Article — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
Article I. On the Vain Usurpation of the Most Holy Name of God
- The Most Holy Name of God is said to be used in vain when it is taken up without reasonable cause, or without due reverence. And this is commonly done chiefly in three ways, namely:
- From impatience, or indignation against creatures, even inanimate ones, or against oneself; for example: My God! Good God! how badly this matter goes! My God! what a fool I am!... Or in French: Mon Dieu, est-il possible? Mon Dieu, laissez-moi donc tranquille 1!
1 When the use of the Name of God or of the Saints happens in this way from impatience, it in reality sounds and implies a certain manner of invocation. Wherefore, where the habit of this usage seems hard to amend, it will be useful to exhort the faithful that the mind also hold the sense which they utter in words.
- From admiration, by way of exclamation. Thus one says: Jesus, Mary! O God! My God! (Mon Dieu! Grand Dieu! O bon Jésus!).
- Superfluously, mostly from mere formula, or from levity, or from a certain habit. Thus one says: My God, yes, it is so, or not so (Mon Dieu oui; - Mon Dieu, non; - Mon Dieu, que voulez-vous?) 2.
2 To the vain use of the divine Name and of sacred things must also be referred the formulas By God, by Christ!, which of themselves would rather belong to the formula of swearing, or Body of God, Blood of God, of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, of St. Peter! etc., whether they are uttered from impatience or from admiration. Concerning which Escobar (Lib. 28, n. 570): To name or to swear by the honorable members of Christ, namely by the head, the body, and the blood, will be blasphemy if it is uttered by way of contempt or derision... But if these words are used not by way of vituperation and abuse, but for a great exaggeration of the truth, they will not be blasphemous, and perhaps (unless scandal is present) they will be without fault; because neither in substance nor in the manner of speaking are they injurious to God. So also Silvester, Valent., and Sanch., who (in Decal. Lib. 2, Cap. 32, n. 29) alleges others for the same doctrine. The fault, however, will be venial, and, as Busembaum says, among venial sins a grave one, when these words are employed idly and as a kind of stock interjection, namely on account of a certain irreverence.
The reason of scandal moves some. But even if there were direct scandal, surely an impulse to a fault venial in itself cannot be mortal. Scavini, however (Tr. 5, Diss. 3, Cap. 2, art. 2, q. 1, not. 1), excepts the case in which these things flow from the mouth of a priest. But the reason must then be sought elsewhere, namely from this, that on this account both the horror of sin among the faithful generally and the esteem of ecclesiastical men are lessened, just as when a man of the clergy is found to be either a liar, or half-drunk, or a defrauder of another's goods, even in light matter.
But as for the fact that some think it a fit remedy for keeping these forms of speech from the mouth of the faithful to condemn them as a grave fault, the words of St. Antoninus must be recalled to their memory (Above, note a, to n. 152), namely, that this is nothing else than to build for hell.
- Questions. Q. 1. Whether the vain usurpation of the Name of God is always a sin, or of what sort?
Resp. 1. In itself it is a sin, because it wounds the reverence due to the divine Name. It is established besides from Ecclus. 23. 10: Let not the naming of God be usual in thy mouth.
Resp. 2. In itself it is only a venial sin, because that reverence is not gravely wounded. But it can become mortal by reason of contempt or grave anger 3, because then it is held to share in the nature of blasphemy.
3 Understand formal contempt; for virtual contempt, which is generally present in any failure of reverence, deference and obedience toward God, by no means brings gravity of guilt. Anger, again, is to be understood here either as that which is borne against God, or as that which goes on to formal contempt of God. Otherwise anger, however very grave, does not change the nature of the words. And these things are certainly to be heeded carefully, especially by preachers, lest, while they vehemently assail these vices, they instill a false conscience about the gravity of the fault, and so themselves become the true authors of this grave fault and of the spiritual ruin of very many, building for hell.
Resp. 3. Although it is often without fault because of inadvertence, yet those are not to be excused who, without any sense of reverence, from custom always have the Most Holy Name of God in their mouth. - Bouvier, On the 2nd precept.
On the other hand, if the Most Holy Name of God is used with due reverence, even in indifferent matters, not only will there be no sin, but where it is so used by way of invocation, it will be a good and meritorious work. For the rest, those will more easily be excused from sin who use the Most Holy Name of God by way of admiration or interjection, because then irreverence is more easily absent.
- Q. 2. Whether it is a sin to use the names of the Saints uselessly?
Resp. Yes. For what is said of the most holy Name of God, the same, due proportion observed, must be said also of the names of the Saints, as is established from the place of Ecclus. cited, where it is added: And mix not thyself with the names of the Saints. The same also must be said of the vain use of the words of sacred Scripture, when they are taken irreverently.
Q. 3. Whether a frequent and useless use of the name of the devil is a sin?
Resp. No, in itself 4. Yet it is to be reproved as less becoming in the mouth of Christians, especially in Priests, who by reason of scandal are sometimes not free from some fault. - Busemb. in St. Lig., n. 131. - Bouvier, etc. - Some, however, assert that it is venial in itself. So Voit, n. 514.
4 Indeed, wherever the vice of cursing God or the Saints has prevailed (managgia..., that is, may it fare ill...), and one is dealing with men who in the heat of anger barely, or not even barely, know how to restrain themselves from vehement emphasis, it is certainly expedient to suggest that they substitute the execrable name of the Devil for the sacred names of God or of the Saints.