Chapter II. On the Sin Chiefly Opposed to Praise, or on Blasphemy

I. Notion. Blasphemy is customarily defined: contumelious speech against God. It is said:

1. Speech, that is, the signification of contempt or disparagement of God; in this signification the malice of blasphemy is essentially situated. Under the name of speech come thoughts, internal or mental speech;¹ words and writing, verbal speech; actions or gestures and deeds, real speech, as if someone from anger against God should gnash his teeth. All these can be significative of contempt of God (St. Alphonsus, III, 125).

2. Contumelious; namely, speech signifying contempt or disparagement of God is required. Moreover, for subjective malice it is not required that someone proceed from a formal intention of inflicting contumely; it suffices that he know and sufficiently advert that the speech is contumelious, and nevertheless admit it (St. Alphonsus, III, 124).

3. Against God; namely, speech, in order to be blasphemous, must signify contempt of God or dishonor God, and this either immediately or mediately in creatures. When the latter occurs we shall soon explain. Moreover, God is dishonored both by denying what belongs to him; and by attributing to a creature something which is proper to God alone; and by treating God in the manner of one showing indignation, mocking, or provoking (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 13, a. 1; St. Alphonsus, III, 121).

Blasphemy differs: 1. from the vain usurpation of the divine name, which indeed is opposed to the reverence due to God, but does not signify contempt of God; 2. from sacrilege, which indeed imports unworthy treatment of a sacred thing, person, or place, but does not necessarily signify contempt of the sacred and consequently of God, as if someone steals a sacred thing. In the case in which sacrilege also signified contempt of the sacred, the malice of blasphemy would accede, as if a sacred thing were treated contumeliously.

For discerning whether speech is contumelious against God, attention should be paid to: 1. the force of the words; 2. the manner of uttering them and the circumstances. Namely, it can happen that words or other signs which of themselves do not involve contumely become contumelious if they are uttered, for example, from anger against God or from the mind of provoking him; 3. common estimation, whether in some region or in a particular place. Namely, although common estimation, whether in some region or in a particular place, commonly corresponds to the sense which words have according to etymology and native signification, nevertheless it can happen that common estimation attributes to words a contumelious sense which of themselves they do not have, and conversely. Hence there can also be expressions which in one place have the sense of blasphemy, but not in another. Besides, note that blasphemous words do not lose their sense, and therefore constitute true blasphemy, even if they are uttered fictitiously. But words lose a blasphemous sense if they are spoken narratively or for the sake of instruction. The context can so change the sense of the expression that it ceases to be contumelious, and only some or even no irreverence toward God is left (St. Alphonsus, III, 124).

"In doubt whether some expression is or is not blasphemy, it is by no means to be taken as blasphemy" (St. Alphonsus, III, 129). Similarly, an expression which has a twofold sense, one blasphemous and the other not blasphemous, should of itself and in practice not be held for blasphemy.

¹ It is called by St. Thomas blasphemy of the heart (II-II, q. 13, a. 1).

II. Division. Blasphemy is distinguished:

1. Into direct or immediate, and indirect or mediate, according as God is dishonored immediately in himself or mediately in creatures. This latter occurs when contumely is done to creatures which have a special relation to God. Therefore it has place:

a) When contumely is done to creatures which of themselves express order toward God, and are considered of themselves in that way, as Angels, Saints, and sacred things. They can, however, be considered abstractively, not as Saints, but as certain men who were on earth; as "if you call Saints Crispin and Crispinian cobblers, John and Paul eunuchs" (St. Alphonsus, III, 125). In this case there is not blasphemy, but there is sin against dulia: lightly, if from jest; gravely, "if you say these things contemptuously or from hatred or indignation against the Saints" (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). There is not blasphemy because in the case the contumely does not redound upon God; there is sin against dulia because one cannot effectively abstract from the dignity intrinsic to the Saints.

b) When contumely is done to creatures which are, as it were, spontaneously considered with relation to God, although one can more easily abstract from that relation. Such are the soul,¹ heaven, and the whole world.

c) When contumely is done to creatures with explicit consideration of their relation to God; as if things are cursed as commanded by God, or with the word of God added, for example, "Cursed be God's rain." In the cases set forth, contumely toward the creature necessarily redounds upon God himself (St. Alphonsus, III, 129).

2. Into simple, heretical, and imprecatory, according as it contains merely contumely against God, or also either denies a truth revealed by God, or wishes evil to God or to things which, either of themselves or from positive consideration, are related to God.

3. Into directly and indirectly intended, according as someone formally wishes to dishonor God, or blasphemes without that formal intention. But it is clear that this intention is not required for the sin; for the willing of the object whose malice is known suffices.

¹ But not the dead, unless by the intention of those cursing the contumely is directed toward holy souls detained in purgatory; which does not have place. I said not the dead, because the word dead does not of itself explicitly express souls, but deceased men; hence to curse the dead is not blasphemy (St. Alphonsus, III, 130).

III. Morality. 1. Blasphemy is a grave sin from its whole genus, so that it can become only venial because of imperfection of the act or defect of advertence. For it is clear that blasphemy always contains grave irreverence toward God. With respect to defect of advertence, observe:

a) A defect of this kind often excuses those who both are not accustomed to blaspheme, or at least have retracted the habit of blaspheming, and utter blasphemy from a sudden movement. The same must be said of those who, not adverting to a blasphemous sense, pronounce formulas of impatience such as: "God has forgotten me"; "God has undeservedly inflicted these things on me" (St. Alphonsus, III, 129).

b) The habit of blaspheming more often does not prevent someone from sufficiently adverting to the evil. There is added that a habitual blasphemer who does not try to amend himself is culpable in the cause.

2. Immediate and mediate blasphemy do not seem to differ in species. For the contumely which is immediately inflicted on God and that which redounds upon him, such as mediate blasphemy, seem to be of the same moral deformity.

3. Although all blasphemies as such are of the same species, nevertheless often a circumstance accedes which adds a new species; as if someone blasphemes from hatred toward God, or utters heresy. Indeed there are those who judge that every blasphemy, even non-heretical blasphemy, is opposed to the profession of faith; this, however, is not evident (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 13, a. 1).

4. Finally, it is disputed whether contumely against the Saints contains, besides blasphemy, also a sin against hyperdulia or dulia. Moreover, St. Alphonsus and other authors, against others, hold the negative opinion as sufficiently probable, because "those who blaspheme the Saints, speaking commonly, more truly intend to affect them with injury, not on account of their precise and proper excellence, but insofar as they are mediately referred to God" (St. Alphonsus, III, 132).¹

¹ If someone, however, were to inflict contumely on the Saints both as such and not as such, or insofar as they were men on earth, there would be both blasphemy and a sin against dulia (n. 635).

IV. Diverse expressions. 1. Corrupted expressions remain blasphemous as follows:

a) If the corruption is only grammatical, so that according to common estimation the sense is not changed, they remain blasphemous.

b) If the corruption is substantial, so that according to common estimation the sense is truly changed, they do not remain blasphemous.

Hence even if it were admitted that the Dutch expression God verdoem me, or God verdom me, is blasphemous, nevertheless, for example, pot verdom me, God doorie would not be blasphemies; nor, even if Sacre nom de Dieu, Mille noms de Dieu were held for blasphemy, would Sacre nom, Mille noms be blasphemies; nor is Mort-bleu blasphemy.

c) If the corruption is equivocal, for example Farni (je renie) Dieu, blasphemy is in practice judged to be absent, unless common estimation attributes a blasphemous sense to the corrupted expression.

2. It is blasphemy: 1. to say: "Whether God wills or does not will, I shall do this." "Cursed be God." "May God perish." "Would that God did not exist." 2. With contempt or indignation against God to name the divine attributes, for example: "Bah! the goodness of God! Bah! the justice of God!" To this belongs the blasphemy of the Jews: "Hail, King of the Jews," and that of Julian the Apostate: "You have conquered, Galilean!" 3. To say: "May the Sacraments destroy you," since they were given by God not for destroying, but solely for saving man. It is not blasphemy if someone from anger or indignation, not against God but against a man or beast of burden, merely utters sacred words: "Death of God!" "A thousand Gods!" "A thousand sacraments!" "Sacrament!"¹

3. There was dispute about the French expression Sacre nom de Dieu, to which this one is equated: Sacre Dieu. Moreover, the word sacre, when the native signification of the word is considered, signifies holy rather than execrable. But from usage and common estimation, when it was uttered in anger, it was accepted in a bad sense. But in the year 1912 the Belgian Bishops tried to restore the native signification; and it is permissible to suspect that this has succeeded or will gradually succeed. A fortiori, at least in practice, the equivocally corrupted expressions Sacre die, Sacre diu, or dic cannot be held for blasphemy.²

4. What about the expression Deus damnet me?³ This indeed involves a grave imprecation, and therefore, if it were done seriously, it would be a grave sin. Moreover, it certainly is blasphemous if it is uttered by provoking God. Otherwise it is disputed. Cornelisse,⁴ Derksen, and others affirm. Aertnys,⁵ Lehmkuhl,⁶ Brahm,⁷ Forstmann,⁸ and others deny, and the Belgian Bishops embraced this opinion in letters in the year 1903. Moreover, this more benign opinion is sufficiently probable to us, because the arguments hitherto brought forward by the adversaries seem devoid of force, or can be sufficiently weakened.

Argument 1. The expression Deus damnet me is referred to the soul. But a curse of the soul is mediate blasphemy, which namely redounds upon God.

Response. I deny that the said expression is referred to the soul explicitly or by express intention. But mediate blasphemy occurs only when the soul is expressed or expressly intended (St. Alphonsus, III, 129, 130; n. 635).

Argument 2. The expression of which we speak contains a petition for a thing which is not fitting to God.

Response. It belongs to God both to save and to damn. Nevertheless it would be blasphemy to say: "May God damn me while innocent."

Argument 3. To wish or to ask for one's own damnation by the force of the words expresses contempt or disparagement of eternal beatitude. And this disparagement redounds upon God himself as Author, Giver, indeed Object of our beatitude. Therefore there is mediate blasphemy.

Response. I deny the major, because the wish or petition of damnation can arise from another motive than from contempt, for example from anger against oneself. Hence from the fact that damnation is wished or asked for, contempt of beatitude is not signified; and yet this is required for blasphemy.

Argument 4. To wish or ask for one's own damnation by the force of the words expresses contempt or disparagement of God insofar as he is terrible; and this is blasphemy.

Response. I deny the major, because the wish or petition of damnation can proceed also from another motive than from disparagement of God insofar as he is terrible, for example, as we said, from anger against oneself. Hence from the fact that damnation is wished or asked for, disparagement of God insofar as he is terrible is not signified.

¹ In German: Tausend Sacrament.

² Cf. Collectanea Mechliniensia, 1912, p. 192.

³ In Dutch: God verdom me.

⁴ Theologia Moralis, I, 312.

⁵ Sententiae a R. Adm. P. Aertnys non ita pridem reiectae religiosa defensio.

⁶ Cited work.

⁷ Casus Conscientiae, I, 218 and 236 note.

⁸ Cited work; Theologia moralis specialis, n. 95.

V. Things to be noted. 1. The confessor should take pains to know what expressions in the place of confession are held as certainly blasphemous.¹

2. One accustomed to blasphemies should be counseled that after uttering a blasphemy he immediately be sorry and impose upon himself a light penance, for example by saying: Glory be to the Father, etc. Sometimes it can be advised that instead of blasphemy the penitent use corrupted words or other words sounding sharply, yet signifying nothing evil.

¹ The Dutch word vloeken is used to signify both blasphemies and curses and abusive words against men and beasts of burden. Hence the confessor should inquire what the penitent intends. The Dutch formulas God verdoeme or God verdomme are joined by the people in the greater part of Holland to the sense: "May God damn me," which, as we have proved, probably is not blasphemous. In some parts they do not understand what they are saying, or think that with these words they are cursing God; and this is certainly grave blasphemy. Therefore if the confessor fears that the penitent admits the false sense, he should teach him the true sense. Otherwise he should say that to ask one's own damnation from God, if done seriously, is a mortal sin; otherwise only light; nevertheless, an evil custom of this kind is to be rooted out.