Question Three: On Blasphemy, Which Is Opposed to the Confession of Faith

S. Th. II-II, q. 13.

781. Blasphemy (blapto, I injure; pheme, fame), etymologically signifies malediction and insult against someone (I Cor. IV, 13), and therefore is used to signify derogation from some excellent goodness; but in the sense of the holy Fathers and Theologians, only speech insulting to God is so called. It is said:

1. Speech or signification, and thus it is distinguished from infidelity, which is a judgment, and from sacrilege (and simony), which is an unworthy treatment of a sacred thing. Moreover, utterance happens in various modes, and therefore on the part of the act, blasphemy is internal, of the heart (by a nod, as among demons), and external, which is either of the mouth, when it is done by spoken or written words, or of work, when it is done by sign, deed, or gesture, as if someone gnashes his teeth against God, spits toward heaven, tramples Christ, sacred images, crucifixes, casts blood toward heaven, etc. Hence sacrilege is also blasphemy, if in the deed of violation of the sacred thing there is at the same time signification, or a certain real speech against God.

2. Against God, and thus it is distinguished from insult and malediction against one's neighbor and against other creatures. Blasphemy, namely, is an act against faith, religion, and God, either in himself, or through creatures, insofar as they express an order to God: "for just as God is praised in his saints insofar as the works which God effects in the saints are praised, so also blasphemy which is done against the saints consequently redounds against God" (a. 1, ad 2). Hence on the part of the object or term, blasphemy is immediate or mediate.

3. Insulting, by which, namely, something is detracted from the excellence or honor of the divine majesty, and thus it is distinguished from perjury, which is speech invocative of divine testimony. But since God is present everywhere, every speech against him is an insult; hence blasphemy can also be diverse according to the diverse mode by which insult is inflicted, as we are now to explain.

782. Diverse modes of blaspheming. - Therefore, on the part of the mode by which insult is inflicted, blasphemy can be enunciative, dishonoring, or imprecative.

1. Enunciative blasphemy happens:

a) by affirming of God what does not belong to him, for example, that he is unjust, the author of evils, cruel, that he punishes unjustly, has forgotten me, is a tyrant, etc.;

b) by denying to God what belongs to him, such as omnipotence, providence, justice, knowledge, for example, by saying that not all things are well ordered but could have been done better in creation, that God does not will or cannot help us, does not care for our affairs, that one will do something against God's will ("whether God wills or does not will, I will do this"), by denying God or the sacraments, etc.;

c) by ascribing to creatures what is proper to God alone: for since everything proper to God is God, by this very fact God is said to be a creature and that which is proper to him is denied, for example, by saying: I can do this as well as God; by seriously calling a mistress a goddess, one's whole and only good, one's beatitude; by swearing by false gods; by calling the devil holy, omnipotent, more faithful, more powerful (a. 1, ad 3).

But if something contrary to faith is affirmed, or something pertaining to faith is denied, the blasphemy is heretical.

2. Dishonoring blasphemy happens:

a) by affirming or denying something of God with truth, but in an insulting mode through contempt or mockery, for example, by reproaching Christ because he suffered and died, by naming his shameful members, "Thou hast conquered, O Galilean," "Hail, king of the Jews," "Vah, thou who destroyest the temple of God"; or by cursing through all these things, for example, "may the blood, wounds, death, head, passion, sacraments, chrism of Christ destroy thee"; or by bringing Scripture to foul things: for all those things were instituted not for destroying but for saving;

b) not by affirming, but by naming holy things shamefully and contemptuously, that is, from anger, not indeed against creatures, but against God or religion, after the mode of one being indignant at them or contemning them, for example, "God!"; the name of God, the members, blood of Christ; the sacraments, the saints; "vah! the power of God"; to swear mockingly by the members of Christ; "I despise God with my whole heart," etc.

3. Imprecative blasphemy is when evil is wished or cursed upon God, or even commanded, for example, that he perish, not exist, die, be damned, not punish sins, not be omnipotent; "to the contempt of God!"; "may it displease God!" If such a thing is done from the soul, it proceeds from hatred of God and is the blasphemy of the damned and of the worst men.

All the aforesaid modes are reduced to the two former: falsely to affirm or deny concerning God. For dishonoring blasphemy implicitly says that there is in God something blameworthy which is not blameworthy, or denies that something is worthy which is worthy. Imprecative blasphemy implicitly affirms of God that something is possible which cannot be, or that something is fitting which is not fitting.

783. The diverse intention of the blasphemer. - On the part of intention, blasphemy is direct or perfect, which is done with affective detestation or the express intention of dishonoring God, and proceeds from hatred of God, from anger and indignation against God (and religion), from contempt, etc.; and indirect, which is done without an express but with an implicit intention of dishonoring God, when someone voluntarily utters words which, according to the judgment of his intellect, he knows, either from their proper signification, or from the mode of uttering them or other circumstances, to imply dishonor of God (a. 1). Hence if someone from custom, from anger against creatures, from jest, after the manner of an interjection, pronounces blasphemous words, he commits the sin of blasphemy; except if it happens from jest that the words are not held by others as blasphemous, or if they are uttered merely narratively.

784. Blasphemy is a sin at the same time against faith and religion. - For:

a) It is opposed to the confession of faith: for either it is heretical and explicitly says something against faith; or at least it says implicitly that God or a sacred thing is blameworthy, or that in God there is something worthy of insult. Namely, someone can sin against confession of faith even by stating nothing against faith, namely, by signifying by his mode of speaking that he does not believe, or by speaking as if he did not believe.¹

¹ Cf. Lumbreras, in Angelicum, 1937.

b) It is also directly opposed to the honor and praise which are owed to God, and thus contains dishonor and irreverence against the virtue of religion.

Hence all blasphemies, even heretical ones, do not differ in species under the aspect of blasphemy; but sometimes other species are added, such as heresy, hatred of God, despair, which then must be declared in confession.

But if the speech is insulting against creatures, if they are considered formally with relation to God, insofar as they are his creatures, as easily happens for wind, rain, thunder, heaven, the whole world (for example, "cursed be the rain of God"...), and almost always for those things which per se express relation to God, such as Christian faith, the sacraments, the saints, our soul, etc., the insult necessarily redounds against God, their author. Indeed, since blasphemers generally do not intend to affect those things with injury on account of their own excellence, but only mediately insofar as they are referred to God, there is not a sin against dulia, but against religion and faith alone. - But if the saints were considered not as saints, but in themselves, formally abstracting from relation to God, insofar as they are men, it would be a sin against dulia alone owed to the saints, light if it is done from jest (for example, by calling St. Crispin a vile shoemaker, St. Peter bald, Saints John and Paul eunuchs), grave if it proceeded from anger, indignation, contempt, or hatred against them.

To curse other creatures considered in themselves, if they are rational, is injurious to them; if irrational, it is vain and idle. To curse the devil is not evil, except sometimes per accidens by reason of scandal.

785. Blasphemy is a mortal sin from its whole genus: for no insult against God can be small (Lev. XXIV, 15-16; Is. XXXVI; IV Kings XVIII, XIX; Tob. I, 21; II Mach. XV; I Tim. I, 20; Col. III, 8).

Indeed it is called most grave, in an absolute sense, that is, very grave; taken abstractly insofar as it is opposed to religion alone and implies only the dishonor of God, it is less grave than hatred of God, infidelity, despair, and idolatry; but graver than perjury (which affirms nothing false against God, but only makes him a witness of falsity) and than homicide (which is only against one's neighbor). But if it is considered in the concrete, it supposes and includes the malice of infidelity or hatred of God and adds something to them, and thus it is graver than they, so that the greatest blasphemy is graver than the greatest infidelity or the greatest hatred of God.

Therefore, on the part of the object, only idolatry surpasses it, which otherwise contains great blasphemy.

On the part of the sinner, however, it is often graver than idolatry.

On the part of the effect, it is less than homicide: for homicide harms man more than blasphemy harms God.

786. A voluntary custom or habit of blaspheming is evil because it proximately inclines to sin; hence there is an obligation of removing it, and he sins gravely who voluntarily acquires such a habit or neglects to eliminate it. He sins internally and as to affection as often as, noticing the obligation of retracting the habit, he does not retract it; externally and as to effect as often as, from habit, he utters sufficiently foreseen blasphemies by morally distinct acts.

He who blasphemes from custom:

a) either utters blasphemous words advertently, and then the blasphemy is voluntary and culpable in itself;

b) or he does not attend to the words uttered, and then the speech which externally sounds like blasphemy is voluntary and culpable in its cause, namely, the custom, as was said;

c) but if he has efficaciously retracted the custom, it is neither voluntary in the cause, nor a sin.

The custom is retracted by a will by which someone grieves over it and proposes to himself to employ means for removing it (which, on account of usefulness, should be renewed several times); but if after the resolution he has not employed the means, the custom again becomes indirectly voluntary for him, because he shows that he does not will to remove it.

787. Practical rules. - 1. Formulas are not blasphemous which by their proper signification can be insulting against God, but are either greatly changed or corrupted, or halved or defective, or at least are not held by men as blasphemous. Such are the expressions: merdie, mordie, lardie, jarnidie, sernidie, ventredie, sacredjen, non de domme, verdomd, podverdomme, sacre non, sakristi, sapristi, sangbleu, morbleu, non di hu, non de djouw, godvernondedomme, godvernondedju, saterment.

2. On the contrary, formulas are blasphemous which of themselves, by proper signification, do not contain insult against God, but either from the mode of uttering the name of God ironically or with contempt or in anger against God; or even from common acceptance are held as such. Such formerly was the Flemish expression G. v. D., which signifies according to some: "God damn," according to others: "God damn me" (which is a mortal imprecation if said seriously, venial if said with levity, as ordinarily happens), whose true signification it is necessary to teach the non-blaspheming people by mandate of the Bishops of Belgium (October 1903).

3. Equivocal formulas which can have a blasphemous and a non-blasphemous sense are blasphemous or not according to the intention of the speaker or at least of the hearers, for example, mort-Dieu, ventre-Dieu, hoc est a fato destinatum, c'est fatalite, het is alzoo dat het moest zijn. Hence they are not blasphemous if they are generally not held as such by men, for example, in Belgium: tausend sakrament, tausend Herr Gott, mille Dieu, mille nom de Dieu, milliard de nom de Dieu, sacre mille Dieu.

4. In doubt whether a formula is blasphemous, one must attend to the intention and conscience of the one uttering it, and to the circumstances.

5. The French formula S. N. de D. (S. D.) of itself is equivocal, because the word sacre has a double sense: in its primary and obvious sense it indeed signifies "blessed"; but in a secondary signification by antiphrasis it can signify "cursed" or "execrable," as happens in interjections and formulas: sacree bete, sacre coquin, menteur, bougre, matin, sacre cure, sacre fils, sacree pluie. Hence the formula S. N. de D. can have a pious sense, and a blasphemous sense, which sense it in fact has if it is pronounced from anger or indignation, not indeed against creatures, but against God. Originally it seems to have been promissory: "I swear by the sacred name of God." But that sense is no longer perceived by all; indeed by some the formula is taken in a blasphemous sense, whether they hold it as signifying: "execrable be the name of God," or themselves attribute to it no determined sense but in a confused way conceive it as a great blasphemy; which also often happens concerning the formula S. D., although for this one the persuasion is less firm. Yet this estimation does not exist by right and is not correct, since these formulas can have a good sense.

Wherefore in practice preachers and confessors should teach: a) that the blasphemous sense is not the only and sole necessary sense, and especially that it is not: "God is cursed"; b) that the formula is not blasphemous if it is not uttered from an evil intention, or from anger and indignation against God, but only after the manner of a simple interjection or from anger against creatures; c) that nevertheless one must abstain from it, both because it includes venial irreverence toward God, and lest there be scandal to others.

788. Practical observations. - 1. Confessors should instruct penitents who from an erroneous conscience believe certain formulas to be true blasphemies and mortal sins, for example, nom de Dieu, begod, par Dieu, etc.; - yet they should ask about scandal given, which easily follows; - they should set forth to habitual sinners who utter true blasphemies (which in our country is rare) the magnitude of blasphemy and its horrendous malice and rashness and its uselessness; - upon them, so that they may be corrected, they should impose the renewal of a firm resolution to be repeated often, and at each blasphemy a little prayer to be made at once or a penance to be performed; and they should suggest other expressions which sound well but are not sinful.

2. Penitents are to be asked: a) what words they uttered, for they sometimes confuse maledictions, imprecations, oaths, and blasphemy; and with what intention: whether from infidelity, despair, hatred against God or the Saints, anger, etc.; - b) how often and on what occasion: in a game, a tavern, for how much time, etc.; - c) whether before others, children of the family, etc., in order to know whether scandal was present.