Τhe Canonical treatment of Sacrilege

Postgraduate Thesis uoadl:1518801 836 Read counter

Unit:
Κατεύθυνση Ιστορικών Σπουδών
Library of the School of Theology
Deposit date:
2017-05-15
Year:
2017
Author:
Katsara Eleni
Supervisors info:
Αρχιμ. π. Γρηγόριος Δ. Παπαθωμάς, Καθηγητής Κανονικού Δικαίου, Τμήματος Θεολογίας, ΕΚΠΑ
Ειρήνη Χριστινάκη-Γλάρου, Επίκουρη Καθηγήτρια Κανονικού Δικαίου Τμήματος Κοινωνικής Θεολογίας ΕΚΠΑ
Δημήτριος Νικολακάκης, Επίκουρος Καθηγητής Κανονικού Δικαίου Τμήματος Ποιμαντικής και Κοινωνικής Θεολογίας ΑΠΘ
Original Title:
H Κανονική αντιμετώπιση της Ιεροσυλίας
Languages:
Greek
Translated title:
Τhe Canonical treatment of Sacrilege
Summary:
This research is based on challenging conditions of desecration and sacrilege. Rules were studied as well as their performers, both classical and younger. They were often clear answers. But there are questions that arise and need further research and study within a larger work. This inability appears to result from the fact that it is not sufficiently analyzed in the investigation that preceded, cases encountered in modern times (eg. desecration of temples in Greece by pagans and sacrilegious).
In the text of the Old Testament and the New Testament the sacrilege did not appear under the distinguished object of the sanctuary theft, but as it derives from the indicative inventory of events, the term is given in a different way. In O.T as a defilement, wherein the infection is longer synonymous with the impurity, thus resulting in the perception of the sacral and probably trivialization, it is placed on different bases. In the New Testament distinguish cases of sacrilege are associated either with defiling a sacred object or defiling the temple itself. On the other hand, desecration of the sacred is in accordance with various purifications performed to remove the impurity, which contaminates equally the place and the man. In the context of our research, we have seen that the rules pertaining to the issue arise as a shine (dexterity) of the common and indivisible experience of the Fathers, constituting an indissoluble organic bond. All the rules relating to "sacrilege" have been studied and it has been easy to see that there are different manifestations of this offense and therefore different ad hoc treatments.
We have drawn to the conclusion, that the cause which leads to the soul’s corruption and thus to the stimulation of the multifarious sufferings that leads to the commission of canonical offenses, is greed (c. 6 / Nyssa). According to c. 8 / Nyssa, the layman who falls under the canonical offense of sacrilege, receives the penance adultery. Although it is possible that these kinds of penances may seem extreme to the modern man, they serve the ontological perspective, enhancing the deterrence of each and every offenses. This impression, however, is false, as the rules are a guide to the faithful's life and operate teleologically as a means of healing, purification and theosis. One of the questions that arise is whether or not, a non-Christian, an atheist or a heathen, or a scavengers, makes a theft of a holy thing will he be penanced in the same way as an Orthodox Christian? In these cases, the object of the theft does not lose its sanctity because one ignores its "being". At this point it is important, though, to point out that when "syneidenai" is identified with "being" this act will have a greater moral weight. It is of great interest that c. 29 / D ' which examines the bishop's decline to a seniors (presbyter) degree, when there are no reasons to support that this deduction is correct, then this is considered as a sacrilege. But in the case that a fair accusation removes them from the action of the bishopric then they are deposed. In addition, if anyone insults a clergyman or a monk for any reason, he is falling under the offense of "sacrilege," because of the devotion of the clergy or the monk to God, as is clear from the clarification of the term sacred = devoted. Regarding the rules that are dealing with the issue of tampering, the issue that someone may be concerned about is that of the bone exhumation. However, as is apparent from the standard of the monastery cemeteries, there is no unlawful-anticanonic offense, since the protected legal good, which is the non-humiliation of the body of the deceased, is not offended. In the same spirit as that of sacrilege in relation to the resting, the desecration of the sacred body by burning is placed as an indication of the violent destruction of the temple of the Spirit, namely the sanctifying means of synergy of the soul. Through the analysis of article 374, (A) in relation to canon law and its penances that are defined by, it is congruent, but essentially only as external. Because in the case of secular law, a different approach and addressing the issue arise because of the penitentiary nature of the punishments which have as their sole objective the harmonization of society and are consequently shaped according to the circumstances and needs of the time. On the contrary, the rules do not fall into disuse or change according to the needs of the time, always aiming at the man himself and his salvation-eschatological perfection, acting individually and according to God’s economy.
Main subject category:
Religion
Other subject categories:
Law and Legislation
Keywords:
Canon Law, Saint, Desecration, Holy, Sacrilege, Grave robbing, Filthiness, Scavengers, Τheft
Index:
Yes
Number of index pages:
2
Contains images:
No
Number of references:
353
Number of pages:
119
H Κανονική αντιμετώπιση της Ιεροσυλίας.pdf (2 MB) Open in new window