I. On Vain Usurpation of the Name of God

What is the second precept of the Decalogue? - The second precept of the Decalogue is: You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. Ex. 20:7. This precept directly prohibits every inordinate usurpation of the name of God, such as is done especially by blaspheming, by swearing rashly, by vowing and not keeping a vow. But indirectly it commands the reverent usurpation of the name of God and its praise. Struggl 11; L. 120; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 13, a. 2 ad 2. Therefore, as superstition is especially prohibited by the first precept, so irreligiosity is prohibited by this precept; these two are impediments of true religion. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 122, aa. 2, 3.

What is vain usurpation of the Most Holy Name of God? - The Most Holy Name of God is said to be usurped in vain when it is assumed without reasonable cause, or without due reverence. And this is usually done in three ways: 1. from impatience or indignation toward creatures; 2. from admiration, by way of exclamation; 3. merely superfluously, or from lightness, or from custom and a certain formula of speaking.

What kind of sin is vain usurpation of the name of God? - It is a venial sin per se. Per se; for 1. all fault can often be absent because of inadvertence. 2. It can also become mortal on account of formal contempt of God, or grave anger against God. The first part is proved: per se it is a sin, because it injures the reverence owed to the divine name. It is established besides from Ecclus. 23:10: Let not the naming of God be frequent in your mouth. The second part is proved: per se it is only venial sin, because that reverence is not gravely injured.

Is it a sin in the same way to usurp the names of the Saints uselessly? - R. Affirmative. For what is said concerning the most holy name of God must also, proportion being preserved, be said concerning the names of the Saints, as is established from the cited place of Ecclesiasticus, where it is added: And do not mingle yourself with the names of the Saints. The same also must be said concerning the vain usurpation of the words of Sacred Scripture, when they are taken irreverently. L. 123.

Is the frequent and useless usurpation of the name of the demon a sin? - R. Negative per se. Yet it is to be reproved as less becoming in the mouths of Christians, especially in priests, who by reason of scandal sometimes are not immune from some fault. But some assert that it is venial per se. L. 131; Voit 514.