Moral Theology Part 111

(b) There is regularly only a venial sin, when a vain observance is of a non-religious kind, consisting in foolish heed given to chance happenings (such as a rabbit running across the road, the mention of death, the presence of a person regarded as a Jonah), or the use of improportionate means (e.g., to change one's place at a card table in order to change the luck). For usually there is no irreverence in such practices, and at the worst they are foolish and idle acts. Often there is no sin at all, the vain observance being due to ignorance or the wish to joke.

(c) There is no sin at all, but rather subjective virtue, in religious practices to which on account of simplicity or invincible ignorance too much power is attributed, as when one who is faithful to the essential duties of religion has greater confidence in some personal devotion of his own than in them. But superst.i.tion of this kind, though in itself it is the least reprehensible form of superst.i.tion, may be very harmful and disedifying.

2296. Coperation in Divination or Other Form of Superst.i.tion.--(a) Formal coperation is of course never lawful (e.g., to act as the medium or one of the deceivers at a spiritistic meeting). (b) Material coperation is lawful only when there is a proportionately grave reason, no danger of sin, and no scandal. Thus, it seems that no sin is committed by a scientist who a.s.sists at a spiritistic seance in order to discover the frauds that are resorted to, or who makes experiments with table turning or planchette movements in order to examine into the theory that the phenomena are due to the action of the persons present.

2297. Doubtful Cases of Vain Observance.--Cases in which it is a matter of doubt or dispute whether divination or vain observance is present.

(a) There is sometimes uncertainty whether an extraordinary fact is due to natural or supranatural causes, Thus, authorities commonly take the position, it seems, that certain phenomena of Spiritism (e.g., the apparently automatic movement of tables on which a group of persons rest their finger tips, the answers to questions that are rapped out by such tables), and of mental healing (e.g., the cure of bodily ailment by sympathy or moral influence), are accomplished through natural powers of matter or mind. But other authorities incline to a supranaturalistic explanation.

(b) There is also at times uncertainty whether a fact or practice has a religious or an irreligious character. As to facts, they sometimes appear to be so marvellous as to pa.s.s the natural, and yet it is difficult to determine whether their source is good or evil (e.g., when an ignorant person not noted for piety seems to have a remarkable ability for treating and curing all kinds of diseases). As to practices, they are sometimes susceptible of a religious or a superst.i.tious interpretation. Thus, one who says, "G.o.d bless us," at a sneeze may intend a prayer against sickness; one who knocks on wood after boasting may intend a prayer to Him who died on the wood of the cross, lest he be punished for boasting.

2298. Licitness of Using Doubtfully Superst.i.tious Means.--It is lawful to use means that are only doubtfully superst.i.tious if the following conditions are present:

(a) internally or subjectively, there must be a good conscience about the use of the means. The rule can be followed that what is not certainly of a supranatural character may be regarded as natural, but that what seems to be supranatural is not to be ascribed to G.o.d unless it has the marks and fruits of a divine work. When lawfully using means of a dubious character, it is advisable to make an inner protestation that one acts from reasonable necessity, and has no wish to take part in superst.i.tion;

(b) externally or objectively, there must be nothing in the object or circ.u.mstances or results to make the use of the means illicit. Thus, even though a practice be not superst.i.tious, it may be unlawful because of the immorality of its object or tendency (e.g., frauds used by psychical researchers, obscene messages given by laboratory telepathists), or of its purpose (e.g., table-rapping used as the instrument of pretended religious revelations), or because of the evil consequences for body or soul (e.g., devotees of the ouija board give scandal to others and often end in insanity or suicide).

2299. Irreligiousness.--We now proceed to the four sins that offend religion by defect, namely, temptation of G.o.d and perjury, which show disrespect to G.o.d Himself, and sacrilege and simony, which show disrespect to holy things (see 2273). Perjury has been treated above (see 2249), and hence we shall consider now only the other three forms of irreligiousness.

2300. Temptation of G.o.d.--Temptation of G.o.d is a word or deed that puts G.o.d to the test to discover whether He possesses or will exercise some perfection.

(a) It is a word or deed, such as a prayer whose purpose is to discover whether G.o.d is possessed of knowledge, power or goodness, or an act of defiance performed in order to prove that there is no G.o.d.

(b) It puts G.o.d to the test, that is, the temptation is not seductive (since it is impossible to influence G.o.d to sin), but experimental. He who tempts G.o.d desires that G.o.d give some proof of His attributes.

(c) It is concerned with G.o.d, hence there is no temptation of G.o.d if one legitimately tests out the character of a human being. G.o.d Himself tempted by trial holy men like Abraham, Job, and Tobias in order that their virtue might be manifested and an example given to others. And of spirits St. John says: "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of G.o.d, because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John, iv. 1).

(d) The purpose is to discover, without regard to the ordinary means of instruction and guidance appointed by G.o.d, whether G.o.d possesses or will exercise an attribute; that is, temptation of G.o.d is due to unbelief or to presumption.

2301. Cases Wherein There Is no Temptation of G.o.d.--(a) To seek a proof of divine perfections is not temptation of G.o.d, if the purpose is only to find new reasons for what one already accepts, or to experience in an affective way what one already admits speculatively. Hence, a theologian may study the attributes of G.o.d with a view to further illumination; hence also, one may prove the sweetness of G.o.d or the goodness of His will from the spiritual taste or relish for divine things (Psalm x.x.xiii. 9; Rom., xii. 2).

(b) To seek a sign of G.o.d's will or a manifestation of His perfections is not temptation of G.o.d, if this is done, not from curiosity, ostentation or other vain motive, but from some reason of necessity or great utility, as when Gedeon prayed for a sign that the Lord had spoken to him or was with him (Judges, vi. 17, 37), or when Elias called on Jehovah to show His power before the wors.h.i.+ppers of Baal (III Kings, xviii. 37). Hence, he does not tempt G.o.d who, when ordinary means of direction fail him in some critical affair, asks humbly for a sign of G.o.d's will; or who in a matter of great moment asks for miraculous help if it be pleasing to G.o.d to grant it; or who exposes himself to serious danger for some priceless good that cannot otherwise be had, in the trust that G.o.d will be with him.

2302. Kinds of Temptation of G.o.d.--(a) In relation to its source, temptation of G.o.d arises either from unbelief or from presumption. The former, which is temptation of G.o.d in the strict sense, exists when one disbelieves or doubts some attribute of G.o.d and seeks to put it to the proof, as when the Israelites in the desert called into question the providence and power of Jehovah (Exod., xvii. 7, Psalm lxxvii. 18, 19), or when a person doubting the Real Presence asks for a miraculous sight of Christ in the Eucharist. The latter sin, which is temptation of G.o.d in the wide sense, is committed when a believing person asks without a just cause for a miraculous manifestation of G.o.d's will, or powers, or of some other thing, as when a lazy man asks that his work be done in some miraculous way, or a rash man neglects the ordinary care of his health, asking that G.o.d supply for his carelessness. But temptation of G.o.d is not to be identified with the theological sin of presumption (see 1081).

(b) In relation to its manner, temptation of G.o.d is either express or interpretative. It is express when one intends by one's word or act to put G.o.d to the proof in respect to knowledge, power, reliability, or other perfection (as when the Jews demanded that Christ come down from the Cross, if He were the Son of G.o.d) or to satisfy a vain curiosity or boldness (as when Herod asked Christ to work some miracles for his amus.e.m.e.nt). Temptation of G.o.d is interpretative when one does not intend to discover G.o.d's perfections or make presumptuous requests, but nevertheless so acts or omits to act that one's conduct is useful for nothing except temptation of G.o.d, as when a believer rashly promises a miracle to convince an unbeliever, a sick man refuses to use any medical care (Ecclus., x.x.xviii. 4), a lecturer goes entirely unprepared to his lecture, etc. Prayer made without the proper dispositions is a quasi-temptation of G.o.d (Ecclus., xviii. 23), because it is disrespectful and presumptuous; but it is not real temptation of G.o.d, nor of its nature mortally sinful, the direct end of the act being laziness or some other state of soul unsuitable to prayer.

2303. Causes that Exclude the Interpretative Temptation of G.o.d.--There is no interpretative temptation of G.o.d strictly speaking if one acts rashly or encounters danger, but does not at all expect miraculous or special intervention from G.o.d. This happens as follows:

(a) when one is unconcerned whether evil results or not, or desires that it may result (e.g., when a person who is tired of life seeks a dangerous occupation for the diversion and excitement it affords, or when a person practises abstinence from certain remedies as an act of moderate mortification);

(b) when one does not wish the evil result, but is so stupid or rash as to believe that an imprudent risk can be taken and evil escaped through chance or good luck, as when a student goes up for a difficult examination with slight preparation, trusting that only the things he knows will be asked.

2304. Refusal of Medicine or Hygienic Care.--(a) If there is a sufficient reason for this conduct, no sin is committed. There may be sufficient reasons of a natural kind (e.g., that the remedies are harmful or useless or too expensive), or of a supernatural kind (e.g., St. Agatha refused all medicines because G.o.d Himself was her physician, certain Saints were divinely inspired to make no effort to remove bodily maladies on account of the spiritual profit derived from them).

(b) If there is no sufficient reason for this conduct, it is sinful.

Thus, one sins against faith, if the reason for the conduct is disbelief in the existence of evil (e.g., Christian Science or Eddyism attributes sickness and pain to imagination, and says that the only cure is "faith"); one sins by temptation of G.o.d, if the reason for the conduct is vain expectation of miracles; one is guilty of suicide or homicide, if the purpose is to end life, etc.

2305. The Sinfulness of Temptation of G.o.d.--(a) To doubt the perfections of G.o.d, or to call upon the extraordinary Providence of G.o.d in disregard of the ordinary Providence He has established is the essence of temptation of G.o.d. It is sinful, because it includes either unjustifiable doubt or vincible ignorance in the intellect or presumption in the will. Hence the command given in Deuteronomy (vi.

16): "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy G.o.d." But invincible ignorance excuses from sin, and hence many of those who in times past resorted to ordeals by painful or dangerous tests (e.g., walking on burning coals, risking death in deep waters), in order that G.o.d might settle a doubtful matter, were, on account of their good faith, guiltless of temptation of G.o.d. The practice was condemned by the Church in the ninth century.

(b) To doubt about the positive and unknown will of G.o.d, or to call upon the extraordinary Providence of G.o.d (i.e., the direct intervention of the First Cause), without disregard of the ordinary Providence (i.e., of second causes appointed by G.o.d), is not sinful, if it is justified by necessity. Thus, being unable to resist the nations leagued against him, Josaphat prayed: "As we know not what to do, we can only turn our eyes to Thee" (II Paral., xx. 12). And Our Lord promised the disciples that, when they should be unable to prepare their defense on account of the persecutions to which they were subjected, the Spirit Himself would speak through them (Matt., X. 19), and that He would enable them to do things as difficult as moving mountains when real necessity called for it (Matt., xvii. 19). It is not unbelief to doubt about matters pertaining to G.o.d that are really doubtful (i.e., not His perfections, but His positive and unknown will), and hence one does not tempt G.o.d who asks for divine guarantees of a religion proposed as divinely revealed (see 795); it is not presumption to ask G.o.d for a sign or proof, if G.o.d directs one to do this (e.g., Abraham in Gen., xv. 8, was inspired to seek a sign that the promised land would be given his posterity; Achaz in Isaias, vii.

11, was bidden for the sake of others to ask for a sign), or if, when a sign from G.o.d seems necessary or very useful, one prays for it prudently and on condition that the request is pleasing to G.o.d (e.g., the Apostles in Acts, iv. 30, prayed for signs and wonders in confirmation of their preaching).

2306. The Malice of Temptation of G.o.d.--(a) It is a sin directly against religion, for one shows contempt to G.o.d when one demands that He prove His perfections, or when one takes the liberty to disregard the ordinary means He has established and to call for others. The sin is less, however, than that of superst.i.tion, since temptation of G.o.d professes doubt, while superst.i.tion professes positive error.

Temptation of G.o.d offends also against other virtues, such as faith (e.g., when one doubts the perfections of G.o.d), hope (e.g., when one presumes that G.o.d will do all without one's coperation), charity (e.g., when a person exposes his own life to risk or his neighbor to scandal in a vain confidence that the danger will be miraculously averted).

(b) It is a mortal sin from its nature, since it offends religion. But it may be venial on account of the imperfection of the act, as when from weakness of faith or without reflection one asks unnecessarily for a sign (Luke, i. 11-20). It may be venial also from the lightness of the matter, if the temptation is interpretative, as when one presumes on the divine aid in a slight sickness, an unimportant talk, or other small affair.

2307. As a rule temptation of G.o.d is only a venial sin, and in an individual case it is rarely mortal, except in the following instances:

(a) when one intends a grave offense against G.o.d, as by doubting His goodness, demanding or attempting a miracle to satisfy curiosity;

(b) when one exposes oneself to grave peril, as by leaping from the roof of a high building, refusing all remedies or means of preserving health, neglecting to provide for one's sustenance, etc., in the expectation that G.o.d will miraculously provide;

(c) when one causes grave harm to others, as when a person rashly asking for signs exposes faith to the derision of unbelievers or scandalizes believers.

2308. Sacrilege.--Sacrilege in the wide sense is any sin against the virtue of religion. But in the strict sense, in which it is now taken, it is defined as "the violation of a sacred thing."

(a) Sacrilege is against a thing, that is, against some person, place or object dedicated to divine wors.h.i.+p as a possession of G.o.d. Sacrilege differs from the two previous sins of irreligiosity (namely, temptation of G.o.d and perjury); for they are against the reverence due to G.o.d Himself, while sacrilege is against the reverence due to things on account of their use in the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d.

(b) It is against a sacred thing, that is, against the sanct.i.ty which a thing acquires from its dedication to G.o.d (e.g., when a church or a chalice is consecrated to divine wors.h.i.+p, when a virgin is dedicated to G.o.d by vow), or from the immunity or privilege conferred on it by the Church on account of its dedication to G.o.d (e.g., the clerical privileges of forum and of canon in Church Law). But sacrilege is present only when a sacred thing is attacked in that special quality or relation in which it is sacred. Hence, he who violates the chast.i.ty of a virgin consecrated to G.o.d is guilty of sacrilege, since it is her chast.i.ty that was vowed to G.o.d; he who strikes her is also guilty of sacrilege, since he attacks the sacred immunity which the law confers on her; he who calumniates her or steals from her is not guilty of sacrilege, since her name and goods are not consecrated to divine wors.h.i.+p nor protected by its special sacredness in law.

(c) Sacrilege is a violation, that is, an action or omission physically or morally injurious to the sacred character of a person, place or thing. The difference between the injury done in sacrilege and that done in simony is that the former injustice belongs to the cla.s.s of wrongs inflicted in involuntary commutations, such as theft or robbery (see 1748, 1815), whereas the latter injustice pertains to the category of wrongs perpetrated in voluntary commutations, such as buying, selling, or lending. In both cases there is an injury to the property or possession of G.o.d, but the difference is that in sacrilege the parties involved are the sacrilegious person acting as aggressor against G.o.d, in simony the parties are two men bargaining together to buy and sell the sacred things of G.o.d.

2309. What Kind of Consecration Must Be Violated to Const.i.tute Sacrilege?--There are various opinions about the kind of a.s.signment to wors.h.i.+p necessary for the sacredness which is injured by sacrilege.

(a) The opinion that seems to be common today holds that the a.s.signment must be made through some public rite or consecration on the part of the Church. Hence, according to this view, the violation of a private vow or resolution is not sacrilegious, but rather perfidious or disloyal. The argument for this opinion is that the public acceptance of the Church, which has control over divine wors.h.i.+p, is a necessary factor in making anything sacred to that wors.h.i.+p; and that many absurdities would follow from the principle that each individual has the power to give the sacredness in question to his own person, acts or possessions.

(b) According to a stricter opinion, no public a.s.signment is necessary if the consecration is a personal one; and hence the violation of even a private vow of chast.i.ty would be sacrilegious. The argument is that even a private vow affecting the person sets it apart as a sacred thing.

(c) According to a still stricter view, no public a.s.signment to wors.h.i.+p is necessary, whether the consecration be personal or non-personal, and hence even the violation of a vow to fast would be sacrilegious. The argument is that anything set apart for G.o.d's honor, either publicly or privately, becomes sacred to Him.

2310. Is Sacrilege a Special Sin?--(a) As regards its matter or subject sacrilege may be called, though improperly, a general sin, in the sense that many different cla.s.ses of sins may be sacrilegious (e.g., murder is sacrilegious when a sacred person is killed, l.u.s.t is sacrilegious when a person vowed to G.o.d is violated; theft is sacrilegious when objects consecrated to divine wors.h.i.+p are stolen, etc.).

(b) As regards its form or essence, and hence properly speaking, sacrilege is a special sin, because there is a peculiar deformity contained in the very nature of sacrilege that is not in other sins, namely, the disrespect shown to G.o.d through contempt for things that are sacred to Him. Moreover, there may be a sin of sacrilege that is separate from other sins, such as murder, l.u.s.t, and theft, for example, when the right of asylum is violated.

2311. The Species of Sacrilege.--(a) Personal sacrilege is committed when the sacredness of a person is violated. This happens in the first place when bodily or real harm (e.g., gravely sinful striking, citing before a secular tribunal, subjecting to civil duties or burdens, such as military service) is done to a cleric; and in the second place when a grave sin of unchast.i.ty is committed by or with a person dedicated to G.o.d by a vow (at least by a public vow) of chast.i.ty. Sacrilege committed through bodily or real harm is treated by canonists under the questions of the privileges of canon (Canon 119), forum (Canon 120), immunity (Canon 121). Sacrilegious impurity committed with a person vowed to chast.i.ty and sacrilegious impurity committed by a person vowed to chast.i.ty are grave sins of l.u.s.t, even though they be only of thought or desire.

(b) Local sacrilege is committed when the sacredness of a place is injured. A place is considered sacred or religious when it possesses sanct.i.ty as being consecrated or blessed for divine wors.h.i.+p or for burial of the faithful, namely, churches, public or semi-public oratories, and consecrated cemeteries. Injury is done to the holiness of the place by desecration or profanation. Desecration is the performance in a sacred place of a notorious act of irreverence which so spiritually contaminates it that the divine offices may not be lawfully celebrated therein until the rite of reconciliation has been performed. Canon 1172 enumerates four causes of desecration: the crime of homicide; the injurious and serious shedding of human blood; impious or sordid uses (e.g., if a church were turned into a brothel or gambling den, a dump, or cattle stable), and burial of an infidel or person excommunicated by condemnatory or declaratory sentence.

Profanation of a sacred place is a disregard for the religious respect or immunity due to it which in some way materially contaminates it (e.g., if a church is not kept nice and clean; if markets and fairs are held in its precincts; if it is used for shows, plays, moving pictures, banquets, court proceedings; if the right of asylum is violated; if the church is broken into, seriously defaced, burned). These matters are treated more fully in commentaries on Canons 1172 sqq.

(c) Real sacrilege is committed when the sacredness of an object is violated. An object is sacred when it contains the Author of holiness or confers holiness (viz., the Eucharist and the other Sacraments), when it is naturally related to the Sacraments or sacred persons (e.g., the sacred vessels, images and relics of the Saints), when it is set aside for the uses of wors.h.i.+p (e.g., holy water and other sacramentals, candles for the altar) or the maintenance of the Church or its ministers (viz., movables and immovables of a parish, money left for the support of the clergy, seminarians, etc.). Injury is done to the holiness of an object by unworthy treatment or by unjust damage or conversion. Examples of unworthy treatment are the following: the invalid or sinful administration or reception of a Sacrament, parodies of Sacred Scripture, scandalous manner of enacting sacred rites or saying prayers, use of sacred chalices or other sacred vessels or of blessed articles for profane purposes, use of unblessed holy articles for sordid or ign.o.ble purposes, handling of chalices, etc., by those who have no right to touch sacred vessels (Canon 1306). Examples of unjust damage or conversion are: contemptuous breaking or burning of relics, oils, pictures used for wors.h.i.+p; theft of moneys or goods belonging to the Church.

2312. Special Cases Regarding Local Sacrilege.--Local sacrilege is not committed by every sin, even though grave, that is done in a holy place, for the character of this sacrilege is that it be such an injury to the sacredness of the place as to make what should be hallowed seem horrible, or contemptible, or common. Hence, there is no sacrilege in detractions, lies, perjuries, blasphemies, or in most internal sins, when committed in a church or cemetery. But there are two kinds of sins which are sacrilegious profanations of holy places, namely, theft and impurity.

(a) Theft in a holy place is certainly sacrilegious when the thing taken is sacred (e.g., a chalice, money in the votive stands). It is probably not sacrilegious when the thing taken is not sacred (e.g., the pocketbook of a person kneeling in the church), and if the thing taken was not left in the custody of the place. This matter, however, is disputed.