UNIVERSITY^
NOTRE DAME

LIBRARIES

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY Qp AMERICA
CANON LAW STUDIES
No. 159

V
z

The Desecratiojbând Violation
of Churches
AN HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS
AND COMMENTARY
BY

JOHN THEOPHILUS GUECZYNSKI, J.C.L.
Priest of the Diocese of Dallas

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of Canon Lazo of the Catholic University
of America in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
DOCTOR OE CANON LAW

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY
WASHINGTON, D. C.
1942

AMERICA

NIHIL OBSTAT:
Clemens V. Bastnagel, J.U.D., S.T.L.,
Censor Deputatus
Washingtonii, die 1 M iiinii, 1942

IMPRIMATUR;
+ Josi piuis Patritius Lynch, D.D..
Episcopus Dallasensis
Dallasii, die 16a augusti, 1942

Copyright 1942,

The· Catholic University

PRINTED
BY

THE

IN

THE

UNITED

WATKINS

by

of

America Press

STATES

PRINTING

CO.,

OF

AMERICA

BALTIMORE

TABLE ΟΓ COXTEXTS
Eoi.eword

........................

INIK<W<TH<X

.....................................................................................................................................

v
vii

PART I - · HISTORY
Chapter I. Cherches .................................................................
Art. 1.
Origin .......................................................................
Art. IE
Eakin Appellétions ..........................................
Art. I II. Early Cfrimonifs of Dedic \tion....................

1
1
4
7

Chapter II. Historical Develop uent from the Earliest
Times up to the Dfcrftals
Gregory IX.................. 12
Art. I. Desecration lf Chuk<ahes....................................... 12
A—Destruction .......................................................................... 12
B—Removal of the Altar......................................................... 15
C—Homicide and the Shedding of Blood..........................
17
D—Effusio Seminis .................................................................
IB
Art. II. Canonical Effects of the Burial of Infidels
in a Church..........................................................................
19
Chapter HI. Historical Development from the
Decretals of Gregory IX up to the Code.................... 22
Art. I. Desecration of Chitciits....................................... 22
A—Total Destruction ............................................................. 22
I’—Destruction of the Major Part of the Valls............. 24
C—Reduction to Secular Status and Purpose.................
27
Art. II. Violation of Churches............................................... 30
A—Eactors of Violation........................................................
31
a) Homicide .......................................................................... 31
b) The Shedding of Human Blood................................
32
c) Effusio Scniinis ............................................................. 35
d) Burial of an Infidel or of an Excommunicated
Person .............................................................................. 36
B—-Requisite Conditions for Violation.......................
39
a) Certainty Regarding the Committed Act............... 39
b) Notoriety Regarding the Committed Act............... 39
c') Localization of the Committed Act in the Church
1 ’roper.............................................................................. 40
Art. III. Consequences of the XTolation of Churches 42
Art. IV. Minister of Reconciliation................................
44
A—Consecrated Churches ................................................ 44
B—Blessed Churches ......................................................... 46
Summary and Conclusions ........................................................
47

NIHIL OBSTAT:
Clemens V. Bastnagel, J.U.D., S.T.L.
Censor Deputatus
Washington!!, die 13a iunii, 1942
IMPRIMATUR;
■P Josephus Patritius Lynch, D.D.,
Episcopus Dallasensis
Dallasii, die 16a augusti, 1942

Copyright 1942, by

The· Catholic University of America Press

PRINTED IN

BY

THE

the

UNITED

WATKINS

STATES

PRINTING

CO.,

OF

AMERICA

BALTIMORE.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword ............................................................................................
Introduction ......................................................................................

v
vi i

TART I — HISTORY
Chapter I. Churches ...................................... -.........................
Art. I.
Origin ........................................................................
Art, II.
Early Appellations ............................................
Art. HI. Early Ceremonies of Dedication..................

1
1
4
7

Chapter II. Historical Development from the Earliest
Times up to the Decretals of Gregory IX’.................
12
Art. I. Desecration of Churches.......................................
12
A—Destruction .......................................................................... 12
B—Removal of the Altar.........................................................
15
C—Homicide and the Shedding of Blood..........................
17
D—Effusio Seminis.................................................................. 19
Art. II. Canonical Effects of the Burial of Infidels
in a Church..........................................................
19

Chapter III. Historical Development from the
Decretals of Gregory IX up to the Code...................
Art. I. Desecration of Churches.......................................
A—Total Destruction ..............
B—Destruction of the Major Part of the Walls.............
C—Reduction to Secular Status and Purpose.................
Art. II. Violation of Churches.........................................
A—Factors of Violation.........................................................
a) Homicide ..........................................................................
b) The Shedding of Human Blood.................................
c) Effusio Seminis .............................................................
d) Burial of an Infidel or of an Excommunicated
Person ..............................................................................
B-—Requisite Conditions for Violation......................
a) Certainty Regarding the Committed Act...............
b) Notoriety Regarding the Committed Act...............
c) Localization of the Committed Act in the Church
Proper..............................................................................
Art. III. Consequences of the XHolation of Churches
Art. IV. Minister of Reconciliation.................................
A—Consecrated Churches ................................................
B—Blessed Churches .........................................................
Summary and Conclusions.........................................................

22
22
22
24
27
30
31
31
32
35
36
39
39
39

40
42
44
44
46
47

IV

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

PART II — COMMENTARY
Chapter IV. Desecration of Churches...............................
Art. I.
Totae Destruction ..............................................
Art. II.
Destruction of the Major Part of the
Walls ...........................................................................
Art. III. Reduction to Secular Status and Purpose

49
50
53
56

Chapter V. Violation ofChurches........................................ 65
Art. I. Factors EffectingA’iolation................................... 69
A—Crime of Homicide...........................................................
69
B-—Unjust and Grave Shedding of Blood.......................... 73
C—Impious or Sordid Uses..................................................
76
D—Burial of an Infidel or of a Person Excommunicated
upon a Declaratory or a Condemnatory Sentence. . 80
Art. II. Requisite Conditions for Violation............. 85
A—Certainty Regarding the Committed Act................... 85
B—Notoriety Regarding the Committed Act................... 86
C—Localization of the Committed Act in the Church
Proper................................................................................... 87
Chapter VI. Consequences of the Violation of a
Church .....................................................................................
Art. 1. Cessation of Divine Services....................
Art. II. Necessity of Reconciliation..................... .....

89
89
93

Chapter VII. Reconciliation of Violated Churches. . 95
Art. I. Minister .................................................................... :.. 95
A—Blessed Churches ............................................................. 95
B—Consecrated Churches .................................................... 96
Art. II. Rites and Ceremonies........................................... 99
Chapter VIII. Penalties Provided by Law Against
Those Who Cause the Violation of a Church. ... 101

Conclusions ...................
Bibliography ......................................................................................
Biographical Note .........................................................................
Alphabetical Index .......................................................................
Canon Law Studies.....................................................................

108
109
115
117

119 t

FOREWORD
Churches are endowed with a sacred character that is given to
them when they are dedicated to the worship of God by the liturgical
rite of consecration or blessing. The celebration of divine services is
permitted in a church as long as that sacred character has not been
lost by desecration or defiled by violation. It is the purpose of this
work to offer a study of the canonical legislation concerning the
desecration and violation of churches.
The work is divided into two parts, one a historical synopsis and
the other a canonical commentary. In the first part an attempt is
made to trace the origin of the laws regarding the desecration and
violation of churches, and to point out the various changes effected in
the enactment of these laws along with the various interpretations
that were given to them in the course of their successive develop'
ment. The second part of the dissertation is a commentary of the
law as it is found at the present time in the Code of Canon Law.
An explanation is given of the legal factors and the conditions under
which the desecration and violation of churches is brought about.
The writer takes this opportunity to express his gratitude to the
Most Reverend Joseph P. Lynch, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Dallas,
for the opportunity offered for advanced study, to the members of
the Faculty of the School of Canon Law for their assistance and
direction in the preparation of this work and to all others, especially
the Reverend Walter J. Canavan, MA., Litt.D., J.C.D., who have
in any way helped to make this work possible.

I

b

INTRODUCTION
It is necessary at the very outset to clarify the meaning of the
terms that arc to be used in this work, in order to avoid the con­
fusion which would inevitably arise from an improper understanding
of the terms. The term “desecration” will be used throughout the
work for the lack of a more suitable English equivalent of the Latin
expression “exsecratio.’' For the purpose of uniformity the term
“violation” will be used to convey the idea of the Latin expressions.
“pollutio” and “violatio.” Other expressions that do not readily
lend themselves to a literal translation into English will be used
in the original Latin terminology.
Some modern authors 1 use the terms desecration and violation as
having identical meanings. It is the firm conviction of the present
waiter that the two terms cannot and should not be used synony­
mously. The term desecration is derived from de and sacrare 12 and
means the removal of the sacred character from a person or a thing.
Violation, on the other hand, is a temporary suspension of the
effects of the consecration or blessing of a church, which suspension
is caused by certain acts, specifiecbin law, which have been committed
in the church, but this suspension of effects docs not. cause the
church to lose its consecration or blessing.3 The terms present two
distinct concepts and, therefore, should not be used interchangeably.
The desecration of a church may be defined as the removal of
the sacred character which was given to the church through its
consecration or blessing.4 In other words, the desecration of a
church is the loss of its consecration or blessing.5* The present Code
1 Augustine, A Commentary on the 7d.ew Code of Canon Law (8 vols., St.
Louis: Herder, Vol. λ·7!, 3. cd., Administrative Law, 1931), VI, 35; Ayrinhac, Administrative Legislation in the Lfew Code of Canon Law (New York:
Longmans, Green G? Co., 1930), p. 21; Bcste, Introductio in Codicem (Col­
legeville, Minn.: St. John’s Abbey Press, 19 38), p. 564.
2 Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Lipsiae, 1900- ), v. “desecratio.”
3 Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus Sacris (Taurini: Marietti, 1922), n. 27.
4 Wernz?Vidal, Ius Canonicum (7 vols, in 8, Romae: apud Aedes Univer­
sitatis Gregorianae, 1923-1938), IV, pars I (De Rebus), n. 365.
5 Ojetti, Synopsis Rerum Moralium et luris Pontificii (Romae: 1899), v.
“exsecratio”; Many, Praelectiones de Locis Sacris (Parisiis: 1904), n. 25.

viii

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

of Canon Law mentions three ways by which a church may lose
its consecration or blessing, namely: a) by the total destruction of
the church; b) by the collapse of the major part of the walls; c) by
the conversion of the church to secular purposes through the local
ordinary in accordance with the rules given in canon 1187.6
The desecration of a church does not cause the desecration of the
immovable or fixed altars in the church; nor does the desecration of
an altar desecrate the church in which it is erected.7 The reason
for this is that the consecration of a church and the consecration
of an altar are two distinct consecrations and therefore exist independently of each other.8 An altar, however, would become dese­
crated along with the desecration of a church if some part of the
walls of the church, or some other object, should fall on the altar in
such a manner as to cause the table of the altar to be moved from
its support, or if the table itself were considerably broken.9
It is forbidden to hold religious services in a new church before
it has been solemnly consecrated or at least dedicated to divine wor­
ship by a blessing.1011It is likewise forbidden to hold religious ser­
vices in a church which has lost its consecration or blessing, unless
the church has been repaired and consecrated or blessed again in
the same manner as should be done in the case of a newly built
church.11
6 Canon 1170.
7 Canon 1200, § 4.
8 Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus Sacris, η. 117; Many, De Locis Sacris,
n. 123; Barbosa, luris Ecclesiastici Universi Libri Tres (Lugduni: 1660), lib.
II, cap. VII, n. 23 (henceforth this work will be referred to as lus Eccle­
siasticum Universum); Bliley, Altars According to the T(ew Code of Canon
Law, Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies, n. 38 (Washing­
ton: The Catholic University of America, 1927), p. 96; cf. also Pontificale
Romanum Summorum Pontificum iussu editum a Benedicto XIV et Leone XIII
Pont. Max. recognitum et castigatum (Ratisbonae, Neo Eboraci et Cincin­
nati: 1891), tit. De Altaris Consecratione, quae fit sine Ecclesiae dedicatione.
° Canon 1200, § 1, 2°.
10 Canon 1165, § 1.
11 Wernz, Ius Decretalium (6 vols, in 10, Romae et Prati: 1905-1914), III
(Romae: 1908), n. 441; Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus Sacris, n. 26, 4°;
De Angelis, Praelectiones luris Canonici ad methodum Decretalium Gregarii
IX exactae (4 vols, in 6, Romae: 1877-1887), lib. III, tit. 40, n. 4..

Introduction

ix

The violation of a church is defined as an injury inflicted by cer­
tain acts specified in law which blemish the sacred character of a
church and render it unfit for divine services until the blemish
is removed by the sacred rite of reconciliation.12 The violation of a
church does not cause it to lose its consecration or blessing, but all
sacred functions are forbidden to be celebrated in the church until
the rite of reconciliation is performed.13
The acts that bring about the violation of a church are enumerated
in canon 1172. They are four in number: a) the crime of homicide;
b) the injurious and grave shedding of blood; c) the impious and
sordid uses to which a church has been converted; d) the burial
of an infidel or of a person whose excommunication is attended with
a declaratory or condemnatory sentence. Furthermore, before a
church can become violated the same canon presupposes that the
violative acts were certain, notorious and committed in the church
proper.
Strictly taken there is no special violation of an altar distinct from
the violation of a church. This is apparent from the Roman Ponti'
fical and the Roman Ritual, neither of which gives a special rite
for the reconciliation of a violated altar. The altar, however, is
affected indirectly, for it is forbidden to celebrate Mass upon the
altar of a violated church until the rite of reconciliation of the
church has been performed.14
12 De Angelis, loc. cit.
13 Werna, Ius Decretalium, III, n. 442; Gasparri, Tractatus Canonicus de
Sanctissima Eucharistia (2 vols., Parisiis et Lugduni: 1897), I, n. 243;
Schmalagrueber, I.us Ecclesiasticum Universum (5 vols, in 12, Romae; 18431845), lib. III, tit. 40, n. 63.
14 Cf. Many, De Locis Sacris, n. 125; Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus
Sacris, n. 117; Bliley, Altars, p. 96.

PART I
HISTORY
Chapter I

CHURCHES
Article I. Origin

The word church as used in this work docs not mean the society
of the faithful which constitutes the. mystical body of Christ, but
rather ”a sacred building dedicated to divine worship, principally
for the purpose that it may be used by all the faithful for the public
exercise of divine worship.” 1
The first Christians did not have churches in the sense in which
they are understood today; nevertheless there were certain places
set apart in which the Christians assembled for divine worship.
These primitive churches were ordinary private houses, such as the
one having the upper room, so often mentioned in Holy Scripture,
where Matthias was chosen to replace Judas,1
2 and where the Apostles
were assembled in prayer when the Holy Ghost descended upon
them.3 Possibly this room was used when the Apostles elected and
ordained the seven deacons,4 and it is probable that this was the
place where the 1 Council of Jerusalem was held.5*
St. Paul in many of his letters0 saluted the congregations of the
faithful that met in the houses of pious Christians who had per'
mitted some part of their dwelling to be used as a place of worship.
Such places were considered sacred, and it was demanded that due
respect and reverence be given them. St. Paul distinguished be'
tween ordinary dwellings and homes which had been converted to
1 Canon 1161.
2 Acts, I: 13'26.
3 Acts, II: 1'4.
4 Acts, VI: 2'6.
5 Acts, XV : 6'29.
« Rom., XVI:
I Cor., XVI: 19; Phil., I: 2.

2

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

houses of worship and he rebuked those who showed a lack of proper
respect for the latter.7

H
i

With the spread of Christianity and the consequent increase in
the number of the faithful, private homes were given over in their
entirety to be used for religious purposes. These buildings not only
provided accommodations for the faithful, the catechumens, and
the penitents who attended religious services, but also served as a
dwelling-place for the bishop and the clergy. Parts of the buildings
were used as a refectory, as a dispensary, and particularly as an alms­
house for the poor. The part set aside for worship took on a special
importance of its own and became separated from the other parts
of the building. It came to be known as the house of God (domus
Dei). It was used exclusively for acts of devotion and religion, and
did not allow of anything to be done there that did not reflect some
indication of religious piety or have some immediate relation to it.
Such a part of the house could be used for religious assemblies,
for the election of bishops and of the clergy, for conferences about
theological topics, but it could not be utilized as the remaining
parts of the house, that is, for eating, drinking, lodging, etc.8

It is to be remembered that the Christian religion was proscribed
by law from the very beginning until the time of the famous Edict
of Toleration given at Milan in the year 313. Hence during the
time of the persecutions the Church was not recognized as a legal
organization, and thus could not hold any property in its own
name. However, Roman law granted legal personality to charitable
organizations (collegia tenuiorum) and burial associations (collegia
funeraticia). Therefore, since the Church performed acts of mercy
of this kind, land and buildings could become the property of Christ­
ian charitable organizations. Legal protection, then, was granted to
the property, not because it belonged to the Church, but because it
7 “Have you not houses for your eating and drinking? Or do you despise
the church of God and put to shame the needy? What am I to say to you?
Am I to commend you? In this I do not commend you.”—I Cor., XI: 22.
8 Duchesne, Christian Worship, Its Origin.and Evolution (5. ed., London:
MacMillan Co., 1931), 399-400; Bingham, The Antiquities of the Christian
Church (2 vols., London: 18Ï6), Book VIII, chap. I, sect. 1.3.

Churches

3

belonged to a legally recognized organization.9 Such property, how­
ever, was subject to confiscation if it was discovered that the mem­
bership of the organizations was composed of adherents of the
forbidden religion.
The Church, using to its advantage the protection given by law,
made use of public churches in addition to private houses for re­
ligious purposes. It is recorded by Eusebius 1011that in the time of
Pope Cornelius (251-25 3) there were -14 priests, 7 deacons, 7 sub­
deacons, 42 acolytes, 52 exorcists, lectors and porters, and 1500
virgins, infirm persons and poor attached to the church at Rome
alone. It may be inferred from the aforesaid that it was necessary
to have a building of huge proportions to accommodate such a large
number at religious functions. With a temporary grant of peace
Emperor Gallienus, in the year 260, revoked a prior edict of his
predecessor, Valerian, and ordered that all places dedicated to divine
worship be returned to the Christians.11
One of the more celebrated cases is that of Paul of Samosata
(circa 272), who was declared a heretic by the ecclesiastical authori­
ties and consequently deposed from his office. He was ordered to
give up the church which he governed in Antioch. Upon his re­
fusal to comply with the order, recourse was made to the emperor,
Aurelian, who declared that the church should be returned to the
Christian community which was in communion with the bishop
of Rome.12
Finally, the edict of Milan, issued jointly by Constantine and
Licinius, granted absolute freedom of worship to the Christians and
declared that the churches and all the property belonging to them,
which had been confiscated during the persecutions, should be re­
stored to the Church without hesitation or controversy.13
9 De Rossi, La Roma Sotteranea Cristiano (3 vols., Roma: 1864-1877), I,
101-103.
10 Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 43—Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus,
Series Graeca (161 vols., Parisiis: 1856-1866), XX, 622 (hereafter this
work will be referred to as MPG).
11 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., VII, 13—MPG, XX, 674.
is Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., VII, 30—MPG, XX, 719.
i3 The text of this decree is quoted in full by Lactantius, De Mortibus

4

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

All of the above mentioned texts give sufficient evidence in testi'
mony of the existence of churches from the very beginning of
Christianity and throughout the persecutions. From the time of
Constantine onward, with some local exceptions, it-is an undeniable
historical fact that churches existed unmolested by the secular power.

Article II. Early Appellations
The churches of the early Christians were referred to by various
names, the most common of which was ecclesia as opposed to the
synagogue of the Jews and the temples of the pagans. St. Paul
was the first to make use of this expression.14 Tertullian (c. 160'
222/3) made frequent use of it in his many writings,15 as well as
Eusebius when he related the great change brought about in the
Roman Empire with the conversion of Constantine to the Catholic
faith.16
Another very common name was Dominicum.17 St. Cyprian (190'
258), Archbishop of Carthage (249'258), applied it not oniy to the
church but also to the Lord’s Supper.18 The same name occurred in
other Latin writers, as in Rufinus of Aquileia (345'410), who in a
historical narrative introduces to his readers the bishop who converted
Persecutorum, c. 48—Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina
(221 vols., Parisiis: 1844Ί864), VII, 267'270 (hereafter this work will be
referred to as MPL).
14 “Numquid domos non habetis ad manducandum et bibendum? aut
ecclesiam Dei contemnitis?”—I Cor. XI: 22.
15 “In ecclesia virginitatem suam abscondant quam extra ecclesiam celant,"
De Virginibus Velandis, cap. 13—MPL, II, 907; De Pudicitia, cap. 4—MPL,
II, 987.
10 “Pulcherrimae et magnificentissimae ecclesiae monumenta exornavit,” De
Vita Constantini, III, 50—-MPG, XX, 1110.
The Latin Dominicum has its origin in the Greek κνριακόν, from which
is derived the Scotch \ir\, the German Kirche, and the English church. Cf.
Bingham, Christian Antiquities, Book VIII, chap. I, sect. 2; Duchesne, Chris'
tian Worship, p. 400; Augustine, A Commentary on the T?ew Code of Canon
Law, VI, 12.
18 “Locuples et dives es, et Dominicum celebrare te credis, quae corbonam
omnino non respicis? quae in Dominicum sine sacrificiis venis; quae partem de
sacrificio, quod pauper obtulit, sumis?”—De opere et eleemosyna, )5—MPL,
IV, 613.

Churches

a philosopher at the Council of Niceac (325) and addressed himself
to the new convert thus: "Arise and follow me to tnc Dominicum
and there receive the seal of your faith.”1·7 St. Jerome (circa 342'
420) relates that the famous church of Antioch, which was begun
by Constantine and finished and dedicated by Constantius, had the
name of Dominicum aureum because of its richness and beauty.20
Basilica was an expression which was used quite generally after
the persecutions to designate a church. Originally among the Ro'
mans basilicae were the public halls or courts where the magistrates
sat to hold trials. Other buildings, such as state houses, went by the
same name, but upon the conversion of Constantine many of these
were given to the Christians to be used as churches.21 St. Isidore of
Seville (γ636) 22 explained that formerly the homes of kings were
called basilicae because the Greek βασι-λενς meant king, hence the
Latin derivation of the word was used to signify a royal home. He
related, further, that the term in his time was employed to designate
churches because sacrifices were offered in them to God, the King
of the universe. St. Ambrose (c. 340'397) in a letter to Emperor
Theodosius I (379'395), written in 388, complained of the burning
of the basilicae by the Jews throughout the Empire during the reign
of Emperor Julian (361-363).23 The term also appears in some of
his other works.24
Just as the temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was frequently referred
to in Sacred Scripture as the house of prayer,25 so Christian church'
es, because prayer was one of the principal functions performed10
10 Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 3—MPL, XXI, 470.
20 “In Antiochia Dominicum, quod vocatur Aureum, aedificari coeptum
[anno 3 31J”—Chronicon—MPL, XXVIII, 677; cf. also the note on this
text, as contained in MPL, loc. cit.

21 De Rossi, La Roma Solteranea Cristiana, III, 460.
22 W. M. Lindsay, Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiarum sive OrigL
num Libri XX (2 vols, in 1, Oxonii, 1911), lib. XV, cap. 4, η. 11; MPL,
LXXXII, 545.
23 Epist. XL, 15—MPL, XVI, 1107.
24 Sermo, De Basilicis Tradendis, contra Auxentium—MPL, XVI, 1007;
Epist. XX—MPL, XVI, 997.
25 “Domus mea, domus orationis vocabitur”—Matt. XXI, 13.

6

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

within, them, were termed oratories or houses of prayer. Eusebius
recorded that Constantine built many oratories throughout the city
which bore his name, as well as in the suburbs.26 Although this
term was applied to all churches in the first four centuries, in the
following ages it was restricted in its use to private chapels, or to
places of worship which were set up for the convenience of private
families, and were used only as places of prayer, all religious ser­
vices being excluded.'27
It was the common practice in ancient times, as it is today, for
people to visit and adorn the graves of their relatives and friends,
and thus it was the practice of the Christian communities to honor
the martyrs. It became the custom for the entire community to
gather annually at or near the grave of a martyr and honor his
martyrdom with the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice.28 Later,
when the persecutions ceased, many churches were built over the
graves of martyrs and were given the distinguishing title of martyria.
Hence the church built in Rome by Constantine was designated as
the Martyrium Petri et Pauli.29 For the same reason, because Jesus
Christ was the chief sufferer and great martyr of his own religion,
the church built in Jerusalem was called the Martyrium Salvatoris.39
In Constantinople there were erected many oratories and martyria.
“In this manner [Constantine] honored the memory of the martyrs
and simultaneously dedicated to God his city of martyrs.’’ 31

The name temple during the first three centuries was used in con­
nection with the pagan temples, but it was scarcely ever used by
Christian writers to designate a Christian church. Whenever the
term was used, it was written not in its simple form, but appeared20
*
20 De Vita Constantini, III, 48—MPG, XX, 1107; Hist. Eccles., X, 3—
MPG, XX, 846.
2T “Oratorium orationi tantum est consecratum, in quo nemo aliquid agere
debet nisi ad quod factum.”—Lindsay, Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymolo'
giarum site Originum Libri XX, lib. XV, cap. 4, n. 4; MPL, LXXXII, 544.
28 Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book VIII, chap. I, sect.
9; Bliley, Altars According to the Code of Canon Law, p. 35.
2n Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, 23—rMPG, LXVII, 522.
30Eusebius, De Vita Constantini, IV, 40—MPG, XX, 1188.
31 Eusebius, De Vita Constantini, III, 48—MPG, XX, 1107.

7

Churches

always with some qualification, e. g., templum Dei. Lactantius
stated that he taught oratory in Bithynia when the temple of God
was destroyed, meaning the church of Nicomedia, which was the
first that was demolished in the Diocletian persecution.52 When
Christianity became the religion of the State and pagan temples
were outlawed, the writers of the following ages did not hesitate to
call churches by the name of temples. Eusebius, speaking of the
churches that were rebuilt, called them temples.32
33 There was no
longer any aversion to the word temple in the fourth century, for
it could no longer be mistaken to mean the temple of the heathen.

Article III. Early Ceremonies

of

Dedication

Even though the Christians had churches during the first three
centuries, they refrained from performing any acts within them
which would attract public attention, for fear of arousing the
hostility of the pagans which would have manifested itself in the
confiscation of the sacred buildings. Because of this constant fear
there is no express testimony to show that any solemn dedication of
churches took place during this period. This lack of evidence, however, is no justification for denying that there was a dedication
of churches. The mere fact of designating a particular building to
be used exclusively for religious purposes was considered its dedication. It is very probable that some appropriate prayers were used
to offer thanksgiving to God and to invoke His blessing upon the
building and those who were to use it.
The earliest positive evidence of the consecration of churches
comes from the fourth century, after peace and freedom of worship
were granted to the Christians. Eusebius stated that “it was a
desirable sight to behold how the consecration of the newly built
churches and the feasts of the dedications were solemnized in every
city.” 34 To add to the solemnity of the occasion it was not unusual
to have a large number of bishops present for the consecration of
a church. At the dedication of the church of Antioch, called the
32 Divinarum Institutionum Libri VII, V, cap. 2—MPL, VI, 512.
33 Hist. Eccles., X, 2—MPG, XX, 846.
34 Hist. Eccles., X, 3—MPG. XX, 847.

8

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

Dominicum aureum, 97 bishops were in attendance.33 The ceremony
was of a solemn and public nature, accompanied by panegyrical
orations, consisting chiefly of praise and thanksgiving to God for the
accomplishment of the holy structure, as is seen from the sermon
preached at the consecration of the basilica of Tyre.30

Later in the same century the churches which were built over
the tombs of the martyrs came to be regarded as endowed with a
sanctity peculiar to themselves. Thus the possession of the relics
of some saint came to be looked upon as absolutely essential to
the sacredness of the building, and the deposition of such relics in
or below the altar thenceforth formed an important part of the
consecration rite.35
*37 St. Ambrose seems to be the first to popularize
in Italy the custom of placing the relics of martyrs in the churches
on the occasion of their consecration. In a letter to his sister, writ'
ten in 386, he explained that, when he was about to consecrate the
basilica at Milan, the people insisted that relics be placed in the
church.38 The relics of SS. Gervase and Protase were not placed
in the church during its dedication, because they were not to be
had at the time. It was not until later that the relics were dis­
covered and placed beneath the altar of the basilica after great
throngs had spent two days venerating the relics and keeping a
solemn vigil during the night prior to their deposition.39 Another
example is given in the sermon of St. Ambrose at the consecration of
the basilica built by the widow Juliana at Florence in 393. St.
35 Soaomcnus, Hist. Eccles., Ill, —MPG, LXVII, 1042.
30 Eusebius, Hist, Eccles., X, 4—MPG, XX, 850,
3T It is to be noted that the relics which were placed in many of the
churches were not necessarily the bodies of the martyrs, but the clothes and
other objects which had come in contact with the bodies, and particularly
objects which had been soaked in the blood of the martyrs.—Cf. Many,
Praelectiones De Locis Sacris (Parishs: 1904), n. 110, nota 1; Schuster, The
Sacramentary (5 vols., London: Burnes, Oates & Washbourne, Ltd., 1924),
I, 146; Smith-Cheetham, A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (2 vols.,
Hartford: 1180), v. “consecration of churches,” n. 3— I, 430.
as Epist. XXIL n. 1 : “Nam cum basilicam dedicassem, multi tamquam uno
orc interpretare coeperunt dicentes: ‘Sicut Romanam basilicam dedices.’ Re­
spondi: ‘faciam, si martyrum reliquias invenero.’MPL, XVI, 1019.
so ibid., n. 2, 13—MPL, XVI, 1019, 1023.

Churches

9

Ambrose did not explain in what the ceremonies consisted, but it
can be inferred from his sermon that, the consecration consisted
principally in the solemn transfer or the reties of SS. Agucoki and
Vitalis. J0 St. Gregory of Tours (circa 538494) dedicated an
oratory in Gaul, consecrating the altar and placing rends in it.
It soon became the custom for every consecrating prelate to place
relics, if they were obtainable. in the churches during the time oi
their consecration. Wherever the practice was not carried out, it
was because of the lack of relies. Even though the placing of ichcs
was looked upon as being of great, importance, nevertheless there
was no legislation requiring it. The deposition of relies in a Jiuich,
therefore, was not so essential to its consc.-ration that without it the
consecration was considered invalid. Poise Vigilius ('> j'iC 15), in a
letter written in 538 to Euiherius, Bishop of Braga, explained that,
the consecration of a church could take place either with or without
the deposition of relics. In the first case the ceremony consisted in
placing the relics in the church with the celebration of Mass follow'
ing; in the latter the only requirement was the celebration of Mass?"
The VII Ecumenical Council, the second of Nicaca,held in 787,
decreed that all churches which had been consecrated without the
relics of martyrs should have relics placed in them with the custom'
ary prayers, and that any bishop thenceforth consecrating a church
without relics should be deposed from office as one transgressing
ecclesiastical traditions.13 Less than thirty years later, at the Council
40 “Munera itaque salutis accipite, quae nunc sub akaribus reconduntur.
Ea igitur vidua sancta est luliana, quae hoc Domino templum paravit atque
obtulit, quod hodie dedicamus."—Exhortatio Virginitatis, cap. 2, n. 10-—■
MPL, XVI, 3 39.
4:1 De Gloria Confessorum, cap. 20—MPL, LXXI, 842.
42 Epist. I, n. 4—MPL, LXIX, 18; Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Lfova et
Amplissima Collectio (53 vols, in 59, Paris, ArnherrvLeipzag, 19014927),
IX, 3142; Hardouin, Acta Conciliorum et Epistolae Decretales ac Constitit'
tiones Summorum Pontificum (12 vols., Parisiis: 1715), II, 14314432;
Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo4sidorianae et Capitula Angilramni (Lipsiac:
1863), p. 711; cf. also Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita
Ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCX.CVIII (cd. 2., 2 vols, in 1,
correctam et auctam auspiciis Gulielmi Wattenbach curaverunt S. Loewen·
feld, F. Kaltenbrunner, P. Ewald, Lipsiae: 18854888), n. 907.
43 C. 7 : “Quotquot ergo venerabilia templa consecrata sunt absque sanctis

10

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

of Chelsea (816) in England, it was ordered that the bishop of
the diocese should consecrate the church according to the liturgical
books, and that the Holy Eucharist should be placed in a receptacle
with the other relics and kept in the church; furthermore, if relics
could not be obtained, it was sufficient that the Body and Blood of
Jesus Christ be preserved.44
Between the sixth and the eighth centuries there appeared various
liturgical books which contained, among other things, the rite for
the dedication of a church. The Gelasian Sacramentary, attributed
to Pope St. Gelasius (492-496), gives the liturgical order followed
in Gaul from the sixth to the eighth centuries by many churches
which desired to conform to the Roman custom.43 It makes no
reference to the ceremony of the deposition of relics, but merely
gives the orations which were to be said over the water and wine
which was used at the consecration of the altar. It also listed the
orations which were used for the consecration of the altar, for the
blessing of the linens and for the consecration of the chalice and
paten and, finally, the orations which were to be included in the
Mass of dedication.46
The Gregorian Sacramentary allegedly was compiled under the
authority of Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604). About the
year 788 it was sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne. The original
reliquiis martyrum, definimus in eis reliquiarum una cum solita oratione fieri
positionem. Et si a praesenti tempore fuerit episcopus absque lipsanis con­
secrare templum, deponatur, ut ille qui ecclesiasticas traditiones transgreditur.”
—Mansi, XIII, 7 51 ; Hardouin, IV, 491 ; cf. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees
of the General Councils (St. Louis; Herder, 1937), p. 148.
44 Synodus apud Celichtych, anno 816, c. 2: “Ubi ecclesia aedificatur, a
propriae diocesis episcopo sanctificetur: aqua per semetipsum benedicatur,
spargatur, et ita per ordinem compleat, sicut in libro ministerial! habetur.
Postea Eucharistia quae ab episcopo per idem ministerium consecratur, cum
aliis reliquiis condatur in capsula, ac servetur in eadem basilica. Et si alias,
reliquias intimare non potest, tamen hoc maxime proficere potest, quia corpus
et sanguis est Domini nostri Jesu Christi.”—Hardouin, IV, 1220; cf. also
Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 403.
45 Cicognani, Canon Latu (2. ed., Philadelphia: Dolphin Press, 1935), p.
231.
46 Sacramentarium Gelasianum—MPL, LXXIV, 1138-1142; Muratori,
Liturgia Romana Vetus (2 vols., Venetiis: 1748), I, 609-614.

of the Sacramentary was often copied and added to, so that its
text describes the liturgy of Pope Adrian rather than that of Pope
Gregory's day.4"
The rite of consecration, as given in the Gregorian Sacramentary,
consisted in the following ceremonies: sprinkling the lower and
upper portions of the church with water blessed particularly for
that purpose: tracing the letters of the Greek and Latin alphabets
on the pavement of the church; consecrating the altar by the use
of holy oils; depositing the relics of saints in the altars; anointing
the walls of the church in twelve places; and, finally, celebrating
the Mass of Dedication.4f> It is interesting to note that the ceremonies here described are essentially the same as those in use at the
present time.40
47 Cicognani, loc. cit.; Van Hove, Commentarium Lovaniense, Vol. I, Tom.
I, Prolegomena ad Codicem luris Canonici (Mechliniac: H. Dessain, 1928),
η. 139.
48 Muratori, op. cit., II, 467-489; S. Gregorii Magni Liber Sacramentorum
—MPL, LXXVIII, 152-162.
49 Cf. Pontificale Romanum Summorum Pontificum iussu editum a Benedicto XIV et Leone XIII Pontificibus Maximis recognitum et castigatum
(Ratisbonae: 1891), tit. De ecclesiae dedicatione seu consecratione.

Chapter II
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT FROM THE EARLIEST
TIMES UP TO THE DECRETALS OF GREGORY IX

Article I.

Desecration of Churches

A. Destruction
It was the common practice during the earlier middle ages to
consecrate anew the churches which were rebuilt after they had
been previously destroyed. The consecration of a church was per­
formed by the bishop, but in Italy the bishops had to obtain per­
mission from the Pope before they could licitly proceed with the
ceremony.1 Thus Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) granted
Bishop Leontius permission to consecrate a church which had been
restored after its destrucion by fire.1
2 The Liber Diurnus Romanorum
Pontificum, a collection of formularies used from the fifth to the
eleventh century by the Apostolic Chancery for the execution of
documents, contains an example of a formula which was used to
grant bishops permission to reconsecrate churches which had been
destroyed by fire.3 Another formula in the same collection indicates
that a new dedication was to be given to a church which had been
constructed either from the material of the ruins of a church which
had collapsed or from entirely different material.4
Since it was required that destroyed churches be consecrated after
1 Gelasius Papa, ad Episcopos Lucaniae: “Basilicas noviter institutas, non
petitis ex more praeceptionibus, dedicare nemo audeat.”—Epist. V, cap. 4
(anno 494)—Hardouin, II, 899; c. 6, D.I, de cons.
- “Basilicam beati Stephani martyris, quam fraternitas vestra incendio asserit
concrematam, quam etiam nuper instauratam esse commemorat, facultatem
tribuimus dedicandi, in qua etiam reliquiarum sanctuaria ejusdem beati
Stephani martyris volumus collocari. Et ideo, frater charissime, ad praedic­
tam te ecclesiam ire necesse est, et tam Ecclesiae quam etiam altaris noviter
constructi dedicationem solemniter exhibere.”—Lib. VI, epist. 45, ad Leon·
tium Episcopum—MPL, LXXVII, 832.
3 De Rosière, Liber Diurnus ou Recueil des Formules usitées par la Chancellerie Pontificale du Ve au XIe siècle (Paris: 1869), η. XXVII, p. 53.
4 Ibid., η. XXVIII, p. 55.

From Earliest Times to Decre tals of Gregory E^

their restoration, it i ;vid nt that churches lost their 1 ,n e ia^lon
when they were destroyed.
In 538 Pope V
t questions propose
y
Bishop Eutherius οί I
>tc that it was nor suffit ient t > $1
with holy water a church
h
'· troyed and later i '
but that it was nee
coi cerate it again.·’ He distinguis ic
between churches which contained relies and those which did not.
This difference, however, affected th lanncr in
ii i the churcacs
were to be reconsecrated. Dcstn d hurchcs which id no relics
to be reconsecrated by offer n . the aerifies ■' the Mass, whereas destroyed churches which contained relics were to be reconsecrated
by replacing the relies, if they had been previously removed, and
by offering the sacrifice of the Mas<. These were the only ccicmonies known at the time or Pope Vigilius. More elaborate ceremonies were added in the eighth century.
The letter of Pope Vigilius was incorporated into the PseudoIsidorian Collection (circa 847)*' and later into the Decretum (circa
1012) of Burchard of Worms 5
*7 and the. Decretum (circa 1090-1095)
and Panormia (circa 1095) of Ivo, Bishop of Chartres,8 and finally
into the Decretum of Gratian (1140).9
The Excerpts of Egbert (747), Archbishop of York, contain this
regulation concerning the walls of a church: “si parietes mutantur
5 “De fabrica vero cuiuslibet ecclesiae instuaranda, si diruta fuerit, et si in
eo loco consecrationis solemnitas debeat iterari, in quo sanctuaria non fuerint,
nihil judicamus officere, si per eam minime aqua benedicta jactetur: quia
consecrationem cuiuslibet ecclesiae, in qua Spiritus sancti ara non ponitur,
celebritatem tantum scimus esse missarum. Et ideo, si qua sanctorum basilica
a fundamentis etiam fuerit innovata sine altaris motione, sine aliqua dubita'
tione, cum in ea missarum fuerit celebrata solemnitas, totius sanctificatio con­
secrationis implebitur. Si vero sanctuaria qua habebat, ablata sunt, rursus
eorum repositione, et missarum solemnitate, reverentiam sanctificationis acci­
piet.”—Epist. I, e. 4—MPL, LXIX, 18: Hardouin, II. 1431; Mansi, IX, 3D
32; Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita Ecclesia ad annum post
Christum natum MCXCVIII, n. 907.
° Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo'Isidorianae et Capitula Angilramni, p. 711.
7 Lib. Ill, cap. 62—MPL, CXL, 686.
8 Decretum, pars III, cap. 25—MPL, CLXI, 204; Panormia, lib. II, cap.
14—MPL. CLXI, 1085.
9 C. 24, D.I, de cons.

14

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

. . . salibus tantum [ecclesia] exorcizetur.” 10 This decree was iri'
corporated in the Decretum of Gratian.11 Rufinus (γ circa 1190)
and Stephen of Tournai (Stephanus Tornacensis, 1135-1203), con­
temporaries of Gratian, explained that this decree did not con­
template the total collapse of the walls of a church, but only of a
small part thereof, otherwise this decree would have been contrary
to the decree of Pope Vigilius, which spoke of the reconsecration of
a church which had been totally destroyed.12 Hence the collapse
of a small portion of the walls of a church did not cause the church
to be desecrated, and it was not necessary to reconsecrate such a
church. The only requirement was that the destroyed portion be
sprinkled with holy water after the wall was repaired.13
The Decretum of Gratian contained a decree which forbade the
reconsecration of churches that had already been consecrated to God,
unless they had been consumed by fire.14 According to the glossa
10 G. 139, Excerptiones Egberti—MPL, LXXXIX, 396; Hardouin, III,
1974; Mansi, XII, 426; Ivo of Chartres, Decretum, pars III, cap. 13—MPL,
CLXI, 202; Panormia, lib. II, cap. 20--MPL, CLXI, 1087; Burchard, Deere'
turn, lib. Ill, cap. 11—MPL, CXL, 675.
11 C. 19, D.I, de cons.
12 "Si parietes mutantur—non utique a fundamentis,, sed super edificatione;
vel si a fundamentis, non tamen per totum, sed per aliquam partem . . .
alioquin contrarium esset . . . capitula (c. 24, D.I, de cons.)”—Singer,
Die Summa Decretorum des Magister Rufinus (Paderborn: 1902), p. 544;
J. Schulte, Die Summa des Stephanus Tornacensis uber das Decretum Gra­
tiani (Giessen: 1891), p. 266.
13 "Salibus exorcizetur, i.e., aqua cum sale exorcizata aspergatur.”—Rufinus,
Summa Decretorum, ed. Singer, p. 544; Stephanus Tornacenis, Summa, ed.
J. Schulte, p. 266.
14 The full text of this decree is as follows: "Ecclesiis semel Deo conse­
cratis non debet iterum consecratio adhiberi, nisi aut ab igne exustae, aut
sanguinis effusione, aut cujuscumque semine pollutae fuerint.” — C. 3,
D.LXVIII. This decree is repeated in c. 20, D. I, de cons. The origin of
this decree is not known. Gratian falsely attributed it to the Council of
Nicaea, but no such legislation is found in either the first or the second coun­
cil held in that city. It was very probably written by some person not too far
removed from the time of Gratian and attributed to the Council of Nicaea
in order that it would more readily gain widespread attention and approval.
—Cf. Berardi, Gratiani Canones Genuini ab Apocryphis Discreti (4 vols.,
Venetiis: 1777), I, 76. Richter-Friedberg admit that this decree could not be

From Earliest Tinies to Decretals of Gregory IX

15

on this decree there were two possible means by which a church
could become desecrated as the result of a fire. The first was the
destruction of a church to such an extent that the walls collapsed.
The other was the destruction of the plaster of the walls (decrustatio), the walls themselves remaining standing. It is clear from
what has already been said that in the first instance the desecration
of a church resulted from its destruction. In the second case a
church was desecrated by the falling of the plaster from the walls.
The reason for this is that in the ceremony of the consecration of
a church the walls were anointed with chrism, and since the chrism
was applied to the surface of the walls, or to the plaster, it was considered that the consecration adhered to the surface of the walls.
Thus, whenever the plaster was removed, the consecration was
lost.15
B. Removal of the Altar

The removal of the altar from the church was another means
by which a church became desecrated during this period. The Ex­
cerpts of Egbert (747) contain the regulation for this manner of
desecration: “si motum fuerit altare, denuo consecretur ecclesia.” 18
This decree was incorporated into the Decretum of Burchard of
Worms,17 the Decretum and Panormia of Ivo of Chartres13 and the
Decretum of Gratian.19 All of these collections falsely attribute the
decree to Pope Hyginus (circa 136-140). It is hardly possible that
found in any of the collections of law which were at their disposal.—Corpus
luris Canonici (ed Lipsiensis II, 2 vols., Lipsiae: 1879-1881—editio anastatice repetita, Lipsiae: Tauchniti, 1928), I, 274, ad D. LXVIII, nota 28.

X5 For the rite of consecration of churches used in the eighth century cf.
Liber Sacramentorum in Muratori, Liturgia Romana Vetus, II, 467-489; also
MPL, LXXVIII, 152-162; “ . . . exusta—pro majori parte, scii, ita comburitur ecclesia quod destruatur vel decrustatur interius et exterius, tunc exeeratur.
Consecratio enim ecclesiae maxime consistit in unctione exteriori, et conjunc­
tione et dispositione lapidum.”—glossa in c. 20, D. I, de cons.
16 C. 139, Excerptiones Egberti—MPL, LXXXIX, 396: Hardouin, III,
1974; Mansi, XII, 426.
1T Lib. Ill, cap. 11—MPL, CXL, 677.
18 Decretum, pars III, cap. 13—MPL, CLXI, 202; Panormia, lib. II, cap.
20—MPL, CLXI, 1087.
19 C. 19, D. I, de cons.

■

.

‘

:
j

I

16

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

Pope Hyginus issued any decree concerning the consecration of
churches, since no ceremony of consecration was used during the
second century. Thus there could not be any possibility of the re­
consecration of churches at such an early date.20
The Excerpts of Egbert attribute the decree to Pope Vigilius
(538-55'5), but there is no mention of any such decree in any of
his works. Since the origin of the decree is uncertain, it can be
safely said that the practice of reconsecrating churches desecrated by
the removal of the altar was in use at least from the middle of the
eighth century until the middle of the twelfth century, that is, until
the time of Gratian inclusively.
Ivo, Bishop of Chartres (1091-1115), in a letter written probably
before the compilation of his Decretum and Panormia, said that he
did not know of any law requiring the reconsecration of an altar
which had been moved, but he was fully aware of a law requiring
the reconsecration of a church, if the altar had been removed.2122
St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1093-1109), wrote that he
had discussed the question of the rcconsecration of churches with
Pope Urban II (1088-1099) and some bishops. All agreed that when
the principal altar was removed or destroyed it was necessary to
consecrate the church again, and care should be taken that the con­
secration of an altar should accompany the consecration of a church.
The reason for this, as given by him, lies in the fact that the altar
docs not exist because of the church, but the church exists because
of the altar, and it seems that a building can no longer be con­
sidered a church when its altar is destroyed.2?
20 Cf. Berardi, .Gratiani Canones Genuini ab Apocryphis Discreti, II, 62.
21 “De motione altaris . . . utrum iteranda sit consecratio, vel non -iteranda,
nihil scriptum in antiquis regulis reperi. In collectionibus, autem Burchardi
Wormacensis episcopi ... ita scriptum repetitur: Altare si motum fuerit,
ecclesia denuo consecretur."—Epist. LXXX. (Guilelmo, Fiscanensis monas'
terii abbati)—MPL, CLXII, 101; cf. also Epist. LXXII—MPL, CLXII, 92..
22 “De his {de moto altari] cum domino papa Urbano locutus sum, assis­
tentibus quibusdam episcopis. ... In his autem omnes concordant, quod
violato principali, tota ecclesia cum altari iterum ’ consecranda est, nec ecclesia
consecranda est sine consecratione altaris, aut principalis, aut alicujus alterius
in eadem ecclesia. . . . Altare non fit propter ecclesiam sed ecclesia propter
altare; et ideo, violato principali altari, jam non videtur esse ecclesia."—

From Earliest Times to Decretals of Gregory IX

17

The question of tHe desecration of a church as a consequence
of the removal or the destruction of its altar arose again during-the
pontificate of Alexander- III' (11594181). The practice which had
been in use up to this time was completely changed. The Pope was
-asked whether or not a church should be reconsecrated if its altar
was moved, or if the tabic of the altar was broken or if it was removed from its support. The response of the Pope was that it
was not necessary to consecrate the church again even though the
canons seemed to indicate otherwise.2"

C. Homicide and the Shedding of Blood
The History of the Franks, written by St. Gregory, Bishop of
Tours (573A94), gives an account of a certain Godcgisilus who,
. fleeing from his attackers, sought refuge in a church where the
bishop tried to protect him. Upon the refusal of the bishop to deliver him to the pursuers, they gained access to the roof and, removing the tiles, hurled them into the church, killing Godcgisilus
and three servants. The bishop was greatly saddened not only
' because he could not protect the man but also because the church
was polluted with human blood.24 It is to be noted that the writer
used the expression polluted, but did not. explain the extent of the
meaning of the word. There was no conciliar legislation or any papal
Opera Omnia, lib. Ill, Lpist. CLIX (ad XMillelmum abbatem)—MPL, CLIX,
194-19$.
23 “Ad haec si altare motum fuerit, lapis ille solummodo supra positus, qui
sigillum continet confractus, aut etiam diminutus exstiterit, debet denuo con­
secrari. Propter hoc vero, nequaquam reiterare suam consecrationem eccle­
siam consuevit, licet id quidem canones innuere videantur.”—Augustinus,
‘ Antiquae decretalium collectiones commentariis et emendationibus illustrate
■ (Parisiis: 1621), Comp. II, c. un. de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, V, 20
(hereafter this work will be referred to as Antiquae decretalium collectiones);
Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, n. 14204. This decretal was later in­
cluded in the Decretals of Gregory IX, published in 1234, which had the
force of universal law up to the publication of the present Code. Cf. c. 1, X,
de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40.
21 “Multum ex hoc episcopus dolens, quod eum non solum defensare non
potuit, verum etiam locum in quo orare consueverat, et in quo sanctorum
pignora aggregata fuerant, sanguine humano pollui vidit.”—Historia Fran'
corum. lib. IX, n. 12—MPL, LXII, 491.

18

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

decree at this early date concerning the effects upon a church that the
shedding of blood produced. The first extant legislation, the origin of
which is unknown, is found in the Decretum of Gratian, where it
is falsely ascribed to the Council of Nicaea.2526The decree orders:
“Ecclesiis semel Deo consecratis non debet iterum consecratio ad'
hiberi, nisi . . . sanguinis effusione . . . pollutae fuerint.” 2β This
decree used the word pollutae, which undoubtedly has the mean'
ing of desecration, or of the loss of consecration, for reconsecration
was required when blood was shed in the church. Since the origin
of this decree is unknown, it may be assumed that the practice of
reconsecrating churches polluted by bloodshed dated back to the
time of St. Gregory of Tours.
The killing of an animal in a church and the subsequent flowing
of blood from its body did not desecrate a church. Desecration
resulted from the shedding of human blood caused, for example, by
homicide or the infliction of a wound.27

The crime of homicide committed in a church, whether or not
it was accompanied with bloodshed^ caused the church to lose its
consecration. The law stated simply that if a church was violated
through homicide, it was to be cleansed very carefully and consecrated again. The decree, falsely attributed to Pope Vigilius, is
found in the collection of laws compiled by Egbert, Archbishop of
York, in 747.28 It was later embodied in the canonical collections
of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and in these it was falsely
accredited to Pope Hyginus (circa 136*140).29
25 Cf. Berardi, Gratiani Canones Genuini ab Apocryphis Discreti, I, p. 76;
Richter-Friedberg, Corpus luris Canonici, I, 254, nota 28 ad D.LXVÏII.
26 C. 20, D. I, de cons.; c. 3, D.LXVIII.
27 Cf. Stephanus Tornacensis, Summa, ad c. 5, D.LXVIII et c. 20, D.I,
de cons.—ed. J. Schulte, pp. 94, 266; Rufinus, Summa Decretorum, ad c. 20,
D.I, de cons.-—ed. Singer, p. 544.
28 “Si homicidio . . . ecclesia violata fuerit, diligentissime expurgetur et
denuo consecretur.”-—C. 139, Excerptiones Egberti—MPL, LXXXIX, 396;
Mansi, XII, 426; Hardouin, III, 1974.
29 Burchard, Decretum, lib. Ill, cap. 12—MPL, CXL, 67 5; Ivo,Decretum,
pars III, cap. 14—MPL, CLXI, 202; Ivo, Panormia, lib. II, cap. 21—MPL,
CLXI, 1087; Gratian, c. 19, D.I, de cons.

«■Μ

From Earliest Times to Decretals of Gregory IX

19

D. Effusio Seminis
The Excerpts of Egbert (747), Archbishop of York, contain this
decree: “St . . . adulterio ecclesia fuerit violata, diligentissime, ex­
purgetur, et dentio consecretur.'’30 Since adultery is mentioned ex­
plicitly, it seems that all other carnal acts committed in a church
did not cause it to lose its consecration. This decree was incorpor­
ated into the Decreturn of Gratian,31 which also contains another
decree in which it seems to be indicated that all carnal acts com­
mitted in a church caused it to lose its consecration: “Ecclesiis
semel Deo consecratis non debet iterum consecratio adhiberi nisi
. . . cujuscumque semine pollutae fuerint.” 32 It is very improbable
that an act which of itself was not sinful caused a church to be­
come desecrated. This opinion was substantiated by the glossa,
where it is said that a church should not be reconsecrated in conse­
quence of an effusio seminis which occurred during sleep or in an
act of marital relationship between husband and wife, but the effu­
sio seminis involved the desecration of a church when it occurred
as an act of fornication or adultery.33

Article 2. Canonical Effects of the Burial of Infidels
in a Church
The burial of an infidel in a church was strictly prohibited at
all times. This prohibition was based upon the principle given by
Pope Leo the Great (440-461): “Jffos autem quibus viventibus non
communicavimus, mortuis communicare non possumus.” Si However,
rt happened occasionally, contrary to the discipline of the times,
that a pagan was buried in a church. The Penitential attributed
so C. 139—MPL, LXXXIX, 396; Mansi, XII, 426; Hardouin, III, 1974.
This decree is also contained in Burchard, Decretum, lib. Ill, cap. 12—·
MPL. CXL, 675; Ivo, Decretum, pars III, cap. 14-—MPL, CLXI, 202; Ivo,
Panormia, lib. II, cap. 21—MPL, CLXI, 1087.
31 C. 19, D.I, de cons.
32 C. 20, D.I, de cons.; c. 3, D.LXVIII. The origin of this decree is not
known; cf. Berardi, Gratiani Canones Genuini ab Apocryphis Discreti, I, p.
76; Richter-Friedberg, Corpus luris Canonici, I, 254, nota 28 ad D.LXVIII.
33 Cf. glossa ad c. 20, D.I, de cons., v. “semine.”
34 Epist. CLVII fad Rusticum Narbonensi episcopum)—MPL, LIV, 1026;
Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, n. 320.

20

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

to Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury, compiled about 673, contains
the following regulation on the subject:

“In ecclesia ubi mortuorum cadavera infidelium sepeli'
untur, sacrificare non licet; sed si apta videtur ad consecrandam, inde evulsa, et rasis vel lotis lignis ejus reaedifi'
cetur. Si haec consecrata prius fuit, missas in ea celebrare
licet si religiosi ibi sepulti sunt. Si vero paganus, sic mundare et jactare foras melius est.” 35
From the wording of this text it is clear that the burial of a pagan
in a consecrated church did not cause the church to lose its conse'
cratiori. The effect produced by the burial of a pagan in a con­
secrated church was the prohibition to celebrate Mass in the church
until the body was removed and the church was cleansed. The
burial of a pagan in a church was an indication of grave disrespect
for the sanctity of the sacred building, but its sanctity was not lost.
It was considered as having been marred or blemished. The cele'
bration of Mass was prohibited as long as the blemish continued to
exist. The removal of the body from the church and the subsequent
purification were the means by which the blemish was removed
and by which the pristine sanctity was restored to the church. There
is no doubt, then,'that the burial of a pagan in a consecrated church
caused the church to become violated or polluted, although this
terminology was not used in the Penitential of Theodore.

The spurious collection of Benedict the Levite,86 compiled between
847 and 877, contains canon 1 of the Penitential of Theodore, but
in a mutilated form. The compiler substituted the word fideles in
place of religiosi, and totally omitted the last sentence of the canon.87
Later, the canon was incorporated in its mutilated form into the
as Theodori Poenitentiale, c.l—MPL, XCIX, 927. .
36 Capitularium Karoli Magni et Ludovici Pii, lib. V, c. Ill·—Mansi, XVII
B, 843.
37 Seckel asserts that canon 111 of the fifth book of Benedict the Levite's
work is taken from Theodore’s Penitential; ci. art. ’'Studiçn- ζμ Benedictus
Levita,” pp. 61-179 in Txjeues Archiv der Gesellschaft für altéré Deutsche
Geschichtshunde, XXXI (1905), especially p. 71..
38 Decretum, lib. Ill, cap. 38—MPL, CXL, 679.

From Eciriicsi 1 imcs io Decretals of Gregory IX

21

collections of Burchard of Worms,35 Ivo of Chartres3" and Gratian.40 In all of these it was falsely «attributed to a Council of
Cologne. 41 With the exception of the work of Benedict the Levite,
all of the other collections conta in another canon which is nothing
more than «a condensation of the above quoted canon from Theo­
dore’s PenitentmL42 Gratian, whose work was more systematic and
more widely used than «any other previous collection, placed these
two mutilated canons one after the other so that it could be more
readily understood how a church became violated, what were the
effects of such a violation, and what was required to remove the
blemish inflicted upon the sanctity of the church through its vio­
lation.43
39 Decretum, par III, cap. 43—MPL, CLXI, 207; Panormia, lib. II, cap. 23
and 24—MPL, CLXI, 1088.
40 C. 28, D. I, de cons.
41 Cf. Berardi, Gratiani Canones Genuini ab Apocryphis Discreti, I, p.
408; Richter-Friedberg, Corpus luris Canonici, I, 1301, nota 290, ad D.I, de
cons.
42 “Ecclesiam, ubi paganus sepultus est, non liceat consecrari, neque missas
in ea celebrari, sed iactare foras, et inundari oportet.”—c. 27, D.I, de eous.;
Burchard, Decretum, lib. Ill, cap. 13—MPL, CXL, 676; Ivo, Decretum, pars
III, cap. 15—MPL. CLXI, 202; Ivo, Panormia, lib. II, cap. 22—MPL, CLXI,
1088. All of these collections falsely «ascribe the canon to a Council of
Orleans, but it is not contained in the decrees issued at any of the councils
held there; cf. Berardi, op. cit., I, 279, and Richter-Friedberg, op. cit., I,
1301, nota 283 ad D.I, de cons., both of whom assert that the canon is
taken from the Penitential of Theodore.
43 Cc. 27 and 28, D.I, de cons.

u

Chapter III
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT FROM THE DECRETALS OF
GREGORY IX UP TO THE CODE

Article 1. Desecration of Churches
With the promulgation of the Decretals of Gregory IX, in 1234,
the legislation concerning the desecration of churches underwent
a great change. Prior to this time a church lost its consecration by
the destruction of the church, the removal or destruction of the
altar, the shedding of human blood, the crime of homicide and the
inherently sinful effusio seminis. During the period now under dis­
cussion the desecration of a church resulted simply from its total
destruction, from the destruction of the major part of its walls and
from its conversion to profane uses.

A. Total Destruction
In the year 1212 the following problem was presented to Pope
Innocent III. The supporting beams of the roof of a church were
destroyed by a fire which caused the roof to collapse. The walls
of the church, however, were not damaged. It was asked whether
or not the church should be consecrated again after the necessary
repairs were made. The Pope replied that no consecration was neces­
sary, provided the walls of the church remained intact.1 The con­
secration of a church consisted in anointing with chrism the walls,
and not the roof, of the church. Hence, as· long as the walls re­
mained intact it was not necessary to consecrate the church again.12
It follows, then, that a church became desecrated when its walls
had been totally destroyed. This was the universal opinion of auth­
1 “Ligneis aedificiis ecclesiae vestrae casu quodam igne consumptis, parieti­
bus tamen illaesis . . . respondendum quod, cum parietes in sua integritate
permanserint . . . ob causam praedictam nec ecclesia . . . debet denuo con­
secrari.”—C. 6, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40. This letter
was previously published in the earlier collection of the decretals, cf. Augus­
tinus, Antiquae Decretalium Collectiones, Compilatio IV, c. un. de cons,
eccl. vel altaris, III, 14.
2 Glossa in c. 6, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40, v. “parie­
tibus.”

From Decretals of Gregory IX. to the Code

23

ors.3 The Sacred Congregation of Rites declared that a church
which was built upon the site of a former church was to be con­
secrated,4 because the consecration was lost by the destruction of
the former church. Even though a destroyed church was rebuilt
from the same material that had been used in its original construc­
tion, it was necessary to consecrate the church again, because the
restored building did not retain the consecration of the former- build­
ing, nor could it be said to be the same building: it was considered
to be an entirely new building.3
3 Barbosa, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. II, cap. 2, η. 46; Pirhing,
Ius Canonicum Χονα Methodo Explicatum ( 5 vois, in 4, Dilingae: 16741678), lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 8; Benedictus XIV, cp. Ex luis precibus, 16 nov.
1748, § 1—Fontes, n. 393: allocut. Postquam, 30 sept. 1770, § 1—Fontes,
n. 408; ep. lam inde, 12 mail 1776, §§ 7-9—Fontes, n. 440; Gonzalez-Tellez,
Commentaria Perpetua in . . . f^uinque Libros Decretalium Gregarii IX (5
vols, in 4, Venedis: 1699). lib. Ill, tit. 40, cap. 2, n. 4: ReiiTenstiiel, lus
Canonicum Universum (7 vols, in 7, Parisiis: 1864-1882), lib. Ill, tit. 40,
n. 11; Schmalzgrueber, Lus Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 23:
Gasparri, De Ssma. Eucharistia, I, n. 181: Wcrnz, Ius Decretalium, III, n.
441; Hinschius, Das Kirchenrecht der Katholifen und Protestanten in
Deutschland (6 vols., Berlin: 1869-1897. Vols. I-IV, System des \atholischen
Kirchenrechts, Berlin: 1869-1888), IV, 331 (henceforth this work will be
• referred to as System des hatholischen Kirchenrechts); Scherer, Handbuch
des Kirchenrechts (2 vols., Graz und Leipzig: 1886-1898), II, p. 631; Santi,
Praelectiones luris Canonici (4 vols, in 2, Ratisbonae: 1886), lib. Ill, tit. 40,
n. 5; Bargilliat, Praelectiones luris Canonici (27. ed., 2 vols., Parisiis: 1909),
η. 1278; Many, De Locis Sacris, n. 26.
4 Caesaraugustana, 31 aug. 1872, ad I—Decreta Authentica Congrega'
tionis Sacrorum Rituum ex Actis eiusdem collecta eiusque auctoritate pro'
mulgata sub auspiciis SS.. D. X. Leonis Papae XIII (6 vols., Romae: 18981927), n. 3269 (hereafter this work will be referred to as Deer. Auth.);
Gardellini, Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum ... (3. ed.,
4 vols, cum appendicibus, Romae: 1876-1887), n. 7708 (hereafter cited as
Gardellini, Deer. Auth.).
6 Cf. Barbosa, Pastoralis Solicittidinis sive De Officio et Potestate Episcopi
Tripartita Descriptio (Lugduni: 1676), pars II, allegatio 27, n. 17 (hereafter
this work shall be referred to as De Officio et Potestate Episcopi); Panormi­
tanus (Nicholaus de Tudcschis), Commentaria in Quinque Libros Deere'
tahum (1 vols, in 7, Venetiis: 1788), in c. 4 X, de cons. eccl. vel altaris, III,
40, n. 8; Reiffenstuel, Ius Canonicum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 11;
Schmalzgrueber, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 27; Ferraris,
Prompta Bibliotheca, Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Iffecnon Asce'

24

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

B. Destruction of the Major Part of the Walls
The letter of Pope Innocent III, referred to in the preceeding
article, insisted that a church did not lose its consecration provided
the walls remained intact. In the case presented to the Pope, the
supporting beams of the roof were consumed by fire. Undoubtedly
the walls suffered some slight damage at the places where the beams
were upheld by the walls. A slight damage, however, was not con­
sidered serious enough to cause the desecration of a church. All
authors, using the Pope’s letter as a basis for their contention, were
in agreement that a church lost its consecration solely by the de­
struction of the major part of the walls. In 1875· the restoration
of a church was completed from the ruins of an old church. Prior
to the restoration it was found that one entire wall and the apse
of the church had been destroyed. In the process of restoration
the deficient walls were rebuilt. Upon presentation of the aforesaid
facts to the Sacred Congregation of Rites it was declared by the
Congregation that the church had to be consecrated again.6
It was long the common opinion of the canonists that a church
also lost its consecration when the plaster of the' walls was removed
or destroyed either totally or to a major degree. .The reason for
their contention was based upon the fact that the surface of the wall
was anointed with chrism when the church was consecrated. Thus
the consecration was considered lost with the destruction of the
plaster.7 It was necessary to abandon this opinion in 1882 when
the Sacred Congregation of Rites declared that a church did not
lose its consecration when the plaster was entirely removed for the
purpose of covering the walls with marble. The only requirement
tica, Polemica, Rubricistica, Historica (ed. Migne, 8 vols., Parisiis: I8601863), v. “ecclesia,” art. 4, η. 19 (hereafter referred to as Prompta BibliO'
theca).
e Aretina, 4 sept. IS??, ad II-—Deer. Auth., n. 3372; Gardellini, Deer.
Auth., n. 5632.
7 Panormitanus, in c. 4, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel ditaris, III, 40, η.
7; Pirhing, Ius Canonicum, lib, III, tit. 40, η. 8; Reiffenstuel, Ius Canonicum
Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, η. 13; Barbosa, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum,
lib. II, cap. 2, η. 46; Schmalzgrueber, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. III,
tit. 40, n. 23; Benedictus XIV, ep. “lam. inde,”12 maii 1756, § 7—-Fontes
n. 440.

From Decretals of Gregory IX to the· Code

25

made by the Sacred Congregation was that the twelve crosses, which
were removed with the plaster, should be painted or engraved on
the walls as evidence that the church has been previously conse­
crated.8 A similar decision was given again in 1894.9
These decisions did not have the force of a general law, how­
ever, since they were replies given to questions proposed from par­
ticular localities. In 1896 Pope Leo XIII approved a general decree
of the Sacred Congregation of Rites on the same question, whereby
the ruling contained in the two earlier decisions became the general
law of the church.1011From these decisions it is apparent that the
consecration of a church adheres to the entire wall of the church
and not merely to the places which are anointed with chrism.
A church did not lose its consecration if only a small part of the
walls was destroyed. When the destroyed portion was rebuilt, it
was not necessary to consecrate the church again, for the newly
built part automatically became consecrated by its addition to that
part of the church which retained its consecration.11 This opinion
was based upon a decretal of Innocent III wherein he stated that
a small amount of oil could be added to consecrated oil and the en­
tire mixture would be considered consecrated.12
Another basis for the opinion was the legal rule enunciated by­
Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) : “That which is the accessory
ought to follow the condition of the principal.1’13 The Sacred Con­
8 Senien, et Modrussen., 4 man 1882—Deer. Auth., n. 3545; Gardellini,
Deer, A.uth., n. 5840; Le Canoniste Contemporain, XVIII (1895), 239.
0 Tridentina, 11 ian. 1894—AS'S, XXVII (1894-95), 439; American Eccle­
siastical Review, XII (1895), 344.
10 Decretum, 19 mail 1896, dubium II (approbatum 8 iunii 1896 a Papa
Leone XIII)—Deer. Auth., n. 3907; Coll. S. C. de Prop. Fide (ed. 1907),
n. 1932; cf. also S.R.C. in Flicoteren. et Tropien., 9 aug. 1897 ad I—Deer.
Auth., n. 3962; Le Canoniste Contemporain, XX (1897), 710.
11 Pirhing, Ius Ecclesiasticum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 8; Barbosa, De Officio et
Potestate Episcopi,-pars II, allcg. 27, n. 19; Reiffenstuel, Ius Canonicum Ec­
clesiasticum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 12.
12 C. 3, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40.
13 “Accessorium naturam sequi congruit principalis”—Reg. 42, R. J., in
V-I°. Cicognani, Canon Law (English translation by O’Hara and Brennan),
p. 794.

26

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

gregation of Rites did not require the reconsecration of a church
when the destroyed part of the wall amounted to one-twelfth of
the total wall area.14 In another case the entire front wall of a
church, consisting of one-sixth of the total wall area, was torn down
and rebuilt. The part which was torn down contained two of the
twelve crosses which designated the places where the walls had
been anointed. Still the Sacred Congregation declared that the
church did not have to be reconsecrated.15
In like manner, if the walls of a church were rebuilt at various
intervals, so that at no one time did the destroyed portion consist
of the major part of the walls, the church did not have to be re­
consecrated, even though eventually the entire church was rebuilt.18
The Sacred Congregation of Rites declared that a church did not
have to be reconsecrated when additions to the church were made
successively and at diverse times, during which the walls of the old
church were completely destroyed and removed.17
With regard to churches which were merely blessed there were
two distinct opinions among the authors concerning their desecra­
tion or loss of blessing. Some authors held that a blessed church
did not become desecrated by the destruction of its walls either in
whole or in a major part. They argued that the blessing adhered
to the floor (pavimento) of the church and not to the walls. Hence
the destruction of the walls did not cause the church to lose its
blessing, unless the floor was also destroyed.18 A blessed church was
14 Mariano politana, 20 feb. 1874-—Decr. Auth., n. 3326; Gardellini, Deer.
Auth., n. 5578; Goll. S. G. de Prop Fide (ed. 1893), n. 1583; Coll. S. C. de
Prop. Fide (ed. 1907), n. 1411.
15 Mariano politana, 11 mar. 1871—Deer. Auth., ri. 3240; Goll. S.C. de
Prop. Fide (ed. 1907), n. 1367.
16 Barbosa, De Officio et Potestate Episcopi, pars II, alleg. 27, n. 19;
Pirhing, lus Canonicum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 9; Schmalzgrueb.er, lus Ecclesias­
ticum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 28; Gasparri, De Ssma. Eucharistia, n.
181; Many, De Locis Sacris, η. 27, 4°.
17 Caesaraugustana, 31 aug. 1872, ad II—Deer. Auth., n. 3269; Gardel­
lini, Deer. Auth., n. 5508.
18 Schmalzgrueber, lus Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 16;
Suarez, Opera Omnia (26 vols., Parisiis; 1856-1866), tract. De Eucharistia
(Vol. XXI), Disp. LXXXI, sect. 4, n. 7; A. J. Schulte, Benedicenda (New
Yor^, Cincinnati, Chicago: 1907), p. 87: footnote n. 7.

Prom Decretals of Gregory IX to the Code-

27

considered desecrated when it was destroyed by the authority of a
legitimate superior and there was no hope of its being rebuilt.19
Another group of authors held that a blessed church became dese­
crated in the same manner as a consecrated church, namely, by
total destruction, or also by the destruction of the major part of the
walls.20 They based their contention upon the Roman Ritual, which
prescribed that, when a church is blessed, holy water should be
sprinkled upon the upper and lower parts of the walls both outside
and inside the church.21 Hence the blessing adhered to the walls,
and when they were destroyed the blessing also was lost. This
second opinion was given a full legal foundation with the promulga­
tion of the Code.22

C. Reduction to Secular Status and Purpose

Prior to the Council of Trent (1545-1563) none of the churches,
even if they had been destroyed or when they had fallen into ruins,
could ever be converted to profane or secular uses. Destroyed
churches and the material from which they were constructed could
not be used for any other than religious purposes. The material
of a former church was to be used in the construction of a new
church. The prohibition against the use of such buildings for pro­
fane purposes was based upon the principle of Boniface VIII:
■ “Things which are dedicated to God should not be transferred to
human (i. e., secular) uses.”23
The Council of Trent granted bishops the power to convert
churches to secular but not sordid uses, provided that the churches
had fallen into ruins and it was impossible to raise sufficient funds
for the restoration of the churches. When these two conditions
were verified, it was then permitted to transfer all of the obligations
19 Schmalzgrueber, loc. cit.; A. J. Schulte, loc. cit.
20 Wernz, Ius Decretalium, HI, n. 441; Gasparri, De Ssma. Eucharistia, n.
183; Many, De Locis Sacris, η. 28.
21 Rituale Romanum (cd. 1911), tit. VIII, cap. 27, Ritus benedicendi
novam Ecclesiam, nn. 3, 11.
22 Can. 1170.
23 Reg. 51, R. J., in VIe; “Semel Deo dicatum, non est ad usus humanos
ulterius transferendum.”

28

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

of the former church, along with whatever emoluments they pos­
sessed, to the mother church, or to a neighboring church, where
an altar or chapel was to be erected under the same title as the
former church, and a cross was to be erected upon the site of the
former church.24 By virtue of this decree of the Tridentine Coun­
cil it was permitted to demolish the church entirely and sell the
material, the proceeds being used for the erection of an altar or
chapel in the church to which the obligations and emoluments of
the former church were transferred.25
The Sacred Congregation of the Council on several occasions in­
sisted that the decrees of the Council of Trent be observed in the
reduction of churches to a secular status and purpose.25 It insisted
that a bishop could not thus reduce a church and transfer its obli­
gations to another church, unless the former church was in ruins
and could not be repaired because of poverty.27
24 Sees. XXI, de ref., c. 7 :
. . episcopi, etiam taUquam apostolicae sedis
delegati, transferre possint beneficia simplicia . . . ex ecclesiis, quae vetustate
vel alias collapsae ' sint, et‘ ob eorum inopiam nequeunt restaurari ... in
matrices aut alias ecclesias locorum eorundem -seu viciniorum arbitrio suo;
atque in eisdem ecclesiis erigant, altaria vel capellas sub eisdem invocationibus,
vel in iam erecta altaria vel capellas transferant cum omnibus emolumentis et
oneribus prioribus ecclesiis impositis. Parochiales vero ecclesias ... ita col­
lapsas refici et instaurari procurent ex fructibus et proventibus quibuscunque,
da easdem ecclesias quomodocunque pertinentibus. Qui si non fuerint suffi­
cientes, omnes patronos et alios, qui fructus aliquos ex dictis ecclesiis pro­
venientes percipiunt, aut, in illorum defectum, parochianos omnibus remediis
opportunis ad praedicta cogant, quacunque appellatione, exemptione et con­
tradictione remota. Quod si nimia egestate omnes laborent, ad matrices seu
viciniores ecclesias transferantur, cum facultate tam dictas parochiales quam
alias ecclesias dirutas in profanos usus non sordidos, erecta tamen ibi cruce,
convertendi.”
25 Cf. S.C. Ep. et Reg., Castellaneten., 13 iun. 1589—Fontes, n. 1426.
20 Cf. S.C.C. Thelesina, 13 sept. 1631:—Fontes, n. 2137; Pallottini, Col­
lectio omnium Conclusionum et Resolutionum Quae in causis propositis apud
Sacram Congregationem Cardinalium S. Concilii Tridentini interpretum Pro*
diererunt ab ejus institutione anno. MDLXIV ad~ MDCCCLQC, distinctis titu­
lis alphabetico ordine per materias digestas (17 vols., Romae: 1868-1895), v.
“ecclesia in genere,” § II, n. 6 (hereafter this work shall be referred to as
Pallottini); Neapolitana, 13 ian. 1646—Fontes, n. 2663.
27 S.C.C. in Andrien., 14 mar. I637-rrFontes, n.-2587; Pallottini, loc. cit.

From Decretals of Gregory IX to the Code

29

The Council of Trent and the decisions of the Sacred Congre'
gation of the Council did not state whether the conversion of a
church to profane uses would cause the church to become desecrated.
Since the decree of the Council permitted only that destroyed
churches be adopted for secular use, it is clear from what has been
stated previously that a church whose walls were destroyed totally
or in a major part became desecrated by such destruction. ‘Hence,
relative to a church which already was destroyed, at least for the
greater part, such a reduction to secular status and purpose did not
cause the loss of consecration for a church, because this effect was
already produced by its destruction. The question, of course, could
arise, namely, whether such a reduction caused the loss of cousecration for a church which was destroyed only to a minor extent.
It seems that the conversion to profane uses performed by the au­
thority of the bishop did cause the church to become deprived of
. its consecration. Otherwise the Council of Trent would to all ap­
pearances have permitted a church to be used for profane purposes
when the church still retained its original consecration or blessing.
The Council of Trent evidently intended that the conversion to
. profane uses by the authority of the bishop would result in the loss
of consecration and blessing for the church. Hence a mere declara­
tion on the part of the bishop that a church could be used for pro­
fane purposes was sufficient for the church to lose its consecration
or blessing.28
The Provincial Council of Auch in 1851 not only permitted the
bishops to convert to profane or secular Uses the churches which had
fallen into ruins and could not be repaired, but also permitted the
recently constructed churches to be reduced to secular status and
purpose when these were found to be useless.29
The Council of Trent did not prescribe any specific rite for the
conversion of a church to secular use, but it is evident that all sacred
28 Cf. Many, De Locis Sacris, η. 27, 6°; Gasparri, De S'srna. Eucharistia,
η. 184; Hinschins, System des hatholischen Kirchenrechts, IV, 3 31; Scherer,
Handbuch des Kirchenrechts, II, 631.
28 C. 107—Acta et Decreta Sacrorum Conciliorum Recentiorum, Collectio
Lacensis (7 vols., Friburgi Brisgoviae: 1870-1890), IV, 1191 (hereafter this
work will be referred to as Collectio Lacensis).

30

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

objects were to be removed from the church before it was turned
over to profane enterprises. The IV Provincial Council of Milan,
held in 1576, prescribed a rite to be observed. A priest who was
expressly delegated by the bishop for the ceremony was to pray in
silence before the altar. He then proceeded to remove the relics from
the altar, and these were reverently carried in procession to the
church designated by the bishop. The clergy and the people of the
church to which the relics were to be transferred took part in the
procession. Later the altars were removed under the direction of
the priest and likewise transferred to the neighboring church. On
the following day the remains of those who were buried in the
church were transferred to the neighboring church, and while this
was being done the divine office for the dead was recited. A Mass
of Requiem was then offered for the dead in the church to which
the bodies had been transferred. Finally a cross was erected on the
site of the former church and thenceforth the building could be
used for secular purposes.30 Although the observance of this rite
was obligatory only in the Metropolitan See of Milan, it is probable
that in other places a certain amount of ceremony was used in the
removal and transfer of the sacred objects from one church to
another.
Article 2. Violation of Churches

The “violation” of a church is synonymous with the “pollution”
of a church. Both terms were used interchangeably throughout the
history of the development of canon law. The terms were already
in use before the time of the .Decretals of Gregory IX, but in that
earlier period the violation or pollution of a church caused the church
to become desecrated, that is, to lose its consecration.31 With the
great development of the science of canon law in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, the term “violation of a church” lost its former
meaning, The Decretals of Gregory IX no longer considered the
violation of a church equivalent to a loss of consecration. From
this time forward the violation of a church was considered a moral
Cone. IV Mediolanense, c. 20—Hardouin, X, 829.
139, Excerptiones Egberti—MPL, LXXXIX, 396; Mansi, XII,
426; Hardouin, III, 1974; cc. 19 and 20, D.I. de cons.
30

From. Decretals of Gregory IX io ihe Code

31

contamination of the' sanctity of the church, which occurred as a
result of certain acts committed within the church. The moral con­
tamination continued to exist until the pristine sanctity of the church
was restored by the rite of reconciliation. The acts which caused
the violation of a church will he treated separately in detail below.
A. Factors of Violation
a)

homicide

In 1207 it was related to Pope Innocent III that, as a result of
a violent struggle, wounds were iniheted on some persons and homi­
cide likewise was committed in a church, it was asked whether or
not the church had to be consecrated again. The Pope replied that
the church was to be reconciled by sprinkling it with water that was
blessed with the admixture of wine and ashes.32 Homicide com­
mitted in a church did not cause the church to lose its consecration,
but it caused the church to become violated.33 Thereafter this dccre; tai was cited as the prevailing law with regard to the violation of
churches by the crime of homicide.
, . It was the common opinion among the authors that the violation
of a church resulted from homicide which was voluntary or de\ liberate. Hence, a church was not considered violated when a person was killed accidentally, for example, by some falling object or
by a person who did not have the use of reason.34 Furthermore,
the homicide had to be unjust (injuriosum). Hence, if a person in
self-defense killed an unjust aggressor the homicide was considered
justifiable and did not cause the church to become violated, because
'such homicide was not considered unjust, but rather necessary.35
Finally,the homicide had to occur in the church. Thus, if a person
received a fatal blow in the church, but the subsequent death oc32 C. 4, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40; cf. also Augustinus,
Antiquae Decretalium Collectiones, Comp. III, c. 3, de dedicatione ecclesiae
vel altanum, III. 31.
33 Panormitanus, in c. 4, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40.
■ 34 Gonzalez-Tellez, Commentaria . . . in Quinque Libros Decretalium, lib.
Ill, tit. 40, cap. 7, n. 6; Pirhing, Ius Canonicum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 10;
Schmalzgrueber, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. III, tit. 40, n. 78.
35 Gonzalez-Tellez, loc. cit.; Pirhing, loc. cit.; Schmalzgrueber, ibid., n. 79.

;

i
;
'■

,;i

1
|
j

f
'
!

I

32

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

curred after he had managed to leave the church, the church suffered
violation none the less, for the cause of the death was locally at'
tached to the church. But if the blow was received outside of the
church, and then the person fled into the church and his death en'
sued therein, the church was not violated, because it was simply
a death and not a homicide that had occurred in the church.30*
33
Again,
if a person while in a church hurled a death'dealing missile at
another who happened to be outside the church, it was held that a
violation of the church had not taken place, for the reason that the
homicide had not been perpetrated in the church. On the other
hand, a church was considered to be violated if the person who
threw the deadly missile was outside of the church, but killed another
who was inside the church.37 It is to be noted that homicide actU'
ally had to be verified, that is, it was necessary that death resulted,
otherwise the church was not violated, regardless of the seriousness
of the inflicted blow.
Just as homicide, or the killing of one person by another, violated
a church, so also suicide had the same effect, provided that the per'
son was not fully deprived of the . use of- .his reason in the act of
killing himself, otherwise self'inflicted death could not be considered
voluntary and, therefore, did not violate the church.S£
b) the shedding of human blood

That a church became violated by the shedding of human blood
in the sacred building was implied in the letter of Pope Innocent III
of which mention has already: been made. The Pope spoke of the
necessity of reconciling a church- when the infliction of wounds and
the perpetration of homicide Had taken, placé, in the church. Pan'
ormitanus stated that the “infliction of wounds” presupposed the
shedding of blood.39 The doctrine of Panormitanus in reality covered
30 Barbosa, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. II, cap. 4, η. 20; Gonzalez'
Tellez, loc. cit.; Pirhing, loc. cit.
37 Barbosa, De Officio et Potestate 'Episcopi, pars II, alieg. 28, n. 26; Goiv
zaleZ'Tellez, loc. cit.; Many, De Locis Sacris, η, 31, 4°.
33 Barbosa, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, -lib. II, cap. 4, η. 17; Reiffenstuel, Lus Canonicum Universum, lib. Ill,, tit. 40, n. 19.
39 In c. 4, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel .altaris, III, 40, η. 3.

From Decretals of Gregory IX to the- Code

33

the overwhelming majority of instances that could have come under
the present heading. Conversely, however, there was common agree­
ment among the authors that the infliction of wounds which involved
bloodshed caused the violation of the church in which it was per­
petrated.
The law regarding the violation of a church by bloodshed was
expressly stated in a decretal of Gregory IX in 1233: “Si ecclesia
non consecrata cuiuscumque semine fuerit aut sanguinis effusione
polluta, aqua protinus exorcizata lavetur, ne divinae laudis organa
suspendantur; est tamen, quam citius fieri poterit consecranda.”*0
According to this decretal a non-consecrated church became vio­
lated by bloodshed and, therefore, a fortiori a consecrated church
became violated in the same manner.41
Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) in his decretals considered the
violation of a church by bloodshed as being already definitely es­
tablished in law at his time: “Si ecclesiam pollui sanguinis aut
seminis effusione contingat ...” 42
Before a church became violated by the shedding of blood it was
necessary that the blood be that of a human being and that the
cause of the bloodshed be placed unjustly.43 Hence Barbosa ex­
plained that if the blood of an irrational animal were shed, the
church would not be considered violated, because this would not
be an unjust shedding of blood, since an animal cannot be a
subject of rights either actively or passively.44
In order to determine whether the shedding of blood effected
the violation of a church it was necessary to determine in law what
amount of bloodshed sufficed for bringing about such an effect. The
word effusio, as used in the Decretals of Gregory IX and Boniface
VIII, meant a flowing of blood. Hence, the shedding of a few drops
40 C. 10, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40.
41 Glossa in c. 10, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40, v. “non
consecrata.”
42 C. un., de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 21, in VI°.
43 Glossa in c. un., de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 21, in VI°, v.
’Sanguinis.”
44 De Officio et Potestate Episcopi, pars II, alleg. 28, n. 31; cf. Schmahgrueber, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 80.

34

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

did not suffice to bring about a violation of the church; rather, a
considerable flow of blood was presupposed.40
Ail authors agreed that the violation of a church ensued upon
an act which caused bloodshed if the latter constituted a gravely
sinful act. Pirhing adverted to the fact that the nose of a person
was very sensitive and that a slight blow on the nose could very
casily cause a great flow of blood. Yet, even though a large amount
of blood were in this manner shed in a church as the result of a fight
between small boys, the church was not violated, because an act
of this kind was not considered gravely sinful.146 Neither was a
church violated if a parent, while rebuking a child for its misbe­
havior, struck it and caused a large amount of blood to flow from
its nose.43
*447 The Sacred Congregation of the Council likewise de­
clared that a church was not violated even though twenty-four
drops of blood were shed as the result of a slight blow received upon
the nose.48
Furthermore, it was requisite that the wound which caused the
bloodshed be inflicted deliberately (voluntarium). Hence, the shed­
ding of blood occasioned by accident or by one who did not have
the use of reason, for example, by an insane person or by one who
was intoxicated to such an extent that he was not aware of his
action, did not cause the church to become violated.49
Finally, if the violation of a church was to ensue, then the cause
of bloodshed had to be localised within the church in the manner
already explained under the heading of homicide. It was not neces­
sary, however, that the blood came in contact with the church it­
self. If the cause of the actual bloodshed was made operative on
43 Pirhing, Ius Canonicum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 11; Barbosa, De Officio et
Potestate Episcopi, pars II, alleg. 28, n. 34; cf. glossa in c. un., de consecra'
tione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 21, in VI°, v. “Nota primo.”
40 Ius Canonicum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 11.
47 Barbosa, De Officio et Potestate Episcopi, pars II, alleg. 28, n. 36; Suarea,
Opera Omnia, tract, de eucharistia, disp. LXXXI, sect. 4, n. 2; Reiffenstuel,
Ius Canonicum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 16.
4S S.C.C. in Marsorum, 18 dec. 1649—rPallottini, v. “ecclesia in genere,”
§ III, n. 4.
49 Barbosa, De Officio et Potestate Episcopi, pars II, alleg. 28, on. 3-f.

From Decretals of Gregory IX to the- Code

35

a person while he was within the church, then the church was violated, regardless of the fact that the blood was absorbed by the
wounded person’s clothing, or that the blood was allowed to flow
into some vase or other receptacle.·’0
c) EFFUSIO SEMINIS

The decretals of Gregory IX and Boniface VIII expressly set forth
the law that a church became violated by the effusio seminis occur'
ring in a church. Pope Gregory IX si sited explicitly: “Si ecclesia
non consecrata cuiuscumque semine fuerit . . . polluta, aqua pro'
tinus exorcizato, lavetur . . . ”51 Pope Boniface VIII likewise de'
dared that a church became violated by the effusio seminis: “Si
ecclesiam pollui . . . seminis effusione contingat . . . ”’’2 Pope
Alexander III (1159Ί181) declared that adultery caused the church
to become violated in which it was committed.53 With the exception
of the decretal of Pope Alexander III, which explicitly stated that
adultery violated a church, the other two decretals did not advert
to the possible manner in consequence of which the effusio seminis
violated a church. Since effusio seminis stands as a general term,
it seems indicated to maintain that a church became violated re'
gardless of the manner in which the effusio seminis was procured
therein. All authors insisted, of course, that the effusio had to exist
as a voluntary act before the violation of a church was thereby
effected, and that correspondingly an effusio seminis which occurred
during sleep did not involve a violation of the church.54 It was
00 Barbosa, ibid., n. 24; Schmalzgrueber, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, iib.
Ill, tit. 40, n. 80.
, 61 C. 10, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40.
82 C. un., de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 21, in VI’
63 “Significasti nobis, quendam presbyterum cum alterius coniuge instinctu
diabolico infra ecclesiam frequenter, sicut asseris, dormivisse, quae utique se
et illum cuidam sacerdoti huiusmodi delictum confessos fuisse, publice tibi
detexit, et hoc ipsum idem sacerdos, nomen adulteri celans, in praesentia tua
dixit . . . Ideoque mandamus . . . ecclesiam praelibatam per aspersionem
aquae benedictae reconciliare procures . . —c. Î, X, de adulteriis et stupro,
V, 16; cf. also Augustinus, Antiquae Decretalium Collectiones, Comp. I, c.
6, de adulteriis et stupro, V, 13; Jaffé, Regesta Romanorum Pontificum, n.
12183.
54 Gonzalez-Tellez, Commentaria ... in Quinque Libros Decretalium, lib.

36

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

generally held by the authors that for a church to become violated
the effusio seminis had to be illicit.- Hence any sinful act such as
fornication, adultery, self'pollution, sodomy, bestiality, etc. caused
a church to become violated.55
A church was also considered to be violated if sexual intercourse
between a man and his wife took place in a church, for although
such an act was licit in itself, nevertheless it was considered illicit
in view of the sacredness of the place in which it occurred, just as
the execution of a capital sentence was considered unlawful if it
was carried out in a church.56 The exchange of marital relations
within a church did not, however, cause the church to become violated under certain extreme conditions. Thus, for example, spouses
who because of war or other circumstances were forced to live in
a church for a long period of time did not furnish cause for the
violation of a church by their exchange of marital relations, for
under such conditions it could in given instances be rightfully aS'
sumed that there was danger of incontinence, and that their spiritual
welfare would have been jeopardised if the lawful acts of married
life had been totally denied them. Therefore, just as homicide com'
mitted in selfrdefense did not violate a church, so neither was a
church violated by the marital relations which were exchanged for
the purpose of safeguarding the spiritual welfare of the spouses.57
d) burial of an infidel or of an excommunicated person

Pope Innocent III in 1213 issued the following law: “Coemeteria
... in quibus excommunicatorum corpora sepeliri contingit . . .
Ill, tit. 40 cap. 6, n. 7; Barbosa, De Officio et Potestate Episcopi, pars II,
alleg. 28, n. 43; Pithing, Ius Canonicum, lib. Ill,, tit. 40, n. 12; Suarez,
Opera Omnia, tract, de eucharistia, disp. LXXXI, sect. 4, n. 3.
03 Suarez, loc. cit.; Barbosa, ibid., n. 42; ReifFenstuel, Lus Canonicum Uni'
versum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 20.
50 Barbosa, ibid., n. 47; Pirhing, Ius Canonicum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 12;
Sanchez, De Matrimonio (3 vols., Venetiis: 1614), lib. IX, disp. 15", n. 7; cf.
also glossa in c. un., de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 21, in VIe, v.
“nota ulterius."
.. ..
5* Pirhing, ibid., n. 12; Sanchez, ibid.,, n. 12; Barbosa, ibid., n. 48;
Schmalzgrueber, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. HI, tit. 40, n. 81; Reif'
fenstuel, ibid., n. 20.

F roui Decretals of Gregory IX to the·· Code

37

reconcilianda sunt aspersione aquae solemniter benedictae, sicut in
dedicationibus ecclesiarum fieri consuevit”.5S Although this decretal
stated only that cemeteries were violated by the burial of excom­
municated persons, authors were in agreement that churches also
were violated in the same manner."58
9
The faithful were strictly forbidden to have any communication
whatsoever with persons who were excommunicated. All excommunicated persons were to be avoided. This was the underlying
reason for the prohibition of burying excommunicated persons with
the faithful.60 In 1418, however, at the Eucumenical Council of
Constance, Pope Martin V issued his famous constitution Ad evi'
tanda scandala in which it was declared that thenceforth there were
to be avoided only those excommunicated persons against, whom
an express judicial sentence of this kind had been published, as
well as those who were publicly and expressly denounced as such,
and those who were notorious persecutors of the clergy.61 After
the publication of this constitution the more common opinion among
authors was that a church became violated only when an excommunicatus vitandus was buried therein.02
58 G. 7,- X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40; cf. also Augustinus,
Antiquae Decretalium Collectiones, Comp. IV, c. 1, de celebratione divini
officii, III, 15.
30 Pirhing, Ius Canonicum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 13; Gonzalez-Tellez, Commentaria . . . in Quinque Libros Decretalium, lib. III, tit. 40, cap. 7, n. 8;
Barbosa, De Officio et Potestate Episcopi, pars II, alleg. 28, n. 52; ReifFenstuel,
Ius Canonicum Universum, lib. III, tit. 40, n. 21; Schmalzgrucber, Ius Eccle­
siasticum Universum, lib. III, tit. 40, n. 67.
60 “Quibus non communicavimus vivis non communicemus defunctis.”—
Innocent III in c. 12, X, de sepulturis, III, 28.
Λ1
. . nemo deinceps . . . teneatur abstinere, vei aliquem vitare ac inter­
dictum observare, nisi sententia vel censura huiusmodi fuerit in vel contra
personam ... a judice publicata vel denunciata . . . [et] si quem pro sac­
rilegio et manuum iniectionc in clerum, sententiam latam a canone adeo
notorie constiterit incidisse. . . .”—Mansi, XXVII, 1192-1 193; Fontes, n. 45.
®2 Barbosa, ibid., η. 52; Pirhing, ibid., n. 13; Suarez, Opera Omnia, tract.
de eucharistia, disp. LXXXI, sect. 4, n. 5; Gonsalcz-Tcllez, ibid., n. 8;
ReifFenstuel, ibid., n. 21; Schmalzgrueber, ibid., n. 75. Gasparri (DeSsma.
Eucharistia, n. 254) and a few others held that a church was violated also
by the burial of a heretic or schismatic, even though he was not a vitandus.

38

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

With regard to the burial of a pagan or of an infidel there was
no explicit legislation which declared that such burial would cause a
church to become violated. All authors, however, were in agree­
ment that the violation of a church resulted from the burial of an
infidel therein. As a basis for their contention they cited canone
27 and 28, D. L, de cons., of the Decretum of Gratian. These
canons, as has been noted previously, were a repetition of a similar
decree contained in the Penitential of Theodore of Canterbury.
These decrees, as found in Gratian, did not obtain the force of law,
but merely testified to the custom of the time, which eventually
acquired the force of universal consuetudinary law.63
A few authors held that the burial of a catechumen violated a
church, because such a person was not yet considered to be one of
the faithful.64 The more common opinion, however, was that the
burial of a catechumen in a church did not violate it, because such
a person was considered to be a Christian in the wide sense of the
term in view of his baptism of desire.65
Authors did not agree regarding the violation of a church result­
ing from the burial of an unbaptized infant therein. Some of the
canonists held that the burial in a church of unbaptized infants of
infidel parents induced violation, but that the burial of infants of
Christian parents did not, since such children were not to be con­
sidered infidels, but rather quasi-catechumens.66 The more probable
opinion, however, seems to have been the opinion of those authors
who held that the burial of any unbaptized child violated a church,
for an infant was considered to be an infidel as long as he was not
baptized, regardless of the Christianity of his parents.67 All authors
<i3 Many, De Locis Sacris, η. 34, 2°.
64 Zoesius, Commentaria ad Decretales Gregorii IX, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 13,
as cited by Schmalzgrueber, ibid·, n. 72.
05 Schmalzgrueber, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 72;
Barbosa, De Officio et Potestate Episcopi, pars II, alleg. 28, n. 53; Many,
De Locis Sacris, η. 34, 3°.
66 Many, De Locis Sacris, n. 34, 3°; Schmalzgrueber, Ius Ecclesiasticum
Universum lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 74; Gasparri, De Ssma. Eucharistia, n. 253.
67 Suarcz, Opera Omnia, tract, de eucharistia, disp. LXXXI, sect. 4, n. 6;
S. Alphonsus de Ligorio, Theologia Moralis (2 vols., 'Augustae Taurinorum:

From Dccrclals of Gregory I\ to the Code

39

agreed that the. burial of a child still in the womb of its dead mother
did not violate a church, because an unborn child was considered
to be a part of the mother, and if she was a Christian the church
was not considered to be violated by her burial therein.
B. Requisite Conditions for Violation
A.

CERTAINTY REGARDING THE COMMITTED ACT

In the preceding article it has been pointed out that a church
became violated when homicide, bloodshed, ejjusio seminis, or the
burial of an infidel or of an excommrmicrtt'.s vitandus occurred in
the church. Before a church could be considered violated by the
commission of any of those acts, however, some authors maintained
that certainty with regard to the commirtcd misdeed had to be CS'
tablishcd, that is, as long as either a doubt of Jaw or a doubt of
fact remained, the effect of the church’s violation did not ensue.08
A doubt of law exists when the existence, meaning, or extent of
the obligation of the law is doubtful. There was a doubt of law,
for example, with regard to the violation of a church ensuing from
the burial therein of an infidel, insofar as there was no existing
law that made such a provision. The only extant regulation in that
regard were two spurious decrees contained in the Decretum of
Gratian. Since the origin of those decrees was doubtful, their au­
thenticity was likewise doubtful. Hence, the burial of an infidel in
a church caused at most a doubtful violation, and therefore there
was no strict obligation of reconciling the church/’0 In a doubt of
fact, the law is clear, but some facts or circumstances of the case
are doubtful. A doubt of fact arose, for example, when sinful acts
contrary to the sixth commandment were committed in a church,
but it was not certain that the effusio seminis actually occurred.70
B.

NOTORIETY REGARDING THE COMMITTED ACT

A second condition that had to be verified before a church could
1891), lib. VI, n. 366; Reiffcnstuel, Ius Canonicum Universum, lib. Ill, tit.
40, n. 21.
GS Many, De Locis Sacris, η. 36; Gasparri, De Ssma. Eucharistia, η. 246.
09 Gasparn, loc. cit.
70 Gasparn, loc. cit.

40

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

be considered violated was that the violative act had to be notori'
ous, that is, publicly known. This is evident from the decretal
of Alexander III, where it was stated that the adultery which was
committed in the church was publicly made known to the bishop
(publice tibi detexit).71 Thus a church was not considered to be
violated if the commission of the act was not a matter of public
knowledge. The violation of a church was not so much a physical
contamination of the decorum which was due to the church, but
rather a moral contamination of its sacred character, that is, in the
judgment of men it was considered that certain specified acts were
not in keeping with the dignity of the sacred place, so that when
these acts were committed it was accounted that the sanctity of the
church was defiled. Hence, as long as the commission of these acts
was occult the church was not considered to be violated; but if their
commission became publicly known at some later date the church
was considered to be violated from the time at which the fact became
thus known.72
C.

LOCALIZATION OF THE COMMITTED ACT IN THE CHURCH PROPER

Finally, a third condition which had to be verified, before a church
could be considered violated was that the violative act took place
in the church proper. The term, “church” was interpreted strictly.
Hence, before the violation was considered to ensue, the violative
act had to occur within, the part of the church in which divine ser­
vices were held. This part of the church included the space between
the floor and the ceiling and the entire space between the principal
altar and the opposite wall. This space included also all the chapels
i! C. $, X, de adulteriis et stupro,
16.
72 Cf. glossa in c. un., de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 21, in
VI°, v. “pollui”; Barbosa, De Officio et Potestate Episcopi, pars II, alleg. 28,
n. 37: Suarez, Opera Omnia, tract, de eucharistia, disp. LXXXI, sect. 4, n. 4;
Pirhing, Ius Canonicum, lib. III, tit. 40, n. 12; Schmalzgrueber, Ius Ecclesias'
ticum Universum, lib. III, tit. 40, n. 82; Reiffenstuel, Ius Canonicum Uni'
versum, lib. III, tit. 40, n. 22; Cone. Colonien.se I (anno 1Î36), pars IX, c.
18: “Non tamen omnis pollutio hanc reconciliationem requirit, sed tantum
publica vel per rei evidentiam, vel saltem per famam. Qupd si occulta sit
contaminatio . . . ratio reconciliationis in occultis non habet locum”-—
Hardouin, IX, 2017.

From Decretals of Gregory IX to the Code

41

that were erected within the above-mentioned area.73 Thus any
rooms which perhaps existed between the ceiling and the roof were
not considered part of the church. Neither was the sacristy, vesti­
bule or portico, tower, or any adjacent room considered to be part
of the church, because none of these were destined to provide space
for the conduct of divine worship.74 Hence, if any of the violative
acts were committed in these places, the church was not considered
violated.
A church basement containing chapels was considered part of the
church, provided that access to the basement was had directly from
the interior of the church proper. Such a basement consequently
shared the consecration or the blessing of the church itself. There­
fore, if one of the above-mentioned acts took place in this basement,
the church was considered violated. 'However, if access to such a
basement was had only from the street or from some part of the
building which did not constitute the church proper, then the base­
ment demanded its blessing or consecration as something distinct
from the blessing or the consecration of the church. Thus there were
constituted two distinct units; a violation of the one did not at all
involve that of the other.7576
If the basement served as a burial place and had direct com­
munication with and access to the interior of the church, then it
was considered as one with the church. Therefore any violative
act which occurred in such a basement entailed for the church the
same consequences that it entailed for the basement. However, if
access to the basement was provided by a means other than a direct
passage from the interior of the church, then the church was not
affected by the consequences following upon the commission of the
violative acts in the basement.78 But if the church was violated,
then the basement which served as a burial place was also violated,
because a cemetery adjacent to a church shared in the violation of
the church itself.77
73 Pirhing, Ius Canonicum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 16; Sanches, De Matrimonio,
lib. IX, disp. 15, n. 2>.
71 Pirhing, loc. cit.; Sanchez, ibid., nn. 26, 28-31.
75 Many, De Locis Sacris, n. 38, 3°.
76 Many, loc. cit.
77 “Si ecclesiam pollui sanguinis aut seminis effusione contingat, ipsius

42 '

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

Article 3. Consequences of the Violation of Churches
The decretals of Gregory IX expressly declared that a violated
church was to be reconciled immediately, lest divine services should
have to be discontinued.78 Boniface VIII decreed that the violation
of a church effected the violation of its adjacent cemetery and that
no one was to be buried in the cemetery until the church was recon'
died together with the cemetery.79 It followed, then, that burial
in a violated church was likewise prohibited until after the recoil'
ciliation of the church had taken place. It is evident from these
two decretals that the violation of a church produced a threefold
effect: 1. all divine services had to cease; 2. the burial of the dead
was prohibited; 3. it became necessary to reconcile the church.
Concerning the second effect no further explanation is required,
for the meaning of the decretal is quite clear.
The enjoined cessation of divine services in the violated church
implied primarily the prohibition to celebrate Mass therein. But
it also entailed the prohibition of the recitation of the canonical
hours in choir, the proscription of public sacred processions and the
disallowance of all other liturgical functions. A cleric who con'
trary to this injunction nevertheless presumptuously officiated in a
violated church, and thus laid himself open to serious guilt, did
not, however, incur the stigma of irregularity.80
When the violation of a church occurred during the celebration
of Mass before the Canon had begun, the Mass had to be discon­
tinued immediately; if the violation occurred during the Canon of
coemeterium si contiguum sit eidem, censetur esse pollutum. . . Non sic quo­
que in casu converso sentimus, ut videlicet polluto coemeterio, quamvis eccle­
siae contiguo, debet ecclesia reputari polluta, ne minus dignum maius, aut
accessorium principale ad se trahere videatur.”—C. un., de consecratione
ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 21, in VI°, Cf. also Pirhing, Ius Canonicum, lib.
Ill, tit. 40, η. 16: Sanchez, De Matrimonio, lib. IX, disp. IS, η. 27.
78 C. 10, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40.
70 C. un., de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 21, in VT.
80 “Is, qui in ecclesia . . . polluta . . . scienter . . . celebrare praesumit,
licet in hoc temerarie agat, irregularitatis tamen, quum id non sit expressum
in iure, laqueum non incurrit”—C. 18, de sententia excommunicationis, sus­
pensionis et interdicti, V, 11, in VI°. Cf. also Barbosa, Ius Ecclesiasticum
Universum, lib. II, cap. 4, n. 33.

From Decretals of Gregory IX to the Code

43

the Mass, the Mass was to be continued until its completion with'
out any interruption.81 If the violation of a church occurred dur­
ing the celebration of any other divine service, then such service
had to be discontinued immediately.82*84
Canonists and theologians maintained that the bishop could per­
mit Mass to be celebrated in a violated church when there was no
other church in which the faithful could fulfill their obligation of
hearing Mass, and also when it was impossible to reconcile the
church immediately. Furthermore, ihe permission of the bishop tor
the celebration of Mass could be presumed if it was impossible to
reach him and if grave ncce.-sity demanded that Mass be celebrated.80
The Sacred Congregation of Indulgences declared that the in­
dulgences which could be gained by visiting a church were not
suspended or withheld during the visits that were made to a vio­
lated church. This declaration was confirmed and approved by
Pope Pius IX.81
The reconciliation, which was a sacred rite by which a violated
church was made fit again for divine services, was to be performed
as soon as possible.85 Prior to the reconciliation of a church which
had become violated by the burial of an infidel, or of an excommunicatus vitandus, it was necessary to remove the body from the
church only if it could be distinguished from the other remains of
the faithful whose bodies likewise lay buried in the church; other81 Missale Romanum, tit. de defectibus in celebratione missarum occurren'
tibus, cap. X, de defectibus in ministerio ipso occurrentibus, n. 2: “Si, Sacerdote
celebrante, violetur Ecclesia ante Canoncm, dimittatur Missa; si post Canoncm,
non dimittatur.”
82 Many, De Locis Sacris, n. 40, 3°.
S3 Suarez, Opera Omnia, tract, de eucharistia, disp. LXXXI, sect. 4, n. 8;
St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, lib. VI, n. 361; Schmalzgrueber, Ius Eccls'
Siasticum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, η. 6 5; Gasparri, De Ssma. Eucharistia,
n. 243.
84 18 sept. 1862, Ordinis Carmelitarum Discalceat.—Decreta Authentica
Sacrae Congregationis Indulgentiis Sacrisque Reliquiis praepositae ab amo
1668 ad annum 1882 edita iussu et auctoritate SS. D.X. Leonis PP. XIII
(Ratisbonae, Neo Eboraci, Cincinnati, 1883), n. 396 (hereafter this work
will be referred to as Decreta Authentica S.C. Indulg.); Fontes, n. 5066.
85 “. . . aqua protinus benedicta lavetur . . .”—C. 10, X, de consecratione
ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40.

44

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

wise there would have been present the imminent danger of removing one of the bodies of the faithful, which of course would
have implied an unjust procedure.80 The reconciliation was to be
performed by sprinkling the walls of the church with holy water?7
The Sacred Congregation of Rites declared that a violated church
was not reconciled by the celebration of Mass therein; it was to be
reconciled by the prescribed form as given in the liturgical books?8
Article 4. Minister of Reconciliation
A. Consecrated Churches
The reconciliation of a consecrated church was reserved to the
local bishop. The local bishop could for the reconciliation of com
secrated churches in his own territory grant permission to any other
bishop. Such permission, however, could not be granted to a simple
priest. These laws were given in the decretal of Gregory IX:
“Aqua per episcopum benedicta ecclesiam reconciliari
posse per alium episcopum non negamus, per sacerdotes
hoc fieri de cetero prohibentes, non obstante consuetudine
provinciae Bracharensis, quae dicenda est potius corruptela;
quia, licet' episcopus committere valeat quae iurisdictionis
existunt, quae ordinis tamen episcopalis sunt non potest
inferioris gradus clericis demandare. Quod autem man­
dantibus episcopis super reconciliatione factum est hactenus
per eosdem, misericorditer toleramus.”86
89
88
87

The Pope condemned the practice of some bishops who delegated
simple priests to reconcile consecrated churches. In not demanding
that such churches should be reconciled again it seems that the Pope
validated the. reconciliation which had been invalid from the be'
ginning.90 Gasparri,91 in commenting upon this decretal of Gregory
IX, adverted to the fact that the Pope, as the supreme legislator of
86 Cf. c. 12, X, de sepulturis, III, 28.
87 Cf. cc. 4, 7, 9, 10, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40.
88 19 aug. 1634, Oppiden., ad II— Decr. Auth., n. 611; Coll. S. C. de
Prop. Fide (ed. 1907), n. 78.
89 C. 9, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40.
90 Cf. glossa in c. 9, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40, v.
“toleramus.”
81 De Ssma. Eucharistia, n. 256.

From Decretals of Gregory IX to the Code

45

ecclesiastical law, could grant a sanatio for an invalid reconciliation
of a church, whereby the invalid reconciliation would be considered
valid.
The Sacred Congregation of Rites refused to grant faculties for
simple priests to reconcile consecrated churches. It declared that the
reconciliation of consecrated churches should be performed by another bishop when the local bishop was absent or impeded from
performing the rite.92 During the vacancy of a see the chapter or
vicar capitular (diocesan consuitors or diocesan administrator in
this country) could give permission to a bishop of another diocese
to reconcile a consecrated church, because these persons have the
power of jurisdiction when a see becomes vacant.93 A bishop could
reconcile a church in a diocese in which he had no jurisdiction, because he had the required power of orders. The reconciliation was
valid but illicit if he did not have the permission of the local bishop.94
The Roman Pontiff could delegate a simple priest to reconcile a
consecrated church. This privilege was granted only in particular
cases. In 1313 Pope Clement V granted to the Archbishop of Can­
terbury for a period of three years a privilege by virtue of which
simple priests could be delegated by him to reconcile consecrated
churches. It was required that the priests should use water which
was blessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury or by some other
bishop.85
In 1761 the cathedral chapter of the archdiocese of Salamanca
wrote to the Sacred Congregation of Rites, explaining that the Ca­
thedral church, and other churches which belonged to the University
of that city, were often violated because of fights which arose among
the "students. It was asked that the faculty to reconcile the churches
be granted to ecclesiastical dignitaries, because the see might be
vacant, or the bishop might be absent and no other bishop might
be available for a long time. Masses and other sacred functions
92 Cameracen., 9 feb. 1608—Decr. Auth., n. 246.
03 Gasnarri, De S'srna. Eucharistia, n. 256.
94 S.R.C., Oppiden., 19 aug. 1634, ad II—Deer. Auth., n. 611; Coll.
S.C. de Prop. Fide (ed. 1907), n. 78.
05 Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Brittaniae et Hiberniae (4 vols., Londini,
1737), Π, 435.

46

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

would have to be discontinued for a long time to the great detriment of the students. Pope Clement ΧΠΙ granted the following
privilege through the Sacred Congregation of Rites; During the
vacancy of the see, if no other bishop is in the diocese or nearby,
the Vicar capitular is permitted to reconcile the churches, provided
that he uses water which has been solemnly blessed by a neighbor­
ing bishop; if the bishop is impeded either through sickness or by
his absence from the diocese, the first dignitary of the chapter can
reconcile the churches, provided that he has the written permission
from the local bishop and uses the water blessed by a bishop/1'’ The
water which was to be used in reconciling consecrated churches
had to be solemnly blessed by a bishop. To the water which was
to be solemnly blessed there had to be added a small admixture of
salt, ashes and wine. The mingling of these elements with the water
was to be accomplished with the properly called for liturgical
prayers.07
Pope Leo X, by virtue of the brief “Religionis suadet” (3 febr.
1515), granted to the major superiors of the Order of Friars Minor
the privilege of reconciling their own churches. The privilege also
granted the faculty of solemnly blessing the water, particularly when
the churches were located in remote places, from which it was neces­
sary to travel more than forty miles in order to reach the bishop.08
By virtue of the communication of privileges other Regular major
superiors enjoyed the same privilege."
B. Blessed Churches
A decretal of Gregory IX stated: “Si ecclesia non consecrata . . .
06 S.R.C., Salamantina, 12 dec. 1*761—Deer. Auth., -n. 2463,
Cc. 4, 7, X, de consecratione ecclesiae Vel altaris, III, 40.
HS “. . . illas {ecclesias} . . . sanguinis seu seminis .effusione, seu alias quomodolibet pollutas, seu polluta, quoties opus fuerit, aqua per vos, praesertim in
locis remotis ubi episcopum aquam benedicentem per duas dictas adire non
poteritis, benedicta, reconciliare libere et licite valeatis, auctoritate Apostolica,
tenore praesentium concedimus et indulgemus . . .”—Sigismund Ferraria,
B.ulJarium seu Collectio Bullarum et Litterarum Apostolicarum (6 vols.,
Romae: 1640-1650), VI, 217.
"Many, De Locis Sacris, n. 42, 1°, d; Vermeersch, art. IV, “De conse·
cratione, benedictione et reconciliatione Ecclesiae religiosorum”—Periodica,
II (1911), 192-195.

J'rom Decretals of Gregory fX lo the Code

47

fuerit . . · polluta, aqua protinus exnrcizaiu lavetur . . .
Tire
glossa interpreted this decretal as waning that a non-consecrated
church could be reconciled by a simple priest through the use of
ordinary holy water. 1 he reason for rias contention was that if the
Pope had intended that a non-consccratcd church should be recoin
ciled by a bishop) he would have expressed it.'01
Pope Benedict XIV and other canonists maintained that a simple
priest did not have to obtain delegation from the bisnop in order
to reconcile an unconsecratcd church.1'" The Roimm Ritual, however, stated explicitly that a church which had not been consecrated
could be reconciled by a priest who was delegated by the bishop.10'’
The reason for the difference of opinion between the authors and
the Ritual lies, perhaps, in the fact that, in a declaration of the
Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1608, it was stated that the simple
reconciliation of a church could be committed to a priest.101 The
decree did not say that delegation was necessary, but simply stated
that a priest could reconcile a church which was only blessed but
not consecrated. The question was finally settled by the Sacred
Congregation of Rites in 1904, when it. declared that a simple priest
could not by his own power reconcile a blessed church, but only
by the delegation of the bishop.100

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The following items seek to set down in a summary manner the
conclusions that have been reached in the preceding historical study
of the desecration and violation of churches.
100 C. 10, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40.
101 Glossa in c. 10, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40.
102 Benedictus XIV, De Synodo Dioecessana. (3 vols., Romae: 1788), lib.
XIII, cap. 15, n. 2; Barbosa, De Officio et Potestate Episcopi, pars II, alleg.
28, n. 57; Pirhing, Ius Canonicum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 21; Schmalzgrueber, Ius
Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. III, tit. 40, n. 84; Rciffenstuel, lus Canonicum
Universum, lib. III, tit. 40, n. 28.
11,3 Tit. VIII, cap. 28, Ritus reconciliandi ecclesiam violatam si nondum
erat ab episcopo consecrata, n. 1.
104 Cameracen., 9 feb. 1608—Decr. Auth., n. 246.
105 Bolana, 8 iulii 1904—Decr. Auth., n. 3091; Coll. S.C. de Prop. Fide
(ed. 1907), n. 2201; Analecta Ecclesiastica, XII (1904), 383.

48

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

1. Up to the time of Gratian there was no clear distinction made
between the concepts of desecration and violation relative to
churches. Churches lost their consecration: a) when they were
completely destroyed; b) when the principal altar was destroyed or
removed from the church; c) when bloodshed, homicide and effusio
seminis occurred in the church. The burial of an infidel in a church
did not cause desecration, but it seems that a church was considered
violated, although this was not expressly so stated in the law.
2. A clear distinction between the desecration and violation of
churches first came into use with the Decretals of Gregory IX.
3. The complete destruction of a church caused the loss of con­
secration.
4. The destruction of a major part of the walls desecrated a
church.
5. The opinion of the authors that desecration resulted from
the destruction of a major part of the plaster of the walls was de­
clared untenable by the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1896.
6- Desecration of a church took place when it was converted to
profane uses by the authority of the bishop as authorized first by
the Council of Trent.
7. Violation of churches resulted only from notorious homicide,
bloodshed, effusio seminis and the burial of a pagan or of an excommunicatus vitandus in a church.
8. Divine services were forbidden in a violated church until the
rite of reconciliation was performed.
9. The minister of the reconciling of a consecrated church was
the bishop.
10. Simple priests could not validly reconcile consecrated churches
except by express delegation from the Holy See.
11. Simple priests could licitly reconcile blessed churches only by
express delegation of the bishop.

PART II
COMMENTARY
Chapter IV

DESECRATION OF CHURCHES
The desecration of a church, as has already been pointed out in
the introduction to this work, may be defined as the loss of its consecration or blessing. Canon 1170 of the present Code of Canon
Law provides:

Consecrationem vel benedictionem ecclesia non amit­
tit, nisi tota destructa fuerit, vel maior parietum pars
corruerit, vel in usus profanos ab Ordinario loci re­
dacta sit, ad norman can. 1187.
Prior to the Code some authors distinguished between the dese­
cration of a consecrated church and the desecration of a blessed
church. They maintained that the blessing of a church adhered to
its floor (pavnnento), while the consecration of a church adhered to
its walls. Consequently, according to their manner of theorizing, a
consecrated church became desecrated when it was totally destroyed
or when the greater part of the walls was destroyed; whereas, a
blessed church did not become desecrated even though all of its
walls were demolished in their entirety, provided the floor or the
pavement was not destroyed.1
This opinion is no longer tenable, however, in view of the word­
ing of the Code which rules that a church does not lose its con­
secration or blessing unless it is totally destroyed, or unless the
greater part of its walls is destroyed or collapses. The law ex1 Schmalzgrueber, lus Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 16; cf.
also D’Annibale, Summula Theologia Moralis (5 ed., 3 vols., Romae: 1908),
III, η. 9 (henceforth this work will be referred to as Theo. Mor.); Snares,
Opera Omnia, tract, de eucharistia, disp. LXXXI, sect. IV, n. 7; Sanchez,
De 'Matrimonio, lib. IX, disp. XV, n. 37; A. J. Schulte, Benedicenda, p. 87,
footnote, n. 7.

50

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

plicitly mentions the destruction of the walls as the factor effecting
the desecration of a church, but it is silent with regard to the floor,
thus indicating that the destruction of the latter does not effect the
desecration of a church.
It is to be borne in mind that throughout the entire treatise in the
Code on the desecration of a church the term “desecration’' is
used with reference both to consecrated and blessed churches. This
is evident from the definition of the term itself and also from the
wording of canon 1170, which applies one and the same rule to
both consecrated and blessed churches.
The Code lists three causes which bring about the desecration of
a church: 1. the total destruction of a church; 2. the collapse or
destruction of the greater part of the walls of a church: 3. the
reduction of a church to secular status and purpose by the authority
of the local ordinary, according to the norms given in canon 1187.
The use of the word “nisi” indicates that the three causes enumer­
ated constitute an exhausive list, that is, the desecration of a church
cannot be effected by any cause unless it is one of the three men­
tioned in the law. Each of these causes will be discussed under
separate headings.
Canon 1168, § 1, provides that every consecrated or blessed
church must have its own title, which cannot be changed after the
dedication of the church. When a church loses its consecration or
blessing, however, as the result of any of the three causes men­
tioned in canon 1170, the title is also lost.2 Therefore, in the re­
dedication of a desecrated church a new title may be given to the
church,3 but the Sacred Congregation of Rites deems it more fitting
that the original title be kept or, at most, that a new title be added
to the old one.4
Article I. Total Destruction
The Code of Canon Law provides that a church becomes de­
secrated when it is totally destroyed,5 and, consequently, when such
2
3
4
s

Many, De Locis Sacris, η. 22, 2°.
S.R.C., Mantuana, 29 mar. 1760—Deer. Auth., n. 2453.
S.R.C., Isclana, 16 ian. 1885, ad I—Deer, Auth., n. 3625.
Cf. can. 1170.
< -

..

Desecration of Churches

an edifice is rebuilt it is necessary that it be consecrated or blessed
again prior to the exercise of any religious services within its con­
fines, for such a reconstructed building is io be considered a new
.church.6 This ruling of the Code is not new legislation. Thc.ie is
documentary evidence dating back to the fifth and sixte, centones
that illustrates the then existing practice of reconsecrating cnuich.cs
which were rebuilt after they had previously been destroyed?
With regard to the desecration of a church resulting tiom its
total destruction, one may ask what is meant by a total destruction.
What amount of destruction is necessary in order that it can be
considered total in the canonical sense7 The first and obvious mean'
ing of the term ‘"total destruction1' is of course th-.c complete de­
molition of the entire building so that no part or it remains standing.
The Sacred Congregation of Rites hsued a decision wherein it was
. declared that a newly reconstructed church had to be consecrated
even though it was built upon the site of an old church which had
previously fallen completely into ruins?
There is a further possibility that a church may become destroyed
to such an extent that only one wall or several small portions of
the walls will remain standing, as may happen, for example, as the
result of an earthquake, or as the result of demolition by bombs
in time of war. The concussion brought about by the above-mentioned factors may well cause the remaining walls to be weakened
structurally, so that they can not be used with any degree of safety
in the reconstruction of the church. It may be accepted generally
then that the term “total destruction” includes the collapse or demohtion of a church, even though some portions of the walls remain
standing, but must be torn down because of their weakened con­
dition.
Augustine maintains that “it would be equal to entire destruction
eCan. 116$, § 1; cf. Wernz, Ius Decretalium, η. 441; De Angelis, PracleC'
Hones luris Canonici, lib. Ill, tit. 40, η. 4: Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus
Sacris, n. 26, 4°.
7 Cf. De Rosière, Liber Diurnus, nn. XXVII and XXVIII, pp. 73 and 77;
cf. also supra, p. 12.
. 8 S.R.C., Caesarauguslana, 31 aug. 187*
Gardelhni, Decr. Auth., η. 5708.

f
Γ
y
■
’
,
?

i

‘

’
·
.■

52

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

if the whole wall, apse and roof had been removed.” 9 In support
of his opinion he refers to a decision of the Sacred Congregation
of Rites10 in which it was stated that a church whose wall, apse and
roof had been destroyed had to be consecrated after the necessary
repairs were made.11 It cannot be inferred on the basis of that de­
cision, however, that the destruction of one wall, the apse and the
roof can be considered the equivalent of a total destruction, for it
is evident from the facts presented in the case that the remaining
walls were not torn down and subsequently reconstructed, but that
only the deficient parts were rebuilt. The fact that the Sacred Con­
gregation insisted upon the reconsecration of the church proves
beyond doubt that the consecration of the church was lost. This
result was effected not by the total destruction of the church, but
rather by the destruction of the major part of the walls, which is
another cause that produces desecration, as will be explained in the
following article.
When a church is totally destroyed by a fortuitous occurrence of
circumstances, such as fire, earthquake, bombardment, etc., or when
a church is deliberately razed with the intention of rebuilding it,
the consecration or blessing is lost by such a destruction. If the
destroyed church were later rebuilt from the same material that
had been used in its original construction, it would be necessary
to consecrate or bless the church again, because the restored build­
ing does not retain the consecration or blessing of the former build­
ing. Desecration results when the church ceases to be a building, and
although the same materials were used to reconstruct the church in
its original form, it can no longer be said to be the same building,
but rather it is an entirely new building.12 Hence such a recon­
structed building must be consecrated or blessed in the same manner
as a new church.
9 Λ Commentary on the T^ew Code of Canon Law, VI, 32.
10 Augustine, ibid., footnote, n. 61.
11 S.R.C., Aretina, 4 sept. 1875, ad II—Deer. Auth., a. 3372; Gardellini.
Deer. Auth., n. 5632.
12 Reiffenstuel, Ius Canonicum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 11; Schmalsgrueber, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 25; Barbosa, De
Officio et Potestate Episcopi, pars II, alleg.. 27, n. 15; Ferraris, Prompta
Bibliotheca, v. “ecclesia,” art. 4, n. 19.

Desecration of Churches

53

Article II. Destruction of the Major Part of the Walls

The second cause which brings about the desecration of a church,
according to canon 1170, is the destruction of the major part of
its walls. In determining the desecration of a church as resulting
from the destruction of the walls one must give consideration to
the quantity destroyed rather than to the relative position of the
destroyed parts of the walls. The front of the church, i.e., the apse,
sanctuary, and altars, is deemed to be the principal part of the
building. The desecration of a church, however, is not determined
by the importance of the. part of the church which is destroyed, but
rather by the amount of the area of the destroyed walls.13 Since the
law specifically mentions the destruction of the greater part of the
walls as being required to cause the desecration of a church, the cal·
culcations must be made mathematically. The principle, there'
fore, which must be applied in determining the desecration of a
church is that the destruction or collapse of the slightest amount
greater than one half of the total area of the walls of the church
would cause the church to lose its consecration or blessing. Thus the
destruction of any small portion of the walls does not cause a church
to become desecrated. The Sacred Congregation of Rites has de'
dared on several occasions that a church did not have to be recon'
secrated when the destroyed part of the wall was comparatively
smaller than the part which still remained standing.14
It is to be noted further that in order to consider a church de'
secrated because of the destruction of its walls, the collapse of the
. major part of the walls must occur at one time; or if several small
13 Barin, “Commentarium ad Canones luris Canonici sacram Liturgiam
Spectantes”—Ephemerides Liturgicae, XXXVIII (1924), 231 (henceforth
this article will be referred to as “Commentarium") ; Coronata, Institutiones
luris Canonici (5 vols., Taurini (Italia): ex Officina Libraria Marietti, Vol.
II, 2. ed., De Rebus, 1939), n. 741, b.
14 S.R.C., Marianopolitana, 20 feb. 1874—Decr. Auth., n. 3326; Gardcllini,
Decr. Auth., n. 5 578; Coll. S'.C. de Prop. Fide (ed. 1907), n. 1411; S.R.C.,
Marianopolitana, 11 mar. 1871—Decr. Auth., n. 3240; Coll. S.C. de Prop.
Fide (ed. 1907), n. 1367; S.R.C., Barcinonem, 16 ian. 1886, ad I—-Decr.
Auth., n. 3651; Gardcllini, Decr. Auth., n. 5959.

54

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

portions of the walls, which when added together would amount
to a greater part of the walls, were to collapse at various intervals
of time, it would be requisite that the successive destruction occur
before the preceding destroyed part was rebuilt; otherwise, only a
smaller section of the walls would be in the state of ruins at one
given period of time and this would not be sufficient to cause the
church to become desecrated.13

It is the common opinion among authors that a church does not
lose its consecration or blessing when small portions of its walls
are destroyed at various times and are immediately rebuilt, even
though this is done with the intention of rebuilding the entire
church, provided that at no one time the destroyed portion con­
sists of the major part of the building.15
16 As long as the greater part of
the building remains standing, a church retains its consecration ox'
blessing; the small reconstructed portion of the building need not
be consecrated or blessed, because it automatically acquires that
status by its addition to that part of the building which retains its
consecration or blessing, according to the principle:Accessorium
naturam sequi congruit principalis.17
When a church is enlarged as the result of one operation, in
length, breadth or height, it loses its consecration or blessing if the
new part is larger than the original building.18 If, however, a church
is enlarged by numerous small additions made successively and at
15 Barin, “Commentarium”—Ephemerides Liturgicae, XXXVIII (1924),
231: Coronata, Institutiones luris Canonici, η. 741, b.
18 De Meester, Juris Canonici et Juris Canonico-Civilis Compendium (nova
ed., 3 vols, in 4, Brugis: Desclée de Brouwer.et Si., 19214928), n. 1131, 1°,
a (hereafter this work shall be referred to . as Compendium) ; Coronata, De
Locis et Temporibus Sacris, η. 26, 2°, b; Gasparri, De Ssma. Eucharistia, n.
181; Many, De Locis Sacris, η. 27, 4°; Reiffenstuel, Ius Canonicum Univer­
sum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, η. 12; Schmalzgrueber, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib.
Ill, tit. 40, η. 28.
17 Reg. 42, R. J., in VI°; cf. also Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus Sacris,
η. 26, 2°, b.
18 De Meester, Compendium, n. 1131, 1°, b; Pirhing, Ius Canonicum, lib.
Ill, tit. 40, η. 9; Reiffenstuel, Ius Canonicum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, η. 14;
Schmalzgrueber,Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, η. 29; Consul­
tation III, n. 2—Nouvelle Revue Théologique, XIII (1881), 322.

Desecration of Churches

55

diverse times, it does not lose its consecration or blessing even though
■ eventually the church is entirely rebuilt and enlarged so consider­
ably that all vestiges of the walls of the original building are com­
pletely destroyed and removed.19
Prior to the Code it was the more common opinion among the
canonists that a church became desecrated when the plaster that
covered the surface of the interior of the walls was removed or
destroyed either totally or to a major degree, even if the walls
themselves did not collapse. The prc-Code canonists contended that,
since the surface of the walls was anointed with chrism at the time
of the consecration of a church, the consecration was lost with the
destruction or removal of the plaster.20 In view of the recent de­
cisions of the Sacred Congregation of Rites on the matter tin's
opinion can no longer be held.21 It must now be maintained that
if the interior is renovated and all of the plaster is removed and
the walls are recovered with plaster or other material, the church
does not need a new' consecration or blessing, for the entire wall, not
merely the surface, is consecrated or blessed.
■ The Sacred Congregation of Rites has always insisted in its
decrees that the crosses, when removed from the walls, must be re­
placed as evidence of the consecration of a church.22 The strictly
10 S. R. C., Caesaraugustana, 31 aug. 1872, ad II—Decr. Auth., n. 3269;
cf. also S. R. C., Barcinonen., 16 ian. 1886, ad II—Deer. Auth., n. 3671; De
Meester, ioc. cit.; Ayrxnhac, Administrative Legislation, p. 19; Augustine, A
Commentary, VI, 3 3.
20 Benedictus XIV, ep. “lam inde”, 12 maii 1774, § 7—Fontes, n. 440;
Pirhing, Ius Canonicum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 8; Reiffenstuel, Ius Canonicum
Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 13; Schmalzgrueber, Ius Ecclesiasticum Univ'
-sum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 23; Hinschius, System des l^atholischen Kirchenrechts,
IV, p. 331; Scherer, Handbuch des Kirchenrechts, II, 631.
21 Cf. S. R. C., Semen, et Modrussen., 4 maii 1882—Deer. Auth., n. 3747;
Le Canoniste Contemporain, XVIII (1897), 239; S. R. C., Tridentina, 11
ian. 1894—ASS, XXVII (1894-97), 439; AER, XII (1897), 344; Analecta
Ecclesiastica, III (1897), 27; S. R. C., Decretum, 19 maii 1896, dubium II—
Decr. Auth., n. 3907; Coll. S. C. de Prop. Fide (ed. 1907), n. 1932; Analecta
Ecclesiastica, IV (1896), 347; Collationes Biugenses, I (1896), 763-764; S.
R. C., Nicoteren. et Tropien., 9 aug. 1897, ad I—Decr. Auth., n. 3962; Le
Canoniste Contemporain, XX (1897), 710.
22 S. R. C., lanuen., 18 feb. 1696—Decr. Auth., n. 1939; Senien. et Mod-

56

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

liturgical prescriptions of those decrees, though not expressi)' referred to in the Code, remain in force in virtue of the general norm
given in canon 2.23

Article III. Reduction

to

Secular Status and Purpose

That the Holy See is opposed to the reduction of churches to
secular uses is evident from the prescriptions of canon 1165, §2,
whereby the local ordinary is forbidden to give his consent to the
erection of a church, or, if it already is built, to its consecration or
blessing, when it can prudently be foreseen that in the course of
time it will be used for secular purposes. Occasionally it may hap­
pen that unforeseen circumstances will necessitate the reduction of
a church to a secular status and purpose. According to canon 11 70
a church loses its consecration or blessing when the local ordinary
reduces a church to secular uses in accordance with the norms given in
canon 1187, which rules :

Si qua ecclesia nullo modo ad cultum divinum ad­
hiberi possit et omnès aditus interclusi sint ad eam
reficiendam, in usum profanum non sordidum ab
Ordinario loci redigi potest, et onera cum reditibus
titulusque paroeciae, si ecclesia sit paroecialis, in
aliam ecclesiam ab eodem Ordinario transferantur.
In any attempt to explain the ruling of this law it is advisable to
repeat in full the decree of the Council of Trent, upon which the
present law is based, and to compare the present with the older
legislation.
Quum illud quoque valde curandum sit, ne ea, quae sacris
ministeriis dicata sunt, temporum iniuria absolescant et
russen., 4 maii 1882—Decr. Auth., n. 3545;
, 13 iulii 183 3, ad Π—
Decr. Auth., n. 3584; Barcinonen., 16 ian. 1886—Decr. Auth., n. 3651.
23 Codex, plerumque, nihil decernit de ritibus et caeremoniis quas liturgici
libri, ab Ecclesia Latina probati, servandas praecipiunt in celebratione sacro­
sancti Missae sacrificii, in administratione Sacramentorum et Sacramentalium
aliisque sacris peragendis. Quare omnes liturgicae leges vim suam retinent,
nisi earum aliqua in Codice expresse corrigatur (Italics inserted by the present
writer).

Desecration of Churches
ex hominum memoria excidant, episcopi, etiam tamquam
apostolicae sedis delegati, transterre possint, beneficia
simplicia, etiam iuris patronatus, ex ecclesiis, quae vetustate
vel alias collapsae sint, et ob eorum inopiam nequeant
instaurari, vocatis iis, quorum intcrc.-t. in matrices aut alias
ecclesias locorum eorundem seu viciniorum arbitrio suo;
atque in eisdem ecclesiis erigant altaria vel capellas sub
eisdem invocationibus, vel in iam erecta altaria vel capellas

transferant ctim omnibus emolumentis et oneribus prioribus
ecclesiis impositis. Parochiales vero ecclesias, etiam si iuris
patronatus sint, ita collapsas refici et instaurari procurent
ex fructibus et proventibus quibuscunque, ad easdem
ecclesias quomodocunquc pertinentibus. Qui si non fuerint
sufficientes, omnes patronos et alios, qui fructus aliquos es
dictis ecclesiis provenientes percipiunt, aut, in illorum de­

fectum, parochianos omnibus remediis opportunis ad prae­
dicta cogant, quacunque appellatione, exemptione et con­
tradictione remota. Quod si nimia egestate omnes labor­
ent, ad matrices seu viciniores ecclesias transferantur, cum
facultate tam dictas parochiales quam alias ecclesias dirutas
in profanos usus non sordidos, erecta tamen ibi cruce, con­
vertendi.21

Canon 1170 states explicitly that a church loses its consecration
or blessing when it is converted to secular use by the authority of
the local ordinary. The Council of Trent, although it permitted a
church to be converted to secular purposes, did not state whether
such conversion caused the desecration of the church. The pre­
Code authors, however, maintained that the desecration of a church
was effected as the result of its conversion by the bishop to secular
uses.2i> That opinion seems to be implied in the Tridentine decree,
for it would be repugnant to the sacred character of the church to
permit it to be used for noir-religio us purposes when it was still
dedicated to God exclusively for religious worship. The use of a
church for secular purposes, furthermore, would be a violation of
the legal principle of Boniface VIII: 'Semel Deo dicatum, non est24
25
24 Sess XXI, de ref., c. 7.
25 Hinschius, System des \atholischen Kirchenrechts, IV, 3 31; Scherer,
Handbuch des Kirchenrechts, II, 631; Many, De Locis Sacris, η. 27, 6°; Gasparn, De Ssma. Eucharistia, I, n. 184.

58

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

ad usus humanos ulterius transferendum,20
*226 unless the sacred char­
acter, which was given to a church at the time of its dedication,
was removed prior to its conversion to secular purposes.
With regard to the person who may permit a church to be con­
verted to secular uses, the Council of Trent granted this power to
bishops. Canon 1187 grants the same power to the local ordinary.
The local ordinary is to be here understood according to the mean­
ing indicated in canon 198, that is, within their respective terri­
tories the residential bishop, abbot and prelate nullius, and their
vicars general, the Apostolic administrator, Apostolic vicar and pre­
fect, as well as those who during the vacancy of the above offices
succeed in the government of the respective territories according to
the provisions of law. Hence, exempt major religious superiors
cannot grant permission to convert a church to secular uses, even
though the church is subject to the religious community, because such
religious superiors are not classified under the heading of local
ordinaries according to canon 198, § 2.27 Nor does it seem probable
that the vicar general can without a special mandate grant permis­
sion to reduce a church to secular purposes,28 even though he is a
local ordinary. Canon 1162, § 1, states that the written consent of
the local ordinary must be obtained before a new church may be
erected, but the vicar general cannot give such a consent without a
special mandate. Therefore, since the local ordinary, with the ex­
ception of the vicar general, is the sole judge in determining the
necessity or advisability of building a new church, by analogy with
canon 1162, § 1, he should also be the sole judge with regard to deter­
mining the existence of the causes which, justify the reduction of a
church to secular uses.29
20 Reg. 51, R. J., in VI’.
27 Cappello, without stating on what grounds he makes his assertion, claims
that if a church is only blessed the exempt major religious superior, if he
blessed it personally or through a delegate, can reduce it to secular uses.—Tractatus Canonico-Moralis De Sacramentis (3 vols, in 6, Taurinorum Augus­
tae, Officina Libraria Marietti: Romae), 1(3. ed., 1938), n. 746 (henceforth
this work will be referred to as De Sacramentis).
2S Coronata holds the opposite opinion—-cf. Institutiones luris Canonici.
η. 741.
29 ‘Omnis res, per quascumque causas nascitur, per easden diss.olvitur”—
c. 1, X, de regulis iuris, V, 41.

Desecration of Churches

59

When an unauthorized agent subjects a church to secular usage
it does not lose its consecration or blessing, and consequently does
not have to be dedicated again to divine worship; at most, such an
unlawful usage would cause a church to become violated.30
Some of the recent authors are of the opinion that the Council
of Trent prescribed that a church was to be demolished when it
was in a state of ruins and when sufficient funds for the restoration
of the edifice were not available.31 There is no basis for the contention that the demolition of the destroyed church was necessary,
although it is evident from the Tridentine decree that the complete
destruction of the church was permissible.

The Council of Trent prescribed that simple benefices, as well
as all obligations along with whatever emoluments they possessed,
which were attached to the destroyed church were to be transferred
to the mother church, or to a neighboring church. An altar or
chapel was to be erected in the mother church or a neighboring
church under the same title as the destroyed church, and a cross
was to be erected upon the site of the former church. The present
law for the most part reiterates the Tridentine prescriptions, but
it also makes some changes which indicate that the Code is less
exacting than the former law. The Code simply states that “the
obligations ,the revenues, and the title of the parish, if it is a parochial
church, shall be transferred to another church.”32 The Code no
longer insists that the obligations, such as foundation Masses, celebratidn of the titular feast, etc., be transferred to the mother church
or to a neighboring church; the obligations may now be transferred
to any church within the territory which is subject to the jurisdic­
30 Coronata, Institutiones luris Canonici, η, 741; Ayrinhac, Administrative
Legislation, p. 20; Augustine, A Commentary on the A[etu Code of Canon
Law, VI, 3 3; Beste, Introductio in Codicem, p. 563. The violation of a church
resulting from its subjection to impious and sordid uses is treated in chap.
V, art. I, C-. -cf. infra, pp. 76-80.
31 De Meester, Compendium, n. 1144, 2°: Fcldhaus, Oratories, Catholic
University of America Canon Law Studies, n. 42, Washington, D. C.:
(Catholic University of America, 1927), p. 88; Coronata, De Locis et Teni'
ponbus Sacris, η. 62, 2°; Ayrinhac, Administrative Legislation, p. 39.
32 Cf. canon 1187.

60

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

tion of the local ordinary. It is not any longer necessary to erect
an altar or chapel in the church to which the obligations have been
transferred. The title of the former destroyed church must be
transferred to another church, not in all instances as prescribed by
the Council of Trent, but only when the former church was a
parochial church. The church thus acquiring a new title retains
its original title and assumes the newly added title as of equal irm
portance with the first.38 The obligation imposed by canon 1168,
§ 2, that of celebrating the titular feast annually, must then be
observed on the days of the two distinctive feasts.

Although the present legislation does not provide, as the former
law did, that a cross should be erected upon the site of the former
church, it is fitting that this be done “lest those things which have
been dedicated to sacred services may, through the injury of time,
. . . pass from the memory of men . . . ” 33
34

The mere declaration on the part of the local ordinary that a
church may be reduced to a secular status and thereupon may be
used for secular purposes is sufficient in itself to cause the church
to lose its consecration or blessing. The decree of the local ordinary,
although, it is not prescribed by the. Code, should be given in writing
and a copy of the document should be kept in the diocesan archives
as evidence that the conversion to secular uses was performed by the
proper ecclesiastical authority.
The Code does not prescribe any rite to be employed in reducing
a church to a secular status. ‘However, since a great deal of solemn'
ity is manifested at the dedication of a church, it seems fitting that at
least some liturgical function should also take place at the reduction
of a church to a secular status. Moretti35 suggests a rite which is
substantially the same as that prescribed by the IV Provincial Council
33 Cf. Gasparri, De Ssma. Eucharistia, I, n, 139.
34 Sess. XXI, de ref., c. 7—Waterworth, The Canons and Decrees of the
Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent (London: 1848), p. 149.
35 Caeremoniale iuxta Ritum Romanum seu De Sacris Functionibus (4 vols.,
Taurini: Marietti, 1936Ί939), n. 3074 (henceforth this work will be referred
to as De Sacris Functionibus)·, cf. also “Breviora Responsu"—Ephemerides
Liturgicae, XXVII (1913), 676'677.

ί'Γ
ili

Desecration of Chimkcs

61

of- Milan in 1576/'" The suggested ceremony is to be carried out m
the following manner.
I. Several days before the reduction of the church to a secular
status, the bodies or relies of the sauits, if the church potrossro any,
are to be transferred to another previously selected place. The piicT
who performs the ceremony is to he vested m a. surplice and a jud
stole; kneeling before the bodies or relics lie recite^ an antiphon and
an oration in honor of each saint whose remains arc present, these are
then carried in procession to the selected place: ourmg the procession
hymns and canticles are to be recited as prescribed by the Roman
Ritual.37
II. The priest then proceeds to remove the relics of the saints from
the altar in the following manner:
a) Vested in surplice and purple stole, the priest kneels before
■each altar, praying silently; he then recites an oration to the saint.
in whose honor the altar was dedicated ;
b) All the linens and ornaments arc removed from the altar. The
■table fmensa) is then removed, washed and wiped dry;
c) The cavity containing the relics is opened, and the relics are
■ removed and deposited in a decent and safe place.
If the altar is not consecrated, the consecrated altar stone is re'
moved intact and placed in the sacristy.
.III. If the church is consecrated the twelve crosses are removed
from the walls.
IV. If any bodies of the faithful are buried in the church these
are to be removed while the De Profundis is being recited, and then
buried elsewhere (the IV Provincial Council of Milan prescribed
that à Mass of Requiem be said in the church to which the bodies
were transferred).
V. The sacred images and all ornaments arc to be removed; a
■cross is to be erected in some convenient place in the church in a
secure manner so that it cannot be easily removed. The church may
then be converted to profane uses.
30 C. 20—Hardouin, X, 829.
37 Cf. Rituale Romanum, tit. IX, cap. 14, De Processione in Translatione
Sacr. Reliquiarum.

t>2

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

The Code and the Council of Trent employ the words “in usinn
profanum non sordidum.” The purpose to which a church may be
put, therefore, should be honest and decent; it could be used as
a school, a hall for business and social assemblies, a library, an
orphanage, or for any other becoming purpose. It is not permissible
to employ a desecrated church as a barn or as a place for the stabling
of animals. Such uses would be considered sordid.38* When a church
has been reduced to a secular status it may also become the object of
sale,30 but before the contract is completed proper precautions should
be taken lest the new owner subject the building to sordid uses.
The rules governing the alienation of ecclesiastical goods must also
be observed.40
Relative to the conditions under which the local ordinary could
reduce a church to a secular status and use it for secular purposes,
the Council of Trent required that the church be in a state of
ruin and that it could not be repaired because of the poverty of
the church itself and the poverty of those upon whom normally
rested the obligation of repairing it. The Code, on the other hand,
states the conditions in general terms, namely, that the church can
in no manner be used any longer for divine services and, secondly,
that all possible means for its repair are wanting. The impossibility
of repairing a church may be due to an absolute lack of funds for
making the necessary but yet possible repairs, or it may be due
to the fact that even though the funds are available, the building
is so dilapidated that an entirely new building is necessary, mere
repair no longer being possible.41
The question arises whether the local ordinary can licitly reduce
a church to a secular status and purpose even though the two con­
ditions mentioned in canon 1187 are not verified. It may happen at
times that other causes may present themselves in justification of
38 Cf. Blat, Commentarium Textus Codicis luris Canonici (S vois, in 6,
Romae: ex Typographia Pontificia in Instituto Pii IX, 1921-1927), III, n. 38
(henceforth this work will be referred to as Commentarium) ; De Meester,
Compendium, n, 1144, 5°.
30 De Meester, ibid., 2°; Beste, Introductio in Codicem, p. $71.
40 Cf. canons 15304532.
41 Feldhaus, Oratories, p. 88.

Desecration, of Churches

63

such a procedure. Examples of this kind can be found in the decisions of the Sacred Congregation of the Council. In one instance
a public oratory was situated upon an estate and owned by a private
individual. The owner made his residence elsewhere, and permission
was granted for the celebration of Mass in an oratory at the new
place of residence. The old public oratory, although well preserved,
was not used for religious services for a period of twelve years,
and the owner subjected it to secular purposes without an ecclesi­
astical approval. The estate itself was sold, and, desiring to sell
the public oratory also, the owner petitioned the bishop for per­
mission to reduce the oratory to a secular status in order to be able
to sell the property. Upon submission of the facts to the Holy See
the Sacred Congregation of the Council decided that the bishop could
permit the oratory to be reduced to a secular status and subsequently
sold.42
In another case it was demonstrated that a small rural church,
situated more than two miles from town, was used only a few times
a year for religious services. Because of its isolated location, the
building was frequently used as a hiding place for bandits and other
evil-doers who wrought considerable damage to the interior of the
church and its contents. No funds were available to maintain the
church properly. In view of these circumstances the Sacred Congre­
gation of the Council issued a declaration whereby the bishop could
reduce the church to a secular status and purpose.43
The Provincial Council of Auch in 1851 decreed that, with the
approval of the bishop, churches that had fallen into ruin and could
not be repaired, as well as newly constructed churches that were
found to be of no use any longer, could be converted to secular
but not sordid uses.44 In giving its approval to the decrees of that
43 S. C. C., Ariminen, 20 maii 1854 et 26 aug. 1854—Thesaurus Résolu'
tionum Sacrae Congregationis Concilii (167 vols., Romae: 1718-1908), CXIII
(1854), 225-231, 372-376: Pallottini, v. “ecclesia in genere,” §11, n. 26. For
another example with strikingly similar circumstances cf. S. C. C., Bituntina,
22 dec. 1866—Fontes, n. 4205.
43 S. C. C., Terracinen., 14 aprih’s 1764 et 2 iunii 1764—Thesaurus Reso'
lutionum Sacrae Cong. Concilii, XXXIII (1764) 68-70, 85; Pallottini, ibid.,
n. 28.
44 Cone. Prov. Auscitanum, c. 107—Collectio Lacensis, IV, 1191.

64

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

council43
*45 the Holy See was apparently not opposed to having bishops
authorize the reduction of churches to a secular status, even though
the conditions set forth by the Council of Trent were not present.
This was no indication, however, that bishops could follow such a
course of procedure arbitrarily; a just cause had to be present before
a bishop could licitly convert a church to secular use.46
It seems probable that the principles which were in force prior to
the Code are still applicable to the present law. Hence, even though
the two conditions mentioned in canon 1187 are not verified, the
local ordinary can licitly proceed with the conversion of a church
to a secular status and purpose when a just cause is present. Thus,
for example, a justifying cause would be the case of a church’s being
abandoned completely, which oftentimes may happen as the result
of the people leaving the community in search of better economic
conditions. Another similar example is that of a parochial church
the parishioners of which have decreased in number to such an ex'
tent that the total revenues of the parish are not sufficient to meet
the expenditures of the parish and. no future amelioration of con'
ditions is foreseen.. Under such circumstances the local ordinary
can unite the parish to another parish in such a manner that the
two form only one parish, the former parish ceasing to exist as a
distinct juridical entity (unio exstinctiva),.47 The church of the extinct parish will then be considered abandoned and it can licitly be
reduced to secular purposes. Still another example of a justifying
cause for converting a church to secular uses is that of a church
which is too small to admit the multitude of people who should
regularly attend religious services there,48 when another church is
built which is sufficiently large in itself to accommodate the large
number of people. The small church, if it is no longer used for
religious services, can then be converted to secular uses.
43 Cf. Collectio Lacensis, IV, 1166Ί167.
40 Cf. Cone. Prov. Viennense, anno 1858, tit. IV, c. 2: ''Nulla ecclesia,
nullum sacellum publicum absque justa causa et Episcopi auctoritate diruatur
vel ad usus profanos convertatur"—Collectio Lacensis, V, 179.
47 Cf. canon 1419, 1°.
4S Bcste contends that a situation of this kind is equivalent to the condi'
tion prescribed by the Code (“si nullo modo ad cultum divinum adhiberi
possit")—Introductio in Codicem, p. -571.·

Chapter V

VIOLATION OF CHURCHES
There is a radical difference between the desecration and the vio
lation of a church. By desecration a church loses its consecration
or blessing, whereas by violation a church retains its consecration
or blessing, but the effects of the consecration or of the blessing are
temporarily suspended. Such suspension is caused by certain acts,
• specified in law, that have been committed in the church. The suspension of the effects of consecration or of blessing entails the prohibition to celebrate divine services in the church until the sacred
rite of reconciliation has been performed.1
The violation of a church may be defined as an injury inflicted by
certain acts, specified in law and committed in the church, which
blemish the sacred character of the church and render it unfit for
divine services until the blemish is removed by the sacred rite of re'
conciliation.1
2 The injury that is inflicted upon a church by violation
is not physical, but rather moral. ,De Meester calls the violation of
a church a moral contamination of its sanctity, that is, the committed
acts are so repugnant to the sanctity of the church that it is not
fitting that divine services be celebrated therein until the contamina'
. tion has been expurgated by reconciliation.3
’ - Prior to the Code it was the more common opinion that not only
consecrated and blessed churches, but also those churches that were
not yet dedicated to divine worship by a distinct rite were subject
to violation.4 The authors who held that opinion based their con'
,'tention upon the decretal of Gregory IX which ruled that if a non'
consecrated church was violated it was to be reconciled as soon as
possible so that divine services would not be discontinued for a long

1Cf. canon 1173, § 1.
2 Cf. De Angelis, Praelectiones luris Canonici, lib. Ill, tit. 40, η. 4.
3 Compendium, η. 1130; cf. Bouuacrt'Siinenon, Manuale Juris Canonici (3
■vois., -Gandae et Lcodii: H. Dcssain, 193ΟΊ931, Vol. Ill, 3 ed„ 1931), III,
n. 17.
4 Many, De Locis Sacris, n. 39, 2°; D’Annibale, Theologia Moralis, III, n.
H; cf. Gasparn, De Ssma. Eucharistia, n. 247.

i
66

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

time.5 It was maintained that the churches designated in that decree
tai could not have been blessed, because the blessing of churches was
unknown at the time of Gregory IX. The pre-Code authors contended that due to the fact that bishops permitted divine services
to be celebrated in churches before their consecration, such non'
consecrated churches were dedicated (not by a liturgical rite, however) to divine worship, and thereby were considered to be sacred
places, and as such they were subject to violation.6
In accordance with the law now in force sacred places are defined
as those places which are set apart for divine worship, or for the
burial of the dead, by a consecration or a blessing prescribed for this
purpose by the approved liturgical books.7 The canonists of today
are unanimous in admitting the possibility of violation as obtaining
only relative to the places that are designated as sacred in law, so
that churches which are neither consecrated nor blessed cannot be
subject to violation.8 Canon 1165, § 1, rules that the celebration
of divine services is forbidden in a church before the church has
been consecrated or blessed. Canon 1173, § 1, provides that the
celebration of divine services is forbidden in a violated church before
the rite of reconciliation has been performed. Thus the canonical
effect of violation is already present in a non-consecrated or unblessed church, namely,, the prohibition to hold divine services
therein. It follows, therefore, that there can be no violation of a
non-consecrated or unblessed church, for before its dedication to
divine worship by consecration or blessing a church edifice, from a
canonical viewpoint, is no different from any other building.
It is noteworthy at this point to make a few observations regarding
oratories. The Code does not provide any specific legislation con'
cerning the violation of oratories, but canon 1191, § 1, applies to
public oratories all the laws that govern churches.9 The consecration
5 C. 10, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40.
6 Cf. Many, loc. cit.
7 Canon 11 54.
8 Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome luris Canonici (3 vols., Mechlinae-Romae :
H. Dessain, 1934-1937), II (5. ed., 1934), n. 489; Coronata, De Locis et
Temporibus Sacris, n. 28, 4°; Augustine, A Commentary, VI, 40.
9 ‘Oratoria publica eodem iure quo ecclesiae reguntur.”

Violation of Churches

67

: ' of a public oratory is not prescribed by law, but it is permitted.10
If it is not consecrated, a public oratory must be blessed, otherwise
divine services cannot be celebrated therein.11 By their consecration
or blessing, therefore, public oratories are constituted sacred places,
and as such they are subject to violation in the same manner as coir
secrated or blessed churches.12
The possibility of semi-public oratories being subject to violation
depends upon whether or not they are consecrated or blessed after
the manner of churches. It is not required by law that such oratories
be consecrated or blessed in a solemn manner; they may be blessed
with the so-called benedictio loci or the benedictio downs novae.'*
Such a blessing, however, is merely invocative and docs not consti­
tute a semi-public oratory as a sacred place; hence, such an oratory
is not subject to violation.14
Private oratories, that is, domestic oratories and cemetery chapels,
: likewise are not subject to violation, because they are not sacred
places.15 Such oratories are not blessed or consecrated like churches,
but they may receive the benedictio loci or the benedictio domus
novae.16
It must be noted that the commission of a violative act brings
about the violation of a consecrated or blessed church, even though
there is ignorance of the ensuing violation on the part of the person
who has committed the evil deed, for the violation of a church does
not have the nature of a canonical penalty, which demands that
knowledge of the penalty must be had before it can be incurred.
Neither is it required for the violation of the church to be effected
that the violative act be placed as formally injurious to the sacred
place; the mere commission of the designated and specified act causes
Cf. canons 116$, § 3, and 1191, § 1.
11 Canons 1191, § 1, and 116$, § 1.
12 Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus Sacris, η. 28, 4°, b.
13 Canon 1196, § 2; Rituale Romanum, tit. VIII, c. 6, Benedictio loci and c.
7, Alia benedictio domus novae.
14 Cf. Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome, II, n. 489.
15 Cf. Augustine, A Commentary, VI, 83; Coronata, De Locis et Tempori­
bus Sacris, n. 28, 4°, c.
18 Canon 1196, §§ 1, 2.

68

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

the church to become violated, even though the. agent had no inten­
tion of bringing about such an effect.17
The pre-Code discipline relative to the violation of churches ruled
that when a church was violated the adjacent cemetery was also to
be considered as violated.18 The Code now rules that a cemetery
becomes violated by the commission therein of the acts which vio­
late a church,19 but the violation of a church no longer entails the
violation of an adjoining cemetery, nor does the violation of a ceme­
tery involve the violation of the church which it adjoins.20
The specified acts and the conditions under which the violation
of a church is effected are enumerated in canon 1172, § 2 :

Ecclesia violatur infra recensitis tantum actibus,
dummodo certi sint, notorii, et in ipsa ecclesia positi:
1°. Delicto homicidii;
2°. Iniuriosa et gravi sanguinis effusione;
3°. Impiis vel sordidis usibus, quibus ecclesia addicta
fuerit;
4°. Sepultura infidelis vel excommunicati post senten­
tiam declaratoriam vel condemnatoriam.
The quoted law clearly indicates that with the promulgation of
the Code of Canon Law there are only four factors effecting the viola­
tion of a church. The wording of the preliminary portion of this
law is so forceful that it excludes the possibility of the church be­
coming violated in any other way than by the commission of any
one of the four acts that are specifically enumerated in the law.
These four acts are given in the law not simply by way of illus­
tration, but rather as constituting an exhaustive list of the causes that
bring about the violation , of a church.21
Before a church can become violated the law presupposes that the
violative act must be: a) certain, that is, exclusive of all reasonable
37 Cf. Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome, II, n. 489; De Meester, Compendium,
III, p. 36, nota 2.
1S C. un., de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 21, in VI°.
19 Canon 1207.
20 Canon 1172, § 2.
21 Cf. Beste, Introductio in Codicem, p. 564.

Violation of Churches

69

doubt; b) notorious either in law or in fact: <-) l-<>nimitt-.d Jo th<
church itself. These three conditions n-.u*t be pi esent m v.tcu ca-c
otherwise the violation and its consequences do nGt cnsuc·
'j'
consideration will be given to each of these conditions aitci a stuc
of the factors which effect the violation of a church has been macl·

Article I.

Factors Eeplcct-ct VmL.vricrs
A. Crhne of Hoiwt.ide

As in the pre-Code legislation, so, likewise, under the present taw
of the Code, the violation of a church, h induced by the commission
of homicide therein. Homicide must be strictly understood as the
killing of any human being. Attempted homicide which is not i.ital
does not violate the church in which it was committed, regmdlcas
of the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the victim. In the
latter case, however, the church may be violated perhaps by reason
of an unjust and grave shedding of blood.'*
It is immaterial whether the death of a person is procured by
poison, strangulation, or the use of a weapon.2''
Before the violation of a church can be effected it must necessar­
ily be presupposed that the homicide committed therein was a crime.
The very nature of a crime presupposes that the transgression of a
law is morally imputable to the delinquent.2,1 It follows, then, that
the homicide must be voluntary and unjust, that is, the crime must
be committed deliberately and involve serious sin.20 Hence, an ac­
cidental killing caused, for example, by some falling object would
not induce any violation of the church in which it occurred. Neither
22 Cf. canon 1172, § 1, 2°.
23 Cf. Gasparn, De Ssma. Eucharistia, n. 250: Coronata, De Locis et Tent'
ponbus Sacns, n. 28, 1°, a; Ayrinhac, Administrative Law, p. 21; Augustine,
A Commentary, VI, 36.
2t Canon 1172, § 1, 1°: “Delicto homicidii.” For the penalties imposed
upon those who are guilty of the crime of homicide cf. canon 23 54.
■ 25
22 Cf.
23 * canon 2195, § 1.
20 Cf. Gasparn, De Ssma. Eucharistia, n. 250: De Mccster, Compendium,
n. 1132, 2°: Many, De Locis Sacris, η. 31; Schmalzgrueber, Ius Ecclesiasticum
Universum, hb. III, tit. 40, n. 78; Reiffenstucl, his Canonicum Universum, lib.
Ill, tit. 40, n. 19.

70

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

would a church be violated if homicide were committed by one who
is morally irresponsible for his actions, e.g., by an infant or by an
insane person.27 If homicide were committed in a church by a per­
son who was under the influence of an intoxicant or an opiate, the
violation of the church would depend upon whether or not the agent
foresaw his action; if the homicide had not been foreseen in any
way, the violation of the church would not ensue, for under such
circumstances the homicide could not be deemed to have been com­
mitted deliberately.28
It has been noted that the violation of a church is effected when
the homicide committed therein is not only deliberate, but also un­
just. Thus·, if a person were attacked in a church and could not
save his life except by killing the unjust aggressor, such an action
would be justifiable, and the church would not be thereby violated.211
Prior to the Code it was the common opinion of the canonists
that a church became violated when the execution of a just sen­
tence of capital punishment occurred therein. The reason for the
ensuing violation was that such an execution was not unjust to the
condemned man, but it was unjust by reason of the sacredness of
the place in which it occurred.30 Augustine still adheres to the
opinion of the pre-Code authors.31 Such a view, however, must be
rejected, for the execution of a capital sentence performed by- the
lawful authorities, even though it is not in keeping with the decorum
or the sacredness of the place in which it occurs, nevertheless is a
just killing, and therefore cannot be called a crime of homicide.32
Whether such an execution would cause the violation of a church
27 Bouuaert-Simenon, Manuale Juris Canonici, III, n. 1*7; De Meester, loc.
cit.; Many, loc. cit.'
28 Cf. Gasparri, loc. cit.; Augustine,-À Commentary, VI, p. 37; Reiffen«tuel, loc. cit.; Barbosa, De Officio et Potestate Episcopi, pars II, alleg. 28,
n. 5.
29 Woywod, “The Law of the Church on Sacred Places”—HPR, XXV
(1925), p. 1083; De Meester, loc. cit.; Bouuaert-Simenon, loc. cit.; Many,
loc. cit.; Reiffenstuel, loc. cit.
30 Pirhing, Ius Canonicum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 10; Barbosa, ibid.,
M'any, loc. cit.; Reiffenstuel, loc. cit.
31 A Commentary, VI, 37.
32 Cf. Feldhaus, Oratories, p. 91; Ayrinhac, Administrative Law, p. 21.

Violation of Churches

71

by reason of the fact that the church might thereby be subjected to
impious or sordid uses will be seen later.
A strict interpretation of the word “homicide” does not include
suicide, nevertheless a morally imputable act of suicide is generally
accepted by the modern authors as being a factor which causes the
violation of the church in which it is perpetrated.33 The reason for
departing from the strict interpretation in this instance is that the
old law, which also used the word “homicide,” was understood by
the pre-Code canonists as including suicide.34 Hence, according to
the general principles of interpretation, the present law of the Code
is to be understood in accordance with the interpretation given to
the old law by the approved authors.3”
The violation of a church docs not ensue unless the injury that was
inflicted in the church was the direct and proximate cause of death.36
Thus, for example, if a person were seriously wounded in a church,
but his death ultimately followed from pneumonia or some other
illness that was contracted as the result of the infliction of the
wound, there probably would be no violation of the church, because
in this instance the inflicted injury was only an indirect and mediate cause of death.
The question arises whether violation occurs when a person is
killed irk a church as the result of a bombing in time of war. Before
attempting to reply to the question at hand, it is necessary to un­
derstand the fundamental principals of the morality of killing in
time of war. When all other means for effecting a peaceful settle­
ment between nations have failed, war is permissible for the pur­
pose of defending the rights of a nation and of its citizens against
attack, or it is permissible for the purpose of vindicating the rights
33 Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome, II, n. 489; Coronata, De Locis et Tern'
paribus Sacris, n. 28, 1°, a; Beste, Introductio in Codicem, p. ‘164: De Mees­
ter, Compendium, n. 1132, 2°, a; Bouuaert-Simenon, Manuale Juris Can­
onici, III, n. 17.
34 Cf. Schmalzgrueber, Ius Canonicum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 79;
Reiffenstuel, loc. cit.; Wernz, Ius Decretalium, III, n. 442; Gasparri, De Ssma.
Eucharistia, n. 250; Many, loc. cit.
35 Cf. canon 6, 2°.
38 Gasparri, loc. cit.

72

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

that have been infringed upon or unjustly taken away. In order to
attain this end it is permissible for a nation to use all the necessary
means, provided that the employed means are not immoral by reason
of the natural law and are not forbidden by international law. Tims
the killing or wounding of the combatants and those, who arc actively engaged in the progress of the war is justifiable. It is likewise justifiable to destroy fortified cities, places of shelter for the
fighting forces, etc. Non-combatants, however, such as children,
women, the aged and the wounded and all others who arc in no way
actively engaged in the prosecution of the war, all have the status
of innocent parties to the struggle; hence, the deliberate killing or
wounding of these is intrinsically immoral. Likewise it is not morally
justifiable to destroy property that possesses no military value and
is not devoted in any way to aid the war effort.37 By an application
of these principals to the case of the bombing of a church and the
subsequent killing of the persons within it, it is evident that if the
church were used as a place of shelter for the combatants, no viola­
tion would occur, because the killing of the soldiers would be justi­
fiable, and as such the homicide could not be considered a crime.
If, however, a church as a sacred place of worship were deliberately
bombed for the sake of killing the worshippers therein, such an
action would violate the church, for the homicide would be both
deliberate and unjust. On the other hand, if the bombing and kill­
ing were accidental, the violation of the church would not ensue.
Since it would be difficult, however, to ascertain whether the bomb­
ing of a church was deliberate or accidental, the violation would
be doubtful.38
The crime of homicide violates a church when the subject is ac­
tually killed in the church. An act is considered to have taken place
in a church when it has its effect therein, as in the case of the victim
37 Cf. Noldin-Schmitt, Summa. Theologiae Moralis iuxta Codicem luris
Canonici (21. ed., 3 vols., Oeniponte: Pustet, 1932), Π, n. 372; Vermeersch,
Theologiae Moralis Principia, Responsa, Consilia (2. ed., 4 vols., Brugis:
Firme Charles Beyaert, 1926-1928), II, n. 637.
38 Cf. Mahoney, “Reconciliation of Bombed Church'”—The Clergy Re'
view, XXI (1941), 116-/117, where consideration is given only to an acci­
dental bombing.

/-··' i o’a I i o n of Ch-’.i'ilios

'■’>

receiving a fatal wound in the church while the aggressor hred from
the outside; but if the murderer bred from the church and killed a
person in the street, there would he no violation, tor the act in this
case is to be considered as having occurred out;ide the church.·'·
If, however, a person were seriously injured in a church and then
death resulted elsewhere, the church would be none the less violated, because the actual killing was perpetrated in the church. On
the other hand, if he were injured outside the. church, and death
■followed within the church, no viola icon would ensue, because it
was simply a death, and not the crime of homicide, that occurred
in the church.10

B. Unjust and Grave Shedding of Blood

The law regarding the violation of a church which results from
bloodshed occurring therein was contained in the decretals of Gregory IX 39
41 and of Boniface VIII.42 The expression that was em­
40
ployed in the decretals to designate the factor effecting the violation
.of a church was “effusione sanguinis," without any further qualifi­
cation. According to the interpretation of the pre-Code canonists
the shedding of blood had to be caused unjustly, and the blood that
was shed had to be a considerable amount. These two concepts
were incorporated into the enactment of the law of the Code which
rules·: “Ecclesia violatur ·. . . iniuriosa et gravi effusione sanguinis.’’43
To obtain a clear idea of the meaning of the present law, there­
fore, it will be necessary to have recourse to the interpretation given
to the old law by the pre-Code authors.
■ The shedding of a small amount of blood does not cause the vio­
lation of a church. According to the pre-Code authors the word
“effusio" signified a flow of blood. They contended that the shed­
ding of a few drops was not sufficient to bring about the violation
39 Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus Sacris, η. 28, 2°, c:
Sacris, n. 31: Barbosa, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. II,
40 Barbosa, ibid., η. 20; Many, loc. cit.; Rciffcnstuel, Ius
versum, hb. Ill, tit. 40, η. 19.
41 C. 10, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40.
42 C. un., de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 21, in
43 Canon 1172, § 1, 2°.

Many, De Locis
cap. 4, n. 21.
Canonicum Uni'

\ZI°.

74

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

of a church. When referring to the amount that was required by
law to bring about such an effect, the authors employed such terms
as considerable, notable, abundant and copious flow of blood.41 The
expression “gravi effusione” of the present law is to be understood
as conveying the same idea as that which was expressed by the preCode writers, namely, that the violation of a church is caused by the
shedding of a considerable quantity of blood therein.
The shedding of blood alone, however, does not induce violation.
The violation of a church ensues when the act that caused bloodshed
was injurious or unjust, that is, the act itself was committed delib­
erately and was a serious transgression of the rights of another, so
that the agent is reputed to have committed a gravely sinful act.
Thus an accidental shedding of blood, or that which is caused by
one who is devoid of the use of reason, does not induce violation.44
4546
Neither does the violation ensue when an effusion of blood is caused
by a person who in self-defense justifiably inflicts a serious injury
upon an unjust aggressor.48 That the shedding of human blood alone
is referred to in the law is evident from the use of the word iniuriosa
or unjust. An animal cannot be a subject of rights (subie ctum iuris) ;
hence, the vvounding of an animal and the subsequent shedding of
blood would not be unjust, and consequently such bloodshed would
not violate the church in which it occurred.47

It has been rioted that a copious shedding of blood violates a
church when the act that causes the bloodshed is grieviously sinful.
Thus a fight between young boys, or a justifiable parental punish­
ment of a child, which would occasion a considerable nose bleeding
could not be considered to be a gravely sinful act, insofar as the
44 Cf. Glossa inc. un,, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 21, in
VI°, v. “Nota primo”; Pirhing, lus Çanonicum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, η. 11; Barbosa,
De Officio et Potestate Episcopi, pars II, alleg. 28, n. 34; Schmalzgrueber, lus
Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 80; Reiffenstuel, Ius Canonicum
Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 17.
45 Schmalzgrueber, loc. cit.; Reiffenstuel, ibid., n. 15.
46 Glossa in c. un., de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 21, in VI°, v.
“sanguinis”; Reiffenstuel, loc. cit.
iT Glossa, ibid., v. “sanguinis humani”; Barbosa, ibid., n. 31; Reiffenstuel,
Joe. cit.; Schmalzgrueber, loc. cit.

Violation of Churches

73

nose is a very sensitive organ, and a slight blow received upon the
- nose can very easily cause a great flow of blood.48 It has been offi­
cially declared that a church is not violated even though a considerable amount of blood were shed as the result of a slight blow
received upon the nose.49 On the other hand, if a bleeding of the
nose were caused by violent blows such as are inflicted by grown
men, or by boys of fourteen or more years of age, the violation of
the church would follow, for such an act is to be considered griev­
ously sinful.50
.. Vermeersch-Creusen 51 and Coronata 52 arc of the opinion that the
serious wounding of a person is not “unjust” when such wounds
arc self-inflicted. They hold, therefore, that bloodshed which is
caused by self-inflicted wounds in an attempt to commit suicide
does not violate a church. Strictly taken, no one can commit an in­
justice against himself, for an injustice is a transgression against the
rights' of another. But man does not have dominion over his life;
the supreme dominion over the life of a human being belongs to God
alone, the Author of life. Therefore, a suicide attempted by the
self-infliction of wounds is a transgression against the rights of God.53
The shedding of blood that is caused by self-inflicted wounds, there­
fore, is unjust. It seems to follow, then, that bloodshed which is
.caused in this manner induces the violation of the church in which
it takes place.
Before the violation of a church can be effected it is necessary
that the unjust shedding of blood should be caused in the church.
Thus if a person were wounded in the street, but the ensuing flow
.48 Pirhing, Ius Canonicum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 11; Suarez, Opera Omnia,
tract, de eucharistia-, disp. LXXXI, sect. 4, n. 2; Barbosa, ibid., n. 36; Gas■ paru, De Ssma. Eucharistia, η. 211.
49 S.C.C., in Marsorum, 18 dec. 1649—Pallottini, v. “ecclesia in genere,”
§ III, n. 4. Twenty-four drops of blood was the amount of blood specifically
mentioned in this decree.
®° Barbosa, loc. cit.; Reiffenstuel, ibid., n. 16.
51 Epitome, II, n. 489.
52 Institutiones luris Canonici, η. 748, b.
53 Cf. S. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (5 vols., Taurini, Italia :
-Marietti, 1932, IIa IIae, q. 64, art. ï; Noldin-Schmitt, Theologia Moralis, Π, η.
326.

!
i i i

76

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

of blood took place in the church into which the victim fled, no
violation would result.54 Some authors claim that the infliction of
a wound in a church causes the violation even though the subse­
quent flow of blood would occur elsewhere.55 According to the strict
interpretation of the law, however, the violation of a church is effected when both the cause of bloodshed and the actual flow of blood
occurs therein.56 The fact that the blood is absorbed by the person's
clothing and does not come in contact with the church in any way
does not make any difference.57
As has been explained under the heading of homicide, if a per­
son is seriously wounded in a church while the malefactor was in
the street, the violation nevertheless results, for the act is considered
to have had its effect in the church even though it originated out­
side. There is no violation, however, if the victim is wounded out­
side the church even though the action of the aggressor originated
in the church.
C. Impious or Sordid Uses

Canon 1172, § 1, 3°: [Ecclesia violatur] impiis vel
sordidis usibus, quibus ecclesia addicta fuerit.
The third factor which induces violation is the subjecting of a
church to impious or sordid uses. This provision of the law of the
Code had no. strict equivalent in the former legislation. The precise
nature of the uses to which a church may not be subjected is not
specified in the Code, but any sinful or disrespectful use that is un­
becoming to the dignity and honor due to a sacred place of divine
worship violates the church.
Canon 1178 rules that business transactions and fairs, even though
held for a pious purpose, and in general all things that are not com­
54 Reiffenstuel, Lus Canonicum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 18.
55 Reiffenstuel, loc. cit.; De Meester, Compendium, n. 1132, 2°, b; Barin,
“Commentarium”—Ephemerides Liturgicae, XXXVIII (1924), 236; Beste,
Introductio in Codicem, p. 565.
50 Cf. Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome, II, n. 489; Barbosa, De Officio et
Potestate Episcopi, pars II, alleg. 28, n. 24; Schmalzgrueber, Ius Ecclesiasticum
Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 80.
57 Schmalzgrueber, loc, cit.; Barbosa, loc. cit.

Violation of Churches

patible with the sanctity of the place arc forbidden in a church.
Although the obligation to refrain from using a church tor secular
purposes is very strict, such uses would not induce violation, pro­
vided the uses were not impious or sordid.
The word “impious"' has many meanings: irreligious, ungodly,
sacrilegious, etc. Impious uses denote actions that arc unlawful not
only because they arc objectively sinful, but also because they indi­
cate disrespect for the sanctity of the church in which they arc
perpetrated.58 Such uses would be the orgies that occurred in the
.Cathedral of Notre Dame during the French Revolution, or the
so-called “Black Mass" in which the Sacred Host is profaned in the
most outrageous manner.
Sordid uses are those actions that arc neither sinful nor dishonor­
able in themselves, but are considered to be despicable and vile be­
cause of the grave irreverence that is manifested for the sacredncss
of the place in which they occur.5" Thus, for example, a church
would be violated if it were used as a place for the stabling of
animals.
The word “ustts” implies the necessity of an act being customary,
or repeated, or at least continued for some length of time.60 Bouuaert-Simenon are of the opinion that the subjecting of a church to
impious or sordid uses for a day or two would induce violation,61
while Coronata holds that violation would result if the church were
used for several hours for such purposes.62 It would be difficult to
determine a definite minimum of time insofar as the performance
of various actions with their accompanying circumstances are of un­
equal duration; but a single and brief impious or sordid act probably68
68 Cf. Beste, Introductio in Codicem, p. 563; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome,
II, n. 489.
59 Cf. Barin, “Commentarium” — Ephemerides Liturgicae, XXXVIII
(1924), 236.
60 Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus Sacris, η. 28, 1°, c; De Meester,
Compendium, n. 1132, 2°, c; Beste, loc. cit.; Cocchi, Commentarium in
Codicem luris Canonici (5 vols, in 8, Taurinorum Augustae: Marietta, 1922193Θ), III, partes 2 et 3 (2. ed., De Rebus, 1926), η. 17 (hereafter this
work will be referred to as Commentarium).
01 Manuale, III. n. 17.
62 Institutiones luris Canonici, n. 748, b.

78

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

would not cause the violation of the church. Thus, for example, the
effusio seminis of the pre-Code discipline no longer induces viola­
tion, except in a case wherein such an act would recur frequently
and become notorious. But this would be very unlikely unless the
church were used as a brothel.63
It is generally admitted by the majority of the authors that a
sacrilegious theft does not violate the church in which it is com­
mitted, for such an act ordinarily is very brief and the thief docs
not actually use the church.64
Relative to the infliction of capital punishment, referred to under
the heading of homicide, Feldhaus denies that the use of the church
for such a purpose would cause violation.65 The more common and
the more probable opinion, however, affirms that violation would
be induced by the commission of an act of this kind,66 for it can be
reasonably presupposed that an official of the state who deliberately
selects a church for the execution of a just sentence of capital pun­
ishment would be acting in contempt for religion with complete
disregard for the decorum that is due a sacred place.
The Holy See has officially pronounced for the absolute exclusion
from churches of all, even pious, theatrical performances and cine­
matographic projections.6768Such plays and motion pictures, however,
do not cause the violation of a church, for they cannot be considered
either impious or sordid. On the other hand, however, violation
would ensue if a church were used for an indecent theatrical pre­
sentation, a circus, a market place, or any other type of boisterous
revelry.68
63 Cf. Coronata, Institutiones luris Canonici, η. 748, b; Augustine, A
Commentary, VI, 36; Cocchi, loc. cit.'; O’Donnell, “Sacred Places and Sacred
Times in the Code”—Irish Ecclesiastical Record,. 5th series, XIII (1919),
460.
114 Augustine (op. cit., VI, 58) holds the opposite opinion.
Oratories, p. 92.
60 Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome, II, n. 489; Cocchi, loc. cit.; Ayrinhac,
Administrative Law, p. 22; De Meester, loc. cit.; Beste, loc. cit.
07 S. C. Consistorialis, Decretum circa actiones scenicas in ecclesiis, 10 dec.
1912—AAS, IV (1912), 724.
68 Cf. De Meester, loc. cit.; Beste, loc. cit.; Coronata, De Locis et Tem­
poribus Sacris, η. 28, 1°, c.

Violation of Churches

79

Some authors maintain that a church is violated when it is used
for the purpose of military barracks,60 while others are of the opin'
ion that violation ensues when the church is occupied by soldiers
and also serves as a place to quarter horses and mules.'0 These
opinions are based upon the pre-Code decisions of the Sacred Con­
gregation of Rites. In one instance in which a church had been
used in time of war to serve as barracks for soldiers and as a mili­
tary point of observation for two days, it was declared that the
church was to be reconciled provisionally (ad cautelam).71 Recon­
ciliation was demanded in another case in which several churches
had been temporarily used as barracks for soldiers and as places of
shelter for horses.72 Under the law of the Code a church would be
violated if it were used for the purpose of stabling animals of any
kind, for such a purpose is most certainly to be considered sordid.
But the temporary use of a church as living quarters for soldiers in
time of war, particularly when other facilities are not available,
would not cause violation, provided that there was no irreverence
on the part of the occupants towards the sacredness of the church.
The Church is forever solicitous about the temporal, as well as the
spiritual, welfare of her children and is not opposed to the tem­
porary use of a church as a place of shelter for those who, in time
of war or other calamity, are deprived of their homes.73
It is held by some authors that a church is violated when it is
used for heretical or schismatic religious services.74 It is known,
however, that the Holy See, by way of exception, tolerated a prac­
tice that existed for about three centuries in certain parts of Ger­
many, namely, of holding Catholic and Protestant services in the89
89 Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus Sacris, loc. cit.; De Meester, loc. cit.;
Beste, loc. cit.
70 Augustine, A Commentary, VI, 38; Bouuaert-Simenon, Manuale, III, n.
17.
71 S.R.C., ToJentina, 27 feb. 1847—Decr. Auth., n. 2938.
72 S.R.C., Carpen., 3 mart. 1821—Decr. Auth., n. 2612.
73 Cf. Bouuaert-Simenon, loc. cit.; De Meester, loc. cit.
T* De,Meester. loc. cit.; Cocchi, Commentarium, III, partes 2 et 3, n. 17;
Beste, loc. cit.

80

The. Desecration and Violation of Churches

same church.75* Although the use of a church for non-Catholic services can no longer be tolerated, it seems that no violation would
ensue if it were used for such purposes, except in the case wherein
the church was so used in contempt for the Catholic religion.713
D. Burial of an Infidel or of a Person Excommunicated upon a
Declaratory or a Condemnatory Sentence

Canon 1172, § L 4°: [Ecclesia violatur] sepultura
infidelis vel exconununicati post sententiam declaratoriam vel condemnatoriam.
The word “sepultura” is to be here understood only as the actual
interment or entombment of a corpse. This is evident from canon
1175, which demands the removal or exhumation of the body of the
person whose burial in the church caused the violation thereof. The
other elements in connection with an ecclesiastical burial as enunv
erated in canon 1204 (the transfer of the body to the church and
the funeral services in the church) are. neither required nor do they
alone suffice to cause violation.
Although the violation' of a church is caused by the burial therein
of an infidel or of a person excommunicated by declaratory or con'
demnatory sentence,77 this does not imply that all other persons may
be buried there. Canon 1205, § 2, forbids the burial in churches of
all persons except residential bishops, abbots or prelates nullius in
their own churches, or the Roman Pontiff, royal personages and
Cardinals. Moreover, there is the possibility that some individuals
75 Cf. Wern?, Ius Decretalium, III, scholion ad n. 447; Bargilliat, Prae­
lectiones luris Canonici, II, η. 1420, e.
'β Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome, TI, p. 337, nota 1; Bouuaert-Simcnon,
ibid., η. 21.

77 A condemnatory sentence is one in which a competent ecclesiastical
judge inflicts the penalty of law. In a declaratory sentence, the law itself
has already inflicted the penalty immediately when a crime has been coni'
mitted, and the competent ecclesiastical judge merely declares. that the de­
linquent has been found guilty, and that therefore he has incurred the penalty
of the law. Cf. Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon
Law (5. ed., 2 vols., New York: Wagner, 1939), I, 22.

Violation of Churches

8!

or members of certain families have been granted a privilege by the
Holy See whereby tlicy are entitled co burial in a church. In view
of the general norm given in canon 4 such privileges arc not re'
. yoked by the law contained in canon 120\ § 2?s

The term “infidels” must be limited to persons who have never
been baptized. The violation of a church results from the burial
therein of unbaptized persons alone.
In the pre-Oode law it was not certain that the burial of an in'
. fidel violated a church, insofar as there was no explicit legislation
to that effect. It became customary, however, on the basis of some
spurious decrees of Gratian, to consider those churches to be violated
in which infidels had been buried.7'1 Some of the prcOodc authors
made an exception in favor of catechumens and unbaptized infants
of Christian parents, maintaining that they were not, in the strict
terminology of the law, included under the term “infidels.” 78
*80 Con'
cerning the catechumens who die without receiving baptism through
no fault of their own, canon 1239, § 2, confirms the opinion of the
pre^Code authors by ruling that, in the matter of burial, they arc
to be considered equivalent to baptised persons. Hence, the burial
of a catechumen in a church does not induce violation. Although
the Code makes a specific exception for catechumens, it makes no
concession for unbaptized infants of Christian parents. On the con'
trary, it rules generally, in the same canon that makes the excep'
tion for catechumens, that persons who die without first having re'
ceived baptism are to be deprived of Christian burial.81 It seems to
follow that insofar as all unbaptized persons are infidels, their burial
in a church would cause the violation thereof.82 Most of the modern
78 Canon 4: “. . . privilegia . . . quae, ab Apostolica Sede ad haec usque
tempora personis sive physicis sive moralibus concessa, in usu adhuc sunt nec
revocata, integra manent, nisi huius Codicis canonibus expresse revocentur.”
7» Cc. 27, 28, D. I, de cons.; cf. supra, p. 38.
80 Gasparri, De Ssma. Eucharistia, n. 253; Many, De Locis Sacris, n. 34, 3°;
Schmalzgrueber, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, nn. 72, 74.
81 Canon 1239, § 1.
82 Reiffenstuel, Ius Canonicum Universum, lib. III, tit. 40, n. 21; Suarez,
Opera Omnia, tract, de eucharistia, disp. LXXXI, sect. 4, n. 6; S. Alphonsus
de Ligorio, Theologia Moralis, lib. VI, n. 366; DAnnibale, Theologia Moralis,

82

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

canonists, however, following the more benign interpretation of the
pre-Code authors, are of the opinion that the burial of an unbaptized infant of Christian parents does not induce violation. They
maintain that such persons are not infidels in the strict sense of the
term, insofar as they are not wilful infidels.83 The opinion of these
authors is not devoid of probability in view of the large number
and the authority of those who hold it. However, in view of the fact
that the ruling of the Code is couched in general terms, there seems
to be no legal basis for making a distinction whereby the unbaptized
infants of Christian parents should be excluded from the general
ruling of the Code.
Concerning the violation of a church resulting from the burial
therein of an excommunicated person, it was the common opinion
of the pre-Code authors that violation was not caused unless the ex'
communicated person had been a vitandus. According to a Con'
stitution of Pope Martin V an excommunicated person was to be
considered a vitandus only when a judicial sentence to that effect
had been published, or when a person was publicly and expressly
denounced as such, or when the person was a notorious persecutor
of the clergy.84 In accordance with the law now in force no excommunicated person is a vitandus, unless he is by name excom'
municated by the Apostolic See, unless the excommunication has
been publicly announced, and unless in the decree or sentence it is
expressly stated that he is a vitandus.85 The Code makes one ex­
ception to the general rule. Persons who lay violent hands on the
person of the Roman Pontiff become excommunicati vitandi by the
very fact of having committed the crime.86
Ill, p. 15, nota 19; Woywod, “The Law of the Church on Sacred Places"—
HPR, XXV (1925), 1085.
S3 Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome. II, n. 489; De Meester, Compendium, n.
1132, 2°, d; cf. also Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus Sacris, η. 28, 1°, c;
Beste, Introductio in Codicem, p. 565; Feldhaus, Oratories, p. 92; Augustine,
A Commentary, VI, 38.
84 Martïnus V (in Cone. Constantien.), const. “Ad evitanda,’’ anno 1418—
Fontes, n. 45; Mansi, XVII, 1192-1193.
85 Canon 2258, § 2.
86 Canon 2343, § 1, 1°.
T

«11

Violation of Churches

83

The law now in force rules that the burial of an excommunicated
person causes the violation of a church when the excommunication
has been pronounced by a declaratory or by a condemnatory sen­
tence. Some authors claim that the meaning of the present law is
the same as that of the pre-Codc law, the difference being merely
verbal.87 Coronata, in an early work,8889
* limited the violation of a
church to the burial therein of a vitandus who was excommunicated
by condemnatory or declaratory sentence. In a later workb0 he
seemed to retract Iris earlier view, and held that it was not necessary
that the excommunicated person be a vitandus, but that the viola­
tion of a church was induced by the burial therein of any excom­
municated person against whom a declaratory or condemnatory
sentence of excommunication had been passed.·1’0
Excommunicated persons are either vitandi or tolerati.^ insofar
as canon 1172, § 1, 4°, does not specify either of the two, it seems
that the burial of either type causes the violation of a church, pro­
vided that a declaratory or condemnatory sentence has been given.
The reason why some authors hold that a church is violated by
the burial therein of a vitandus, and not of a toleratus, whose ex­
communication was inflicted by the sentence of a competent ecclesi­
astical authority, is that canon 1242 creates some difficulty by the
fact that, following upon the enumeration of persons who are for­
bidden to be honored with Christian burial,92 it provides only for
the removal of the bodies of excommunicati vitandi from a Christian
burial place. Likewise, canon 117Î, which provides for the removal
of an excommunicated person buried in a church, does not qualify
the type of excommunication, but states simply that, if the church
87 Blat, Commentarium, III, partes II-VI, n. 22; O’Donnell, “Sacred Places
and Sacred Times in the Code"—Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 5 th series, XIII
(1919), 460.
88 De Locis et Temporibus Sacris, η. 28, 1°, c.
89 Institutiones luris Canonici, n. 748, b.
00 Cf. also Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome, Π, n. 489; Bouuaert-Simenon,
Manuale, III, n. 17; De Meester, Compendium, n. 1132, 2°, d; Beste, In­
troductio in Codicem, p. 565; Ayrinhac, Administrative Law, p. 33; Augus­
tine, A Commentary, VI, 39.
01 Canon 2258, § 1.
02 Cf. Canon 1240.

84

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

has been violated by the burial of an excommunicated person, the
body is to be removed from the church before the rite of reconcilia­
tion is performed.93 It seems that the text of canon 1172, § 1, 4°,
which rules that a church is violated by the burial of a person ex­
communicated upon a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, is
clear, and that it cannot be limited only to excommunicati vitandi
without making a gratuitous addition to the specification of the Code.
Canon 1175 evidently refers to canon 1172, § 1, 4°, when it rules
that the body of an excommunicated person, by whose burial the
church was violated, is to be removed before reconciliation. Rossi91
points out that the reason why canon 1242 insists only on the re­
moval of an excommunicatus vitandus from a cemetery, and not of
the other persons excommunicated by sentence of an ecclesiastical
judge, is that the Church is more severe in reference to burial in a
church. This reason, however, is only partially satisfactory. A legal
and more satisfactory reason is provided in canon 1207, which rules
that the laws governing the violation and reconciliation of churches
are to be applied also to cemeteries. Therefore, insofar as canon
1175 rules that the bodies of infidels and excommunicated persons
are to be removed from a church before tl^p rite of reconciliation
is performed, by virtue of canon 1207 such bodies are also to be
removed from a cemetery. Canon 1242, therefore, provides for the
removal of the bodies of the excommunicati vitandi, and canons 1175
and 1207 provide for the removal of all other bodies that caused
the violation of a cemetery.
Canon 2343, § 1, 1°, rules that those who lay violent hands on
the person of the Roman Pontiff become excommunicati vitandi.
This penalty is incurred by the very fact of one’s having commit­
ted the crime. The penalty is inflicted by the law itself, and there is
no necessity of issuing a declaratory or condemnatory sentence of
excommunication. The question, then, arises whether violation en­
sues as the result of the burial of such a person in a church. Vermeersch-Creusen maintain that the church is violated if in it such
03 Cf. Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus Sacris, p. 29, nota 1.
n4 La “Sepultura Ecclesiastica” e L' “lus Funerum” nel Diritto Canonico
(Bergamo: Librcria Vescovile Editrice Mario Arnoldi, 1920), p. 52, footnote.

Imolalion uf Churches

a person is buried, because canon 1242 demands the exhumation of
the body of an excomm unicatus vitandus winch has been interred
in a sacred place.05 It must be admitted that canon 1242 demands
the exhumation of the bodies of all excommunicati vitandi, but it
does not regulate that the burial of one who has been so penalized
by the law itself induces violation. Canon 1172, § 1, 4°, states ex­
plicitly that a church is violated by the burial therein of an ex'
communicated person against whom a condemnatory or declaratory
sentence of excommunication has been passed. Therefore, in view
of the express wording of this canon., it seems to be contrary to the
law to hold that violation results from the burial of an excommunti
catus vitandus against whom no sentence has been pronounced. In
like manner heretics, schismatics and apostates from the faith are
not included in the category of excommunicated persons whose burial
would violate a church, unless a condemnatory or declaratory
sentence of excommunication has been issued against them by a
/competent ecclesiastical judge.90

Article II.

Requisite Conditions for Violation

It has been pointed out that the commission of any one of the
acts specified in law and described above causes the church to be­
come violated. The law, however, rules further that the acts must
be certain, notorious, and committed in the church itself. These
conditions are of such importance that the law does not consider a
church to be violated if any one of the three is not verified.
A. Certainty Regarding the Committed Act

Certainty implies that the violative acts are committed under such
circumstances as to exclude all doubt whether of law or of fact. A
doubt of law is one in which there is no certainty about the exist­
ence, the extent, or the application of the law. Relative to the exist­
ence of the law, there can be no doubt, for the law concerning the vio05 Epitome, II, n. 489.
oe Çf. Augustine, A Commentary, VI, 39; Woywod, “The Law of the
Church on Sacred Places”:—HPR, XXV (1925), 1086.

86

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

lation of churches is expressly stated in the Code. There may be a
doubt, however, concerning the extent or the application of the law
to a particular case in question. Thus, for example, there may be a
doubt about what amount of the shedding of blood must be presupposed before the violation of a church takes place by reason of
bloodshed that is unjustly caused therein.97 A doubt of fact arises
when the law itself is clear, but when there is no certainty con'
cerning the existence of the fact or of the circumstances of the fact.
Thus, for example, in the case of suicide committed in the church
by an insane person who has lucid intervals, it would be uncertain
whether the person was morally responsible for his actions when he
killed himself .
When an objective doubt cannot be solved, there can be no es­
tablishment of certainty. Hence the commission of a violative act
which remains doubtful either in law or in fact causes the violation
to be doubtful. There is no obligation of performing the rite of
reconciliation when the violation of a church is doubtful, but a pro'
visional (ad cautelam) reconciliation may take place.98
B. J^otoriety Regarding the Committed Act
Another condition required by law before the violation of a
church ensues is that the committed act must be notorious. An act
may be notorious by notoriety of law or by notoriety of fact. It
is notorious by law when sentence has been pronounced by a com'
petent judge in a civil or ecclesiastical trial,99 or after a confession
has been made in court by the agent either spontaneously or in
answer to a legitimate question proposed by the judge.100 An act
is factually notorious when it is publicly known and committed
under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any subter­
fuge or excused by any counteractive remedy at law.101 In other
words, the fact of the commission of the act and the culpability of
the agent must be publicly known. According to these legal definitions, therefore, it may be pointed out that an act is notorious
97 Cf. Augustine, A Commentary, VI, 39.
‘•>8 Canon 1174, § 2.
90 Cf. Coronata, Institutiones luris Canonici, η. 1646.
700 Cf. canons 2197, 2° and 17$0.
101 Cf. canon 2197, 3°.

Violation of Churches

when it is publicly known by the fact that it appears in public docu­
ments and legal and authentic records,1"- or that it is already widely
publicized, commonly known, or certainly bound to become such.
Some authors are of the opinion that at least six persons in a small
community must know of the act before it can be considered to be
publicly known, and more persons in proportion to the greater num­
ber of inhabitants in larger places. However, canonists also con­
sider the quality or character of the persons who witnessed the act.
Thus, for example, even if one talkative person witnessed the act,
it would soon become widely publicized in view of the tendency of
the individual to divulge what he has witnessed. On the other hand,
if the commission of the act were witnessed by several prudent and
discreet persons, who are not likely to divulge the fact, the act
would remain occult.102
103 In this latter case no violation would ensue,
because of the lack of notoriety of the act. If, however, the com­
mission of an act became publicly known at some later date, the
church is considered to be violated from the time at which the fact,
became thus known.104
C. Localization of the Committed Act in the Church Proper
A third and final condition that must be verified before a church
is legally considered to be violated is that the act must be committed
within the church (in ipsa ecclesia). In ordinary usage the term
“church” refers to the entire building, but its application in canon
1172, § 1, must be interpreted as meaning that part of the building
in which divine services are held. An act committed within the
interior limits of the walls of the church and in the space between
the floor and the ceiling is an act of which it can be said that it is
committed in the church. The sacristy is not a part of the church
102 Cf. Coronata, op. cit., IV, p. 1 n. 1646, nota 3: Blat, Commentarium,
V, n. 9.
103 Cf. Coronata, op. cit., n. 1648; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome, III, n.
384, 3°; Ayrinhac-Lydon, Penal Legislation in the Hew Code of Canon Lato
(New York: Benziger Brothers, 1936), n. 6.
104 Schmalzgrueber, Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 82;
Pirhing, Ius Canonicum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 12; Reiffenstuel, Ius Canonicum
Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 22.

88

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

when the term “church” is understood in its proper meaning; neither
is the vestibule or portico, nor are the adjoining buildings and rooms,
nor the rooms in the tower, nor the space between the inside ceil·
ing and the outside roof.105
A basement chapel or a basement burial place, to which there is
direct access from the interior of the church proper, constitutes one
unit with the church itself and consequently shares the consecration
or the blessing of the church. Hence the commission of a violative
act in such a basement violates the church. On the other hand, n
such a basement is so constructed that accesss to it can be had only
through an entrance outside of the church proper, it is a unit dis­
tinct from the church. Consequently, the violation of such a base­
ment chapel or burial place does not involve the violation of the
church, or vice versa.106
Burial crypts that are built into the walls or under the floor of a
church are likewise considered to be part of the church itself, inso­
far as entrance to such places can be had only from the interior of
the church. Consequently, when a violative act occurs in such a
crypt the church itself is violated.101

I

105 Beste, Introductio in Codicem, p. 564; Blat, Commentarium, III, partes
II-VI, n. 22; De Meester, Compendium, n. 1132, 1°; Gasparri, De Ssma.
Eucharistia, n. 247; Pirhing, lus Canonicum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 16.
De Meester, loc. cit.; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome, II, n. 489; BouuaertSimenon, lAanuale, III, n. 17; Beste, loc. cit.; Many, De Locis Sacris, η. 38, 3°.
107 Cf. Many, loc. cit.

Chapter VI
CONSEQUENCES OF THE VIOLATION OF CHURCHES

Canon 1173, § 1: In ecclesia violata, antequam re­
concilietur, nefas est divina celebrare officia. Sacra­
menta ministrare, mortuos sepelire.
§ 2: Si violatio accidat tempore divinorum offici­
orum, haec statim cessent; si ante Missae canonem
vel post communionem. Missa dimittatur, secus sacer­
dos Missam prosequatur usque ad communionem.
The consequences of the violation of a church are twofold: a)
all divine services must cease; b) the church must be reconciled.
Article 1. Cessation of Divine Services
It is unlawful to celebrate divine services in a violated church
until reconciliation has taken place. Although the injunction is a
grave one, no penalty either of censure or of irregularity is attached
to the transgression. The reason for the prohibition, as Schmalz;grueber points out, is that in the moral judgment of man it is repug­
nant that before the place has been purified the Immaculate Host
should be consecrated and the divine services celebrated in a place
that has been defiled by evil deeds.1 Divine services are defined in
canon 2256, § 1, as those functions of the power of orders which by
the institution of Christ or of the Church are ordained for divine
worship and are performed exclusively by the clergy, such as the
celebration of Mass, the administration of the sacraments, the con'
ducting of funeral services, the ministry of preaching, the holding
of sacred processions, etc. Pious devotions, on the other hand, such
as the making of the stations of the cross, the recitation of the rosary
and other forms of prayer and meditation, are non-liturgical func­
tions, and are not considered to be divine services, even though a
priest officiates at them.2 The law, therefore, does not forbid the
1 Ius Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 63.
2 Hyland, Excommunication, its Nature, Historical Development and
Effects, The Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies, n. 49
(Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America, 1928), p. 54.

90

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

exercise of such functions in a violated church. Some authors, however, claim that even non-liturgical functions may be forbidden,
because the exercise of such functions in a violated church may be
a source of scandal to the faithful.3 The possibility of scandal and
also of wonderment to the faithful may be avoided simply by means
of an explanation to them that the exercise of non-liturgical func­
tions is not prohibited in a violated church. The authors who hold
the opposite opinion seem to read into the law a greater severity
than the law itself contains.
The presumptuous transgression of the prohibition to celebrate
divine services in a violated church involves grave moral imputability.4 The authors are in agreement that when a grave cause is present, e. g., if there is no other church in which the faithful can fulfill
their obligation of hearing Mass, and if in addition a reconciliation
cannot be effected immediately, the ordinary may permit the celebration of λ-lass in a violated church. Likewise in a case of urgent
necessity, e. g., if Mass must be celebrated for the purpose of supply'
ing the needed presence of Holy Viaticum, and no other church is
available, the permission of the ordinary for the celebration of Mass
in a violated church may be presumed, if he cannot be reached.5*
It is to be noted, however, that if there is sufficient time for the
actual performance of the rite of reconciliation, Mass may not be
celebrated in the violated church, for canon 1176 grants very extensive faculties for effecting the prompt reconciliation of a violated
church, as will be noted in the following chapter.
Vermeersch'Creusen point out that when Mass is celebrated in a
violated church because of a grave cause or in view of an urgent
necessity, care should be taken lest the faithful be; scandalised by
such an action. It is suggested that the faithful should be informed
3 Barin, “Commentarium” — Ephemerides Liturgicae, XXXVIII (1924),
237; “De Ecclesia Violata” — Promptuarium Canonic o'Liturgicum, as re­
viewed in Jus Pontificium, IX (1929), 170.
4 D’Annibale, Theologia Moralis, III, n. 15; Schmalzgrueber, Ius Ecclesias'
ticum Universum, lib. Ill, tit. 40, n. 64.
s Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus Sacris, η. 29; De Meester, Compendium,
n. 1133: Many, De Locis Sacris, η. 40, 5°; Gasparri, De Ssma. Eucharistia,
n. 243; Wernz, Ius Decretalium, III, η. 443.

Consequences of the ΊΊοΪαίίοιι of a Church

91

of the reason for postponing the reconciliation and also of the
reason for allowing the celebration of Mass under such conditions/'
When the violation or a church happens during' divine services,
these must cease immediately. Thus, the general rubrics of the
Missal prescribe that if during the celebration of Mass the violation
occurs before the Canon, the Mass must be discontinued at once; if,
however, the violation occurs after the Canon of the Mass has already
begun, the Mass shall not. be discontinued.7 By virtue of the canon
now under discussion the prescription of that rubric of the Missal
must be corrected. The present ruling is that if the violation of a
church occurs before the Canon of the Mass, or after the Communion,
the Mass must be discontinued immediately; if it occurs between the
Canon, i.e., beginning with the words “Te igitur,” and the Com­
munion, the Mass is to be continued only as far as the Communion,
i.e., until the “Corpus tuum’ inclusively.8
The administration of the sacraments is likewise forbidden in a
violated church. If the violation occurs during the administration of
the sacraments, they must be discontinued at once. By analogy with
the ruling concerning the continuance of Mass when the violation
occurs during the celebration thereof, it seems that the administra­
tion of a sacrament should be discontinued immediately if the viola­
tion occurs during the prayers and ceremonies that precede or follow
the actual administration of the sacrament; if the violation occurs
during the essential ceremony of a sacrament, no interruption must
take place until the rites necessary for the administration of that
sacrament are completed, but the prayers and ceremonies that ordin­
arily would follow are to be omitted.9 If the violation occurs during
the administration of a sacrament that does not allow an interrup­
tion, the rite is to be continued to its completion.·10 This would be
8 Epitome, II, n. 489.
7 Missale Romanum, tit. De defectibus in celebratione missarum occurren­
tibus, c. X, de defectibus in ministerio ipso occurrentibus, η. 2: “Si, Sacerdote
celebrante, violetur Ecclesia ante Canonem, dimittatur Missa; si post Canoncm,
non dimittatur.''’
8 Canon 1173, § 2.
3 Barin, “Commentarium”·—Ephemerides Liturgicae, XXXVIII (1924),
237-238; Moretti, De Sacris Functionibus, I, n. 346.
10 Beste, Introductio in Codicem, p. 566.

92

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

the case if violation took place while the sacrament of Penance
was being administered. If the penitent had begun the confession of
his sins before the violation took place, the confessor would have to
pronounce the absolution if the penitent was worthy even though a
violation had been committed in the interval.
Another divine service the celebration of which is expressly for'
bidden by law in a violated church is the burial of the dead (In
violata ecclesia . . . nefas est . . . -mortuos sepelire). The “burial of
the dead1' as understood here does not mean the interment of the
dead in the church, but rather the obsequies or funeral services that
are held in a church over the bodies of the faithful departed.11
When the violation of a church occurs while a funeral service is
being performed therein the service must be terminated immediately.
If, however, the violation occurs during the celebration of the Mass
of Requiem, the principles regarding the violation of a church occurring while Mass is being celebrated apply here in the same man­
ner as has already been pointed out above.
Relative to the celebration of all other divine services the general
ruling of the Code is that they may not be held in a violated church,
and if the violation occurs during their celebration, they must im­
mediately be stopped. Thus the public recitation of the canonical
hours, preaching, sacred processions, and any other liturgical func­
tion must be brought to an end at once. If the Blessed Sacrament
is exposed upon the altar for public adoration, It must be replaced
in the tabernacle without the performance of any ceremony.11
12
When it can be foreseen that the violation of a church is to ensue,
the Blessed Sacrament, the holy oils, the baptismal water,, the relics
of the saints and all other movable sacred objects are to be removed
from the church. Such procedure is to be carried out particularly
in time of an invasion, when there is danger of the church’s being
occupied by the invaders and subjected to impious and sordid uses;
for under such circumstances there would be grave danger that the
sacred things would become the object of contempt and even of
profanation13
11 Cf. Beste, Introductio in Codicem, p. 566; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome,
II, n. 489.
12 Moretti, De Sacris Functionibus, I, η. 346.
13 Cf. Barin, “Commentarium”—Ephemerides Liturgicae, XXXVIII (1924),

Consequences of the Violation of a Church

93

It has been officially declared that the violation of a church does
not entail the suspension or the withholding of the indulgences that
can be gained by making a visit to the church.11

Article 2. Necessity or Reconciliation

Reconciliation is a sacred rite by which a violated church is re­
stored to its pristine condition so that divine services may be cele­
brated again therein.15
A church which has been violated must be reconciled as soon as
that is possible according to the rites prescribed in the approved
liturgical books, i. e., in the Roman Pontifical and the Roman
Ritual.16 It has been officially declared that the saying of Mass in a
violated church, e. g., in a case of necessity, does not dispense with
the necessity of performing the rite of reconciliation.17 The obliga­
tion of reconciling a violated church is a grave one, and therefore
the blemish brought upon a church by violation must be effaced as
quickly as possible. But there is an obligation only when the viola­
tion is certain;18 if the violation is only doubtful, a provisional (ad
~ cautelam) reconciliation may take place, but it is not obligatory.19
If a provisional reconciliation were given to a church that was
doubtfully violated, and later it became apparent that the violation
was certain, it would not be necessary to reconcile the church again.20
A church which has become violated by the burial therein of an
excommunicated person or of an infidel shall not be reconciled until
after the body of that person has been removed from the church, if
238; Promptuarium Canonico-Liturgicum, “De Ecclesia Violata” as reviewed
in Jus Pontificium, IX (1929), p. 170.
14 S. C. Indulg., 18 sept. 1862, Ordinis Carmelitarum Discalceat.—Decreta
Authentica S. C. Indulg., n. 396; Fontes, n. 5066.
15 Cf. Coronata, De Locis et Temporibus Sacris, η. 30, 1°; Cocchi, Com'
mentarium, V, η. 19.
18 Canon 1174, § 1.
17 S.R.C., 19 aug. 1634, Oppiden., ad II—Decr. Auth., n. 611; Coll. S.C.
de Prop. Fide (ed. 1907), n. 78.
is Cf. canon 1172, § 1.
19 Cf. canon 1174, § 2.
20 Blat, Commentarium, III, pars II, n. 24; Coronata, Institutiones luris
. Canonici, η. 749, b.

94

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

the removal can be accomplished without grave inconvenience.21 A
grave inconvenience would exist in the case wherein there are many
bodies buried in a church and the difficulty of distinguishing the
remains of the infidel or of the excommunicated person would re­
quire the calling in of experts and witnesses, which may involve
great expense. Under such circumstances the removal of the bodies
would not be required.22 Nor would the removal of the bodies be
insisted upon in the case in which the civil authorities have an express prohibition against the removal of the remains of the dead
from their final resting place. A breach of a civil law of this kind
may involve a pecuniary penalty, imprisonment, or both.23 The
Church does not wish that any extraordinary encumbrance should
be suffered in the observance of the ruling of this law. Hence, the
legislator makes an exception when such unusual circumstances arc
present.
The question arises whether a violated church must be reconciled
when the removal of the remains of an infidel or of an excommuni­
cated person cannot be accomplished without grave inconvenience.
It seems that the Code insists upon the reconciliation of the church,
even though in view of rightfully acknowledged difficulties the body
has not yet been removed. Regardless of whether or not the body
has been removed, it is necessary to reconcile, a violated church be­
fore the celebration of divine services may be permitted therein.21
21 Canon 1177.
22 Coronata, ibid., c; Augustine, A Commentary, VI, 44.
23 Cf. Coronata, loc. cit.
21 Coronata, loc. cit.; Coronata, Compendium luris Canonici (2 vols.,
Taurini: Marietta, 1937-1938), η. 1273.

Chapter VII

RECONCILIATION OF VIOLATED CHURCHES
Article I. Minister
The liturgical rite of the .reconciliation of a violated church dis­
tinguishes between a church which has been merely Messed and one
which has been consecrated. Accordingly the minister who performs
the rite of reconciliation of a consecrated church is distinct from
the reconciling minister of a blessed church. The law of the Code
is more liberal than the old law with regard to the persons who may
reconcile a violated church. In the more extensive faculties of the
new law, the Code to a large extent removes one of the principal
objects that delayed the reconcilation of a violated church, and
thereby renders its restoration for divine worship more easy of at­
tainment.1
A. Blessed Churches

Prior to the Code the reconciliation of a blessed church was to
be performed by the local ordinary or by a priest delegated by him.12
A reconciliation which was performed by a priest without explicit
delegation was valid, but illicit.
The present law of the Code declares:

Ecclesiam benedictam reconciliare potest rector eius­
dem vel quilibet sacerdos de consensu saltem prae­
sumpto rectoris.3
The rector of a blessed church may reconcile it by his own au­
thority.4 The delegation of the local ordinary is no longer required
1 Feldhaus, Oratories, p. 95.
2S.R.C., Nolana, 8 iuhi 1904—Decr. Auth., n. 3091: Analecta Eccle­
siastica, XII (1904), 383; ASS, XXXVII (1904), 117; Rituale Romanum (ed.
1911), tit. VIII, cap. 28, Ritus reconciliandi ecclesiam violatam, η. 8.
a Canon 1176, § 1.
4 The term “rector” is to be here understood as designating the person to
whom the. care of any church has been committed, and not in the restricted
meaning given in canon 479, § 1.

96

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

by the Code or the Roman Ritual;56nor is the consent or the per'
mission of the local ordinary necessary. Any other priest may also
reconcile a blessed church with at least the presumed consent of the
rector of the church. The consent of the rector may be presumed
when he is absent and the necessity arises for the reconciliation of
the church/ Any priest may lawfully presume the consent of the
rector, unless he is absolutely forbidden by the latter, or is con­
vinced of the intention of the rector to perform the rite himself.7
If, however, a priest were to reconcile a blessed church when he
was forbidden to do so by the rector of the church, the reconciliation
nevertheless would be valid but illicit, for every priest by law is
vested with the right to reconcile a blessed church. The exercise of
that right is restricted unless the consent of the rector is given ex­
pressly, or, at least, presumptively.

B. Consecrated Churches
Prior to the Code the reconciliation of a consecrated church was a
sacred rite the exercise of which was reserved exclusively to bishops,
so that any cleric who lacked the episcopal power of orders could
not validly reconcile a consecrated church unless he had obtained a
special induit from the Holy See.8

The ruling of the Code is that the reconciliation of a consecrated
church can be validly performed by those persons who have the
right by law to bless sacred places.9 Hence, the reconciliation of a
consecrated church is to be performed by the local ordinary, if the
church belongs to the secular clergy or to a non-exempt religious
congregation or to a lay organisation. If the church belongs to an
exempt religious clerical body, the major superior has the right to
reconcile it. But both the local ordinary and the major religious
5 Rituale Romanum (ed. 1926), tit. VIII, cap. 28, Ritus reconciliandi
ecclesiam violatam, η. 1.
6 Coronata, institutiones luris Canonici, n. 749, d.
T Augustine, A Commentary, VI, 44.
8 C. 9, X, de consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, III, 40; Rituale Romanum
(ed. 1911), tit. VIII, cap. 28, Ritus reconciliandi ecclesiam violatam, n. 8.
9 Canon 1176, § 2.

Reconciliation of Violated Churches

97

superior may delegate another priest to reconcile a consecrated
church.10
The present law no longer requires that the minister of reconciliation of a consecrated church should be endowed with the episcopal
character. Because the Code permits a major superior of an exempt
religious clerical community and even a simple priest with the required delegated power to reconcile a consecrated church, it is apparent that the exercise of that liturgical rite is a sacerdotal function.
Coronata claims that the reconciliation of a consecrated church would
be valid if performed by a simple priest without delegation from
his ordinary.11 Barin,12 De Meester,13 Vermeersch-Crcusen14 and
Bouuaert'Simenon,15 on the other hand, are of the opinion that the
reconciliation of a consecrated church which is performed by a simple
priest without any delegation from his ordinary would be not only
illicit but also invalid. This opinion seems to be the more probable
one, for it is in complete harmony with the wording of the Code.
The reconciliation of a consecrated church is reserved to the ordin­
ary, but it may be delegated to another priest. Canon 1147, § 3,
prescribes that a reserved blessing, when given by a priest without
the necessary permission, is illicit but valid, unless in the reservation
the Holy See has declared otherwise. In view of the ruling of this
canon it may seem that the reconciliation of a church performed
by a priest without delegation is indeed illicit but nevertheless valid.
Canon 1176, § 2, however, states explicitly that the valid reconcilia­
tion of a consecrated church is to be performed by the ordinary or
by a priest delegated by him. Therefore the reconciliation of a
consecrated church which is performed by a simple priest without
express delegation from his ordinary must be considered not only
illicit but also invalid.
10 Cf. canons 1176, § 2, and 1176. Henceforth when the term “ordinary"
is used alone, it will designate the local ordinary and major superior of an
exempt religious clerical community—cf. canon 198, § 1.
11 De Locis et Temporibus Sacris, p. 32, nota 4; Institutiones luris Canonici,'
n. 749, d.
12 “Commentarium”—Ephemerides Liturgicae, XXXVIII (1924), 281.
13 Compendium, n. 1134, nota 1.
14 Epitome, II, n. 490.
16 Manuale Juris Canonici, III, n. 20

98

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

The Code provides further for extraordinary cases wherein the
reconciliation of a consecrated church may be performed validly and
licitly by a priest without delegation from his ordinary:

In casu tamen, gravis et urgentis necessitatis, si
Ordinarius adiri nequeat rectori ecclesiae consecra­
tae eandem reconciliare fas est, certiore facto postea
Ordinario.10*
This liberal concession was entirely unheard of before the Code.
It is the purpose of this unusual privilege to facilitate the possibility
of reconciling a church without undue delay.
The right of reconciling a consecrated church, which is granted
to its rector, can be applied only when the conditions stated in the
law are verified, namely, serious and urgent necessity, and the ini'
possibility of approaching the ordinary for the purpose of having
him reconcile the church, or for the purpose of obtaining the required
delegation to reconcile the church. If the rector of a consecrated
church erred in his judgment concerning the existence of a serious and
urgent necessity, and nevertheless reconciled the church, the reconciliation would not be invalid.17
A serious and urgent necessity would exist when the use of the
church is required for divine services, e. g., for the celebration of
Mass on Sundays and holy days so that the faithful may fulfill their
obligation of hearing Mass; for the celebration of Mass on any day
of the week for the purpose of consecrating the Holy Eucharist
which is to be given as Viaticum to the dying; for the conducting
of a funeral service; for the continuation of a mission, etc.
The impossibility of approaching the ordinary may arise by reason
of the fact that his residence is far distant from the place where the
violated church is situated, or by reason of the absence of the or­
dinary from his place of residence, or also in view of the impossi­
bility of reaching him at the place of his sojourn.
The power of the rector to reconcile a consecrated church when
the conditions stated in law are verified is granted to him by reason
of his office. This power, then, is an ordinary power and can be
10 Canon 1176, § 3
17 Cf. Coronata, Institutiones luris Canonici, η. 749, d.

Reconciliation of Violated Churches

99

delegated, under the same circumstances, to another priest.1'' It is
to be noted, however, that this delegation must be expressly made;
the consent of the rector cannot be presumed as in the case of the
reconciliation of a blessed church. In the case of grave and urgent
necessity the delegation of the rector of the church is required for
the validity of the reconciliation of a consecrated church, m the
same manner as the delegation of the ordinary is required for the
valid performance of that liturgical rite outside of the case of neces­
sity.

The Code prescribes that, after the rector of a consecrated church
uses the privilege which is granted to him by law, he shall notify the
ordinary of this fact. Failure to notify the ordinary would not
affect the validity of the reconciliation.1'1 The purpose in notifying
the ordinary is to make possible, the entering of a record which will
remove all doubt in the event that at. some future date a question
may arise concerning the actual performance of, or the validity of
the performed, reconciliation.

Article II. Rites

and

Ceremonies

Canon 1177: Reconciliatio ecclesiae benedictae fieri
potest aqua lustrali communi; reconciliatio vero ec­
clesiae consecratae fiat aqua ad hoc benedicta secun­
dum leges liturgicas; quam tamen non solum Episcopi,
sed etiam presbyteri qui ecclesiam reconciliant, bene­
dicere possunt.
The rites and ceremonies of reconciliation of a blessed church
must be taken from the Rituale Romanum.20 The water which is to
be used in the ceremony is ordinary holy water. The Ritual does
not prescribe that the water should be blessed immediately preced­
ing the ceremony; hence, water that had been previously blessed,
is Barin, “Commentarium”—Ephemerides Liturgicae, XXXVIII (1924),
281; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome luris Canonici, II, η. 490; Coronata, De
Locis et Temporibus Sacris, n. 30, 3°, c.
19 Coronata, Institutiones luris tCanonici, n. 749, d.
20 Tit. VIII, cap. 28, Ritus reconciliandi ecclesiam violatam.

100

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

as for example on the preceding Sunday before high Mass, may be
used in the reconciliation of the church.
The ceremony consists of the sprinkling of the outside walls of
the church with holy water, of the recitation of the Litany of the
Saints, of several prayers before the altar, and of the sprinkling of
the inside walls of the edifice. Holy water must also be sprinkled
upon the place where the violative act was committed. The cere'
mony is concluded with the celebration of the Mass of the day.21
The rites and ceremonies which are to be employed in the recon­
ciliation of a consecrated church must be taken from the Pontificale
Romanum,22 regardless of whether a bishop or a priest with the
required delegation performs the ceremony.23
The water which is to be used for the reconciliation of a conse­
crated church is specially prepared with two distinct blessings. The
first of these is the blessing of water with an admixture of a small
amount of salt. This blessing of water constitutes a part of the
ceremony of reconciliation and is to be performed before the prin­
cipal door of the church. There follows a sprinkling of the ex­
terior walls with the holy water, and the singing or recitation of
the Litany of the Saints. Special holy water is then prepared, the
blessing of which calls for the presence of salt, ashes and wine, which
are mixed with the water.24 With this blessed water the celebrant
proceeds around the interior of the church three times, sprinkling
the upper and lower parts of the walls as well as the floor, particu­
larly the spot in which the violative act was committed. This part
of the ceremony is followed by several prayers, a Preface, a psalm
and the blessing of the people by the minister. The ceremony is
concluded with the Mass of the day celebrated by the officiating
minister or by another priest. In the Mass a special oration, noted
in the Pontifical, is added to the oration of the feast of the day.
21 Rituale Romanum, ibid., n. 7.
22 Pars Π, De Ecclesiae, et Coemeterii Reconciliatione.
23 Rituale Romanum, ibid., n. 8.
24 The ceremony for the blessing of this water is found in the Pontificale
Romanum, Pars II, De Ecclesiae Dedicatione seu Consecratione. Prior to the
Code a priest who with an apostolic induit reconciled a consecrated church
could not perform the blessing of this water; the water had to be blessed by
a bishop—cf. S.R.C., Salamantina, 12 dec. 1761—Deer. Auth., n. 2463.

Chapter VIII
PENALTIES PROVIDED BY LAW AGAINST THOSE WHO
CAUSE THE VIOLATION OF A CHURCH

Canon 2329: Ecclesiae . . . violatores, de quibus in
can. 1172 ... . interdicto ab ingressu ecclesiae aliis­
que congruis ab Ordinario pro gravitate delicti puni­
antur.
It has been pointed out in an earlier part of this work that at the
time of the Decretum of Gratian and until the time of the Decretals
of Gregory IX there was but a vague idea of the violation of churches
as it is understood today.1
Prior to the Code there were no penalties specified in law that
were to be applied to those who were guilty of a moral contamina'
tion or violation of a church. The above named sources, however,
contained penalties for those who physically violated a church. This
physical violation consisted of a violent breaking into or spoliation
of a church or other sacred places.12 There is evidence that as early
as the late fifth century there existed penal legislation against those
who committed acts which were then considered to effect the viola'
tion of a church. Pope Gelasius (492'496) in a letter to one Epiph'
anus directed that a kind of personal interdict be imposed by bishops
on those who violated churches.3* Gratian repeated this prescription
in his Decretum/ and also included among his canons one that prescribed excommunication for those who caused the violation of
churches.5 There is, moreover, evidence that by the time of the
1 Cf. supra, pp. 30-31.
2 Cf. Wernz, lus Decretalium, VI, η. 409.
3 “Ad episcopos ceteres direximus jussionem, ut eos, qui ecclesias violasse
perhibentur, accessu earum judicent esse indignos.”—Jaffé, Regesta Roma­
norum Pontificum, n. 446.
‘Cf.c. 11, C. XVII, q. 4.
s “Canonica instituta et sanctorum patrum exempla sequentes, ecclesiarum
Dei violatores auctoritate Dei et indicio sancti Spiritus a gremio sanctae matris
ecclesiae et a consortio totius Christianitatis eliminamus, quodusque resipis-

102

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

Decretals of Gregory IX excommunication was the ecclesiastical pen'
alty for those who caused the violation of churches, for that Pontiff
ruled that any Christian who was cut off from communion with the
Church for this crime could be absolved when he was in danger of
death and was not to be denied Christian burial or the suffrages of
the Church.6 The decretals indicated that the excommunication was
imposed as a latae sententiae censure on those who caused the violation of a church,7 but all such penalties were abrogated in the
Constitution Ajoostolicae Sedis, issued by Pope Pius IX, for in that
document the Supreme Pontiff ruled that all latae sententiae pein
alties not specifically mentioned in the above'cited Constitution were
null and void. Certainly there was no mention in the document
concerning any penalty for the violation of churches.8 Between the
time of the promulgation of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis in
1869 and the advent of the Code, however, those who violated
churches could be excommunicated by means of a ferendae senten'
tiae or even a latae sententiae through particular law.9
Some canonists, moreover, advocated that those who were guilty
of such violations but refused to make adequate satisfaction should
be denied absolution and if they persisted in their impenitence
should be denied Christian burial.10
The present law is definitely different from the penal prescript
tions of the pre-Code discipline. Canon 2329 rules that those who
cause a church to be violated by the acts listed in canon 1172 must
cant et ecclesiae Dei satisfaciant."—C. 107, C. XI, q. 3. (The origin of this
legislation cannot be determined.)
- .
6 “Parochiano tuo, qui ex communi catus pro manifestis excessibus, videlicet,
homicidio, incendio, violenta manuum iniectione in personas ecclesiasticas,
ecclesiarum violatione vel incestu fuit, dum ageret in extremis, per presby­
terum suum iuxta formam ecclesiae absolutus, non debent coemeterium et alia
ecclesiae suffragia denegari, sed eius heredes et propinqui, ad quos bona per­
venerunt ipsius, ut pro eodem satisfaciant, censura sunt ecclesiastica compel­
lendi.”—C. 14, X, de sepulturis, III, 28.
7 Cf. Wernz, loc. cit.; c. 22, X, de sententia excommunicationis, V, 39; c.
21, § 1, C. XVII, q. 4.
.
s Cf. Fontes, η. 5V2.
-■
9 Cf. Wernz, loc. cit.
10 Cf. Wernz, loc. cit.

Penalties Provided by Law /I gainst Violators

103

be punished by the ordinary with an interdict forbidding them to
enter a church. Besides this punishment there are also prescribed
■ other penalties proportionate to the gravity of the crime. It has been
■pointed out that a church may be violated by the crime of homicide,
by an unjust and grave shedding of blood, by the subjecting of a
church to impious or sordid uses, and by the burial therein of an
infidel or of one who was excommunicated upon a declaratory or
condemnatory sentence.11
. The Code aptly places the delict of the violation of a church
among those crimes which are listed as militating against religion.
The violation of a church is in reality a sacrilege, an unworthy
treatment of a sacred thing which is dedicated to God by public
authority. It is for this reason that the crime .is an offense against
religion.12
It is to be noted that canon 2329 speaks of those who cause the
violation of a church. The latter term, therefore, is to be under­
stood in the sense of canon 1161,15 which defines a church as a sacred
building dedicated to divine worship, principally for the purpose
that it may be used by all the faithful for the public exercise of
divine worship. Canon 2329, therefore, is not to be understood in
such a manner as to include also the violators of an oratory, which
is defined by the Code as a place destined for divine worship, not
however with the principal object of serving the faithful at large
for public worship.14 This opinion is in harmony with the principles
of the interpretation of penalties as given in canon 2219, § 3, which
rules that there must be no extending of a penalty from one case
to another.15 For analogy is not admitted in interpreting penal laws,
even if the reasons or circumstances of persons and cases are quite
alike.16 Hence, because of the difference between a church and a
11 Cf. canon 1172, § 1.
12 Cf. Chelodi, Ius Poenale (4. ed., Tridenti: Libreria Moderna Editrice A.
Ardesi, 193 5), p. 87.
13 Cf. Blat, Commentarium. V (De Delictis et Poenis), η. 168.
K Cf. canon 118.8, § 1.
is “Non licet poenam de persona ad personam vel de casu ad casum pro­
ducere, quamvis par sit ratio, imo gravior, salvo tamen praescripto can. 2231 ”
icCf. Augustine, A Commentary. VIII (3 ed., St. Louis: Herder, 1931)
p. 80.
. ·

104

The Desecration and Violation of Churches

public oratory, the penalty prescribed for the violator of a church
cannot be said to apply also to the violator of an oratory. Had the
legislator wished to include both types of violation under the same
penalty, it would have been noted in the law.
This is not to be interpreted, of course, as meaning that the violator of an oratory cannot be punished. The Code provides that a
superior may penalize a transgressor, even though there is no sanetion of law against the crime he has committed, if there be scandal
given or if the special gravity of the transgression demands that
punishment be inflicted.17
There can be no doubt that the Code establishes a ferendae sen'
tentiae penalty for those who cause the violation of a church. Since
the penalty prescribed must be now inflicted by the ordinary,18 the
present law in this respect is greatly different from the old, which
prescribed a latae sententiae penalty for those who physically vio­
lated a church. Until the time of the Constitution Ajpostolicae Sedis
of Pope Pius IX a transgressor was excommunicated by the very
fact of a willful physical violation of a church and no judicial
sentence was necessary for the effects of that punishment to result
therefrom. According to the present law, the penalties provided by
law do not come into effect until they are inflicted by the ordinary.
It must be noted that the Code uses the word “ordinary” in desig­
nating the one who must inflict the penalties of law on those who are
guilty of the violation of a church. This term must be understood
in the light of canon 198, § 1, which also includes as ordinaries the
major superiors in clerical exempt religious communities for their
subjects. In any violation of a church, therefore, by a member of
an exempt clerical community, the major superior properly inflicts
the penalties prescribed by law.
Although the vicar general is by law included under the term
17 Canon 2222, § 1 : “Licet lex nullam sanctionem appositam habeat, legi­
timus tamen Superior potest illius transgressionem, etiam sine praevia poenae
comminatione, aliqua iusta poena punire, si scandalum forte datum aut
specialis transgressionis gravitas id ferat. . . .”
lsCf. canon 2217, § 1, 2°; Augustine, A Commentary, VIII, 319; Coro­
nata, Institutiones, n. 1918; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome, III, n. 528; Blat,
Commentarium, V, n. 168.

Penalties Provided by Lazv Against Violators

105

“ordinary,” he is, according to the prescriptions of the Code, Avitlv
out power to inflict the penalties of law on those who are guilty of
the violation of a church, unless he has a special mandate from the
episcopal ordinary.19
The penalties provided by law against those who are guilty of the
crime of violating a church—interdict ab ingressu ecclesiae and other
penalties proportionate to the gravity of the crime—are stated pre'
ceptively by the Code,20 which means that the ordinary is not eir
tirely free to inflict or not to inflict them. The Code legislates as
follows for those cases in which the law uses preceptive words in
prescribing penalties :
The penalty of law is ordinarily to be imposed, but it is left to
the conscience and discretion of the judge or superior:
1) to delay the imposition of the penalty to a more opportune
time, if it is judged that greater evils may follow from a hasty
punishment of the delinquent;
2) to refrain from inflicting the penalty if the delinquent has
shown complete amendment and has repaired the scandal, or if he
has been or will be sufficiently punished by the civil authorities;
3) to moderate a specific penalty or to employ instead some penal
remedy or penance, if there is some circumstance which consider'
ably diminishes his liability, or if, though the offender has amended
or has been sufficiently punished by the civil authorities, the judge
or superior deems it advisable to add some mild punishment.21
The punishment to be inflicted on the one who causes the viola­
tion of a church is an interdict from entering a church. Now this
punishment is in the nature of a personal particular interdict,22 but
the Code seems to distinguish between a strictly personal interdict
and an interdict from entering a church.23 An interdict ab ingressu
ecclesiae is a mild type of personal interdict which does not entail
19 Canon 2230, §2: “Vicarius Generalis sine mandato speciali non habet
potestatem infligendi poenas.”
20 Cf. Augustine, loc. cit.; Coronata, loc. cit.
Cf. canon 2223, § 3, 1°, 2°, 3°.
22 Cf. Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the J^ew Code of Canon
Law. II, 448.
23 Compare carions 2275 and 2277.

106

The Desecration and Violation of Chnrcb.es

all of the prohibitions of canon 2275 which are imposed on those
who are under a strict personal interdict, nor does it have any effect
outside of a church.24
Canon 2277 rules that an interdict ab ingressu ecclesiae entrais
the prohibition to celebrate divine services in a church, to assist at
them, and to receive ecclesiastical burial; if the person so interdicted
nevertheless assists, he need not be expelled, and, if he is buried, the
body need not be exhumed. The term “church” is to be understood
according to canon 1161, so that a person interdicted ab ingressu
ecclesiae is not forbidden to celebrate or assist at divine services in
an oratory.25*
Woywod holds that the prohibition to assist at divine services in
a church implies also the prohibition to receive the sacraments in a
church.28 The more common opinion, however, holds that a person
interdicted ab ingressu ecclesiae may enter a church for the purpose
of private prayer and also for the private reception of the Sacra'
ments.27 This opinion seems to be more probable than that of Woy'
wod, for canon 2275, which governs the effects of personal inter'
diet, prohibits the celebration and assistance at divine services and
specifically adds the prohibition of the reception of the sacraments.
Insofar as this latter prohibition is specifically mentioned in canon
2275, and no such provision is made in canon 2277, it seems that
the reception of the sacraments in a church is not to be forbidden to
one who is interdicted ab ingressu ecclesiae,
The ecclesiastical burial, which is prohibited, is to be understood
in the sense of canon 1204, that is, as denoting the transfer of the
body to the church, the funeral services in the church and the in'
terment in a place legitimately appointed for the burial of the
24 Cf. Vermeersch'Creuscn, Epitome, III, n. 478; Cappello, De Censuris
iuxta Codicem luris Canonici (3. ed., Taurinorum Augustae: Marietti, 1933),
n. 472; Ayrinhac, Penal Legislation, η. 141.
25 Cappello, loc. cit.; Ayrinhac, loc. cit.; Coronata, Institutiones luris
Canonici, η. 1797; Woywod, A Practical Commentary, II, 449.
2(3 Loc. cit.
27 Beste, Introductio in Codicem, p. 922; Coronata, loc. cit.; Cappello, loc.
cit.

‘

Penalties Provided by Lazo Against Violators

107

faithful departed.28 Hence, no funeral rite whatsoever is to be per­
formed in the church. If, however, contrary to the prescriptions of
the law such an interdicted person is buried in a church (i. e., if
he is one of those mentioned in canon 1205 who would ordinarily
■be privileged to receive burial in a church), or in a cemetery, there
is no legal obligation to exhume or remove the body from its burial
place.
.' Jn addition to the interdict ab ingressu ecclesiae canon 2329 pro­
vides that other congruous penalties are to be inflicted by the or­
dinary on those who cause the violation of a church. Unless the
ameliorating prescriptions of canon 2223, § 3, can be followed, the
ordinary must inflict the penalties, for the wording of the law is
preceptive. Such a penalty may comprise the compensation for the
expenses incurred by repairing the damages that the church may
have suffered when it was violated, or the recitation of specified
prayers, the observance of a special fast, the making of a pious
pilgrimage, the giving of alms for a worthy cause, and other similar
works of piety or of religion.20
. 28 Gf. Coronata, loc. cit.
29 Cf. canon 2313, § 1.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The desecration of a church by the destruction of a major part
of the walls results only when the major part of the walls is in a
state of ruins at one given period of time, and not when small por­
tions are destroyed successively and at diverse times. (Cf. pp. 5355).
2. The local ordinary may licitly reduce a church to a secular
status and purpose even though the conditions of canon 1187 are
not verified, provided some other just cause exists. (Cf. pp. 6264).
3. The vicar general cannot reduce a church to a secular status
and purpose unless he has a special mandate. (Cf. p. 58).
4. The term “infidel” as employed in canon 1172, § 1, 4°, is to
be understood as referring to all unbaptmed persons; consequently,
the burial of such a person in a church induces the violation thereof.
(Cf. pp. 81-82).
5. There can be no violation of a church by the burial therein of
an excommunicatus vitandus against whom no condemnatory or de­
claratory sentence of excommunication has been given. (Cf. pp.
83-85).
6. The penalties of canon 2329, which are to be inflicted upon
persons who are guilty of violating a church, are not to be applied
to those who violate an oratory. (Cf. pp. 103-104).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sources
Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Commentarium Officiale, Romae: 1909'
Acta Sanctae Sedis, 41 vols., Romae: 18654909.
Acta et Decreta Sacrorum Conciliorum Recentiorum, Collectio Lacensis, 7
vols-, Friburgi Brisgoviae: 18704890.
Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini, ed. novissima, Romae: Typographia
polyglotta S. C. de Prop. Fide, 1882.
. Codex luris Canonici Pii X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus, Benedicti Papae
XV auctoritate promulgatus, Romae: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1933.
Codicis luris Canonici Fontes cura Emi. Petri Card. Gasparri editi, 9 vols.,
Romae (postea Civitate Vaticana): Typis Polyglottis X^aticanis, 1923'
1939. (Vols. VII4X, cd. cura et studio Emi. lustiniani Card. Serédi.)
Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide seu Decreta, Instructiones,
Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus ex Tabulario eiusdem Sacrae
Congregationis deprompta, Romae: 1893.
Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide seu Decreta, Instructiones,
Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus, 2 vol., Romae: 1907.
Corpus luris Canonici, ed. Lipsiensis 2, post Aemilii Ludovici Richteri curas
instruxit Aemilius Friedberg, 2 vols., Lipsiae: Tauchnitz, 18794881,
editio anastatice repetita, Lipsiae; 1928.
Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum ex Actis eiusdem coi'
lecta eiusque auctoritate promulgata sub auspiciis SS. D.N· Leonis Papae
XIII, 6 vols., Romae: 18984927.
Decreta Authentica Sacrae Congregationis Indulgentiis Sacrisque Reliquiis
praepositae ab anno 1668 ad annum 1882 edita iussu et auctoritate SS.
D.N. Leonis PP. XIII, Ratisbonae: 1883.
Decretales D. Gregarii IX, una cum Glossis Restitutae, Romae: 1582.
Decretum Gratiani Emendatum et notationibus illustratum una cum Glossis,
Gregarii XIII, Pont. Max. iussu editum, 2 vols., Romae: 1582.
Gardellini, Aloisius, Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum
ex actis eiusdem collecta, 3. ed., 4 vols., cum appendicibus, Romae: 18561887.
Hardouin, Jean, Acta Conciliorum et Epistolae Decretales ac Constitutiones
Summorum Pontificum, 12 vols., Parisiis: 1715.
Jaffé, Philippus, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita Ecclesia ad annum
post Christum natum MCXCVIII, ed. 2., 2 vols., in 1, correctam et
auctam auspiciis Gulieimi Wattenbach curaverunt S. Loewenfeld, F.
Kaltenbrunner, P. Ewald, Lipsiae: 18854888.
Liber Sextus Decretalium D. Bonifacii Papae Mill suae integritati una cum
Clementinis et Extravagantibus earumque Glossis restitutis, Romae· 1582.
Mansi, loannes Dominicus, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Coi'
lectio, 53 vols, in 59, Paris-Arnhem-Leipzig: 1901-1927.