St. Thomas Aquinas defines a sacrament as: «The
sign of a sacred thing in so far as it sanctifies people» — «Signum rei sacrae in quantum est sanctificans homines» (ST.III, q. 60, a. 2).
One utters profanities when one speaks
of sacred things with lack of reverence, for instance by the inappropriate use of words designating the marital act.
«[The] world of vows is a
world of sacred things, in which holy and indefeasible obligations stand athwart our lives and command us along certain paths,» whether we find it convenient at the moment or not.
They condemn Catholics, because, however religious they may be, they are natural, unaffected, easy, and cheerful in their
mention of sacred things; and they think themselves never so real as when they are especially solemn.
We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own
list of sacred things.
I just don't buy the popular notion that a person's network on LinkedIn is some
kind of sacred thing that needs to be protected.
Writing in the 19th Century, the evangelical missionary to the Holy Land, Rev John Nicolayson said the supposed miracle was evidence the city of Jerusalem desperately needed to hear the gospel: «If anything especial need be urged in favour of a missionary settlement in Jerusalem, this and other similar perversions and mockeries of the truth and
of sacred things, furnish a most urgent plea.
It means that Jesus elevates the relationship between a man and a woman in the order of creation, making it into a flesh and blood living symbol of His love for His Church, «a sign
of a sacred thing.»