Sacrilege is a Sin

[TerrorDæmonum]

Sacrilege is a sin.

• Sacrilege is a violation of the First Commandment and contrary to the virtue of Religion.
• Sacrilege is a violation of a sacred thing, including people, places, things, devotional objects, and other things elevated to the worship of God.
• The Sacred Science is of particular significance as it is the subject of this board. Profane references and treatment of this science with irreverence would be sacrilegious.
• Curious inquiries, idle speculation, and irreverent treatment of Sacred Doctrine are to be scrupulously avoided by the faithful.
• Blasphemy and sacrilege are often seen together.
• Blasphemy is a violation of the Second Commandment and a Mortal Sin.

There are degrees and distinctions possible with sacrilege, but this are not so important to understand given the grave matter that sacrilege in general is. The more sacred the thing profaned is, the more grave the act would be, however, there is no good sacrilege: what is sacred must be treated reverently. There is some discussion on how the faithful should act when witnessing sacrilegious acts, and that is a complex topic and requires extensive examination of circumstances. Regardless of particular responses, the will should be entirely opposed to this sin, whether or not one is in a position to say or do anything about it.

The First Commandment

8 Q. What is forbidden by the First Commandment?
A. The First Commandment forbids idolatry, superstition, sacrilege, heresy, and every other sin against religion

13 Q. What is a sacrilege?
A. A sacrilege is the profanation of a place, of a person, or of a thing consecrated to God and set apart for his worship.

The Second Commandment

1 Q. What does the Second Commandment: Thou shalt not take the Name of God in vain, forbid?
A. The Second Commandment: Thou shalt not take the Name of God in vain, forbids us: (1) To utter the Name of God irreverently; (2) To blaspheme God, the Blessed Virgin or the Saints; (3) To take false, unnecessary, or unlawful oaths.

2 Q. What is meant by: Not to utter the Name of God irreverently?
A. Not to utter the Name of God irreverently means not to mention this Holy Name, or any other name that in a special way refers to God Himself, such as the name of Jesus, of Mary and the Saints, in anger or in joke or in any irreverent way whatsoever.

3 Q. What is blasphemy?
A. Blasphemy is a horrible sin which consists in words or acts of contempt or malediction against God, the Blessed Virgin, the Saints, or sacred things.

Article 1. Whether sacrilege is 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 (II-II:81:5; I-II:101:4), 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.

Article 2. Whether sacrilege is 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 God 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 God and consequently he is guilty of irreligion.

Article 1. Whether blasphemy is opposed to the confession of faith?

On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Timothy 1:12-13): "I . . . before was a blasphemer and a persecutor," and afterwards, "I did it ignorantly in" my "unbelief." Hence it seems that blasphemy pertains to unbelief.

I answer that, The word blasphemy seems to denote the disparagement of some surpassing goodness, especially that of God. Now God, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i), is the very essence of true goodness. Hence whatever befits God, pertains to His goodness, and whatever does not befit Him, is far removed from the perfection of goodness which is His Essence. Consequently whoever either denies anything befitting God, or affirms anything unbefitting Him, disparages the Divine goodness.

Now this may happen in two ways. On the first way it may happen merely in respect of the opinion in the intellect; in the second way this opinion is united to a certain detestation in the affections, even as, on the other hand, faith in God is perfected by love of Him. Accordingly this disparagement of the Divine goodness is either in the intellect alone, or in the affections also. If it is in thought only, it is blasphemy of the heart, whereas if it betrays itself outwardly in speech it is blasphemy is opposed to confession of faith.

Article 2. Whether blasphemy is always a mortal sin?

On the contrary, It is written (Leviticus 24:16): "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die." Now the death punishment is not inflicted except for a mortal sin. Therefore blasphemy is a mortal sin.

I answer that, As stated above (I-II:72:5), a mortal sin is one whereby a man is severed from the first principle of spiritual life, which principle is the charity of God. Therefore whatever things are contrary to charity, are mortal sins in respect of their genus. Now blasphemy, as to its genus, is opposed to Divine charity, because, as stated above (Article 1), it disparages the Divine goodness, which is the object of charity. Consequently blasphemy is a mortal sin, by reason of its genus.

Article 1. Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?

On the contrary, It is written (2 Timothy 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.

I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.

Article 2. Whether sacred doctrine is a science?

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.

Article 3. Whether sacred doctrine is one science?

On the contrary, Holy Scripture speaks of it as one science: "Wisdom gave him the knowledge [scientiam] of holy things" (Wisdom 10:10).

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is one science. The unity of a faculty or habit is to be gauged by its object, not indeed, in its material aspect, but as regards the precise formality under which it is an object. For example, man, ass, stone agree in the one precise formality of being colored; and color is the formal object of sight. Therefore, because Sacred Scripture considers things precisely under the formality of being divinely revealed, whatever has been divinely revealed possesses the one precise formality of the object of this science; and therefore is included under sacred doctrine as under one science.

Article 7. Whether God is the object of this science?

On the contrary, The object of the science is that of which it principally treats. But in this science, the treatment is mainly about God; for it is called theology, as treating of God. Therefore God is the object of this science.

I answer that, God is the object of this science. The relation between a science and its object is the same as that between a habit or faculty and its object. Now properly speaking, the object of a faculty or habit is the thing under the aspect of which all things are referred to that faculty or habit, as man and stone are referred to the faculty of sight in that they are colored. Hence colored things are the proper objects of sight. But in sacred science, all things are treated of under the aspect of God: either because they are God Himself or because they refer to God as their beginning and end. Hence it follows that God is in very truth the object of this science. This is clear also from the principles of this science, namely, the articles of faith, for faith is about God. The object of the principles and of the whole science must be the same, since the whole science is contained virtually in its principles. Some, however, looking to what is treated of in this science, and not to the aspect under which it is treated, have asserted the object of this science to be something other than God — that is, either things and signs; or the works of salvation; or the whole Christ, as the head and members. Of all these things, in truth, we treat in this science, but so far as they have reference to God.

But content with the terminology established by the Fathers, you should feed the minds of your listeners with the fruit of heavenly words, so that after the leaves of the words have been removed, "they may draw from the fountains of the Savior" (Isaiah 12:3); the clear and limpid waters which tend principally to this, that they may build up faith or fashion morals, and refreshed by these they may be delighted with internal richness.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called.

Practical Admonitions Concerning The Mystery Of The Trinity

Since nowhere is a too curious inquiry more dangerous, or error more fatal, than in the knowledge and exposition of this, the most profound and difficult of mysteries, let the pastor teach that the terms nature and person used to express this mystery should be most scrupulously retained; and let the faithful know that unity belongs to essence, and distinction to persons.

But these are truths which should not be made the subject of too subtle investigation, when we recollect that he who is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory. We should be satisfied with the assurance and certitude which faith gives us that we have been taught these truths by God Himself, to doubt whose word is the extreme of folly and misery. He has said: Teach ye all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and again, there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.

[AlNg]

If a person calls someone or his postings demonic, would that be a sacrilege? Demons had nothing to do with his postings, but someone decided to call him and his postings things like insane and demonic.

[TerrorDæmonum]

If a person calls someone or his postings demonic, would that be a sacrilege?

No, a sacrilege is a violation of a sacred thing.

13 Q. What is a sacrilege?
A. A sacrilege is the profanation of a place, of a person, or of a thing consecrated to God and set apart for his worship.

[Justin Martyr]

It should be noted that spreading scandal about a priest, bishop, or the Pope would be sacrilege. Or does that classify as blasphemy? I'm sure Joseph will correct me if I'm wrong.

[TerrorDæmonum]

It should be noted that spreading scandal about a priest, bishop, or the Pope would be sacrilege. Or does that classify as blasphemy?

It would be a personal sacrilege. I omitted these distinctions on purpose originally:

There are degrees and distinctions possible with sacrilege, but this are not so important to understand given the grave matter that sacrilege in general is.

[AlNg]

If a person calls someone or his postings demonic, would that be a sacrilege?

No, a sacrilege is a violation of a sacred thing.

13 Q. What is a sacrilege?
A. A sacrilege is the profanation of a place, of a person, or of a thing consecrated to God and set apart for his worship.

So it is not a sacrilege to accuse someone of being demonic and insane. But would it be a mortal sin of slander to do so? Especially if the person has no professional training in psychology and is ignorant of the technical and professional aspects of what is entailed by a diagnosis of insanity?

[TerrorDæmonum]

So it is not a sacrilege to accuse someone of being demonic and insane. But would it be a mortal sin of slander to do so? Especially if the person has no professional training in psychology and is ignorant of the technical and professional aspects of what is entailed by a diagnosis of insanity?

This has nothing to do with this topic so it should be discussed elsewhere. Make your own thread for new topics. Do not abuse this topic or this board.

[AlNg]

So it is not a sacrilege to accuse someone of being demonic and insane. But would it be a mortal sin of slander to do so? Especially if the person has no professional training in psychology and is ignorant of the technical and professional aspects of what is entailed by a diagnosis of insanity?

This has nothing to do with this topic ...

Apparently you don't read your own posts. You claim:

[ irreverent treatment of Sacred Doctrine are to be scrupulously avoided by the faithful.

Scared Doctrine includes the teachings of fallen angels - angels who were created in heaven and at the beginning were very close to God.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of Satan: ?Scripture and the Church?s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called ?Satan? or the ?devil?. The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: ?The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing?.CCC391.
By calling an innocent human being or his postings demonic, is it not a mortal sin of slander and sacrilege as this is an irreverent treatment of the Sacred Docrine of fallen angels?  You yourself have posted here on this thread under the topic Sacrilege is a sin that ... irreverent treatment of Sacred Doctrine is something which is to be scrupulously avoided by the faithful.

[TerrorDæmonum]

And avoid foolish and unlearned questions, knowing that they beget strifes. But the servant of the Lord must not wrangle: but be mild towards all men, apt to teach, patient, With modesty admonishing them that resist the truth: if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, And they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil, by whom they are held captive at his will.

Saint Thomas Aquinas
...
(1) Purity of mind and body contributes in no small degree to clearness of vision (see St. Thomas, "Commentaries on I Cor., c. vii", Lesson v). By the gift of purity, miraculously granted at the time of the mystic girdling, God made Thomas's life angelic; the perspicacity and depth of his intellect, Divine grace aiding, made him the "Angelic Doctor".

Article 2. Whether to tempt is proper to the devil?

On the contrary, It is written (1 Thessalonians 3:5): "Lest perhaps he that tempteth should have tempted you": to which the gloss adds, "that is, the devil, whose office it is to tempt."

I answer that, To tempt is, properly speaking, to make trial of something. Now we make trial of something in order to know something about it: hence the immediate end of every tempter is knowledge. But sometimes another end, either good or bad, is sought to be acquired through that knowledge; a good end, when, for instance, one desires to know of someone, what sort of a man he is as to knowledge, or virtue, with a view to his promotion; a bad end, when that knowledge is sought with the purpose of deceiving or ruining him.

From this we can gather how various beings are said to tempt in various ways. For man is said to tempt, sometimes indeed merely for the sake of knowing something; and for this reason it is a sin to tempt God; for man, being uncertain as it were, presumes to make an experiment of God's power. Sometimes too he tempts in order to help, sometimes in order to hurt. The devil, however, always tempts in order to hurt by urging man into sin. In this sense it is said to be his proper office to tempt: for thought at times man tempts thus, he does this as minister of the devil. God is said to tempt that He may know, in the same sense as that is said to know which makes others to know. Hence it is written (Deuteronomy 13:3): "The Lord your God trieth you, that it may appear whether you love him."

The flesh and the world are said to tempt as the instruments or matter of temptations; inasmuch as one can know what sort of man someone is, according as he follows or resists the desires of the flesh, and according as he despises worldly advantages and adversity: of which things the devil also makes use in tempting.

[AlNg]

And avoid foolish and unlearned questions, knowing that they beget strifes. But the servant of the Lord must not wrangle: but be mild towards all men, apt to teach, patient, With modesty admonishing them that resist the truth: if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, And they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil, by whom they are held captive at his will.

Saint Thomas Aquinas
...
(1) Purity of mind and body contributes in no small degree to clearness of vision (see St. Thomas, "Commentaries on I Cor., c. vii", Lesson v). By the gift of purity, miraculously granted at the time of the mystic girdling, God made Thomas's life angelic; the perspicacity and depth of his intellect, Divine grace aiding, made him the "Angelic Doctor".

Article 2. Whether to tempt is proper to the devil?

On the contrary, It is written (1 Thessalonians 3:5): "Lest perhaps he that tempteth should have tempted you": to which the gloss adds, "that is, the devil, whose office it is to tempt."

I answer that, To tempt is, properly speaking, to make trial of something. Now we make trial of something in order to know something about it: hence the immediate end of every tempter is knowledge. But sometimes another end, either good or bad, is sought to be acquired through that knowledge; a good end, when, for instance, one desires to know of someone, what sort of a man he is as to knowledge, or virtue, with a view to his promotion; a bad end, when that knowledge is sought with the purpose of deceiving or ruining him.

From this we can gather how various beings are said to tempt in various ways. For man is said to tempt, sometimes indeed merely for the sake of knowing something; and for this reason it is a sin to tempt God; for man, being uncertain as it were, presumes to make an experiment of God's power. Sometimes too he tempts in order to help, sometimes in order to hurt. The devil, however, always tempts in order to hurt by urging man into sin. In this sense it is said to be his proper office to tempt: for thought at times man tempts thus, he does this as minister of the devil. God is said to tempt that He may know, in the same sense as that is said to know which makes others to know. Hence it is written (Deuteronomy 13:3): "The Lord your God trieth you, that it may appear whether you love him."

The flesh and the world are said to tempt as the instruments or matter of temptations; inasmuch as one can know what sort of man someone is, according as he follows or resists the desires of the flesh, and according as he despises worldly advantages and adversity: of which things the devil also makes use in tempting.

You have not responded to the point that the CCC concerns Sacred Doctrine. And the CCC teaches us about Satan and the fallen angels. On the one hand you claim that any irreverent treatment of sacred doctrine is to be avoided. But on the other hand you call innocent people and their posts demonic which is not a reverent treatment of the teaching on fallen angels we find in the Scared Doctrine of the CCC. i don't understand the point you have made here. Can you kindly explain how throwing around absurd allegations about people being demonic is consistent with the teaching that we are to avoid any irreverent treatment of the Sacred Doctrine that we find in CCC ? I am trying to understand what you are talking about.

[Jayne]

You have not responded to the point that the CCC concerns Sacred Doctrine. And the CCC teaches us about Satan and the fallen angels. On the one hand you irreverent treatment of sacred doctrine is to be avoided. But on the other hand you call innocent people and their posts demonic which is not a reverent treatment of the teaching on fallen angels we find in the Scared Doctrine of the CCC. i don't understand the point you have made here. Can you kindly explain how throwing around absurd allegations about people being demonic is consistent with the teaching that we are to avoid any irreverent treatment of the Sacred Doctrine that we find in CCC ? I am trying to understand what you are talking about.

His comments about certain behaviour potentially being demonic are neither absurd nor sacrilegious. It is easy to understand what he says.  Simply take his words at face value. It is clear that he sincerely means what he says, so he is not being irreverent.

It is less clear that you sincerely mean what you say.  Your posting history is consistent with trolling the forum.

[TerrorDæmonum]

I don't understand the point you have made here. Can you kindly explain how throwing around absurd allegations about people being demonic is consistent with the teaching that we are to avoid any irreverent treatment of the Sacred Doctrine that we find in CCC ? I am trying to understand what you are talking about.

I would oppose the Church teaching on that. My personal opinion is that...

The Ninth Article of the Creed

31 Q. Are we obliged to believe all the truths the Church teaches us?
A. Yes, we are obliged to believe all the truths the Church teaches us, and Jesus Christ declares that he who does not believe is already condemned.