real sacrileges. Sometimes the guilt of sacrilege may be incurred by omitting what is required for the proper administration of the sacraments or celebration of the sacrifice, as for example, if one were to say Mass without the sacred vestments.-----------------------------------SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); RICKABY, Moral Teaching of St. Thomas (London, 1896); BALLERINI, Opus theologicum morale (Prato, 1899); D’ANNIBALE, Summula theologi moralis (Rome, 1908); SPELMAN, The History and Fate of Sacrilege (London, 1888).JOSEPH F. DELANY Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIIICopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
See Robbers of Churches.