SACRED PLACE. - I. CONCEPT. - A place is called sacred which, by virtue of consecration or liturgical blessing, is destined for the immediate and exclusive exercise of divine worship or for the burial of the faithful.
For the purposes of sacredness, the simple invocative blessing (such as is customarily imparted, for example, to houses or fields) is not sufficient, but the constitutive blessing is required, so called precisely because it constitutes the res in a state of permanent withdrawal from profane use. The liturgical rite prescribed both for consecration and for blessing is required ad validitatem (cann. 1150, 1154, 1457 § 2).
II. JURIDICAL CONDITION
The juridical condition of res sacra, to which the place remains elevated by virtue of the special destination, has as its effect the withdrawal of that place from every profane use or any use less fitting to the purpose for which it is destined; it does not, however, determine the condition of a thing absolutely extra commercium. Canon law considers as incommensurable only its sacred character, that is, its specific destination; in all else the sacred place, considered as a material entity, just as it is held to be an object of ownership (can. 1510), can likewise be the object of contract (donation, alienation, mortgage, etc.) and of prescription, save for the impossibility of including in a pact the character of a consecrated or blessed thing (cann. 730, 1539 § 1, 1510).
The minister of consecration is, ad validitatem, only one who is invested with the episcopal character or, in extraordinary cases, a priest who enjoys a special indult or privilege for that purpose; the minister of blessing, on the other hand, may also be a simple priest.
The consecration of a place, even if it belongs to exempt regulars, is the exclusive competence of the local Ordinary, who may perform it personally, if invested with the episcopal character, or through others furnished with his license. The blessing of places belonging to the secular clergy or to a non-exempt or lay religious institute also pertains to the Ordinary; if the place belongs instead to an exempt clerical religious institute, the blessing is the competence of the major superior of the respective institute. In any case, no one can validly consecrate or bless a place, for the purposes of the destination mentioned above, without the consent of the Ordinary to whom such functions belong by right (cann. 1155-57).
III. CLASSIFICATION OF SACRED PLACES
Sacred places are distinguished: by reason of destination, into places of worship (churches, oratories) and places of burial (cemeteries); by reason of the manner, that is, of the rite through which they acquire their destination, into consecrated places and simply blessed places.
Sacred places destined for worship are classified into churches, oratories and altars. A church is a sacred building dedicated to the public exercise of worship for the universal use of all the faithful (v. CHIESA). The notes of the public character of worship and of the universality of sacred use are the characteristics that distinguish churches from oratories, which are sacred buildings deputed to divine worship, not for the purpose of serving the public use of all the faithful, but for the direct or at least principal benefit of determined categories and communities or even of private individuals, and are subdivided into public, semi-public and private, according as access to them is either free to all by right, at least during divine services, or is not free to all by right, although it may be so in fact, or is such neither by right nor in fact (can. 1188; v. ORATORIO).
The altar (v.), which is the place destined exclusively for divine services and especially for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, must always be consecrated, in its entire structure if it is a fixed altar, or at least in the ara portatilis (sacred stone) if it is a portable altar (cann. 1197, 1199, 1202).
Sacred places destined for the burial of the faithful are cemeteries (v. CIMITERO). By virtue of this destination, cemeteries must always be treated as a sacred thing, in their entire structure, even if, on account of the indiscriminate burial of those whose interment would entail a violation of the sacred place, the liturgical blessing is in fact limited to the graves or loculi of individual faithful (cann. 1206, 1207, 1172).
IV. EFFECTS OF DESTINATION TO SACRED USE
The specific destination, which through consecration or blessing impresses on the place the character of sacredness, confers on it the right of immunity (improperly called a privilege), which entails, in a positive sense, the free and independent exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over sacred places and excludes, in a negative sense, every profane and indecorous use or any use otherwise alien to their sacred character (cann. 1160, 1178; v. IMMUNITÀ ECCLESIASTICA).
The sacred character, as a juridical condition, can undergo modifications through violation and desecration. Violation does not take away from the place its sacred character and its destination, but suspends its specific use until the ceremony of reconciliation has been carried out. Desecration, on the other hand, brings about with regard to it the loss not only of use, but also of character and destination, with the consequent reduction to the profane state. The crimes of homicide and of grave or violent wounding, committed within its perimeter, provided they are certain and notorious, entail violation of the sacred place; as does the impious or sordid use to which the place has been subjected, or the interment in it of an infidel or of one excommunicated post sententiam (cann. 1172, 1207).
There is, instead, desecration (exsecratio) of the place, either through a natural or violent event that has altered its form to the point of rendering it unusable for its purpose; or through the legitimate act of reducing it to profane use by means of a decree (decretum de profanando) of the competent ecclesiastical authority (can. 1170). Those responsible for the violation of a church or a cemetery incur ipso facto interdict from entering the church and may also be punished with other penalties, at the discretion of the local Ordinary (can. 2329).
V. CONDITION OF SACRED PLACES IN ITALIAN LAW
The juridical condition of sacred places in Italian law, especially in relation to their marketability, was in the past the object of controversy. The question concerns particularly churches, the situation of cemeteries being different, since they are recognized as a possible object of ownership by municipalities, by juridical persons or even by private individuals.
Between the two opposing theses of absolute incommensurability as res sacrae in the Roman sense and of full marketability according to the strict letter of common law (Mortara, Chironi, Scaduto), various other intermediate solutions were proposed. Some held canon law to be still in force in this matter as the law of the State (Gabba). Others maintained the incommensurability of churches, not as res sacrae, but as things destined for public use (Giorgi, Gianturco, Filomusi-Guelfi). Others held them to be withdrawn from commerce not in themselves, but in their destination, that is, not because public use rendered them incommensurable, but because the existence over them of a servitude of public use in favor of the faithful prevented subsequent owners from changing their destination (N. Coviello). But while on the basis of such solutions some directly assigned them to the public domain, others, considering relevant in them not only public use but also the sacred character and the destination to worship, regarded them as constituting a special ecclesiastical domain for the religious needs of the faithful, in analogy to the domain of the provinces and municipalities for the civil needs of citizens (Ruffini, Calisse, Galante, Ferrara).
The Concordat, while leaving the question still open, has modified its terms in favor of the aforementioned latest opinion, having recognized for sacred buildings, in articles 9 and 10, a special condition of a public-law nature, not modifiable except through the intervention of the ecclesiastical authority, and having moreover provided, in article 30, a special administration for the property of ecclesiastical institutes under the control of the Church. On the basis of this premise, after the Concordat the thesis prevails that considers churches as property owned by ecclesiastical institutes (dioceses, parishes, bodies, confraternities, etc.) and attributes to them the same legal condition that is given to them by canon law, considered as received into Italian law by virtue of a procedure of formal reference of the latter to the former (Del Giudice and, with slight differences, Falco). The inalienability, therefore, of churches (non-transferability, imprescriptibility, non-attachability, immunity from seizure), must be understood in the sense and within the limits of a legal impossibility of removing them from their sacred destination, that is, from public use and public service for worship, while nevertheless remaining in themselves a possible object of private-law relationships within the bounds permitted by canon law.
In the Concordat, sacred buildings open for worship are declared exempt from requisitions and occupations and may not be subjected to demolition except with the prior agreement of the competent ecclesiastical authority (articles 9, 10). The right of asylum is recognized for them "except in cases of urgent necessity" (article 9). Offenses against religion by way of vilification of sacred things, committed in places destined for worship, are punished with imprisonment from one to three years (Criminal Code, article 404).