Question — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Question First. On the Vain Assumption of the Name of God
201. Notion and malice. 1. He is said to take the divine name in vain who usurps the name of God without due reverence.
a. This vain assumption of the divine name proceeds: a. from impatience and indignation: My God, how greatly these are troublesome! or b. from admiration: My God, Jesus, Mary, who would have said this! My God, what are you saying! or c. from mere custom.
b. What is affirmed concerning the name of God must, with proportion preserved, also be said concerning the vain and useless usurpation of the names of saints or of sacred things: for irreverence inflicted upon saints and sacred things redounds upon God.
- Vain usurpation of the name of God is a venial sin against the virtue of religion: for this virtue demands that the name of God, on account of the special relation which the name has to God Himself, be uttered only from a reasonable end and with due reverence. Hence Sacred Scripture warns: Let not the naming of God be constant in thy mouth.1 Nevertheless it does not exceed venial sin, because, since it does not contain insult, it does not bring grave irreverence.
Wherefore without doubt they offend venially who are accustomed to utter the most holy names at nearly every word, at jokes, and at vain things of this kind; nevertheless because of inadvertence there is often no sin.
- To use frequently and uselessly the name of the demon, although it is not a sin, is nevertheless very unbecoming, especially in clerics and religious: for the name of the most hostile enemy of God and of the faithful is not to be continually uttered by a Christian man.