Last week’s post examined the offence of attempted marriage by a religious or a cleric. Today’s post focuses on desecrating the consecrated species for sacrilegious purposes. It is one of the more grave delicts against the sanctity of the most Holy Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist reserved to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith for judgment (SST, art 3 §1, 1°). Canon 1382 §1 states: “One who throws away the consecrated species or, for a sacrilegious purpose, takes them away or keeps them, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with some other penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.”
The Eucharist is “the summit and the source of all worship and Christian life” (Can. 897), and therefore “Christ’s faithful are to hold the blessed Eucharist in the highest honour” (Can. 898). Ironically, it is also the reason for the likelihood of desecration more than any other sacrament. Motives for desecration include hatred for the Church and her teachings, opposition to the clergy, and requirement for fetish practices.
There are three dimensions of the delict: throwing away (abicit), taking away (abducit), and keeping (retinet).
The first is throwing away the consecrated species. This means throwing or scattering the consecrated host or the precious blood on the ground, the bin or into another inappropriate place. It also includes spitting out the consecrated host after receiving communion. There is no offence if, while distributing communion, the consecrated host inadvertently falls on the ground. The reason is the lack of intention to do so. This also means that a thief who merely steals the ciborium while leaving the consecrated hosts in the tabernacle or altar did not commit the offence. The reason is that the act was intended for the gold/silver value of the ciborium and not to desecrate the Eucharist.
Due to the various translations of the Latin word ‘abicit’, a dubium was submitted in 1999 to the current Dicastery for Legislative Texts on whether the word ‘abicit’ should be understood in the literal sense of throwing something away or not. The Dicastery responded negatively, saying that the idea is that any action deliberately and gravely despising the Sacred Species should be considered included in the word “throw-away”. In his commentary on the response of the Dicastery, the then president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Archbishop Julián Herranz, argued that the verb ‘abicit’ goes beyond the strict sense of throwing away and the generic sense of profaning to include a broader meaning of to scorn, disdain, demean.
The second dimension is taking away (abducit) the consecrated host and precious blood from the tabernacle, altar or monstrance for sacrilegious purposes such as obscene, satanic or disrespectful rites. The delict also includes making the Eucharist the “object of any external, voluntary and serious act of contempt” or carrying out “any voluntarily and gravely derogatory action” even without removing it.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms: “Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us” (CCC, 2120). Therefore, there is the sin of sacrilege and the offence of sacrilege, which should not be confounded because not all sins of sacrilege are offences.
For instance, profaning the sacrament of confirmation is a sin of sacrilege but not necessarily an offence, except the circumstances of the profanity lead to the completion of a delict. Here, one recalls the principle of legality that states that for an act to be a canonical delict and for one to be punished for it, there must have been a law or precept established by a competent ecclesiastical authority designating that action or inaction as an offence.
Consequently, taking away the consecrated host is a sin (morality) and an offence (legality) at the same time. This means one needs sacramental absolution in addition to the penalty. This also explains why reparation is needed when the Eucharist is desecrated.
The third is keeping (retinet) the consecrated host and precious blood for sacrilegious purposes, as described above. Canon 935 states, “It is not lawful for anyone to keep the blessed Eucharist in personal custody or to carry it around, unless there is an urgent pastoral need and the prescriptions of the diocesan Bishop are observed.” Hence, while retaining the consecrated species without an urgent pastoral need is unlawful, the offence is not committed when one, “out of misguided devotion,” retains the consecrated species in his or her holdings.
If the one who desecrates the Eucharist is not a baptised Catholic, the offence took place, but the offender cannot be convicted because penal laws bind only baptised Catholics. If this non-Catholic broke into the Church, civil law comes into play in the offence of illegally breaking into someone’s property. The person can also be charged with stealing Church property.
Since desecrating the consecrated species is a sin and a delict, it is necessary in evaluating each case to consider the mental state of the offender and the age of the offender when the act happened. The reason is that the person may have committed the sin of sacrilege. However, due to his mental state of mind or the age of the person, the person may not incur any penalty due to the exempting circumstances (cf. Can. 1323) or a reduced penalty diminishing circumstances (cf. Can. 1324 §1)
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
