Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 155 (2/2)
Reply Obj. 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 Pet. 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 Obj. 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.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 99, Art. 2]
Whether Sacrilege Is a Special Sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that sacrilege is not a special sin. It is stated (XVII, qu. iv) ”They are guilty of sacrilege who through ignorance sin against the sanct.i.ty of the law, violate and defile it by their negligence.” But this is done in every sin, because sin is ”a word, deed or desire contrary to the law of G.o.d,” according to Augustine (Contra Faust. xxi, 27). Therefore sacrilege is a general sin.
Obj. 2: Further, no special sin is comprised under different kinds of sin. Now sacrilege is comprised under different kinds of sin, for instance under murder, if one kill a priest under l.u.s.t, as the violation of a consecrate virgin, or of any woman in a sacred place under theft, if one steal a sacred thing. Therefore sacrilege is not a special sin.
Obj. 3: Further, every special sin is to found apart from other sins as the Philosopher states, in speaking of special justice (Ethic. v, 11). But, seemingly, sacrilege is not to be found apart from other sins; for it is sometimes united to theft, sometimes to murder, as stated in the preceding objection. Therefore it is not a special sin.
_On the contrary,_ That which is opposed to a special virtue is a special sin. But sacrilege is opposed to a special virtue, namely religion, to which it belongs to reverence G.o.d and divine things.
Therefore sacrilege is a special sin.
_I answer that,_ Wherever we find a special aspect of deformity, there must needs be a special sin; because the species of a thing is derived chiefly from its formal aspect, and not from its matter or subject. Now in sacrilege we find a special aspect of deformity, namely, the violation of a sacred thing by treating it irreverently.
Hence it is a special sin.
Moreover, it is opposed to religion. For according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv, 3), ”When the purple has been made into a royal robe, we pay it honor and homage, and if anyone dishonor it he is condemned to death,” as acting against the king: and in the same way if a man violate a sacred thing, by so doing his behavior is contrary to the reverence due to G.o.d and consequently he is guilty of irreligion.
Reply Obj. 1: Those are said to sin against the sanct.i.ty of the divine law who a.s.sail G.o.d's law, as heretics and blasphemers do.
These are guilty of unbelief, through not believing in G.o.d; and of sacrilege, through perverting the words of the divine law.
Reply Obj. 2: Nothing prevents one specific kind of sin being found in various generic kinds of sin, inasmuch as various sins are directed to the end of one sin, just as happens in the case of virtues commanded by one virtue. In this way, by whatever kind of sin a man acts counter to reverence due to sacred things, he commits a sacrilege formally; although his act contains various kinds of sin materially.
Reply Obj. 3: Sacrilege is sometimes found apart from other sins, through its act having no other deformity than the violation of a sacred thing: for instance, if a judge were to take a person from a sacred place, for he might lawfully have taken him from elsewhere.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 99, Art. 3]
Whether the Species of Sacrilege Are Distinguished According to the Sacred Things?
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.
Obj. 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.
Obj. 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 (A. 1). Therefore the species of sacrilege are distinguished according to the sacred things.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 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 sanct.i.ty 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 wors.h.i.+p, 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 wors.h.i.+ps G.o.d in a holy place.
For it is written (2 Macc. 5:19): ”G.o.d 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.
<script>