ARTICLE II: On Blasphemy

596. DEFINITION. Blasphemy is contumelious speech against God.

It is said: 1. speech, because ordinarily it is done by words, although it can also be done by thought alone, or by writings, or even by deeds, for example by spitting toward heaven. It is also called speech because, as for infidelity, assent of the mind is not required for blasphemy; but it suffices that something be said of God after the manner of reproach. 2. Contumelious, namely by which something is detracted from the excellence of the divine majesty: whether this is done by attributing false things to him, or by denying true things; or by attributing to creatures things which are due to God; or even by saying true things, but things which tend to his dishonoring, as happens after the manner of one indignant against him, despising him, etc. 3. Against God; because reproach against the Saints, sacred things, etc., insofar as they have a special relation to God, is ultimately referred to God himself (III, 121; H. Ap., V, 1). Cf. n. 546.¹

DIVISION. 1. By reason of object, one blasphemy is immediate, which dishonors God in himself; another mediate, which dishonors God in the Saints, or in other nobler creatures, which connote a peculiar relation to him.

Immediate blasphemy probably does not differ in species from mediate blasphemy; for "those who blaspheme the Saints, more truly, commonly speaking, intend to affect them with injury, not on account of their precise and proper excellence, but insofar as they are referred mediately to God; therefore ... they sin not against dulia but against latria; and on that account they are not held to explain in confession whether they blasphemed God or the Saints" (III, 132; cf. Viva, Decal., q. 6, a. 2, n. 6).

2. By reason of intention, one is direct, namely that which directly and formally attacks God, from the intention of dishonoring him; this is also called diabolical. Another is indirect, which indeed is uttered advertently, for example in a movement of anger, but without a direct intention of dishonoring God.

Direct blasphemy very often proceeds from hatred of God: which circumstance, as is evident, is to be expressed in confession (III, 126; Vind. Alph., VI, c. 1, § 1, n. 1). - Indirect blasphemy, although specifically it is the same sin against latria as direct blasphemy, nevertheless is lower in degree.

3. By reason of words, blasphemy is either heretical, or imprecative, or dishonoring. This distinction is specific, because besides religion, the first mode of blaspheming also wounds faith, and the second charity.

HERETICAL blasphemy is that which contains heresy or falsity against faith. Blasphemy of this sort is to say, for example: God does not exist; God does not will or cannot help us; he does not have care of men; he is a tyrant; he does not dispose human affairs well; the Blessed Virgin is a woman like the rest, if namely it is understood that she is not a virgin or the Mother of God; likewise to attribute to a creature what belongs to God alone, for example to call the devil "holy, omnipotent" (III, 122; cf. Togni, Instr., II, c. 1, § 5). - But if one uttering these things by mouth or in writing also believes them pertinaciously in heart, there is the malice of heresy externalized, on account of which a specially reserved excommunication is incurred (cf. n. 1314).

IMPRECATIVE blasphemy is that by which someone wishes evil to God, for example if someone says: May God perish! Would that God did not exist! Cursed be God! etc. - If such imprecation proceeds from hatred of God, then it is properly called imprecative blasphemy; otherwise it is reduced to dishonoring blasphemy (Inst. cat., P. I, c. 2, n. 1).

DISHONORING blasphemy, or simple blasphemy, is that by which someone pronounces something about God after the manner of contumely and mockery. Such was that saying of Julian the Apostate: Thou hast conquered, Galilean, and that of those mocking Christ: Hail, King of the Jews. Likewise, if the death, head, blood, entrails of Christ are named contumeliously from anger or jest. Likewise, to wish to do something against God's will, to spit toward heaven, to trample sacred images, rosaries, etc. (III, 124, 125).

597. PRINCIPLES. I. Blasphemy is a mortal sin from its whole genus, and indeed most grave. It is proved: 1. from the word of God (Levit., 24, 16): He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die; 2. from reason: for the blasphemer, as if by open war, attacks God himself. Whence St. Jerome says (in Isai., l. VIII, 18): "Nothing is more horrible than blasphemy, which sets its mouth on high." And St. Chrysostom (Hom. to the people of Antioch, n. 12) exhorted the faithful that they should restrain blasphemers even with blows, lest the city perish. Cf. St. Thom., 2.2, q. 13, a. 2 and 5.

We said from its whole genus; and thus those blasphemies against the Saints which redound upon God do not admit smallness of matter. But if the Saints, as men, are affected with contumely, for example if someone jokingly calls Saints Crispin and Crispinian cobblers, John and Paul eunuchs, etc., this indeed would be venial, against dulia; "but it will be grave if you say these things contemptuously, or from hatred or indignation against the Saints" (III, 125).

Blasphemy can also become VENIAL from imperfection of the act. Thus, for example, he who says: "God is forgetful of me; ... why did God create me?" sins only venially, if he speaks thus from an impulse of grief. Indeed, he does not blaspheme formally, if in uttering such things he only intends to say: I am wretched, as if God had forgotten me.

II. For blasphemy a virtual and implicit intention of dishonoring God suffices. Such an intention is had in him who from jest "or anger against creatures" advertently, in the act or in the cause, utters truly blasphemous expressions (III, 124; cf. Reuter, n. 442). For thus grave irreverence against God is committed. - Except, unless the jest takes away altogether the notion or signification of contumely against God, for example by swearing, for the sake of mockery, by false gods. Cf. Ami du Cl. (1913, p. 729), where it treats of him who teaches blasphemies to a parrot.

598. The following RULES can be given for discerning among various expressions which ones have the character of true blasphemy:

1. If any expression, either from its proper signification, or from common estimation, or from the manner of uttering, has a CONTUMELIOUS SENSE against God, it will always be blasphemy.

Hence he blasphemes who says: may the blood, wounds, death, head, passion, sacraments, chrism of God, and similar sacred things, destroy you. For the rest, in these things men commonly apprehend that a great contempt of God and of those things is contained (III, 126).

Whether this French expression, too much usurped: Sacre nom de Dieu, is blasphemy has very recently been much disputed.² For, according to some, in an acceptance of this sort the word sacre, according to common apprehension, sounds the same as execrable, to be despised, worthy of contempt.³ Wherefore, if this word is usurped in the same acceptance for expressing contempt against sacred things or persons as such, it will also be blasphemy (Jaugey, de Relig., n. 456). Yet there are others, such as Gousset, Scavini, Valentini, Frassinetti (translation of Fourez), Gridel, Tanquerey, and others (apud L. Manise), who excuse the word sacre joined with the Most Holy Name of God from blasphemy, being led by this reason, that that word does not signify the same as accursed, inasmuch as it is derived from ancient oaths in which it signifies the Holy Name of God. - We think, therefore, since the expression of itself and from erroneous acceptance is ambiguous, that there is place for the principle enunciated by St. Alphonsus, where he treats of malediction of the dead (Theol. mor., III, tr. II; ed. G., I, p. 456), and that with Bucceroni it must be said: "In practice, all those who utter words of this sort are not easily to be accused of mortal sin, unless it is done with anger against God" (Inst. mor., I, n. 456). - In the same way one must reason concerning the Flemish formula: G. V. D., God damn me, which of itself seems to be nothing except a dire imprecation.⁴ Likewise, but from defect of signification, concerning the German formula: Tausend Sakrament, Tausend Herr Gott (Noldin, II, n. 206, b).

2. If the expression does not have a COMPLETE sense, it is not blasphemy, unless the indignation is directed against God (III, 124).

Whence these expressions are free from grave fault: Nom de Dieu! Sacre nom! without addition, etc. Yet they are not free from light fault, both because of impatience and because of vain usurpation of the divine Name; indeed, because of the danger of falling into blasphemy the fault could become grave (III, 128). Similarly, it is only vain usurpation of the divine Name nakedly to utter sacred words, for example death of God, wounds, sacrament, etc., if the anger tends only against a man or beast; which indeed must be gathered from the adjuncts. Nor is it blasphemy to utter half-spoken or corrupted words, as for example jourdedie, mordie, ventredie, morbleu; nego Di ... Santo Di ... (Diana); or to say against men: Sangue di Dio, Corpo di Dio, unless the indignation is directed against God (III, 124, 128). - The German word Auchen often sounds the same as uttering holy names in anger, for example Himmel, Herrgott, without imprecation or contumely.

3. To curse CREATURES is not blasphemy, except insofar as they have a special relation to God.

Hence: a) it is blasphemy to curse the Saints, the sacraments, sacred days or things, the Catholic faith, the Church of God, or even priests, insofar as they are ministers of God; b) but to curse creatures, insofar as they are creatures, is not blasphemy, unless the word of God is added, for example cursed rain of God; or unless the divine power shines forth in a peculiar way in them, as they are soul, heaven, the whole world, etc.; in which case God would be indirectly despised in them; c) to curse a man, living or dead, without uttering the word soul, is not blasphemy, unless the intention of the speaker refers the malediction to souls; wherefore to say: may God damn me, may God damn you, is not of itself blasphemy, but a dire imprecation; d) to curse the demon, as author of evils, is not blasphemy; e) in anger to imprecate upon oneself or others the demon, lightning, etc., is likewise a dire IMPRECATION, which very often, because of defect of a serious will, is only venial fault. Yet it is grave irreverence if subjects thus curse superiors, or children parents, even if only materially, especially to the face (III, 129, 131).

4. IN DOUBT whether some expression is blasphemous, it is not, of itself, to be held as such; but attention must be given to the conscience of the one uttering it.

Note. Expressions of swearing, even if vain, are generally not numbered among blasphemies; for example by God, by Christ, by the Saints, by the sacraments, etc. Nor is it blasphemy to swear by the honorable members of Christ. Otherwise, if one swears mockingly, or by his dishonorable members. Similarly, it is not blasphemy to say: I deny God, if I shall not strike you; "nor to say: this is true as God; because then only a certain similarity is indicated, mixed with some hyperbole."⁵

599. PRACTICAL RULES. I. Penitents are diligently to be questioned: 1. What sort of words they uttered, at least in general; and besides, it must be clear to the confessor whether the blasphemy proceeded from infidelity, despair, or anger against God or the Saints. 2. How often, and on what occasion, they blasphemed, whether in gaming, in a tavern, etc., and how long they have been engaged in this vice. 3. Whether they blasphemed in the presence of children, servants, or others; for then scandal is present (Praxis, n. 27-31).

II. Faith is not easily to be given to HABITUAL blasphemers who, while they have not retracted the habit, say that they burst forth into blasphemies inadvertently; because these evil habituated persons, although they have cognition less vivid than others who have not contracted the practice of blaspheming, nevertheless always have that actual cognition sufficient for the act to be deliberate (V, 4; Praxis, l. c.). Cf. n. 319, 3. Otherwise one must speak of those who have already retracted the habit and fall back because of a natural impulse, for example of anger (Inst. cat., P. I, c. 2, n. 7-14).

III. Let the confessor prescribe REMEDIES, both by showing the enormity of blasphemy and its horrible effects, and by persuading the penitent to impose penance upon himself for individual acts of blasphemy perhaps to come. Finally, ejaculatory prayers are to be urged, or certain other harmless words, by whose use blasphemies may be excluded.

IV. Let the PREACHER beware lest he condemn as a certain sin what in itself is doubtful. Let him take care that those who are placed in a state of erroneous conscience are not left in their error. It is better to permit innumerable venial sins than one mortal sin.⁶