Chapter V — On the various formulas of blaspheming against God and against the Saints

I. To swear seriously by false gods, by Jupiter, by Mercury, and the like, is blasphemy, since the worship owed to God alone, or to the Saints on account of God, is thereby attributed to false gods and demons. But one who, for the sake of jest, and with the intention of mocking rather than worshipping the false gods, swears by Jupiter, does not blaspheme, nor commit any fault. Blasphemous words are those by which the faith, or those things which must be believed by divine faith, are denied — as when someone says: "I renounce God, the sacraments, the virginity of Mary," and the like. Blasphemies also include all those words that derogate from the divine omnipotence — as when someone blurts out, "Whether God wills it or not, this will happen" — commonly, "in spite of God" [al dispetto di Dio]. To praise God with obscene words, or to swear by the shameful parts of Christ or of the Saints, is blasphemy. But to swear by the honorable parts of Christ — by his head, by his body — is not blasphemy. And since Christ is God, the oaths of Christians sworn absolutely by his head, or by the body of God, are not blasphemous to unbelievers; for they know, and believe, that Christ is God. Nevertheless, because such oaths are full of scandal — especially since those who swear them almost never make such fine distinctions — such swearers are to be most severely rebuked, and kept from the sacraments, until they amend themselves. But those are especially to be considered blasphemers who, in fits of indignation, exclaim, "O blood of God! O body of God!" And although some casuists distinguish indignation against God from that directed at the man they are addressing when swearing — holding that it is blasphemy in the first case, but not in the second — it seems to me, however, more certain that such swearers are, absolutely speaking, to be reckoned as blasphemers. This is also taught by Fr. Suárez (Vol. I, On Religion, tract. 3, Bk. 1, ch. 6).

II. It is likewise blasphemy to declare the devil omnipotent, or holy. To call a beloved girl a "goddess," as we have already said, is not commonly blasphemy, since no real divinity is attributed to her; such expressions are nonetheless unworthy. Free of the guilt of blasphemy, likewise, are these words: "I was born under this fate," or "It was fated to be so" — since this manner of speaking by no means denies contingent events, nor implies absolute necessity, but the common sense is that it was so ordained by God to happen, human freedom remaining unharmed. Not blasphemous, either, are such expressions as "May it please God," "By the power of God," "God's will be done" — since those who utter these words do not mock, but admire, God's power. Many also deny that this is blasphemy: "In spite of that goat who feeds and sustains me in this world" — meaning, in Latin, "In defiance of that billy-goat who feeds and sustains me, I shall act thus in this world." This locution, however, seems to me to carry, though indefinitely, a strong presumption of blasphemy — for he alone who nourishes and sustains men in the world is God.

III. Question I. Are expressions such as these blasphemy: "I do not believe in God," "I deny God, the Cross, the Gospels, the sacraments" — even if they are only conditional? Response: Tamburini (Bk. II, On the Decalogue, ch. 7, §4, n. 12) denies this. But the affirmative opinion is common, and true — since the existence of God is denied for the present, even under a future condition; but that condition does not affect the negation, but only the future circumstance. Guilty of blasphemy, likewise, are those who swear by the life of God, or of the Saints, saying, "May God perish, if this is not so." When, however, they say, "By the life of God, this is so," according to some Doctors they do not blaspheme, but pronounce not an execratory oath, but an assertory one; whereas one who says, "May God perish," does blaspheme. Yet just as in the external forum such formulas are judged blasphemous, so too, unless the swearer's express intention plainly indicates that he does not wish God's life to be otherwise than it is — namely, unchangeable — nor does he place it in jeopardy, as if it were capable of perishing, they must likewise be judged so in the internal forum. "God lives" is a formula of swearing employed in Scripture, and includes no blasphemy. But formulas such as, "This is as true as the Trinity, as God, as that Christ was born of the Virgin," are not blasphemies, according to some casuists, who press the swearer's intention. But intention is wrongly invoked as an excuse when the words themselves, by their very nature, present a manifest blasphemous sense. Now the formulas cited are indeed really blasphemous, since they equate the truth of a creature to divine truth, and attribute to a creature what is proper to God alone. Heretical blasphemies are such words as: "By the body of God the Father," "By his beard," "By the entrails of the Holy Spirit" — this is clear enough.

IV. Question II. Is one who swears falsely thereby a blasphemer? Response: Some affirm this. But the contrary opinion is true, which St. Thomas holds (II-II, q. 13, art. 3, ad 2): "One who commits perjury does not say, nor believe, something false of God, as a blasphemer does; but he calls upon God as a witness, not indeed thinking that God is a false witness, but hoping that God will not manifest this by some evident sign."

V. Question III. Does one who, in a single fit of anger, utters several blasphemies, commit one sin, or several? Response: Fr. Leander, according to his custom, asserts absolutely, as more probable, that this angry blasphemer commits only a single sin, citing several authors in support, and concludes at last: "See on this matter the most wise and most learned Amadeo Guimenio, treatise on penance, prop. 7." See the eloquence of casuists in mutual praise! Fr. Leander extols a booklet stuffed full of laxities, errors, and impostures, so often condemned by anathema by the Holy See. To this question I answer that the circumstances of time, of person, and of the customary habit of blaspheming must be weighed. For if the anger is prolonged — say, for a quarter of an hour, during which time the blasphemer could notice, and could, if he wished, check his anger — who doubts that there are several sins? But this question is of lesser importance in practice. For practical purposes, it suffices that the blasphemer disclose the duration of his fit of angry blasphemy, and his habit of blaspheming.