Chapter VI: The Sins Opposed to Prayer

The sins opposed to prayer, as an act of divine worship, are blasphemy and the irreverent use of the names of God and His saints.

Opposed to prayer, as an act of intercession for others, are cursing and calling down maledictions upon one’s fellow creatures.

1. BLASPHEMY.—Blasphemy (from βλάπτω, I damage, and φήμη, reputation, character), is a speech or an act which contains within itself a calumny (calumnia) or a contumely (contumelia) against Almighty God,—either immediately against His Person, being, essence, or providence (blasphemia immediata), or mediately against revealed religion, the Church, or the saints (blasphemia mediata).

Blasphemy may, therefore, be briefly defined as an imprecatory or contumelious speech against God.¹

¹ “An insulting utterance against God.” Cfr. Matt. IX, 2 sqq.; XXVI, 60–65.—St. Augustine, De Moribus Eccl. Cath., l. II, c. 11, n. 20: “Commonly blasphemy is understood as nothing other than speaking evil words about God.” (Migne, P. L., XXXII, 1354).—Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 288: “Blasphemy is speech injurious to God. Speech, however, can be made not only by an explicit word, but also in thought and deed.”

Blasphemy is direct if dishonor to God is intended; indirect, if dishonor to God is not intended, though foreseen as a consequence.² Blasphemy is called heretical (haeretica) if it involves heresy; imprecative (imprecativa) if it involves an imprecation or threat; ordinary (probrosa) if it contains a mere contumely or insult.³

² St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 13, art. 1, ad 2: “Just as God is praised in His saints, inasmuch as the works which God effects in the saints are praised, so also blasphemy which is committed against the saints consequently redounds against God.”—Thos. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, 4th ed., p. 238.

³ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 288: “Blasphemy is distinguished chiefly: 1. Direct or indirect, according as insult is directly intended against God by the blasphemer, or is only implicitly contained in his words or gestures; 2. Immediate or mediate, according as it immediately affects God Himself, or only indirectly, namely, by dishonoring the saints or profaning sacred things; 3. Heretical, imprecative, and merely insulting, according as it contains heresy, an imprecation, or a mere insult.”

Blasphemy may be committed in thought (mente vel corde), word (verbo)—spoken, written, or printed,—or deed (opere),⁴ and is by its very nature (ex genere suo) a mortal sin; in fact, being a deliberate insult offered to the Lord God of Heaven and earth, it is a crimen laesae maiestatis, the most grievous sin a man can commit,⁵ assuming, of course, that he acts with full advertence and consent.⁶

⁴ Ps. XIII, 1: “The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God.”—Cfr. Tertullian, De Idolol., c. 23: “He speaks with the stylus, he is heard in the wax; the hand is clearer than every sound, the letter more vocal than every mouth.” (Ed. Leopold, I, 52).

⁵ Lev. XXIV, 16; Matt. IX, 2 sq.; XXVI, 65; 2 Thess. II, 3 sqq.; Apoc. XIII, 1, 5 sq.; XVI, 11.—St. Jerome says (In Is. Proph., l. VII, c. 18): “Nothing is more horrible than blasphemy, which sets its mouth on high.... For every sin compared with blasphemy is lighter.” (Migne, P. L., XXIV, 247).—St. Augustine (Contra Mendac., c. 19, n. 39): “It is worse to blaspheme than to swear falsely, since by swearing falsely God is employed as witness to a false matter, but by blaspheming false things are said about God Himself.” (P. L., XL, 545).—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 13, art. 2: “Blasphemy by its kind is opposed to divine charity, because it detracts from the divine goodness, which is the object of charity, and therefore blasphemy is a mor- tal sin by its kind.”—Ibid., ad 2: “He takes the name of God in vain more who asserts something false about God than he who confirms something false by the name of God.”—Ibid., art. 3: “Blasphemy is opposed to the confession of faith, and therefore it has in itself the gravity of unbelief; and the sin is aggravated if detestation of the will supervenes, and still more if it breaks out into words, just as the praise of faith is increased by love and confession. Hence, since unbelief is the greatest sin according to its kind, it follows that blasphemy also is the greatest sin belonging to the same kind and aggravating it.”—Ibid., ad 1: “If homicide and blasphemy are compared according to the objects against which the sin is committed, it is manifest that blasphemy, which is directly a sin against God, outweighs homicide, which is a sin against one’s neighbor. But if they are compared according to the effect of harming, then homicide outweighs it; for homicide harms one’s neighbor more than blasphemy harms God. But because in the gravity of a fault the intention of the perverse will is regarded more than the effect of the deed, therefore, since the blasphemer intends to inflict harm upon the divine honor, simply speaking he sins more gravely than the murderer. Homicide nevertheless holds the first place [in punishments] among sins committed against one’s neighbor.”—Ibid., ad 2: “It is worse to blaspheme than to swear falsely. For he who swears falsely does not say or think something false about God as does the blasphemer, but employs God as witness to falsehood, not as judging God to be a false witness, but as hoping that God will not testify concerning this by some evident sign.”—Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 289.

⁶ Cfr. St. Augustine, Contra Mendac., c. 19, n. 39: “Each one is the more inexcusable, whether a perjurer or a blasphemer, the more he knows or believes to be false those things which he asserts by swearing falsely or blaspheming.” (Migne, P. L., XL, 546).

“There are two ways in which blasphemy may be committed unawares and without deliberation,” says St. Thomas. “In the first way, by a man failing to advert to the blasphemous nature of his words, and this may happen through his being moved suddenly by passion, so as to break out into words suggested by his imagination, without paying heed to their meaning: this is a venial sin, and not blasphemy properly so called. In the second way, by adverting to the meaning of his words and to their blasphemous nature: in which case he is not excused from mortal sin, any more than is he who, in a sudden movement of anger, kills one sitting beside him.”⁷

⁷ Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 13, art. 2, ad 3: “Blasphemy can proceed without deliberation and by surprise in two ways: in one way, when someone does not advert that what he says is blasphemy; this can happen when someone, suddenly moved by some passion, breaks out into imagined words whose meaning he does not consider, and then it is a venial sin and does not properly have the character of blasphemy; in another way, when he adverts that this is blasphemy, considering the meaning of the words, and then he is not excused from mortal sin, any more than he who, from a sudden movement of anger, kills someone sitting beside him.”

To utter blasphemous words by force of an inveterate habit which one is trying earnestly to break, is not a grievous sin.⁸

⁸ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 290: “They do not sin gravely who, carried away by anger or some passion, utter words of blasphemy without adverting to their meaning. Nor do those who from an inveterate habit of blaspheming, although earnestly renounced, break out into the same words.”

Blasphemy, as a rule, is an outbreak of anger against God. The temptation and an almost irresistible inclination to commit this sin often accompany, even in pious souls, certain abnormal conditions (doubts regarding the faith, internal darkness, scrupulosity), which generally originate in serious disturbances of the physical organism.⁹

⁹ Cfr. B. Schön, Mitteilungen aus dem Leben Geistesgestörter, Vienna 1859, p. 84.

It is blasphemy to say: “May the Blood of Christ destroy thee,” or “May you perish by the Sacraments,” because the Blood of Christ and the Sacraments are means of grace ordained for the salvation of men, and not for their destruction. A fortiori it is blasphemy to show contempt for Almighty God by expectorating in the direction of heaven or gnashing one’s teeth at the mention of that place. It is blasphemy to say: “God has forgotten me,” or to ask: “Why did God create me?”—unless such ex- pressions are used (modo humano) inconsiderately or as signs of pain or discouragement. It is never allowed to say that God is unjust, that He punishes goodness or rewards wickedness, etc.¹⁰

¹⁰ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 290; cfr. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. I, 6th ed., pp. 517 sq.

We sometimes hear it said that blasphemy is most common where faith is strongest. Father Slater thinks this may be a reason why real blasphemy is not so frequent in ordinary conversation with us as with some other nations.¹¹ Yet there is a great deal of profanity, and we can not but commend the efforts of the Holy Name Society directed against this vice.

¹¹ A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, p. 239.

Even the ancient pagans felt that man should never blaspheme, but always think and speak of the deity with becoming respect.¹²

¹² Homer, Iliad, V, 406 sq.; XXI, 193.—Seneca, Epist., 95: “The first worship of the gods is to believe in the gods; next, to render to them their majesty, to render goodness, without which there is no majesty.”—Quaest. Natural., l. VII, c. 30: “Aristotle excellently says that we ought never to be more reverent than when the gods are under discussion. If we enter temples composedly, if, when about to approach a sacrifice, we lower our countenance and draw our toga close, if we fashion ourselves to every token of modesty, how much more ought we to do this when ... we discuss the nature of the gods, lest rashly, lest shamelessly, we either affirm anything in ignorance or knowingly lie!”

2. THE IRREVERENT USE OF THE NAME OF GOD.—God’s holy name is taken in vain whenever it is used as an exclamation of fear, wonder, or impatience; or merely as an interjection, e. g., in such phrases as “Good God,” “My Lord,” “By God,” “For Christ’s sake,” etc.

The phrase vana usurpatio divini nominis technically includes the irreverent use of other sacred words, such as “sacrament,” “holy cross,” and the names of the Saints. To use these words as mere expletives is not, as a rule, grievously sinful. Still, the habit of pronouncing the names of holy persons or sacred objects without due reverence is reprehensible and may easily lead to mortal sin.¹³ The use of certain locutions which were originally blasphemous, but are now considered harmless, may become sinful by the intention of the user or because of scandal given; at best, the habit is incompatible with the dignity of a Christian.¹⁴

¹³ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 289: “Vain use of the most holy name of God of itself does not exceed a venial sin, because it does not gravely injure the reverence due to God. Indeed it is often free of fault because of inadvertence, good faith, etc. Nevertheless, they are not to be excused who from habit always have the name of God on their lips.”

¹⁴ Cfr. Ex. XX, 7; Ecclus. XXIII, 10.—Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 290: “He does not sin gravely who pronounces words in themselves blasphemous, but shortened or corrupted, so that he does not attend to the true meaning. For these no longer have the character of blasphemy.”

Apart from scandal (which is apt to arise especially in the case of a priest) and apart from the danger of blasphemy, the irreverence involved in taking God’s holy name in vain is not grave, and therefore, as a rule, only a venial sin. This statement applies even when the name of God or the names of saints are used as exclamations of anger, provided the outburst is not directed against, and does not involve formal contempt of, God Himself or the sacred persons or things mentioned.

Göpfert, following the example of many older authors, warns preachers and confessors not to be too quick in assuming mortal sin when the name of God has been used irreverently, lest penitents acquire false notions and thereby be led to commit mortal sin. On the other hand, there is no denying the fact that the habitual use of sacred names always involves the danger of blasphemy.¹⁵

¹⁵ Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. I, 6th ed., p. 515.

3. CURSING.—To curse means to invoke evil or to call down maledictions upon one’s fellowmen. This act, when dictated by anger and irreverence towards God, is per se a grievous sin. Though thoughtlessness, inadvertence, and haste may render it merely a venial transgression, every one who has acquired the habit of cursing is in duty bound to fight it, because it easily leads to blasphemy.¹⁶ Deliberate and habitual cursing has justly been called the language of hell.

¹⁶ H. Busembaum, S.J., Medulla Theol. Mor., l. III, tr. 2, c. 1, n. 7: “He who has the habit of such words is bound under mortal sin seriously to strive to remove it. But if he does this and nevertheless slips, he can sometimes be excused, because those oaths poured forth by natural impulse are not voluntary, either in themselves or in their cause, since they have been revoked by an efficacious purpose. If he does not strive, and the confessor observes this, let him prudently deny him absolution.”—IDEM, ibid., n. 8: “Meanwhile very many are excused because of inadvertence in a sudden commotion, although what certain persons say does not seem to excuse sufficiently, namely, that by these words they intend nothing else than to use them as interjections expressive of their anger, both because they can equally accustom themselves to other words expressive of anger and serious will, and because, even if they could not do this, nevertheless it does not seem lawful to use words which in the common apprehension of others are dishonoring to God.”—IDEM, ibid., n. 9: “But if anyone, in anger against a man, not being indignant at God but merely at the man, merely names the death of God, the seven sacraments, e. g., O death of God! wounds, etc., without scandal and without those circumstances by which contempt is imported, these are not blasphemies, but the vain use of the divine name, prohibited by this [second] precept, and a grave sin among venial sins. Although, because of the danger of falling into blasphemies, and because scandal is rarely absent and nevertheless God and His sacred things are considered dishonored among the hearers, men are rarely excused and are deservedly deterred from similar expressions.”

Directly opposed to the duty which every Christian has of praying for his fellowmen (benedicere) is the sin of uttering imprecations or maledictions against them.¹⁷ When directed against creatures that bear a special relation towards God, they involve blasphemy. To utter imprecations against brute beasts or against lower creatures which stand in no special relation to God, is not blasphemy and, ordinarily, does not exceed a venial sin.¹⁸

¹⁷ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 76, art. 3: “Malediction is that by which evil is pronounced against someone, either by command or by wish. But to will evil for another, or by command to move to another’s evil, considered in itself is opposed to charity, by which we love our neighbor while willing his good; and thus by its kind it is a mortal sin, and so much the graver, the more we are bound to love and reverence the person whom we curse. Hence it is said (Lev. XX, 9): ‘He who curses his father and mother shall die.’ Yet it happens that a word of cursing uttered may be a venial sin, either because of the slightness of the evil which one invokes upon another by cursing, or also because of the disposition of him who utters words of cursing, when from a slight movement, in jest, or by surprise he utters such words, because sins of words are weighed especially from the disposition.”—Cfr. H. Busembaum, S.J., Medulla Theol. Mor., l. III, tr. 2, c. 1, n. 10: “In anger to invoke upon others the devil, hail, lightning, etc., although many confuse it with blasphemy, nevertheless is not blasphemy but a dire imprecation, which very often (at least when it is said against those loved by the angry person) because of sudden emotion and inadvertence and lack of serious will is only venial, because when men reflect, they affirm that they feel and felt far otherwise, so that such words seem to be merely certain interjections for signifying anger, although it little befits Christians to use such absurd interjections.... It is grave, however, if subjects thus curse superiors, children parents (even if only materially), especially to their face, because it is contrary to the reverence owed.”

¹⁸ Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, p. 239.

Malediction (maledictio), as this sin is commonly called by moralists, may be either formal or material. It is formal (formalis) if inspired by the wish that the injury called down upon one’s fellow creatures may really happen; it is material (materialis) if no such wish or intention exists.

According to the common teaching of theologians material malediction (sine pravo affectu) is but a venial offence, whereas formal cursing is ex genere suo a grievous sin, and becomes venial only when the evil wish is uttered without full deliberation or the evil is but slight.¹⁹

¹⁹ St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. V, n. 83: “Malediction, by which one wishes or invokes evil upon another under the character of evil, is by its kind mortal.... For malediction to be mortal, three things are required: 1. That the evil uttered be truly wished; 2. That it be wished with perfect deliberation; 3. That the evil wished be grave.” (Ed. Gaudé, II, 766).

It goes without saying that to curse and utter maledictions is unworthy of a good Catholic and opposed to both charity and religion.²⁰

²⁰ Matt. V, 44–47; Luke IX, 52–56.—Tertullian, De Idolol., c. 21: “I know a certain man (may the Lord forgive him!), when it had been said to him publicly during a quarrel: ‘May Jupiter be angry with you,’ to have replied, ‘Rather with you.’ What differently would a heathen have done, who believed Jupiter a god? Even if he had not returned the curse by the same one, nor by any like Jupiter, he had affirmed Jupiter as a god, through whom he showed that he had resented being cursed, by cursing in return. For why would you be indignant at being cursed by him whom you know to be nothing? For if you rage, you thereby affirm that he exists, and your profession of fear will be idolatry: how much more, when you curse back by that very one, do you pay honor to Jupiter by the same act as he who provoked you! But a believer in such a case ought to laugh, not rage; indeed, according to the precept, he ought not even to curse back by God, but plainly to bless by God, so that you may both destroy idols and proclaim God and fulfil discipline.” (Ed. Leopold, P. I, 51).—Cfr. St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in II Cor., V, 4 (Migne, P. G., LXI, 433 sq.).—A. Seitz, Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche, pp. 208 sqq.

Plutarch relates that the pagan priestess Theano refused to call down maledictions upon Alcibiades because, she declared, it was her business to bless and not to curse.²¹

²¹ Plutarch, Alcibiades, c. 22: “She had become a priestess of prayers, not of curses.”

Profane words and vulgar expressions like “damn,” “bloody,” “go to hell,” and so forth, are commonly used without definite purpose, and are venial sins, because they are unbecoming, shock others, or manifest anger and impatience.²²

²² Slater, Manual of Moral Theology, I, 239.

The frequent and unnecessary use of the devil’s name is not sinful, but very unbecoming, especially for priests and religious.²³

²³ Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, p. 216.

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 13, 76.—St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 121–123 (ed. Gaudé, I, 439).—J. B. Wirthmüller, Die moralische Tugend der Religion, Freiburg, 1881.—Thos. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, 4th ed., Vol. I, pp. 237 sqq.—F. A. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. I, 7th ed., pp. 516 sqq.—J. W. Melody, art. “Blasphemy,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, pp. 395 sq.—J. H. Fisher, art. “Cursing,” ibid., Vol. IV, pp. 573 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 215 sqq.