Blasphemy

BLASPHEMY is an imprecatory or a contumelious speech against God. Not only words, but actions also, which express contempt, insult, derision, or imprecation against God are blasphemies.

Blasphemy is direct when the dishonour of God is intended; if the dishonour of God is not intended in itself but it is foreseen that it will be the consequence of one’s word or actions, it is indirect.

Blasphemy which is against God in his own person is immediate; if it immediately affects some creature which has a special relation toward God it is mediate.

Blasphemy is a grave insult to almighty God, and is always a serious mortal sin if it is committed with full advertence and consent. To deny the existence of God, to complain against his Providence and assert that he is unjust, to deny the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother of God, are so many heretical blasphemies and grievous sins.

It is a disputed question among theologians whether blasphemy against the saints which is only mediately against God is of the same species of sin as blasphemy which is immediately against him. Many assert that the species is different inasmuch as the honour due to the saints is outraged as well as that which is due to God. Ordinarily, however, it is God who is chiefly dishonoured by insults offered to his saints, and so practically we may follow the opinion of other theologians and hold that there is no specific difference between the two sins.

Vol. I, Pt. II, Q. I, Art. 2. The Sins Against F…, Dangerous Communication · Vol. I, Pt. II, Q. I, Art. 2. The Sins Against F…, The Sin of Blasphemy

To utter imprecations or to speak injuriously against creatures which have a special relation to God is blasphemy. Thus it is grievously sinful to call down maledictions on one’s fellow-men, wishing that they may perish eternally. Such acts are seriously against charity as well as religion. To utter imprecations against brute beasts or other creatures which have no special relation to almighty God is not blasphemy, and will not ordinarily exceed a venial sin. Profane words and vulgar expressions like “‘ damn,” “ bloody,” and so forth, are commonly used without definite meaning, and at most are venial sins, because they are unbecoming, shock others, or are manifestations of anger and impatience. It is sometimes said that blasphemy is most common where faith is strong, and this may be a reason why real blasphemy is not so common perhaps with us in ordinary conversation as with some nations.

Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology

Ludovicus Wouters, C.SS.R. — 5 passages

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. I, Pt. II, Sect. I, Chapter II. On the Sin Chiefly Opposed to Praise, or on Blasphemy

n. 634.

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

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).
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).
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).

n. 635.

II. Division. Blasphemy is distinguished:

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).

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.
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).

n. 636.

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.

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.
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).
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).

n. 637.

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.

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
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
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.

n. 638.

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

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.

McHugh–Callan, Moral Theology

John A. McHugh, O.P., and Charles J. Callan, O.P. — 11 passages

Vol. I, Pt. II, Q. I, Art. 2. The Sins Against F…, Dangerous Communication

n. 887.

The Sin of Blasphemy

The Sin of Blasphemy.—So far we have spoken of the sins of unbelief that are contrary to the internal act of faith. We now come to the sins that are contrary to the external act, or profession of faith. These sins are of two kinds: (a) The less serious sin is that of ordinary denial of the faith, that is, the assertion that some article of faith is false, or that some contrary error is true. This sin will be treated below in 913 sqq. on the commandments of faith. (b) The more serious sin is blasphemy, that is, the denial to God of something that is His; or the ascription to God of what does not belong to Him. Of this sin we shall speak now.

Vol. I, Pt. II, Q. I, Art. 2. The Sins Against F…, The Sin of Blasphemy

n. 889.

Internal blasphemy does not differ from unbelief or disrespect for God. We are concerned here, therefore, only with external blasphemy, which is contrary to the external profession of faith. External blasphemy is opposed to faith either directly (by denying what is of faith) or indirectly (by showing disrespect to what is of faith), and hence it is either heretical or non-heretical.

(a) Heretical blasphemy affirms about God something false, or denies about Him something true. The false affirmation is made directly, when some created imperfection is attributed to God, or indirectly, when some divine perfection is attributed to a creature. Example: It is heretical blasphemy to affirm that God is a tyrant or the cause of sin, or that man is able to overcome God. It is also heretical blasphemy to deny that God is able to perform miracles, that His testimony is true, etc.

(b) Non-heretical blasphemy affirms or denies something about God according to truth, but in a mocking or blaming way. This sin is opposed, therefore, to reverence rather than to faith, and will be treated later among the sins against the virtue of religion (see Vol. II). Example: A person in anger at God says scornfully: “God is good!”

n. 894.

Rules for Interpreting Cases of Doubtful Blasphemy

Rules for Interpreting Cases of Doubtful Blasphemy.—(a) Custom or usage is a better guide than etymology or grammar in discovering whether a blasphemous meaning is contained in certain common expressions of an ambiguous character. Examples: According to signification the phrase, “Sacred Name of God,” is harmless and might be a pious ejaculation, but according to the sense in which it is taken in French it curses God and is blasphemous. According to signification, the expression “Ye gods” in English, “Thousand names of God” in French, “Thousand Sacraments” in German, are blasphemous; but according to the sense in which they are used by the people they merely express surprise, and are at most a venial sin of irreverence. The English language as a whole is singularly free from blasphemous expressions, just as English classic literature as a whole is singularly free from obscenity.

(b) The dispositions or feelings of the user are a better index of the presence or absence of blasphemy than the mere words, if the latter are capable of various senses. If doubt persists about the sense of an ambiguous expression that could be blasphemous, it may be held that no blasphemy was intended. Examples: Titus, a good man, is so annoyed trying to correct his children that he exclaims: “Why did the Lord ever send me such pests?” Balbus, who is a hater of religion, answers him: “Who is to blame if they are pests?” Since Titus is habitually religious and Balbus habitually irreligious, the question of the former sounds like irritation, the question of the latter like blasphemy. Claudius is a very religious-minded man, but he meets with a series of calamities which so stun him that he exclaims: “I must be only a step-child of God. Certainly, He cares little for me. Why did He ever create me?” The sentiment seems to be one of grief and wonder rather than of insult to God. Balbus is very devoted to his mother, and often addresses her in hyperbolic language, saying that he adores her, that she is the goddess at Whose shrine he worships, his supreme beatitude, etc. Taken literally, these expressions are blasphemous, but as used by Balbus they are harmless.

n. 895.

The Sinfulness of Blasphemy

The Sinfulness of Blasphemy.—(a) From its very nature (i.e., from the importance of the rights it attacks and the goods it injures), blasphemy is a mortal sin, since it outrages the Majesty of God, and destroys the virtues of religion, love of God, and frequently faith itself. In the Old Testament it was punished with death (Lev., xxiv. 15 sqq.), and Canon 2323 of the Code prescribes that blasphemy be punished as the Ordinary shall decide. It is also a crime at common law and generally by statute, as tending to a breach of the peace and being a public nuisance or destructive of the foundations of civil society; when printed, it is a libel.

(b) Unbelief is the greatest of sins after hatred of God (see 820). But blasphemy is the greatest of the sins against faith, since to inner unbelief it adds external denial and insult.

(c) Blasphemy cannot become a venial sin on account of the smallness of the matter involved, for even slight slander or scorn becomes great when its object is God Himself. Example: It is blasphemous to say that our Lord was not above small or venial imperfections, or to show contempt for even one of the least of the Saints as such.

(d) Blasphemy cannot become a venial sin on account of unpremeditation, if at the time it is committed one is aware of its character, just as murder does not become a venial sin, because one killed another in a sudden fit of anger. Example: Sempronius has the habit when driving his refractory mules of shouting at them: “You creatures of the devil!” A priest on hearing this admonishes Sempronius that the expression is blasphemous. But Sempronius continues to use it whenever the mules irritate him, making no effort to improve.

n. 897.

Different kinds of blasphemy must be noted with reference to the duty of confession.

[a] There are three distinct species of blasphemy—non-heretical, which is opposed to the virtue of religion; heretical, which is opposed to religion and faith; diabolical, which is opposed to religion, faith and the precept to love God. These species should be distinguished in confession. Examples: Titus, angered because his Patron Saint did not obtain a favor for him, ironically turns the Saint’s picture to the wall, saying: “You have great influence with God!” (non-heretical blasphemy). Balbus in similar circumstances said: “I have lost all faith in Saints” (heretical blasphemy). Sempronia, Whose child has just died, rebels against God and calls Him a cruel monster (diabolical blasphemy).

(b) Circumstances may aggravate the malice of blasphemy. Blasphemy that is directly against God Himself is worse than blasphemy against the Saints; blasphemy against the Blessed Virgin is worse than blasphemy against other friends of God; blasphemy that ascribes evil to God is greater than blasphemy that denies Him some perfection; blasphemy that excuses itself or boasts is worse than blasphemy that is more concealed; blasphemy that expressly intends to dishonor God is graver than blasphemy that only implicitly intends this. Some authors require that aggravating circumstances be mentioned in confession, but others say this is not necessary (see Vol. II).

n. 898.

According to the causes from which they proceed (see 250), blasphemies are divided into three kinds: (a) blasphemy against the Father, which is contumely spoken against God out of passion or weakness, as when one being annoyed uses what he knows to be blasphemy; (b) blasphemy against the Son, which is contumely against God spoken out of ignorance. Thus, St. Paul said of himself that he had been a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and contumelious, but that he obtained mercy, because he did it ignorantly in unbelief (I Tim., i. 12, 13); (c) blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which is contumely against God spoken out of sheer malice. Such was the sin of the Jews, who attributed the divine works of Christ to the prince of demons (Matt, xii. 31).

n. 899.

To the Holy Ghost are appropriated the supernatural gifts of God that prevent or remove sin; and, as these can be reduced to six, there are also six sins against the Holy Ghost (i.e., six kinds of contemptuous disregard of spiritual life). The expression of this inner contempt is a blasphemy.

(a) Man is kept from sin by the hope mingled with fear which the thought of God, as both merciful and just, excites in him. Hence, despair and presumption which remove these divine preventives of sin are blasphemies against the Holy Ghost.

(b) Man is kept from sin, next, by the light God gives him to know the truth and by the grace He diffuses that all may perform good. Hence, resistance to the known truth and displeasure at the progress of God’s kingdom are also sins against the Spirit of truth and holiness.

(c) Man is kept from sin by the shamefulness of sin itself and the nothingness of the passing satisfaction it affords; for the former inclines him to be ashamed of sin committed, or to repent, while the latter tends to make him tire of sin and give it up. Hence, the resolve not to grieve over sin and obstinate adherence to such a resolve are also sins against the Holy Ghost.

n. 900.

There is no sin which, if repented of, cannot be forgiven in this life. How then does our Lord say that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come (Matt., xii. 31)?

(a) The sins against the Holy Ghost are unpardonable according to their nature, just as some diseases are incurable according to their nature, because not only do they set up an evil condition, but they also remove or resist those things that could lead to betterment. Thus, if one despairs, or presumes, or resists truth or good, or determines not to abandon error or evil, one shuts out the remedy of repentance, which is necessary for pardon; whereas, if one sins through passion or ignorance, faith and hope remain and help one to repentance.

(b) The sins against the Holy Ghost are not unpardonable, if we consider the omnipotence of God. Just as God can cure miraculously a disease that is humanly incurable, so can He pardon a sin which, according to its nature, is unpardonable; for He is able to bring hope and repentance to those who were in despair, for example. Hence, we repeat, there is no sin which, if repented of, cannot be forgiven in this life.

n. 901.

Does one arrive at the state of malicious sin or blasphemy suddenly or gradually? (a) Malice in sin (i.e., the willing choice of evil by one who is not weakened by ignorance or passion) is sometimes due to a disorder in the will itself which has a strong inclination towards wrong, as when long-continued habit has made sin attractive. It is clear that in such cases one does not arrive at blasphemy suddenly, Example: Titus blasphemes with readiness and without remorse. This argues that he is an adept and not a beginner, for readiness and strong attachment are signs of practice. (b) Malice in sin is sometimes due to the fact that the will has lost certain protections against sin, and hence chooses sin readily and gladly, as happens when a sin against the Holy Ghost has been committed. Generally, the contempt of God’s gifts contained in sins against the Holy Ghost does not come suddenly, but follows as the climax of a progressive deterioration (Prov., xviii. 3); but, since man is free and sin very alluring, it is not impossible that one should suddenly become a blasphemer, especially if one had not been careful before in other matters. It is next to impossible, however, that a religious-minded man should all at once become a blasphemer or malicious sinner.

n. 902.

Remedies Against Blasphemy

Remedies Against Blasphemy.—(a) Those who blaspheme maliciously should be admonished of the enormity of their sin, as well as the absurdity of defying the Almighty (Ps. ii. 1, 4). Prayers and ejaculations in praise of God are a suitable penance for them. (b) Those who blaspheme through habit or out of sudden anger or passion should be told that at least they cause great scandal, and make themselves ridiculous. A good practice for overcoming habit or sudden outbursts is that some mortification or almsdeed or litany should be performed each time blasphemy is uttered.

n. 903.

Absolution of Blasphemers

Absolution of Blasphemers.—(a) If blasphemy is not heretical, no censure or reservation is incurred under the general law, and every confessor may absolve; (b) if blasphemy is heretical, excommunication is incurred under the conditions given above in 834, and absolution may be granted as explained there.

Bucceroni, Institutions of Moral Theology

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 19 passages

Vol. I, On Sins and Virtues, V. On the Capital Vices · Vol. I, On the Precept of Faith · Vol. I, On the Second Precept of t…, II. On Blasphemy

Vol. I, On Sins and Virtues, V. On the Capital Vices

n. 342.

What are the daughters of anger? - Some are from the heart: 1. Indignation, which is an inordinate affection from the fact that someone reckons himself treated unworthily by such a person. It is commonly venial. Indeed, if it proceeds from a just judgment of reason, it is nothing. Nevertheless it could be mortal if it increased up to deliberate hatred and grave contempt of the person. 2. Swelling of mind, by which someone morosely thinks out diverse ways of revenge, and by those thoughts puffs up his mind. What kind of sin it is must be judged from the quality of the revenge which is thought out. - Some are in the mouth: 1. Shouting, when an angry person raises his voice, pouring forth many things inordinately and confusedly. It is commonly venial, unless something else is added. 2. Blasphemy against God, and it is mortal. 3. Contumely against men, by which someone casts some evil upon his neighbor, with the intention of dishonoring him. 4. Malediction, by which someone wishes and imprecates evil upon another, under the account of evil. - Some are in deed, as quarrels, fights, seditions, wounds. "Quarrels, by which are understood all harms which are inflicted in deed on neighbors from anger." S. Th. 2. 2. q. 158, a. 7. When "someone intends to harm another, with the latter knowing and resisting, this is imported under the name of quarrel." S. Th. 2. 2. q. 42, a. 1. Quarrels, if they do not exceed measure, as also slight fights, are venial; otherwise, if they progress to seditions, wounds, killings. And these are commonly mortal sins on the part of the one beginning the quarrel; for the other can defend himself with the moderation of blameless defense. L. 80, 83; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 40, 41, 42.

Contumely: From its genus it is mortal. It is only venial if it is small, or only material without the mind of dishonoring, provided that no notable injury to the neighbor's honor follows. And thus many parents are excused at least from mortal sin when they call their children asses, etc.; likewise women, children, and men of the lowest sort, burdening one another with insults, because, since credit is not given to them, honor is not gravely injured. Nor indeed is it a sin if it is done with the mind of correcting, humbling, or for another reason. And thus a superior can cast forth some word otherwise contumelious. Yet in this one can sin if the mode of due correction is exceeded, or the subject is more gravely dishonored than he deserved. Likewise, if for the sake of a joke, through fitting recreation, light defects are cast forth, it is pleasantness, according to S. Th. 2. 2. q. 72, a. 2, provided the other is not saddened, nor moved to anger. Contumely is also done by deed, both indirectly, as if you trample or burn the image or letters of another, etc., and directly, as if you beat an honorable man with a club, set horns at his door, or represent something which injures the honor of another.

To this belongs mocking, derision, and ridicule, when it is done by signs, as by wrinkling the nose, stretching out the lips, etc., intending the neighbor's confusion; and if this is grave, or at least the neighbor is gravely saddened by it, they are mortal. - Concerning these things note that one who has injured another's honor by contumely is bound to restore it, even if reputation has not been injured. But this can be done either through an honorable and friendly greeting, or an invitation to table, or a petition for pardon, sometimes even on bended knees and before witnesses, according as the injury was grave. It is not necessary to explain in confession the varied quality of mortal contumely. L. 81, 82. "Malediction, of which we now speak, is that by which evil is pronounced against someone either by commanding or by wishing. But to will, or by command to move toward, the evil of another, according to itself repugns to charity, by which we love our neighbor; and so according to its genus it is a mortal sin, and so much the graver, the more we are bound to love and revere the person whom we curse.... Nevertheless it happens that a word of malediction uttered is a venial sin, either because of the smallness of the evil which one imprecates upon another by cursing, or also because of the affection of the one who utters the words of malediction, while from a light movement, or jest, or from some surreption, he utters such words, because sins of words are weighed especially from the affection." S. Th. 2. 2. q. 76, a. 3; L. 83.

Vol. I, On the Precept of Faith

n. 369.

Is there also given a precept of the external act of faith? As to the external act of faith, there is given a negative precept, prohibiting the denial of the true faith or the profession of a false one. Likewise there is given an affirmative precept, obliging sometimes to confess the faith even with danger to life. Proof of the first part. To deny the true faith, or to profess a false one, is to deny God and Christ. But Christ says: He who shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. Matt. 10:33. Proof of the second part. For ordered charity, which we owe to God and neighbor, requires that, when God's honor and the spiritual utility of the neighbor would be withdrawn privatively or contrarily, for professing the faith we should sometimes spurn temporal goods and even life. - Privatively, as if therefore great honor to God and great utility to neighbor would cease. Contrarily, as if otherwise God would be affected by injury, or the neighbor by grave evil, e.g., if the conversion or perversion of others, contempt of religion, scandal, depended on it. Suarez, d. 4, s. 2; L. 10; Laymann, c. 11, n. 2; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 3, aa. 1, 2; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., nn. 1647, 1648, 1653, 1657, 1683, 1827.

By positive law all to be baptized are bound to profession of faith, either by themselves or through sponsors; converted heretics; Bishops before consecration, and before the dispatch of letters of their own provision, Trid. s. 25, C. 2, de R.; Sixtus V, C. Romanus; Gregory XIV, C. Onus Apostolicae; all regular Prelates, Pius IV, C. Iniunctum nobis, id. Nov. 1564; nevertheless this Constitution has not been received in use as to those regular Prelates who are not immediately set over government by the Holy See, but either by chapter or by a higher superior, Thesaurus, de Poenis, c. 1, v. Fides, cf. 550; those about to have ecclesiastical benefices, and those who must assemble in a diocesan synod, Trid. l. c.; likewise those provided with a benefice with care of souls, within two months from possession obtained, before the Bishop himself, or if he is impeded, his vicar general, otherwise they do not make the fruits their own; canons and dignities of a cathedral church, who likewise within two months from begun possession are bound to do this also in chapter; otherwise neither do they make the fruits their own, although they can gain distributions for their choir assistance, S. C. C. 1726; Trid. s. 24, C. 12, de R.; Primates, Archbishops, Bishops in the first provincial synod which they attend, Trid. s. 25, C. 2, de R.; those to be chosen for the government and chairs of Universities and public gymnasia; and also those to be promoted to scholastic degrees of doctor, master, etc., Pius IV, C. In Sacrosancta, 13 Nov. 1654, § V. But Doctors and Masters of Universities at the beginning of any year must issue a solemn oath by which they are bound to hand down orthodox doctrine, Trid. s. 25, C. 2, de R. It belongs to the Rector or Prefect to see that this is observed. - Profession of faith can be emitted immediately after institution or collation of a benefice, and before possession, S. C. C. 11 May 1782; but cf. here below, paragraph Non manet, and it must altogether be made in the form proposed by Pius IV, C. Iniunctum nobis. But a few things are to be added, so that account may also be taken of the Decrees of the Vatican Council, S. C. C. 20 Jan. 1877. Made otherwise, it will not profit toward avoiding the canonical penalties laid against those who omit this profession. Conc. Rom. Bened. XIII, tit. 1, c. 1; Bened. XIV, Inst. 60; Ferrar., v. Fidei professio; L. 41; Collectan. cit., n. 1670; E. M. 364.

Those who are announced as doctors in Sacred Scripture are bound to furnish an oath according to the prescribed formula approved by the Motu Proprio of Pius X, 29 June 1910. Likewise an oath, according to the prescribed formula, must be furnished by all those who are listed in the Motu Proprio of Pius X, Sacrorum antistitum, 1 Sept. 1910, a profession of faith having been premised; - and also, by reason of office, synodal examiners and parish-priest consultors and those who are listed in C. Sapienti consilio, Order of Service in the Roman Curia, and others, concerning all of whom cf. below n. 550. This obligation of profession of faith seems grave, unless it has been derogated by legitimate custom. The penalty of restoring the fruits probably needs a declaratory sentence of the delict. Sanchez, l. 2, c. 5; Tamburini, l. 2, c. 1, D. 12, n. 4. The faculty made by the Council of Trent no longer remains, by which those provided with any benefices whatever can emit profession of faith within two months from the day of possession obtained; and consequently in the future profession of faith must be emitted before possession of the benefice. S. C. Cons. 1 Mar. 1911.

In external confession of faith and divine worship, the rite of one's own church, Latin or Oriental, is to be observed. Cf. for the Ruthenian rite constituted in the United States of North America, Apostolic Letter of Pius X, 18 Kal. 1907, and for the same rite constituted in the Canadian region, Decr. S. C. de Pr. I., 18 Aug. 1913. E. M. 365.

Blasphemy is opposed to confession of faith. For by it man in heart or mouth, according to intellect or affection, attributes to God things which do not befit him, or denies things which befit him. The vice of blasphemy thus pertains to unbelief. Speech concerning it will occur in the second precept of the Decalogue. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 13.

Vol. I, On the Second Precept of t…, II. On Blasphemy

n. 531.

What is blasphemy? - Blasphemy is defined: speech of malediction against God. By speech are comprehended not only words, but also thoughts and deeds which inflict insult upon God; as if someone tramples a Crucifix underfoot, or emits spittle toward heaven as toward the seat of God. Hence blasphemy is opposed to the virtue of religion, since it is directly contrary to God's honor and worship. Malediction here is not restricted to the imprecation of some evil, but is extended generally to speech of any evil whatever, so that there are comprehended insult, railing, reproach, opprobrium, mockery, derision, jeering, illusion, irony, imprecation, any derogation from the excellent divine goodness and divine honor, whether by denying something of God which belongs to him, or by asserting of him what does not belong to him. Against God, namely considered either in himself or in his Saints and creatures in order to God himself, insofar as in them some divine perfection shines forth, for example sanctity, goodness, wisdom. L. 121, 122, 125; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 13, a. 1; q. 14, a. 1.

n. 532.

Note: If the discussion is of reservation or of other penalties inflicted upon blasphemy, only oral blasphemy is properly understood. For the word blasphemy then is to be used strictly. Moreover, in the common usage of men, blasphemy signifies a vice of the tongue, and it is opposed to the praise of God, which is exhibited by words alone. Therefore blasphemy of deed, by which rather the honor of God is injured, is not properly blasphemy, but is reduced to blasphemy as to the character of the injury against God. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 13, a. 2 ad 2; q. 103, a. 3; Struggl 34; Ithur., Cas. 30; Suarez, de Relig., tr. 3, l. 1, c. 4, n. 1.

n. 533.

You will resolve: If someone from anger against a man, or by exclaiming to exaggerate the truth, names the Saints, the Blessed Virgin, the death of God, the Body of Christ, the Blood of Christ, the Head of Christ, and other honorable members of Christ, per se he does not commit blasphemy, but only an unworthy usurpation of the divine name. Per se; for otherwise it is if these are uttered from anger or indignation against God by way of contempt, or if among the hearers God and his sacred things are judged to be dishonored. Nor is it blasphemy to say: I deny God, if I do not strike you; for he who speaks thus wishes only to signify that he certainly will strike. Nor to say: this is true as God; for created truth is not equated with uncreated truth, but only a certain hyperbolic likeness is implied. But it would be blasphemy if it were in fact intended to signify that the truth is as great according to equality as it is in the truth of faith.

On the contrary, it is blasphemy to say: may the death of Christ or the blood of God destroy you; may the sacraments destroy you; because injury is inflicted upon the death, blood, and sacraments of Christ, which are ordered not to the ruin but to the salvation of men. Consequently it is blasphemy to say: may God damn you. Likewise it is blasphemy to say that one wishes to act with God unwilling, and similar things. It is blasphemy to say: God has entirely forgotten me; why did God create me? Except, however, if these are uttered in a human manner of speaking, from lightness, or to show the gravity of grief or weariness, as is often accustomed to happen. But those are never to be excused from sin who advertently and seriously say: God is unjust; God unjustly burdens me with tribulations; he unjustly permits the evil to be happy in the world. Voit 519; L. 123-126, 128; Aertnys, ed. 2, n. 67, q. 6; Lehmkuhl, Cas., ed. 3, n. 218, 336, note.

n. 534.

Of how many kinds is blasphemy? - Blasphemy is first distinguished: 1. into direct or indirect, according as the dishonoring of God is intended directly and formally by the blasphemer, or, although it is not intended in itself, is nevertheless contained in deeds or sayings injurious to God, which are uttered by him with the intention, for example, of joking, of manifesting anger, with advertence to the sense which the words contain. 2. Into immediate or mediate, according as it immediately affects God himself, or only mediately, namely by dishonoring the Saints or sacred things by words. 3. Into heretical, which is also against faith; imprecative or execrative, which is also against the charity of God; and merely reproachful, according as it contains heresy, or imprecation, or mere contempt of God, although it pronounces true things, but from anger and an evil mind against God. L. 122, 123, 126; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 13, a. 1 ad 2.

n. 535.

What kind of sin is blasphemy? - Any formal and deliberate blasphemy, whether direct or indirect, whether immediate or mediate, is a mortal sin from its whole genus. The reason is that any derogation from divine goodness is a grave injury inflicted upon the divine Majesty. Hence Lev. 24:16: The man who has cursed his God shall bear his sin; and he who has blasphemed the name of the Lord shall die the death. Insofar as it derogates from divine goodness by denying something of God which belongs to him, or by asserting of him what does not belong to him, it is opposed to confession of faith, and pertains to infidelity, or to sin against faith. Insofar as it again derogates from divine goodness by wishing evil to God, it is against charity toward God. Insofar as it is opposed to divine praise and divine honor, it is against religion and is a sin of irreligiosity. St. Pius V, Const. Cum primum, 6 Kal. Apr. 1566, sec. 10; Struggl 36; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 13, aa. 2-4; E. M.

n. 536.

Note: Blasphemy, as any other sin, can become venial from imperfection of the act, namely from defect of advertence or of perfect consent. To the point is S. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 13, a. 2 ad 3: "Blasphemy can proceed without deliberation from surreption in two ways: in one way because someone does not advert that what he says is blasphemy, which can happen when someone suddenly from 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 notion of blasphemy." Direct blasphemy brings a merely aggravating circumstance over indirect blasphemy, and therefore it is not necessarily to be expressed in confession. For that circumstance of direct voluntary, as merely subjective, indeed makes the act more voluntary with respect to the evil object, but does not tend toward a new objective malice.

n. 537.

You will resolve: He does not sin gravely who pronounces words which are indeed blasphemous in themselves, but so halved or corrupted that he does not attend to their true sense; for example, he who says: I deny Di! I deny Diana! For these no longer have the character of blasphemy. L. 123.

n. 538.

Is the intention of dishonoring God altogether necessary for blasphemy? - For perfect blasphemy, by reason of the act, an express and explicit intention of dishonoring God is not necessary, but an implicit intention suffices, which is present in indirect blasphemy. The reason is that the indirectly voluntary suffices for sin. Therefore he who advertently pronounces blasphemous words, whence in reality there is dishonoring of God, for whatever cause he does this, voluntarily admits the sin of blasphemy and becomes guilty of it. Therefore he who knowingly and willingly pronounces blasphemous words is not excused by the fact that he did not have the intention of contemning God, but did it moved by anger or despair, for the sake of frightening, or for the sake of empty solace. Reuter 442; L. 124, 127.

n. 539.

Do blasphemies uttered against God and against the Saints differ in species? - Busembaum with others probably affirms, because the persons are distinct to whom their own honor is owed. Bonacina, Sanchez, and others probably deny, because the Saints are intimately connected with God, whence injury inflicted upon them is referred to God himself. Finally the Salmanticenses and others hold that besides proper malice against latria, it contains another malice distinct in species against dulia.

But since those who blaspheme the Saints, more truly, commonly speaking, intend to affect them with injury not precisely on account of their own excellence, but insofar as they are referred to God; therefore they sin not against dulia but against latria, and therefore they are not bound to explain whether they blasphemed God or the Saints. But if something is uttered against the Saints, but only as men once dwelling on earth, it will be only against dulia. Indeed it will even be only venial if it is done from jest, for example, if someone calls Saints Crispin and Crispinian cobblers; but, on the contrary, it will be mortal if it is done from contempt, from hatred, or from indignation against the Saints. Struggl 37; Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, n. 277 seqq.; L. 124, 125, 132; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 13, a. 1 ad 2.

n. 540.

Is blasphemy uttered in jest grave? - These words are from Reuter, n. 442: "Blasphemy is grave... if someone in jest says blasphemous words, where among the hearers dishonoring of God is joined to them." Therefore grave fault will be absent where among the hearers that dishonoring is absent. L. 124.

n. 541.

Is it blasphemy to curse creatures? - It is blasphemy to curse creatures with relation to God, for example, rains or winds as commanded by God, or with the word of God added; likewise to curse a creature which of itself has a special relation to God, for example, our soul, the Catholic faith, heaven, and similar things. But otherwise, as generally happens, if indignation is borne toward creatures without relation to God. "To curse irrational things insofar as they are creatures of God is the sin of blasphemy; but to curse them, considered according to themselves, is idle and vain," namely it is venial. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 76, a. 2. But per se there is no sin if irrational creatures are cursed because of harm brought, for example, a storm, because it devastated vineyards. Thus David without sin cursed the mountains of Gilboa, namely on account of the slaughter of the people which had happened on them. To curse rational creatures, to whom from charity we ought to wish good, is against the same charity.

L. 128; S. Th. l. c., a. 4 ad 1.

n. 542.

You will resolve: It is not grave simply to curse an hour, day, or year, unless the word holy is added; or unless the day of itself bears before itself something special of sanctity, such as Easter day, etc. The reason is that whatever imports sanctity is per se referred to God, who is the author of all sanctity; and the utterance of words by which a certain special sanctity is explained, at least indirectly, speaking per se, is referred to God.

To curse beasts, winds, etc., is regularly a light fault; nor regularly, in anger, is the mind present that the curse be carried into execution; and it is an act of impatience. Likewise "in anger to imprecate upon others a demon, hail, thunderbolts, etc...., for the most part, at least when it is said against those who are loved by the angry person, on account of sudden commotion and inadvertence and defect of serious will, is only venial.... But it is grave if subjects thus curse superiors, children parents, even only materially, especially to their face; because it is grave against due reverence." L. 130. Cf. ibid., n. 126 seqq., Epist. Resp. and n. 134; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 76, a. 3.

542.bis Note: To curse is the same as to speak evil. And this is done either by way of simple enunciation, by reporting the evil of another, which pertains to detraction; or by way of cause, either by effecting something or by moving others through command to do something; or by way of the expression of a certain desiring affection. "In those two modes in which evil is spoken by way of commanding or by way of wishing, by the same reason something is licit or illicit. For if someone commands or wishes the evil of another insofar as it is evil, as though intending the evil itself, thus to curse in either mode will be illicit; and this is to curse, speaking per se. But if someone commands or wishes the evil of another under the aspect of good, thus it is licit, nor will it be cursing, speaking per se, but per accidens, because the principal intention of the speaker is not borne toward evil, but toward good. But it happens that some evil is spoken by commanding or wishing under the aspect of a twofold good: sometimes indeed under the aspect of the just, and thus a judge licitly curses him upon whom he commands a just punishment to be inflicted; and thus also the Church curses by anathematizing, just as the Prophets in the Scriptures sometimes imprecate evils upon sinners, as though conforming their will to divine justice, although imprecations of this sort can also be understood by way of foretelling. But sometimes some evil is spoken under the aspect of the useful, as when someone wishes some sinner to suffer some sickness or some impediment, either that he himself may be made better, or at least that he may cease from harming others." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 76, a. 1. "Blessing or cursing properly pertains to that thing to which something good or evil can happen, namely to a rational creature. But good or evil is said to happen to irrational creatures in order to the rational creature, on account of whom they are. But they are ordered to him in many ways. In one way indeed by way of assistance, insofar as human necessity is assisted from irrational creatures. And in this way the Lord said to man, Gen. 3:17, Cursed is the earth in your work, namely so that man might be punished through its sterility. And thus also is understood what is had in Deut. 28:5, Blessed are your barns, and below, v. 17, Cursed is your barn... In another way an irrational creature is ordered to the rational by way of signification; and thus the Lord cursed the fig tree in signification of Judea. In a third way an irrational creature is ordered to the rational by way of containing, namely of time or place; and thus Job cursed the day of his birth, on account of original guilt which he contracted by being born, and on account of the punishments following; and on account of this also David can be understood to have cursed the mountains of Gilboa, 2 Kings 1, namely on account of the slaughter of the people which had happened on them." S. Th. l. c., a. 2.

A licit curse, and one conformed to the divine will, as being just, does not lack its effect. Hence "the curse of a mother uproots the foundations." Ecclus. 3:11, namely, "it uproots houses down to the foundations, that is, it plainly destroys and extinguishes his offspring and family and its riches and honors... An example of a curse is in Ham... St. Augustine relates a similar example, lib. 22, de Civit., c. 8, and more fully in Serm. 34, concerning a mother who, cursing ten sons, made them all trembling, miserable, and wandering. Thus today we see sons and illustrious families, which seemed likely to endure for ages, fall and be extinguished." Cornelius a Lapide on the same place. Likewise, "the prayer of him who curses you in the bitterness of his soul will be heard," namely of the poor man. "But he who made him will hear him." Ecclus. 4:6; "that is to say, God the Creator will hear him as his afflicted creature, despised by you and abandoned to you. Therefore he himself, as advocate and father of the poor and orphans, will take up his just complaint and cause against you, and will condemn and punish you." Cornelius a Lapide on the same place. But anyone can pray away from himself the evils of a curse both by penance and by prayer, conciliating God's blessing to himself.

n. 543.

Is it blasphemy to curse the whole world? - St. Liguori, n. 129, affirms, because just as to swear by creatures in which the divine attributes shine forth more is a true oath, so to curse them is true blasphemy, because God is indirectly contemned in them. "Yet in reality such a sense is scarcely accustomed to occur to the mind of the one uttering these things." Thus Gury 304. But the same St. Alphonsus, l. c., thinks the opposite: "Ordinarily speaking, I judge that country people who curse the world for the most part sin gravely, while they accuse themselves of such a curse with grave horror." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 76, a. 4 ad 1.

n. 544.

Is it blasphemy to curse the dead and the devil? - R. To the first. Negative, yet in that case in which the mind of those cursing is not borne to this, that he curse them insofar as they are creatures of God. Indeed for the most part this is not even mortal, because through this no grave injury is inflicted upon them, either in themselves or from the mind of those uttering it: not in itself, because the word dead is more to be referred to the body which dies than to the soul which always lives; or at most it signifies men who have finished life, who can be either saved or damned. Not from the mind of those uttering it, because those cursing the dead in no way intend to pray evils upon the souls of the dead, but rather to reproach the living, to whom they are accustomed to refer their curses as an injury. L. 130. R. To the second. Tamburini rightly thinks that to curse the devil is rarely mortal sin, because he is always accustomed to be cursed as the author of evils or as the enemy of God; in this manner, abstracting from the act of impatience, he says that it is not even venial. L. 120; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 76, a. 1 ad 4.

n. 545.

Are these French expressions blasphemous: "Nom de Dieu! Noms de Noms! Mille Noms! Sacré Nom!" without an addition, etc.? - R. Negative per se, even if they are uttered in anger, unless the anger is borne against God himself, or unless there is present a blasphemous intention, which is generally absent. For these words contain no blasphemy in themselves. Therefore they will be only venial on account of the vain usurpation of the name of God; but if the name of God is employed in these formulas neither explicitly nor implicitly, they will per se be free from all fault.

n. 546.

Is the French expression "S. Nom de D." blasphemy? - Some answer: affirmative per se, because those words, by reason of the common acceptance of the faithful, are insulting to God. Others answer: negative per se, unless a blasphemous intention explicitly, or at least implicitly, intervenes, because those words in their obvious sense contain no insult of God in themselves; for in reality they signify the blessed name of God. Therefore in practice all those who utter words of this sort are not easily to be accused of mortal sin. For it is certain, experience being witness, that not a few, especially the uneducated, do not apprehend grave malice in them. Therefore the confessor should attend first to the varied common usage of places, which could well have determined the meaning of the word sacred to signify cursed. Likewise he should attend to the various circumstances of penitents. "Sins of words are especially to be judged from the intention of the speaker." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 73, a. 2.

n. 547.

Note: In doubt whether some expression is or is not blasphemy, it is by no means to be taken as blasphemy. L. 129, 130. If the words according to themselves express no diminution of divine honor, it is not to be judged blasphemy, nor mortal sin. L. 130. If the meaning is doubtful, then attention must be given to the intention and affection of the one uttering the words. L. 130. The uneducated often confuse with blasphemy any less becoming words and curses against beasts and men. Therefore they are to be taught, "lest so many souls perish miserably from ignorance on account of an erroneous conscience of mortal sin." L. 131.

Bucceroni, Cases of Conscience

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 10 passages

48. On Blasphemy

Caprasius, a shepherd, often signifies his anger against the goats fleeing to the mountain by exclaiming: Name, Great Name, A Thousand Names, Names of Names. Sometimes, however, also by exclaiming, he says angrily: Blessed Name, Sacred Name. And likewise sometimes he exclaims: Name of God, Name of Jesus, Name of Mary, Name of all the Saints.

Q. 1. What is the vain usurpation of the Name of God, and what kind of sin? - 2. What as to the case?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 527 seqq. To the second: Caprasius, by exclaiming, Name, Great Name, etc., is free from the sin of blasphemy. For these locutions are not locutions of malediction against God, neither of themselves nor from the circumstances of the case. Not of themselves, because in some the name of God does not intervene; but in others, in which it does intervene, no injurious word is had. Not from the circumstances, because Caprasius is angry neither against God nor against the Saints, but only against the fleeing goats. G. 293; I. M. 533.

Hypparchus accuses himself in sacramental confession that he is often accustomed to blaspheme, uttering true blasphemies. But to excuse himself he adds that he does this by no means from the intention of reproaching God, but only of spurring horses, or sometimes of scolding his wife or children.

Q. 1. What is blasphemy? - 2. What as to the case?

To the first, cf. I. M. 531 seqq. - To the second: Hypparchus is guilty of blasphemy. Nor indeed is he excused from the fact that he did not intend to reproach God. For from this very fact that someone knowingly pronounces blasphemous words, if not directly and explicitly, at least indirectly and implicitly he wills to reproach God. "Nevertheless it must be confessed that in practice those who use blasphemous words are often excused from mortal sin, whether on account of inadvertence, or on account of good faith, etc." G. 295; I. M. 535, 536, 538.

Aman, a debtor, after many and useless promises already made beforehand, that he would pay the money owed as soon as possible, was again promising his creditor John, and was invoking his own faith as an honest and noble man. John, moved by anger because of the debt often promised to be paid and never paid up to now, began to curse the faith of Aman, saying: cursed be your faith, which is always deceived and deceives; may accident seize you and your faith; may the devil himself seize you with your faith. But a little afterward John, thinking about what he had said, immediately approaches the confessor, accusing his sin. But after hearing the confession the confessor says to John: I cannot, my son, absolve you, or at least I cannot absolve you immediately; for the Angelic Doctor, 2. 2, q. 13, a. 3, says: "blasphemy is the greatest sin." Go therefore in peace, and return after a month.

Q. 1. What is practically to be held concerning blasphemy from anger? - 2. What as to the case?

R. To the first: "Here it must be noted that some blasphemers of this sort say that they did not advert to the malice of blasphemy. And some doctors say that these, sometimes, on account of the impulse of anger or contracted habit, can blaspheme without advertence. But I think... that there is always present in blaspheming some advertence, at least confused, concerning the malice of that utterance; for anger, or habit, ordinarily does not so darken the intellect that it is utterly not adverted to the malice of blasphemy, although this itself is not known reflexively." Lig. l. 3, n. 127; I. M. 53, 57. Cf. I. M. 533, 536.

Vol. I, Treatise On the Precepts o…, On the Second Precept of t…, Ch. I, Article I. On the Vain Usurpation of the Most Holy Name of God · Vol. I, Treatise On the Precepts o…, On the Second Precept of t…, Ch. I, Article II. On Blasphemy

To the second. The confessor indeed erred first by judging that the aforesaid locutions contained blasphemies. For, as is evident, no word injurious to God is contained in them. The aforesaid locutions contain only malediction and contumely or reproach, and imprecation. But since John was moved by anger and, immediately thinking about what he had said, approached the confessor; and Aman had often broken faith; neither does that malediction of deceitful faith contain grave guilt, nor does that contumely or reproach contain a grave wounding of honor, nor was that imprecation uttered with a serious and malevolent mind. Wherefore John seems to be excused not only from the guilt of blasphemy, but also from the guilt of grave sin. And, since John otherwise does not lack due dispositions, since, fearing the sin committed, he immediately runs to expiate it in the sacrament of penance, the confessor indeed acts badly by denying or deferring absolution to him. And although Aman had been guilty of blasphemy, and blasphemy is the greatest sin according to its genus, it does not therefore follow that absolution is to be denied or deferred. - I. M. 342, 541, 542, 1514-1516.

Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)

Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J.; notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. — 41 passages

Vol. I, Treatise On the Precepts o…, On the Second Precept of t…, Ch. I, Article I. On the Vain Usurpation of the Most Holy Name of God

- The Most Holy Name of God is said to be used in vain when it is taken up without reasonable cause, or without due reverence. And this is commonly done chiefly in three ways, namely:

From impatience, or indignation against creatures, even inanimate ones, or against oneself; for example: My God! Good God! how badly this matter goes! My God! what a fool I am!... Or in French: Mon Dieu, est-il possible? Mon Dieu, laissez-moi donc tranquille ¹!

¹ When the use of the Name of God or of the Saints happens in this way from impatience, it in reality sounds and implies a certain manner of invocation. Wherefore, where the habit of this usage seems hard to amend, it will be useful to exhort the faithful that the mind also hold the sense which they utter in words.

From admiration, by way of exclamation. Thus one says: Jesus, Mary! O God! My God! (Mon Dieu! Grand Dieu! O bon Jésus!).

Superfluously, mostly from mere formula, or from levity, or from a certain habit. Thus one says: My God, yes, it is so, or not so (Mon Dieu oui; - Mon Dieu, non; - Mon Dieu, que voulez-vous?) ².

² To the vain use of the divine Name and of sacred things must also be referred the formulas By God, by Christ!, which of themselves would rather belong to the formula of swearing, or Body of God, Blood of God, of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, of St. Peter! etc., whether they are uttered from impatience or from admiration. Concerning which Escobar (Lib. 28, n. 570): To name or to swear by the honorable members of Christ, namely by the head, the body, and the blood, will be blasphemy if it is uttered by way of contempt or derision... But if these words are used not by way of vituperation and abuse, but for a great exaggeration of the truth, they will not be blasphemous, and perhaps (unless scandal is present) they will be without fault; because neither in substance nor in the manner of speaking are they injurious to God. So also Silvester, Valent., and Sanch., who (in Decal. Lib. 2, Cap. 32, n. 29) alleges others for the same doctrine. The fault, however, will be venial, and, as Busembaum says, among venial sins a grave one, when these words are employed idly and as a kind of stock interjection, namely on account of a certain irreverence.

The reason of scandal moves some. But even if there were direct scandal, surely an impulse to a fault venial in itself cannot be mortal. Scavini, however (Tr. 5, Diss. 3, Cap. 2, art. 2, q. 1, not. 1), excepts the case in which these things flow from the mouth of a priest. But the reason must then be sought elsewhere, namely from this, that on this account both the horror of sin among the faithful generally and the esteem of ecclesiastical men are lessened, just as when a man of the clergy is found to be either a liar, or half-drunk, or a defrauder of another's goods, even in light matter.

But as for the fact that some think it a fit remedy for keeping these forms of speech from the mouth of the faithful to condemn them as a grave fault, the words of St. Antoninus must be recalled to their memory (Above, note a, to n. 152), namely, that this is nothing else than to build for hell.

Questions. Q. 1. Whether the vain usurpation of the Name of God is always a sin, or of what sort?

Resp. 1. In itself it is a sin, because it wounds the reverence due to the divine Name. It is established besides from Ecclus. 23. 10: Let not the naming of God be usual in thy mouth.

Resp. 2. In itself it is only a venial sin, because that reverence is not gravely wounded. But it can become mortal by reason of contempt or grave anger ³, because then it is held to share in the nature of blasphemy.

³ Understand formal contempt; for virtual contempt, which is generally present in any failure of reverence, deference and obedience toward God, by no means brings gravity of guilt. Anger, again, is to be understood here either as that which is borne against God, or as that which goes on to formal contempt of God. Otherwise anger, however very grave, does not change the nature of the words. And these things are certainly to be heeded carefully, especially by preachers, lest, while they vehemently assail these vices, they instill a false conscience about the gravity of the fault, and so themselves become the true authors of this grave fault and of the spiritual ruin of very many, building for hell.

Resp. 3. Although it is often without fault because of inadvertence, yet those are not to be excused who, without any sense of reverence, from custom always have the Most Holy Name of God in their mouth. - Bouvier, On the 2nd precept.

On the other hand, if the Most Holy Name of God is used with due reverence, even in indifferent matters, not only will there be no sin, but where it is so used by way of invocation, it will be a good and meritorious work. For the rest, those will more easily be excused from sin who use the Most Holy Name of God by way of admiration or interjection, because then irreverence is more easily absent.

- Q. 2. Whether it is a sin to use the names of the Saints uselessly?

Resp. Yes. For what is said of the most holy Name of God, the same, due proportion observed, must be said also of the names of the Saints, as is established from the place of Ecclus. cited, where it is added: And mix not thyself with the names of the Saints. The same also must be said of the vain use of the words of sacred Scripture, when they are taken irreverently.

Q. 3. Whether a frequent and useless use of the name of the devil is a sin?

Resp. No, in itself ⁴. Yet it is to be reproved as less becoming in the mouth of Christians, especially in Priests, who by reason of scandal are sometimes not free from some fault. - Busemb. in St. Lig., n. 131. - Bouvier, etc. - Some, however, assert that it is venial in itself. So Voit, n. 514.

⁴ Indeed, wherever the vice of cursing God or the Saints has prevailed (managgia..., that is, may it fare ill...), and one is dealing with men who in the heat of anger barely, or not even barely, know how to restrain themselves from vehement emphasis, it is certainly expedient to suggest that they substitute the execrable name of the Devil for the sacred names of God or of the Saints.

Vol. I, Treatise On the Precepts o…, On the Second Precept of t…, Ch. I, Article II. On Blasphemy

- Definition. Blasphemy is speech injurious to God ¹. Speech, however, can be made not only by an explicit word, but in some sense also by the mind and by deed. If it is a question, however, of reservation or of the other penalties inflicted on blasphemy, only the spoken is properly understood.

¹ Some, with St. Thomas (2. 2. q. 13. art. 1), hold that it belongs to the notion of blasphemy that it state something false about God. Others require merely that it contain some contumely; and others reconcile these with the first, because whoever despises God in words by that very act declares God to be contemptible, which is certainly false. However this may be, lest the Author's definition extend too widely, the word injurious is to be understood of contumely. Hence Suarez (De Relig. Tr. 5, Lib. 1, Cap. 4, n. 1): Blasphemy is a word of malediction, reproach, or contumely against God. And others: It is speech against God or sacred things by way of contumely.

Division. Blasphemy is distinguished first of all

Into direct, or indirect, according as the dishonoring of God either is directly and formally intended by the blasphemer, or, though not intended, some contumely against God is nevertheless contained in his words or gestures ².

² Laymann (Lib. 4, Tr. 10, Cap. 6, n. 12) affirms that the direct will of dishonoring God is a circumstance to be expressed in confession. For which opinion St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3, n. 126) adds Lessius, and indeed says that it is the common opinion, citing the Salmanticenses (Tr. 21, Cap. 3, n. 123); and Scavini too follows St. Alphonsus (Tract. 5, Disp. 3, Cap. 2, art. 2, q. 3).

But the case of Laymann and Lessius is one thing, that of the Salmanticenses another. For the former assert it led by the opinion of the necessity of confessing certain merely aggravating circumstances; whence Laymann refers the reader to (Lib. 1, Tr. 2, Cap. 10, n. 3), where he teaches this: whereas the Salmanticenses say it of the case in which, on account of hatred of God or heresy, another species of sin accrues. Since therefore, even in the opinion of St. Alphonsus, the necessity of confessing merely aggravating circumstances is none in itself, and the doctrine of the Salmanticenses is not to the point, it is plain that the opinion which says that the circumstance of direct blasphemy must be expressed rests on no solid foundation.

** This Note too displeases the VV., and (Pag. 918) they contend that St. Alphonsus rightly cited the Authors alleged by him. But the VV. themselves (ibid.) admit that St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3, n. 126) holds the same as Busembaum. Now Busembaum says indeed that the circumstance of direct blasphemy must be expressed, but he omits why he affirms it, and merely alleges Laymann (Lib. 4, Tr. 10, Cap. 6, n. 12). But the reason adduced there by Laymann is: because this circumstance aggravates intimately, and increases the contempt and dishonoring of God, in which the essential malice of blasphemy consists. Therefore both Laymann and Busembaum say that that circumstance must be expressed only because it is an aggravating circumstance. But St. Alphonsus, as the VV. will have it, teaches that it is to be expressed because it changes the species. Therefore they must admit that neither Busembaum nor Laymann stands for the opinion of St. Alphonsus.

The VV. insist, saying that Laymann adds this: Then also because such a perverse intention often comes from hatred, at least of abomination, toward God, which is a sin specifically distinct from blasphemy. - Resp. Laymann continues thus: But because it does not always come from hatred, but sometimes only from anger, weariness, or despair. Hence thus: Laymann teaches that a distinct species accrues to blasphemy uttered with a formal and direct intention of dishonoring God only when it comes from hatred; but Laymann denies that such blasphemy always comes from hatred. Therefore in formal blasphemy considered in itself he does not recognize a distinct species.

As to the Salmanticenses, the VV. (l. c.) have this: St. Alphonsus with the best right alleges the Salmanticenses, since they teach with the common opinion that blasphemies proceeding from hatred of God are of a species different from other blasphemies. - Resp. The question now is not whether a new species is added from hatred of God, but whether direct blasphemy contains in itself a species different from other blasphemies. A new species accrues to blasphemy also from heresy: whence the Salmanticenses write there thus: It is answered by saying that heretical blasphemies, and those proceeding from hatred of God, are of a species different from other blasphemies. The reason of the first part is, because heretical blasphemy has heresy joined to it... and is opposed to faith... The reason of the second part is, because hatred of God is opposed to charity. Now just as you would absurdly say that direct blasphemy is in itself always of a different species because heresy sometimes accrues, so the same is badly concluded because it can sometimes be joined with hatred of God.

Finally, as regards Lessius, the VV. (l. c.) note that Lessius concludes in these words: Hence there is no doubt that this is to be disclosed in Confession as a peculiar species, in which the malice itself is directly willed. - Resp. The sense of Lessius is that that circumstance must be disclosed, as a peculiar species must be disclosed; not, however, that it must be disclosed because the circumstance itself brings a new species. And this is made manifest by a double reason: 1. because the reason applied by Lessius is confined to this, that that affection is incomparably worse, because in a higher way it is malice in act, because it is incomparably worse to do an injury to someone with the affection of harming... But these indicate not a change of species, but a mere increase of malice within the same species. 2. Because, as Lessius says, this is the most formal blasphemy. But it is absurd that formal blasphemy should differ in species from the common notion of blasphemy. Therefore.

Hence, however, we must proceed to the conclusion, which is the head of the matter. For here it is a question of the obligation of confessing some circumstance. But obligations, unless they are certainly established, are not to be asserted. Now in the present case, so far are we from having arguments that induce certitude, that we have not even reasons effective for producing some probability. Therefore.

Into immediate, or mediate, according as it affects God Himself immediately, or only mediately, namely by dishonoring the Saints ³ or sacred things with words.

³ Whatever some have disputed, contending that blasphemy against the Saints differs in species from blasphemy against God (see Lugo, De Poenit. Disp. 16, n. 279-280), it can be held probable with St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3, n. 132) that in reality it does not differ in species, and therefore that there is no obligation of declaring in confession whether the blasphemous words were uttered against God or against the Mother of God, or against the Saints or the Angels. And this indeed contributes much to practice; for it frees the Confessor and the penitent at once from the necessity of inquiring how often one has sinned by blaspheming against God, how often against the Saints, since all these can more expeditiously be gathered together in one sum.

Into heretical, imprecatory, and merely reproachful, according as it contains heresy, or imprecation, or mere contumely.

Principles. - I. Every formal and deliberate blasphemy, whether it be direct or indirect, immediate or mediate, is a mortal sin ex toto genere suo. The reason is, because any contumely against God is a grave injury inflicted on the divine Majesty. - Hence Lev. 24. 16: The man that curseth his God shall bear his sin: and he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die. - Hence also St. Jerome, on Isaias, bk. 7, ch. 18, says: Nothing is more horrible than blasphemy, which setteth its mouth against the Most High. - And St. Thomas says, 2. 2. q. 13. art. 3: Every sin compared with blasphemy is lighter. - It can, however, become venial from imperfection of the act, namely from defect of advertence, or of perfect consent.

II. For blasphemy perfect by reason of the act, an express and explicit intention of dishonoring God is not necessary, but an implicit one suffices, namely when someone with advertence utters things which contain a real contumely against God, even in jest or in anger against creatures. The reason is, because from these there follows a grave dishonoring of God, though an indirect one; for a grave irreverence against God is committed when words contumelious to Him are employed for jest ⁴, or to express anger. - Reuter, On blasphemy, n. 442.

⁴ Reuter, from whom the Author brings these things, thus delimits the doctrine on blasphemy uttered in jest (P. II, Tr. V, De Blasphemia, n. 442): Blasphemy is grave..... 5. If someone says blasphemous words in jest, where among the hearers a dishonoring of God is joined to them. The grave guilt will therefore be absent when that sense is lacking among the hearers.

III. Those words are to be held blasphemous in themselves which, from common apprehension, or from the usage of the country or region, or from a derisive or angry manner of speaking, or from other circumstances, contain a dishonoring of God; which, although in themselves they do not sound like blasphemy, are yet held as blasphemous from common apprehension. - Reuter, ibid. ⁵.

⁵ The Author perhaps has in view what Reuter (l. c., n. 441) has concerning those who with mockery, reproach, or contumely name the death of Christ, His blood, wounds, sacraments, etc.; of which we spoke above in the note to n. 296. Nevertheless, where it is a question not of mockery, reproach, etc., but only of an apprehension by which words in reality not blasphemous are by error thought blasphemous, the grave obligation must certainly be recalled to mind by which, in the opinion of all, Confessors are bound to recall the faithful who sin from an erroneous conscience from their pernicious error. Rather, therefore, than attack these words as blasphemous, let Confessors teach that there is no blasphemy in them, lest otherwise, namely from a false zeal, as we have said several times already, they build for hell.

Resolves. - 1. According to some it is blasphemy to say: May death destroy you, or the blood of God; may the Sacraments destroy you. But more truly these seem to be merely imprecatory words. It is blasphemy, however, to spit toward heaven, to gnash the teeth at it, to say that one wishes to do something against God's will, and the like.

It is blasphemy to say: God has entirely forgotten me: Why did God create me? - Except, however, if these things are uttered in a human manner of speaking from levity, or to show the gravity of grief or weariness, as very often happens. But those are never to be excused from grave sin who advertently and seriously say: - God is unjust. - God unjustly burdens me with tribulations. - Unjustly He permits the wicked to be happy in the world. - Voit, n. 519.

Those do not sin gravely who, carried away by anger or some passion, utter words of blasphemy not adverting to their meaning ⁶.

⁶ So St. Thomas (2. 2. q. 13. art. 2. ad 3): Blasphemy can proceed without deliberation, by surprise, in two ways. In one way, that someone does not advert that what he says is blasphemy: which can happen when someone suddenly, from some passion, bursts into imagined words whose meaning he does not consider; and then it is a venial sin, and does not properly have the nature of blasphemy. These things can bring it about that the opinion be set aside which St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3, n. 127) attributes to Giordanini (Istruzione per li novelli Confessori), namely that there is always present some advertence to the malice of the blasphemy.

** It could hardly have seemed credible; yet this too has happened, that the VV. (Pag. 256-260) found matter for writing through eight columns against this very brief Note, in which, besides, the opinion is attributed to another rather than to St. Alphonsus, who, the VV. advise (and this matters nothing), is Giuseppe Iorio, not Giordanini.

Accordingly (Pag. 257) they complain, 1. that the passage of St. Thomas is brought forward not entire, but torn from its context. - Resp. St. Thomas had objected to himself: Sins which are committed without deliberation are not mortal.... But blasphemy sometimes proceeds without deliberation. Therefore it is not always a mortal sin. And he answers by distinguishing whether advertence to the blasphemy is lacking or present. The first case, which was to the point, is faithfully set out in the Note. Of the other case St. Thomas adds: In another way, when he adverts that it is blasphemy, considering the meaning of the words: and then he is not excused from mortal sin. And these things were omitted because, as is plain, they were not to the point, nor was it the Author's aim to heap up useless things to increase the bulk of the book. What is there in this that can rightly be found fault with?

2. The VV. add (Pag. 257) that in the text of St. Alphonsus the word ALWAYS is to be understood of things which happen ordinarily and commonly. - Resp. If they themselves contend that the word ALWAYS cannot be understood there as ALWAYS, then ALWAYS is less aptly said there. For the rest, why then do they attack the Note, which merely notes that that ALWAYS does not agree with the doctrine of St. Thomas?

3. The VV. (Pag. 257-258) wish to reconcile St. Alphonsus with St. Thomas, because St. Thomas does not discuss the habituated, but those who by surprise burst into imagined words without consideration. St. Alphonsus, however, agrees with St. Thomas that someone from anger may not advert to the malice of blasphemy; but he deals chiefly with the habituated, of whom he writes (Prax. Conf. Cap. 2, n. 31): Finally I add with a certain learned Author (Giordanini) that blasphemers are not excused from grave sin on the ground that, because of the force of the bad habit or a vehement commotion of mind from anger, they did not advert to what they were saying; for these badly habituated persons, although they have a knowledge less vivid than others who have not contracted the use of blaspheming, nevertheless ALWAYS have that ACTUAL knowledge sufficient for this, that the act be deliberate and gravely sinful. - Resp. 1. St. Thomas discusses generally those who from some passion burst into imagined words whose meaning they do not consider. But this happens also to the habituated; indeed, as is plain of itself, much more easily and frequently to the habituated than to others. Therefore some reconciliation is sought here in vain. - 2. The passage of St. Alphonsus of which the Note speaks (Lib. 3, n. 127) embraces both the habituated and the non-habituated. Behold the words of the holy Doctor: Some DD. say that these (blasphemers) SOMETIMES, on account of the impulse of anger or of the habit contracted, can blaspheme without advertence. But I think with the Author cited (Iorio) that in blaspheming there is ALWAYS some at least confused advertence to the malice of that utterance. Therefore, 1. since St. Alphonsus opposes his ALWAYS to the SOMETIMES of the other DD., it cannot be so understood, as the VV. contend, that it means ordinarily; for ordinarily admits an exception sometimes. Therefore, 2. it is false that St. Alphonsus admits exceptions as regards the non-habituated. - Resp. 3. But then a further task remains for the VV., namely that, if they cannot reconcile St. Alphonsus with St. Thomas, they at least reconcile St. Alphonsus with St. Alphonsus. For the VV. themselves (Pag. 258) bring forward these words of the holy Doctor (De Act. Hum. n. 24): Nor should the Confessor easily believe a penitent who excuses himself... for having blasphemed... without advertence... as from habit: for if he has not striven to root out that habit by applying some remedies, then he is voluntary in cause when he blasphemes..., and therefore is not excused from fault: but otherwise if, diligence having been applied, he blasphemes inadvertently. Hence thus: 1. this last one he excuses from fault, if he blasphemes from habit, because he blasphemes inadvertently; 2. the first he does not excuse from fault, because the blasphemy is voluntary in cause, and this supposes that actual knowledge was lacking, because otherwise it would be voluntary in act. Therefore the holy Doctor too teaches that the habituated blaspheme inadvertently.

But what may seem more astonishing, the VV. themselves, as if to strengthen that opinion of St. Alphonsus about advertence, which is to be thought always present in the habituated, bring forward (Pag. 259) the opinion of many, as they say, grave Doctors, who teach that the habituated person who does not care about amendment... sins mortally as often as he utters blasphemous words, although without any advertence. Do they thus prove or confirm the aforesaid opinion of St. Alphonsus (from the Praxis Confess. Cap. 2, n. 31), that they ALWAYS have that ACTUAL knowledge sufficient for this, that the act be deliberate and gravely sinful?

Nor those who, from an inveterate habit of blaspheming now retracted, break out indeliberately into such words ⁷.

⁷ That the Confessor may judge rightly of blasphemies (and say the same of the other vices of the tongue) uttered inadvertently and by force of habit, he must apply the principles which are commonly handed down (in the Treatise on Human Acts) concerning sins in cause. Namely, although these words uttered inadvertently are held and called sins, nevertheless one does not then sin when he pours them forth from his mouth materially and without advertence; for no act without deliberation can of itself have the nature of fault; but since they are sins in cause, the guilt is incurred then, when the cause is placed. It is useless, therefore, to inquire of the penitent the number of these sins, or material acts; for the whole guilt of these is in the cause; and this guilt is neither increased nor diminished by the greater or smaller number of the acts following afterward, but is to be estimated from the foresight of the effects which was present when the cause was placed. (See Laymann, Lib. 1, Tr. 2, Cap. 3, n. 6.)

But what is this cause, in which the guilt resides? Some take refuge in the origin of the habit, and find a twofold or aggravated malice in the preceding frequentation of acts from which the habit grew. So Laymann (l. c.); who, however, aptly warns that for this it is needed that, while one blasphemes, he advert that by this he is engendering that habit in himself. - But in practice you will scarcely find that men adverted to this, especially if they contracted the habit from boyhood; moreover, even if someone adverts to the danger, yet since he has no purpose of frequenting the acts, indeed promises himself that otherwise he will not blaspheme, you will hardly find this guilt.

Yet although guilt should be lacking on this side, it is certainly had in this, that one neglects to amend the habit, which he is bound under grave obligation to remove; and this negligence indeed suffices for the acts to be indirectly voluntary, as all the effects of an omission are voluntary to us, namely when we do not remove a cause which we are bound to remove. And thus it is plain how the guilt of the habit is voluntary, although advertence and guilt were lacking in contracting the habit itself.

From these things, however, it is easy to pass judgment on these matters. For either the blasphemies are not uttered indeliberately (for the habit does not bring it about that all the acts are indeliberate), and then they have guilt in themselves, as being voluntary in themselves.

But when they are plainly indeliberate, it will happen that they are wholly excused from sin, if one seriously strives to take away the habit. The reason is, because they have no guilt in themselves, as we have said, but can have it only in cause. Now the cause is understood either as the former frequentation of acts whence the habit was induced, and this guilt has already been taken away by retractation or penance; or the cause is understood as an indirect one, namely the negligence of removing the habit, and this likewise is absent, since we suppose the man to be seriously intent on removing the habit. And these things indeed are to be inculcated on the penitent; for they are wont to add great courage for undertaking the extirpation of the vice.

But if the penitent either altogether refuses amendment of the habit, or does not indeed refuse, but meanwhile neglects to apply sufficient care or effort to it: in the first case he is incapable of absolution, as one who voluntarily remains in the state of sin, just as one who will not either restore another's goods or leave an occasion; but in the other case the DD. advise that it is expedient that absolution be discreetly deferred, so that the penitent may shake off his sloth and be in some way moved to apply effort and care effectively. Discreetly, I say; for if absolution cannot conveniently be deferred, and otherwise sufficient signs appear of a serious will to amend the bad habit, he can be absolved, as also when the delay does not seem likely to profit for taking away the bad habit. But of these things more fully where we treat of the Sacrament of Penance.

Meanwhile note that it can be decided only with difficulty when the guilt of negligence is grave in those who indeed retract the cause and apply some effort, which, however, is not always intense.

He does not sin gravely who pronounces words in themselves indeed blasphemous, but halved or corrupted, so that he does not attend to their true sense; for example, he who says in French: Jarnidié! mortdié! ventredié! morbleu! For these no longer have the nature of blasphemy ⁸. - St. Lig., n. 125. - Bouvier, On the 2nd precept, art. 1.

⁸ Indeed, the effort to twist, mutilate, and in any way corrupt the pronunciation of words which otherwise would sound like blasphemy shows a detestation of blasphemy. And since the common people, when struck by a vehement feeling, especially of anger, with the greatest difficulty refrain from some emphatic expression, it is certainly more advisable to suggest to them some harmless way of signifying that heat than to demand silence.

n. 301.

Questions. - Q. 1. Whether these French expressions are blasphemous: NOM DE DIEU! NOM DE NOMS! MILLE NOMS! SACRÉ NOM! with nothing added, etc.?

n. 301.

Resp. No, in itself, even if they are uttered in anger, unless the anger is directed against God Himself, or unless there is a blasphemous intention ⁹, which is mostly absent. For these words contain no blasphemy in themselves. They will therefore be only venial, on account of the vain use of the name of God; but if the name of God is used in the formulas neither explicitly nor implicitly, they will in themselves lack all fault. - Bouvier, ibid.

⁹ Those are certainly to be called too morose who unseasonably busy themselves in fishing out and searching for blasphemy, which in the words is none, in the intention.

n. 301.

A fortiori, those rude expressions so frequently used among our country people, which begin with the letters B. F. M. or J.-F., etc., will not be blasphemies, even if the word sacré is placed before them, for example Sacré B., Sacré M., or if this word is joined to other rude nouns. Indeed these are in themselves free of fault, unless they go against charity toward the neighbor, as happens when such words are uttered for the sake of abuse. - So commonly. - Bouvier, ibid.

- Q. 2. Whether the French expression S. NOM DE D. is blasphemy?

Resp. Yes, in itself, or by reason of the common acceptance of the words. For such expressions, in the sense of the faithful, are contumelious against God. For there is no one moderately pious who does not shudder on hearing them. Indeed those who use this expression do in fact act from contempt of the Most Holy Name of God, at least implicitly, just as if they said: Cursed be the Name of God.

Nor may you say that these words contain no blasphemy in themselves, because in the obvious sense they really signify blessed be the Name of God. For they bear both senses, the one from the genuine signification of the words, the other from the general acceptance of men. Indeed they are never used by the pious faithful for honoring God, but are always heard by them with horror and indignation, while on the contrary they are constantly used by the impious for cursing Him.

This expression is held as blasphemous by Vernier, On the 2nd precept of the Decalogue. - Rousselot, in the additions to the Theology of Saettler, ibid. - Collationes Anicienses (Conférences du Puy), On the virtue of Religion, p. 2, c. 1. - The Most Illustrious D. D. Parisis, Bishop of Langres (now of Arras), in a Pastoral Letter for the pious sodality to be erected for the destruction of blasphemy. Bouvier also inclines to this opinion, On the 2nd precept of the Decalogue, c. 1.

n. 303.

- Many others, however, do not apprehend the nature of blasphemy in this manner of speaking in itself ¹⁰, unless a blasphemous intention, explicit or at least implicit, intervenes. - So Gousset, t. 1, n. 460. - D. Valentin, Examens raisonnés sur les Commandements.

¹⁰ And indeed with the same sense of horror with which pious men in France are affected by the aforesaid words, the pious faithful elsewhere are wont to be affected when they hear the body of God, the blood of Christ, etc. used in anger; and here the sense of the faithful certainly proves that something is present by which one sins against God. But whether from this horror of the faithful the species of the sin further should or even can be determined, whether it is irreverence toward the name of God or sacred things, or blasphemy, or heresy, whether there is a contempt proper to contumely or a contempt merely detracting from reverence, others will not easily admit. Indeed, even if the common people called these forms of words blasphemies, it would conclude nothing whatever, since it is established that by the name of blasphemy, in a vague notion, the common people designate not only any words against God, but also those which are in no way directed against God, of which the Author spoke in the preceding number; but otherwise it is right that Theologians should not seek out and learn these things from the common people, but the common people from Theologians.

n. 303.

I have said, in itself. For in practice not all who utter such words are to be convicted of mortal sin. For it is certain, experience bearing witness, that not a few, especially the uneducated, do not apprehend grave malice in them ¹¹. Let the Confessor therefore attend above all to the various circumstances of the penitents. However that may be, he must with due prudence strive to destroy this bad habit in the penitents entirely, as far as it can be done.

¹¹ Since these things are so, whether it was a prudent counsel on the part of the more recent writers whom the Author named a little before, that they should with strenuous effort persuade the faithful that there is altogether blasphemy in those words which in themselves are in reality not blasphemous, and moreover for this end should with exquisite subtlety have attached to the words a sense of which the common people had perhaps never thought, and should have tried to search out the blasphemy, which they did not find in the words, at least in an intention even merely implicit, let wiser men judge. This indeed is most certain, that neither the glory and honor of God nor the salvation of souls is well provided for by this, that the conscience of a grave crime is instilled in the faithful beyond necessity. For although perhaps it is thus obtained that someone sometimes refrains from that form of words, yet certainly by this gain the grave offense of our God and the grave ruin of souls, which are wholly owed to this saying, as to a new snare unseasonably thrown on someone, are in no way compensated.

- Q. 3. Whether it is blasphemy to curse creatures?

Resp. Distinguish. It is blasphemy to curse creatures with relation to God, for example the rains, the winds, as commanded by God, or with the word of God added; likewise to curse a creature which of itself has a special relation to God, for example our soul, the Catholic Faith, heaven, and the like. But it is otherwise, as nearly always happens, if indignation is directed against creatures without relation to God. - So commonly. - St. Lig., n. 128.

Q. 4. Whether it is blasphemy to curse the whole world?

Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. II, CHAPTER I: On the Praise of God and on Irreverence Against His Most Holy Name · Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. II, Ch. I, ARTICLE I: On the Vain Usurpation of the Divine Name · Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. II, Ch. I, ARTICLE II: On Blasphemy

Resp. St. Lig. affirms it, because just as to swear by creatures, in which the divine attributes shine forth more, is a true oath, so to curse these very things is true blasphemy, because in them God is indirectly contemned. - St. Alphonsus, n. 129. - In reality, however, such a meaning scarcely tends to occur to the mind of the one uttering these things.

n. 305.

Q. 5. Whether it is blasphemy to curse the dead?

…and 1 more passage — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Tanquerey

Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. — 6 passages

Vol. II, On the Virtue of Religion …, Chapter I: On the Principal Acts of Religion, and the Vices Opposed

n. 919.

I. Concerning Blasphemy.

1. Notion. Blasphemy in general is an insult inflicted upon God. Sometimes it is conceived only internally, and, if consent accedes, the malice of blasphemy is already truly incurred.² But often it is expressed by some sensible sign, by speech or deed, for example by shooting an arrow against heaven, or discharging a gun, or trampling upon a crucifix. Yet more properly blasphemy is called insulting speech against God; hence if ecclesiastical penalties are enacted against blasphemy, they touch this alone, unless the contrary is explicitly said.

² "If it consists only in the heart, it is blasphemy of the heart; but if it proceeds outwardly by speech, it is blasphemy of the mouth" (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 13, a. 1).

And so he truly blasphemes who either denies something concerning God which belongs to Him, or asserts concerning Him what does not belong to Him; for in either case insult is inflicted upon Him, for example if God is said to be cruel, or if it is denied that He is omniscient, omnipotent. Consequently he is guilty of blasphemy who attributes to a creature what belongs to God alone, because indirectly the infinite perfection of God, which is incommunicable to creatures, is denied; for example, if someone were to say: I can do that equally as God; - or he who speaks only ironically, or with contempt, concerning God and His attributes, or concerning the Incarnate Word, for example: Thou hast conquered, Galilean; - he who brings forth something insulting against divine or sacred things, or against the Blessed Virgin or the saints, insofar as they are friends of God: for then the injury is ultimately referred to God.

n. 920.

Therefore blasphemy is distinguished from imprecations or maledictions, which are uttered against rational or irrational creatures, without relation to God, for example when Job cursed the day of his birth, David cursed the mountains of Gelboe, or when we curse ourselves or the neighbor. These can indeed be sins of anger, or opposed to fraternal charity, but they do not inflict insult upon God.

Thus much more probably these or similar expressions are imprecatory, but not blasphemous: May God damn me! May God damn you, may the devil snatch you, go to hell, etc.; but otherwise, if someone were to say or wish to signify: May God be damned; which however happens very rarely.³

³ E. Brahm explains this fully, Dissertatio de formula "G. V. D., Deus damnet me", Brussels, 1904.

Likewise from blasphemy are distinguished expressions by which the name of God is taken in vain, even if they are preceded by the word sacred (for example, the sacred name of God!); or words which in themselves are blasphemous, but, according to common estimation, are not held as such, but only as a manifestation of anger against persons or irrational creatures (for example, a thousand gods!). For those who assert such things generally by no means intend to bring forth something against God, but only to express their indignation.⁴

⁴ To the point Gousset, Theol. Morale, t. I, n. 459-460: "It is not a blasphemy, nor a mortal sin, to pronounce, whether in cold blood or in a movement of anger or impatience, the word sacred, which one most often uses with certain coarse expressions, more or less injurious to the neighbor... Nor is it properly so-called blasphemy to pronounce in vain the holy name of God, by saying for example: Name of God! sacred name of God! These words, which one most often brings forth in a movement of impatience, are not against God in the intention of him who permits them to himself, but against men, animals, or inanimate beings with regard to which one gives himself over to anger."

n. 921.

Hence, in all these things, the intention and affection of the one speaking ought especially to be attended to: if injury and dishonoring of God are truly intended, there is blasphemy; otherwise, there will be a certain imprecation, which is often excused from mortal sin, because it arises from a movement of indignation imperfectly deliberate. In doubt whether some expression is blasphemous or not, St. Alphonsus says (n. 130), it is by no means to be taken as blasphemy.

Yet expressions of this kind are carefully to be avoided, as unbecoming, unworthy of an honorable man, movements of disordered anger, and not rarely opposed to charity.

n. 922.

1. Malice of blasphemy. (A) Every properly so-called blasphemy is a sin mortal from its whole genus. (a) In the old law, blasphemy was punished by death:⁵ "The man that curseth his God shall bear his sin; and he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die: all the multitude shall stone him, whether he be a citizen or a stranger." Under the new law, blasphemy is enumerated among the grave sins which are to be fled:⁶ "But now put you also all away: anger, indignation, malice, blasphemy, filthy speech out of your mouth." - Wherefore the Fathers reprove it as most grave; thus St. Jerome writes:⁷ "For nothing is more horrible than blasphemy, which sets my mouth on high... for every sin, compared with blasphemy, is lighter."

⁵ Lev. 24:15-16.

⁶ Col. 3:8.

⁷ St. Jerome, In Isaiam, l. VII, c. 19, P. L., XXIV, 247.

(b) Truly, blasphemy is directly opposed to religion, by which we are bound to render reverence and honor to God; and therefore, when it is fully deliberate and free, it does not admit smallness of matter.

n. 923.

(B) Heretical and imprecatory blasphemy add special malice to simple blasphemy. (a) Heretical blasphemy is called that which embraces heresy, and therefore is opposed not only to religion, but also to faith; for example if someone says: God is a cruel tyrant. (b) Imprecative blasphemy is that by which evil is wished to God, and consequently it is opposed both to religion and to charity; for example, if someone were to say: Let God perish, cursed be God! (c) Yet blasphemy, although most grave in itself, is not rarely a venial sin from defect of advertence or full consent, for example when blasphemous words are brought forth in the heat of passion without sufficient attention of the mind.

n. 924.

1. Remedies against blasphemy. (a) If there is question of true blasphemy, which proceeds both from irreverence toward God and from anger, both these roots must be torn out: one must seriously think how foolish it is to inflict injury and insult upon Him who, on account of His infinite goodness, deserves supreme honor,⁸ and, before His omnipotence, can afflict blasphemers with dreadful punishments. But for conquering anger, let the remedies set forth above, n. 534-537, be applied.

⁸ M. d'Hulst lucidly explains why the name of God is to be revered and how carefully blasphemy is to be avoided, Careme 1903, p. 111-122.

(b) If there is question of blasphemies improperly so called, or of imprecations, they generally arise from anger or long custom. Wherefore irascibility is likewise to be restrained, - and custom conquered by custom, namely by using other words altogether innocent, until anger is at last put away. Besides, the custom should be seriously and sincerely retracted: for then words which suddenly proceed from vehement affection are not imputed as sin, at least grave sin.

Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 8 passages

Vol. II, Bk. II, Tr. II, Ch. II, Article II: On Blasphemy

n. 256.

I. Notion and division. 1. Notion. Directly opposed to the will of worshiping God is a will insulting toward God, which blasphemy betrays. For blasphemy is an insult brought against God.

Division. a) Since God can read an insulting affection in the heart, a man can be blasphemous without any exterior sign; and he can manifest or exercise that mind exteriorly, either by signs of words, formal or equivalent, or by an insulting action. Hence blasphemy of heart, of mouth, and of deed.

Yet that division is not formal. When blasphemy is reserved, only that is understood which is done through speech, oral or written.

b) Direct blasphemy proceeds from a formal intention of dishonoring God; indirect blasphemy contains a virtual intention in the will of saying or doing things which are insulting toward God ¹. The former differs from the latter in degree, not in species.

c) Blasphemy can be either simply insulting, or heretical, which at the same time, at least exteriorly, denies a revealed truth; or imprecatory, by which evil is wished to God. And in its own genus it is completed by an affection of detestation or hatred, which at the same time is a most grave violation of charity.

d) God can be blasphemed in Himself, or in His saints and in sacred things. The former is graver, although, as blasphemy, it does not differ in species from the latter. But, according to the intention of the blasphemer, it can at the same time touch the Saints themselves or the Blessed Virgin in their own excellence, for example in the Immaculate Conception: then at the same time it will be against dulia or hyperdulia. St. Alphonsus judged that this regularly, in his time, did not happen. St. Alph., l. 3, n. 132.

e) Finally blasphemy is distinguished as vulgar, which is uttered in very customary formulas, often after the manner of an interjection, so that the blasphemer himself did not compose the words or arrange them into the form of a sentence; and deliberate, whose formula was invented or composed by the blasphemer himself.

¹ Under another respect, formal is called culpable; material, excusable.

n. 257.

II. Gravity. Of the sins which are opposed to religion, blasphemy is of its genus the most grave, so that true blasphemy does not admit slightness of matter.

An insulting word pronounced against the Saints in jest, not from contempt or hatred or indignation, is thought to be venial. But this is not done in jest except when the things treated are of lesser importance and give occasion to pleasantries, as if you call Saints Crispin and Crispinian cobblers.

The root of direct blasphemy, i.e., the impulsive cause which is accustomed to induce a man to formal blasphemy, is of itself the appetite of vengeance against God. Namely, bearing indignantly his lot, which he knows to be subject to God's judgment, an angry man seeks that vengeance of which alone he has the supply; and he attacks the honor of Him whom he cannot harm or touch. This root appears also in the selection by which, in various adversities, he blasphemes the saints who are invoked as protectors against definite calamities: as if, because cattle have been lost or are sick, you blaspheme St. Paschal, and because of pestilence, St. Roch.

The root of indirect blasphemy is too swift anger or impatience, together with a defect of reverence toward God or the Saints. The same defect of reverence also gives place to jocose blasphemies.

n. 258.

III. Examples. 1. As many as deny that God exists or are unwilling to worship Him are in reality, objectively, guilty of most grave blasphemy. Atheists hold the highest degree among infidels; then those who break off every positive relation between God and man, so that they put God as if outside intercourse. Those succeed who admit only natural religion; finally, those who wish to render to God only the diminished worship of Mohammedans, Jews, or heretics. This blasphemy becomes graver if there is added, through formal temptation of God, a certain provocation, as: "If He exists, or if He can, let Him punish the denier of the faith, of the Eucharist," etc.

Very grave, formal, and scandalous blasphemies are committed through impious books and newspapers.
He blasphemes not only who, raging against God, curses Him, or denies His wisdom and goodness in words, or has doubts; but also he who, without anger against God, seriously and knowingly utters things which, from their signification or from the manner of speaking and the circumstances, bring diminution upon the divine honor or rule. And other signs against God, such as spitting toward heaven, are blasphemous just as words are.

n. 259.

Criteria. In judging blasphemies, account must be taken of the signification of words according to the common understanding of men. Wherefore certain formulas which of themselves sound like heresy, because they are not apprehended as such, will be free from the stain of blasphemy. Thus, at least today, when angry men say: "May the blood of Christ destroy you," they do not seem to ascribe any power of destroying to the Blood of the Redeemer, but think merely of imprecating against a man. Wherefore we judge that those err who judge these sayings to be blasphemy: milliard de dieux, tausend Sakrament, as if someone thought of the true God as multiplied or of more than seven sacraments, when so easy an explanation lies beneath: "take the word once said as if pronounced a thousand times and more often." On the contrary, formulas which are not blasphemous of themselves will have this note from common interpretation. Thus for a long time, because of common estimation, those blasphemed who used the Flemish imprecation: "God damn me." - And the same must be said of an interjection ambiguous of itself: Haere nam de Dieu.

Yet this must be observed. When a formula, as in Flemish, conveys a complete sense, an error can be demonstrated and more easily corrected. But where there is only a certain interjection, no error can be demonstrated, but the sense of the word must as it were be changed. For words are arbitrary signs.

Wherefore, in the year 1903, the bishops of Belgium by common counsel denounced the error concerning the Flemish formula and soon changed the common persuasion. Concerning the French formula there was greater doubt. But since the words themselves did not seem everywhere to be taken with an insulting signification, the bishops and several authors began to inculcate another interpretation and to purge those words of the note of blasphemy. Wherefore, today, this advantage is had, that no formula is established as blasphemous either in Belgium or in France. Penitents indeed will have to be judged according to their past conscience; but they can be admonished that they should indeed omit those words as rather uncivil and sometimes scandalous, yet should not consider them as blasphemous unless from the adjuncts it is shown that they uttered these things in anger against God Himself.

Truly blasphemous, indeed objectively containing heresy or impiety, are several formulas used in certain parts of Italy, by which evil is wished to God, mannaggia a Dio, or to the Blessed Virgin, or by which the purity of the B. V. M. seems to be denied. Yet rather than deny purity, they seem to express indignation concerning the mode of acting of God or of the B. V. M. Madonnaccia, which word can be said innocently of an inelegant painting, becomes blasphemous when it is referred to the B. V. M. As to the words mannaggia ai morti tua (literally: may it be ill for your dead), these are not blasphemous, nor do they signify a serious curse of a dead man. Those who utter them commonly intend only "to reproach the living, to whom they direct that curse after the manner of an insult" (St. Alph., l. 3, n. 130, who does not estimate it as anything but a light sin).

St. Alphonsus admonishes that formulas, in doubt, are to be held as not blasphemous. Contrary to what certain severe men have taught, corrupted formulas are not to be held as blasphemous.

n. 260.

V. Subjective guilt. 1. In order that there be blasphemy, words must be used significatively, not merely historically or by way of jest. Hence he does not blaspheme who reports, in the blasphemous words themselves, a blasphemy heard or said by himself.

Those are to be judged guilty of formal blasphemy: a) who with clear mind or deliberately write impious things; - b) who, sufficiently in possession of themselves, from impatience at an evil which God or a saint could have averted, utter words which they know to be insulting toward God or the saints, or who wish evils to God or the saints; - c) who, to mock priests or pious persons, vomit out blasphemous words. Indeed, the heretical irony of this sort easily aggravates the blasphemy, since it adds contempt of faith or religion.
Those are excused from formal blasphemy who do not advert that what they say is blasphemous.

Those are judged immune from grave guilt who in great sadness utter sentences which, taken literally, would be blasphemous and heretical; for example: "God afflicts me too much; God has abandoned me; God is not just."

But what must be said of those who, from anger against creatures or from custom, without an intention insulting toward God, advertently pronounce formulas which are in themselves blasphemous, yet not according to a blasphemous signification, but merely by way of a certain interjection to which every definite signification is lacking?

Not a few condemn them for formal blasphemy, because blasphemy can be committed by an indirect intention of wounding the divine honor, and this intention is contained in the formal utterance of a blasphemous word. Yet, when the intention of signifying has been removed, words are mere sound. Therefore material blasphemy does not remain except apparently. Thus there is no formal speech, although perhaps it is thought to exist by hearers. And since God looks upon the heart, just as interior blasphemy can exist without exterior blasphemy, so exterior blasphemy can be corrected by the interior mind. Therefore formal blasphemy seems to be denied. Of course the scandal of blasphemy will easily be given among hearers; wherefore a grave obligation must be urged of avoiding those words, which always notably derogate from reverence, or of laying aside the custom of saying them, by a firm purpose repeatedly renewed and by flight from the proximate occasion. Yet, when vulgar blasphemies from mere custom are said mixed with other formulas which are not blasphemous, either without anger, or even from anger, but openly without any respect to God, are not those formulas sufficiently shown from the adjuncts to be uttered without a blasphemous intention, or to be empty of blasphemous signification? Wherefore more often than has customarily been said, men of this sort seem to be excused from grave sin. They themselves, spontaneously or when questioned, are accustomed at once to say that they were not thinking about God. And when they mixedly utter and accuse in the sacrament formulas truly and falsely blasphemous, they themselves seem to reveal a conscience immune from the guilt of blasphemy. Nor does the horror of the faithful, when they hear blasphemous words, suggest a different conclusion. For the faithful experience a similar thing when vain usurpations of the name of God are accumulated in anger. Cf. Baller. ad Gury, I, 303, note 10.

Some excuse from the sin of blasphemy blasphemies uttered in drunkenness, because it belongs to the ratio of blasphemy that it be uttered knowingly. Thus Vasq. in 1.2, d. 127, n. 11; Gobat, Quinarius, tr. 5, c. 9, n. 19; and 19, n. 34-39; Salmanticenses, tr. 25, c. 2, n. 30-32. Others, for example Sanchez, Decal., L. 1, c. 10, n. 44, judge that drunken men are guilty in a foreseen cause, since the words retain their objective signification, or because drunken men have true concepts, so that the whole essence of material blasphemy is had. We think a distinction must be made between blasphemies which drunken men utter as if mechanically and without advertence to the signification, and blasphemies which, seized by anger, they direct against God. In the former case, for the bystanders themselves, the objective signification seems to perish, so that they are not even in the cause of blasphemy; in the other case, if there has been at least confused foresight, we judge that they have committed an insult imputable in its cause. Cf. I, 483.

N. B. It would be unlawful to provoke drunken men to blasphemies. For if you have provoked directly, you blaspheme through them as through an instrument, which is grave. If indirectly, at least a venial irreverence against God will remain, whose name is usurped in a vain and sufficiently hateful manner. Cf. Lehmk. I, 226.

n. 261.

You ask what vain usurpation of the name of God is, and how it is to be estimated.

A usurpation is vain when it is done without utility and without reasonable cause, of which sort already is any expression or manifestation of pious affection.

Vain usurpation of the name of God is a venial sin which, according to the adjuncts and affection, must be placed among graver or lighter sins. The words "By God - Name of God," uttered in anger against men, sound almost like blasphemies; they bring some danger of blasphemy, so that they are grave venial sins. In anger against God, they would be truly blasphemous, interiorly however, not exteriorly. Without anger, from a certain small impatience ("Therefore, God, leave me in peace"), or as a sign of admiration, or by way of a frequent interjection, the words: "Mon Dieu, good God," and similar words savor of a certain light irreverence prohibited in Ecclus. 23:10. Although they are often excused by inadvertence. If there lies beneath a certain ratio of invocation, as sometimes, "Jesus, Mary!" every fault will be absent.

This case being excluded, because words draw their force from common usage, and the speaker by himself alone cannot change their signification, the guilt of vain usurpation is not removed by the fact that the name of God is uttered without sense by way of some interjection.

Nor does it befit a Christian to pronounce the name of the demon continually. In itself, however, the use of that name is not a sin.

n. 262.

Imprecations of grave evil uttered against men will be grave, if seriously willed, or if they are uttered by children against parents or by subjects against Superiors of similar authority. If not, they do not seem to contain grave guilt. Wherefore penitents will have to be questioned concerning their intention.

n. 263.

Action of the confessor. 1. He will unteach particular errors concerning formulas which are judged blasphemous while they contain only a vain usurpation of the Name of God.

Those who use blasphemous formulas and at the same time excuse themselves from grave sin, because they merely signified anger and a serious will, will better be turned away from these habits by other arguments than by injecting consciousness of mortal sin. Let the confessor also invoke the ratio of civility, and insist upon the opportuneness of greater patience and meekness.
Let him suggest suitable remedies against the custom. Such are a fervent renewal of a daily purpose, with the addition of some small penance, for example beating the breast, reciting the Gloria Patri, giving a modest alms; the substitution of another sonorous formula in place of the blasphemous one. Nor let him omit to admonish that this is the immediate fruit of such an effort: that it takes away fault from acts which through custom are done indeliberately.
Let him gravely rebuke parents or masters who blaspheme with greater scandal before children or workers. - Indeed, formulas which, because they are similar to blasphemies, give occasion among children to grave sins must also be avoided.

Marc, Institutiones Morales

Clement Marc, C.SS.R. — 8 passages

Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. II, CHAPTER I: On the Praise of God and on Irreverence Against His Most Holy Name

n. ¶1.

St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 13, and 97-100; St. Alphonsus, III, 121 ff.; ed. G., I, p. 439; Suarez, de Virt. Relig., tr. III, l. I, III; Lehmkuhl, I, n. 506; Genicot, I, n. 291 ff.; Gury-Ferreres, I, n. 299 ff.; Vermeersch, Quaest. de Virt. Relig., n. 159.

n. ¶2.

Preliminary note. "Of God," says the Angelic Doctor, "we can speak in two ways. In one way, as regards his essence; and thus, since he is incomprehensible and ineffable, 'he is greater than every praise'; and under this respect reverence and the honor of latria are due to him. In another way, according to his effects which are ordered to our utility; and under this respect praise is due to him; whence it is said (Isai., 63, 7): I will remember the mercies of the Lord, the praise of the Lord for all the things which the Lord hath rendered to us" (2.2, q. 91, a. 1 ad 1).

n. ¶594.

PRINCIPLES. I. For honoring God praise of the heart is not sufficient, but praise of the mouth is also required. Praise of the heart is honor furnished to God by the internal senses, or by reason and will. But this praise does not suffice, on account of the one praising himself, whose affection toward God ought to be excited from the praise itself, according to that (Ps. 49, 23): The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me; there is the way by which I will show him the salvation of God. Praise of the mouth also profits for this, that the affection of others toward God may be stirred.

Moreover, to the praise of God it pertains confidently to confess God in the sight of all, and to proclaim Christ the author of our salvation. For the Lord says (Luke, 9, 26): He that shall be ashamed of me, and of my words: of him the Son of man shall be ashamed when he shall come in his majesty. Likewise, it pertains to acknowledge and celebrate divine Providence in all events, both prosperous and adverse, saying with Job (1, 21): Blessed be the name of the Lord.

II. Praise of the mouth is imposed upon all negatively, but upon certain persons positively. It is said negatively, insofar as all must abstain from those things which inflict irreverence upon God. - The office of positively praising God is imposed upon religious and clerics, as will be seen n. 2203 ff.

Since irreverence against the MOST HOLY NAME OF GOD is committed: 1. through vain usurpation of it; 2. through blasphemy, therefore concerning these we shall now treat in a twofold article.

Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. II, Ch. I, ARTICLE I: On the Vain Usurpation of the Divine Name

n. ¶595.

DEFINITION. Vain usurpation of the divine name is every appellation of the name either of God or of Our Lord Jesus Christ, made without just cause, or without due reverence.

But this is accustomed to happen from a threefold cause: from impatience, from admiration, from a superfluous manner or custom of speaking. But if with due reverence, and by way of invocation, the name of God is usurped, it is a good and meritorious act.

PRINCIPLES. I. Vain usurpation of the name of God is a sin against religion. For in it the holy and terrible name of God is held like a profane thing. Whence (Exod., 20, 7) it is commanded: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

II. Nevertheless, appellation of this sort, of itself, does not exceed venial fault. For in it grave offense of the divine majesty does not appear. But often it is free of fault, on account of inadvertence.

Hence: 1. The vain usurpation of the names of the Saints, or of the words of Sacred Scripture, is a sin of the same species against religion, because the irreverence brought upon the Saints redounds upon God.

In anger to usurp the demon without imprecation is not of itself a sin against religion, because no reverence is due to him. Yet assiduous naming of him does not befit a Christian, and by reason of scandal can be grave, if namely clerics or religious do this (III, 131, 11).

Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. II, Ch. I, ARTICLE II: On Blasphemy

n. ¶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).

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.

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).

n. ¶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.

n. ¶598.

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

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).

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.

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).

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

n. ¶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

Konings, Theologia Moralis

Anthony Konings, C.SS.R. — 6 passages

Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, Ch. I, ARTICLE I: ON THE VAIN USURPATION OF THE MOST HOLY NAME OF GOD · Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, Ch. I, ARTICLE II: ON BLASPHEMY

Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, Ch. I, ARTICLE I: ON THE VAIN USURPATION OF THE MOST HOLY NAME OF GOD

n. ¶359.

- The Most Holy Name of God is said to be usurped in vain when it is taken without a reasonable cause, or without due reverence. But this is wont to be done especially in a threefold manner, namely:

1° From impatience, or indignation, against creatures even inanimate, or against oneself, for example: My God! Good God! how badly this matter proceeds! My God! how foolish I am!...

2° From admiration, by way of exclamation. Thus it is said: Jesus, Mary! O God! My God!

3° Superfluously, generally from a mere formula, or from levity, or from a certain custom. Thus it is said: My God, indeed,... it is so, or it is not so.

n. ¶360.

Questions. - Quaer. 1° Is the vain usurpation of the name of God always a sin, and how great?

Resp. 1° Of itself it is a sin, because it injures the reverence due to the divine name. It is established moreover from Ecclesiasticus:² Let not the naming of God be continual in thy mouth.

Resp. 2° Of itself it is only a venial sin, because that reverence is not gravely injured. But it can become mortal because of formal contempt of God or grave anger against Him, because then it is judged to participate in the nature of blasphemy.

Resp. 3° Although fault is often absent because of inadvertence, yet they are not to be excused who, without any sense of reverence, from custom always have the Most Holy Name of God in their mouth. - On the other hand, if the Most Holy Name of God is usurped with due reverence, even in indifferent matters, not only will sin be absent, but, where it is thus usurped by way of invocation, it will be a good and meritorious work. For the rest, they will more easily be excused from sin who usurp the Most Holy Name of God by way of admiration or interjection, because then irreverence is more easily absent.

Quaer. 2° Is it a sin to usurp uselessly the names of the Saints?

Resp. Affirmatively. For what is said concerning the Most Holy Name of God must, proportion observed, also be said concerning the names of the Saints, as is established from the cited place of Ecclesiasticus, where it is added: And meddle not with the names of Saints. The same also must be said concerning the vain usurpation of the words of Sacred Scripture, when they are taken irreverently. Council of Trent, session 4.

Quaer. 3° Is the assiduous and useless usurpation of the name of the demon a sin?

Resp. Negatively, of itself. Yet it is to be reproved as less becoming in the mouth of Christians, especially of priests, who by reason of scandal sometimes are not free from mortal fault. - Busembaum apud St. Alphonsus,¹ Bouvier, etc.

Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, Ch. I, ARTICLE II: ON BLASPHEMY

n. ¶361.

Definition. - Blasphemy is speech injurious to God. Speech, however, can be done not only by explicit word, but in some sense also by mind and by deed. Yet if there is question of reservation or of other penalties inflicted on blasphemy, only oral blasphemy is properly understood.

Division. Blasphemy is distinguished first:

1° Direct, or indirect, according as dishonor of God is either directly and formally intended by the blasphemer, or, although not intended, yet in his sayings or gestures some contumely against God is contained. Direct blasphemy, since ordinarily it has hatred of God joined with it, differs in species from indirect blasphemy, which is uttered from anger against men or creatures.¹

2° Immediate, or mediate, according as it affects God Himself immediately, or only mediately, namely by dishonoring the Saints or sacred things in words. They do not differ in species.

3° Heretical, imprecatory, and merely reproachful, according as it contains heresy, or imprecation, or mere contumely; these differ in species, since the heretical is also opposed to faith, and the imprecatory also to charity.

Principles. - I. Any formal and deliberate blasphemy, whether direct or indirect, whether immediate or mediate, is a mortal sin from its whole genus. The reason is that any contumely against God is a grave injury inflicted on the divine Majesty. - Yet it can become venial from imperfection of the act, namely from defect of advertence or of perfect consent.

II. For perfect blasphemy, by reason of the act, an express and explicit intention of dishonoring God is not necessary, but an implicit one suffices, namely when someone with advertence utters those things which contain true contumely against God, even from jest or from anger against creatures. The reason is that from these there follows grave dishonor of God, although indirect; for grave irreverence is committed against God when words contumelious to Him are employed for jest, or for expressing anger. - Reuter.² Except, unless the jest takes away every manner of irreverence toward God.

III. Words are to be held blasphemous of themselves which, from common apprehension, which has already attributed a determined sense to the words,³ or from a derisive or angry manner of speaking, or other circumstances, contain dishonor of God.

n. ¶362.

You will resolve. - 1° It is blasphemy to say: May the death, or blood of God destroy you; may the Sacraments destroy you. Likewise to spit toward heaven, to gnash the teeth against it, to say that one wishes to do something against God's will, and similar things.

2° It is blasphemy to say: God has wholly forgotten me. Why did God create me? - Yet except if these things are uttered in a human manner of speaking, from levity, or to show the gravity of pain or weariness, as is often wont to happen. But they are never to be excused from grave sin who advertently and seriously say: God is unjust. - God unjustly burdens me with tribulations. - He unjustly permits the wicked to be happy in the world. - Voit.

3° Ordinarily they are to be judged to have sinned gravely who, carried away by anger or some passion, uttered words of blasphemy; nor is their excuse to be admitted that they did not attend to the signification of the words, because ordinarily there was not lacking some advertence, at least confused, concerning the malice of blasphemy. The same is to be resolved concerning the habituated, excepting nevertheless those who, from an inveterate custom of blaspheming already retracted, break out indeliberately into words of this sort.²

4° He does not sin gravely who pronounces words indeed blasphemous in themselves, but halved or corrupted, so that he does not attend to the true sense; for these no longer have the nature of blasphemy. - St. Alphonsus,³ Bouvier.⁴

n. ¶363.

Questions. - Quaer. 1° Is it blasphemy to curse creatures?

Resp. Distinguish: it is blasphemy to curse creatures with relation to God, for example rain, winds, as commanded by God, or with the word God added; likewise to curse a creature which of itself has a special relation to God, for example our soul, the Catholic Faith, heaven, and the like. But otherwise, as almost happens, if the indignation is borne against creatures without relation to God. - Thus commonly.⁵ Hence:

Quaer. 2° Are the imprecations in English to be judged blasphemous: 1° "GOD DAMN ME or YOU"; 2° "GOD DAMN MY or YOUR SOUL"; 3° "GOD DAMN MY or YOUR SOUL TO HELL"?

The first formula seems scarcely, or hardly at all, able to be proved blasphemous; for the pronoun me or you, as is plain of itself, denotes the soul neither etymologically nor from common apprehension, at least among our people. Kenrick⁶ excuses it in practice from mortal sin, as for the most part containing nothing other than a merely material imprecation.

The second, considering the principles applied by St. Alphonsus to cursing the dead, seems blasphemous, and therefore of itself mortal, although in the genus of cursing or material imprecation it would be. For the Holy Doctor denies that cursing the dead is blasphemous also for this reason, that it is not referred to the soul; but in the second and third formula the soul is named in express words.

Quaer. 3° Is it blasphemy to curse the whole world?

Resp. Affirmatively, because just as to swear by creatures in which the divine attributes shine forth more is a true oath, so to curse those same things is true blasphemy, because in them God is indirectly contemned.²

n. ¶364.

- Quaer. 4° Is it blasphemy to curse the dead?

Resp. Negatively, unless the mind is specifically borne toward the souls of purgatory, because the dead in general do not have a special relation with God.²

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 7 passages

Vol. II, Tr. XI, Sect. II, Q. I, Ch. III, Article VIII. On Blasphemy

n. 529.

529. Notion. Blasphemy⁸⁰⁸ is customarily defined: speech contumelious toward God.

It is called speech because blasphemy properly and strictly so called is committed by words alone; nevertheless, under the name of blasphemy are also included any other signs whatsoever that are contumelious toward God. Indeed, there are authors who distinguish blasphemy of the heart, of the mouth, and of deed. Blasphemy of the heart consists of thoughts inflicting contumely upon God. Blasphemy of the mouth is speech contumelious toward God. Blasphemy of deed is an external work signifying contumely toward God, for example, to spit toward heaven, to trample a crucifix underfoot, to crush a consecrated host underfoot, etc. But blasphemy in the strict sense is speech contumelious toward God; and therefore, if blasphemy in some diocese is a reserved sin or is punished by other penalties, only blasphemy uttered by mouth or in writing is understood.

St. Thomas treats blasphemy among the sins which are opposed to the due confession of faith, because, just as through the confession of faith something befitting the divine excellence is asserted, so through external blasphemy something repugnant to the divine excellence is asserted with a certain detestation of affection.⁸⁰⁹ Nevertheless, every blasphemy is also opposed to the virtue of religion, since religion has for its object the worship and honor of God, whereas blasphemy does the altogether contrary thing, namely, it inflicts contumely upon God.⁸¹⁰ Moreover, it often happens that one sin is opposed to diverse virtues. Modern theologians, and also the Code of Canon Law, c. 2323, treat blasphemy as an offense against religion.

⁸⁰⁸ The name blasphemy seems to be taken from the Greek words βλάπτω and φήμη, which signify injury to reputation. But the reputation of God cannot be injured by detraction and calumny, since God is present everywhere. There remains only contumely, which is uttered against one who is present. But just as contumely uttered against a man who is present gravely injures him, so contumely inflicted upon the omnipresent God through blasphemy is a grave offense against God.

⁸⁰⁹ Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 13.

⁸¹⁰ Thus also Billuart teaches, De fide tr. 5, a. 5.

n. 530.

530. Divisions. Blasphemy is distinguished:

Heretical and non-heretical.

Heretical blasphemy contains true heresy, whether formal or material; for example: God is a tyrant; or if a Calvinist says: God is the cause of sin. When the blaspheming man truly believes the heresy uttered, he is a formal heretic; but if he only utters this externally without interior assent, he is a material heretic, as if some Catholic from despair were to say: God has altogether forgotten me. Non-heretical blasphemy contains no heresy, but only an imprecation or contumely against God, and is customarily subdivided into simple (opprobrious) and imprecatory blasphemy. The former is simple contumely or mockery. In this manner the Jews blasphemed, saying to Christ: "Vah, thou that destroyest the temple of God and in three days dost rebuild it, save thy own self."⁸¹¹ The latter is imprecatory blasphemy, by which evil is wished to God, for example: May God perish! If this is done truly and deliberately, it is joined with hatred of God, which is simply the gravest of all sins.

Immediate and mediate blasphemy.

The former dishonors God Himself directly; the latter dishonors saints or sacred things, not indeed according to themselves, but insofar as they have a close relation to God. Thus, for example, if someone were to say of the Blessed Virgin that she is an unchaste Venus, he would commit mediate blasphemy, provided that in the Blessed Virgin he willed to dishonor God. But if he were to say the same thing intending solely the dishonor of the Blessed Virgin as she is a human being, it would be a sin against hyperdulia, but not properly a sin of blasphemy.⁸¹²

⁸¹¹ Matt. 27:40.

⁸¹² Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 26, a. 2.

n. 531.

531. Malice. Blasphemy is a mortal sin in its whole genus, and therefore cannot become venial from slightness of matter, but only from imperfection of the act.

The enormous malice of blasphemy can already be suspected from the most grave penalty of death inflicted upon it in the Old Testament: "The man that curseth his God shall bear his sin; and he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die."⁸¹³ Even in law, both canon and civil, grave penalties are inflicted upon blasphemers.⁸¹⁴ Indeed, St. Pius V decreed that the tongue of blasphemers could be pierced.⁸¹⁵ The intrinsic reason, however, why blasphemy is so grave a sin is its hostile opposition both to the charity of God, to the virtue of religion, and often to theological faith. Hence whenever truly voluntary and deliberate blasphemy is present, it is always a mortal sin.⁸¹⁶

Because of imperfection of the act, blasphemous words often are not grave sins. For sufficient advertence and intention are not rarely lacking in blasphemers. From anger, from sudden affections, or from a habit not altogether voluntary, men, especially the uneducated, break forth into blasphemous words without in any way intending to insult God or sacred things. If someone has a bad habit of uttering blasphemous words, he must lay it aside according to his powers; otherwise, acts produced from the habit are imputed to him, although he does not attend to the malice of each. Cf. the things said above in I, n. 90 concerning the influence of habit upon the morality of human acts.

⁸¹³ Lev. 24:15ff.

⁸¹⁴ Code of Canon Law, c. 2323. Cf. German Penal Code § 166 and Staatslexikon, s.v. "Religious offenses" (Religionsverbrechen).

⁸¹⁵ Constitution Cum pridem, issued in 1566.

⁸¹⁶ Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 13, aa. 2 and 3, where the Angelic Doctor says: "Since the blasphemer intends to inflict injury upon the divine honor, simply speaking, he sins more gravely than a murderer"; and with St. Augustine he says: "It is worse to blaspheme than to perjure oneself."

n. 532.

532. Practical rules for discerning whether gravely sinful blasphemy is present in a particular case.

It is necessary to attend especially to three things:

the intention of the speaker or agent;
the natural sense of the words;
the common estimation in the place.

When it is established that the speaker or agent truly willed to blaspheme, the matter is clear, since a depraved intention deforms every human act. But if it is not clearly established that the speaker or agent willed to inflict contumely upon God, and indeed it appears rather that he intended something else, then it is necessary to attend to the natural sense of the words and especially to the common estimation prevailing in the place. According to the natural sense of words, it is blasphemy if a) something true is denied of God or something false is imputed to Him; for example, the following expressions are blasphemies: God is not just; God is cruel; God does not care for me; b) some divine attribute is attributed to a creature; for example, if someone says: I can do this as well as God; or if a lover seriously calls his beloved a Goddess. Commonly, however, expressions of this kind are rather exaggerations and are not seriously intended; nevertheless, they are always diligently to be avoided, as is evident of itself; c) if someone utters things contumelious against the Church founded by Christ, against the sacraments, against the worship of God, etc.

But especially to be attended to is the common estimation prevailing in the place; for blasphemous words are often truncated: in one place they are held as blasphemous, but in another they are not. Thus, for example, the Dutch words "God dom" were held in former times as blasphemous, but now this acceptance is already ceasing. Whether the same is to be said of the similar English expression "God damn," I do not dare to affirm; for it seems to be blasphemy. The German expressions "Tausend Sakrament" [a thousand sacraments] and "Tausend Herrgott" [a thousand Lord Gods], as also the French expression "Mille noms de Dieu" [a thousand names of God], according to common estimation are not blasphemies, but vain uses of a sacred thing. For those who employ such expressions by no means intend or understand that there are a thousand sacraments, a thousand Gods, or a thousand names of God.

n. 533.

533. Remedies against blasphemies.

If there is question of fully deliberate blasphemies, blasphemers are seriously to be admonished not only how grave a sin blasphemy is, but also how senseless and foolish it is to wish to inflict contumely upon the Most High God. For just as it would be madness to wish to harm the sun or the moon, so it is still more irrational to wish to do something against God. For the Psalmist says most excellently: "Why have the nations raged, and the peoples devised vain things? ... He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them."⁸¹⁷
If there is question of blasphemies which are customarily uttered from sudden anger or from other vehement affections, it is to be inculcated how vain those expressions are and how easily they cause scandal. If all admonitions have been fruitless, certain conventional penalties are a very salutary remedy against habitual blasphemies; for example, an alms is to be given as often as a blasphemy has been uttered, or after each blasphemy a pious ejaculatory prayer is to be said in reparation.

A curse and the vain use of the divine name or of sacred things must be clearly distinguished from blasphemy, although these two are not rarely confused with blasphemy by the simple.

⁸¹⁷ Ps. 2:1, 4.

n. 534.

534. A curse is to invoke evil upon another. One can invoke evil a) upon God or sacred things and persons, b) upon rational creatures, c) upon irrational creatures, d) upon the devil.

a) To curse God or sacred things and persons is blasphemy, as was explained above.

b) To curse rational creatures ordinarily is opposed only to charity or justice, and therefore St. Thomas treats cursing among the sins opposed to justice.⁸¹⁸ Curses of this kind are often poured forth from sudden anger without serious intention, and then they are only venial sins; for example, if an angry person exclaims: May the devil seize you! May lightning strike you! May you break your neck! etc. Such curses are especially to be avoided by parents and other superiors, both because scandal is accustomed to arise from them and because sometimes, beyond expectation, they are efficacious. For it happens that the evil which parents invoke upon their children from anger afterward truly occurs. Hence it is said: "The blessing of the father establisheth the houses of the children, but the curse of the mother rooteth up the foundation."⁸¹⁹ Curses seriously uttered against one's neighbor proceed from hatred and are gravely or lightly sinful according to the gravity of the hatred and of the evil wished.

c) To curse irrational creatures, for example, winds, horses, rains, etc., is not blasphemy, because then some relation to God is by no means customarily attended to and intended. Commonly it is nothing other than a light sin of impatience. Indeed, if there is an honorable end, such curses are no sin, as happens in exorcism. Thus David also cursed the mountains of Gilboa, Job and Jeremiah cursed the day of their birth, and indeed Christ Himself cursed the fig tree.⁸²⁰

d) To curse the devil as the enemy of God and of the human race is lawful.⁸²¹

Note. Exclamations such as: devil, heaven, lightning (Donnerwetter! [thunderstorm!]), etc., are not blasphemies; they are customarily nothing other than sudden eruptions of a vivid affection. In themselves they are not sinful, but per accidens they become unlawful if scandal arises from them, as if priests, parents, or teachers often use them. The faithful are especially to be admonished not to utter frequently the name of the devil, the most bitter enemy of our salvation; but they are also to be openly instructed that exclamations of this kind are not true blasphemies.

⁸¹⁸ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 76.

⁸¹⁹ Ecclus. 3:11.

⁸²⁰ Cf. S. theol., l.c., a. 2.

⁸²¹ Cf. ibid., a. 1 ad 4.

n. 535.

535. The vain use of the name of God is specially forbidden in the second precept of the Decalogue: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,"⁸²² by which precept we are forbidden vainly, that is, irreverently, to utter not only the name of God, but also the names of saints and of sacred things. Such vain uses of the name of God or of the saints are, for example: My God! Jesus, how shameful this is! Sacrament! Cross! etc. Apart from scandal, vain uses of this kind are a venial sin against the virtue of religion. For the irreverences inflicted upon God in this manner are not so grave that they constitute a grave sin, since neither from their signification nor from the intention of the speakers do they directly assail the honor of God. Nevertheless, all, but especially priests and religious, must diligently avoid such exclamations, since they are useful for nothing, sometimes provide scandal, and are always venially evil.

⁸²² Ex. 20:7.

Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis

Benedict Henry Merkelbach, O.P. — 42 passages

Vol. I, Special Moral Theology, Treatise: On Divine Faith, Fourth Part: On the Vices …, Question Three: On Blasphemy, Which Is Opposed to the Confession of Faith

n. ¶1.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

n. 783.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

…and 2 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions

Benedict H. Merkelbach, O.P. — 69 passages

Ch. II, Section A. Concerning Cert…, Question II: Concerning Sins Against Reverence for God

n. ¶4599.

I. Matter to be treated. - Sins committed against reverence for God are prohibited in a general way by the second precept of the Decalogue. They are very many; among them blasphemies, imprecations, and illicit oaths come more often to be attended to and healed by the confessor.¹

¹ Concerning these matters see all moralists. Especially to be seen are: Aertnijs, Th. M., I, l. II, concerning the second precept, n. 64 sq., Th. P., nn. 80-83; Reuter, Neo-conf., nn. 118, 185-186; Marc, Th. M., I, nn. 596-613; Haine, Th. M., I, concerning the second precept, nn. 39-59; Genicot, Th. M., I, nn. 292-303; Prummer, Th. M., II, n. 437 sq. and 529 sq.

n. ¶4600.

II. Notions concerning blasphemy.² - Blasphemy is insulting speech against God, whether it immediately touches God Himself, or mediately through the saints or other creatures, insofar as their dishonoring redounds upon God.

² We are content with a brief and simple exposition and recollection of notions; for a more profound and accurate notion we refer to our work: Summa Theologiae Moralis, II, n. 781 sq.

n. ¶4601.

It can be committed chiefly in five ways:

n. ¶4602.

to attribute to God what is repugnant to Him, for example that He is cruel, a tyrant, unfaithful, lying;

n. ¶4603.

to deny what belongs to Him, for example that He does not provide concerning human things; such is the expression: Whether God wills or not! or: Malgre Dieu;

n. ¶4604.

to say true things but in an insulting or mocking manner, or with indignation or anger against God, for example: Bah! the goodness of God; or: blood of Christ; Bah! Thou who destroyest the temple of God; Thou hast suffered!; Thou hast conquered, Galilean;

n. ¶4605.

to attribute to a creature what is proper to God alone, for example to say: I would do this as well as God; or to call the devil omnipotent, more faithful;

n. ¶4606.

to utter abusive words against the saints or other creatures with a special relation to God, for example: Blessed Mary is not a virgin, she is a mother like the rest.

n. ¶4607.

By reason of the sense of the words, blasphemy:

n. ¶4608.

a) is sometimes heretical, which states a heresy or falsity against faith, for example: God does not wish or is not able to help me;

n. ¶4609.

b) sometimes imprecatory, by which evil is wished to God immediately or mediately, for example: cursed be God! - may God perish!

n. ¶4610.

c) sometimes dishonoring or simple, which contains only insult and is customarily uttered in the manner of despising or indignation, for example to say in this manner: the name of God!; Hail, king of the Jews; the blood or death of Christ; or also to spit into heaven, to trample on a cross.

n. ¶4611.

On the part of intention, one kind is directly intended or diabolical, which is done from the explicit intention of dishonoring God and inflicting insult upon Him; another is indirectly intended, when it is done with sufficient deliberation without the express purpose of dishonoring God.

n. ¶4612.

III. Principles for judging the malice of blasphemy. - The following points especially come to be attended to:

n. ¶4613.

Blasphemy against God is a most grave mortal sin from its whole genus, because it inflicts the highest injury upon the supreme Majesty, even if it is mediated through the saints or creatures. If nevertheless the saints were not regarded as saints, but as men, without considering their relation to God, there would not be blasphemy properly so called against religion, but a sin against dulia alone, mortal from its genus, which admits smallness of matter, for example if it were done in jest and without contempt or indignation against the saints.

n. ¶4614.

Those expressions are blasphemous which, either from their proper signification, or from the common acceptation of the words, or from the mind of the one uttering them, inflict injury upon divine honor.

n. ¶4615.

For the sin of blasphemy a direct intention of dishonoring God is not required, but the assertive utterance of a blasphemous word suffices; consequently he blasphemes who deliberately utters a word which turns to the reproach of God, even if he speaks it from anger against neighbor alone.

n. ¶4616.

To utter corrupted or halved words is not blasphemous by force of their proper signification, because for this it is necessary that the expression have a complete sense insulting against God: thus, for example, sacre nom, santo di, saterment, sangi de Dio, jarnidie, potverdomme, sangbleu. In these cases the conscience of the one uttering them and the mode of uttering them are to be attended to.

n. ¶4617.

Equivocal expressions are not blasphemous, at least of themselves, for example: sacred name of God; it is as true as God; but the sense depends upon the intention of the one uttering it and the circumstances. Thus in the expression: true as God, the created and uncreated truth are not necessarily equated, but only a likeness mixed with some hyperbole is indicated.

n. ¶4618.

To utter sacred words nakedly from anger or indignation, not against God but against men or creatures, is not blasphemous: the name of God, sainte croix.

n. ¶4619.

In our regions there are formulas which of themselves are not blasphemous, though by their proper signification they can be insulting against God, because generally they are not held by men as blasphemous, for example: mort Dieu, mille Dieu, mille nom de Dieu, sacre milliard de Dieu, tausend Herr Gott, tausend sakrament!

n. ¶4620.

IV. Applications. - 1. To curse creatures (saints, priests, creatures considered in themselves, the devil) is not blasphemous, unless it is done insofar as they have a special relation to God. "Hence," says Marc, Th. M., I, n. 598, 3: "a) it is blasphemy to curse the saints, 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 God is added, for example, cursed be the rain of God; or unless divine power shines forth in them in a peculiar way, as the soul, heaven, the whole world, etc.; in which case in them He would be indirectly contemned; c) to curse a man, living or dead, without uttering the word soul, is not blasphemy, unless the intention of the speaker refers the curse 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 devil, as author of evils, is not blasphemy; e) in anger to imprecate against oneself or others the devil, thunderbolts, etc., is likewise a dire imprecation, which for the most part, because of defect of serious will, is only venial fault. Nevertheless it is grave irreverence if subjects thus curse superiors, children parents, even if only materially, especially to the face."

n. ¶4621.

The French expression Sacre Nom de Dieu from its proper and absolute signification can be taken in a good or bad sense, either as: blessed..., or as: execrable or cursed be the name of God. The sense depends upon the intention of the one uttering it. Nevertheless commonly it is not blasphemous, because those uttering it abstract from any sense whatever of the word, and ordinarily are indignant not against God but against men or creatures.

n. ¶4622.

The Flemish expression God verdomme of itself is not blasphemy, but an imprecation which signifies: May God damn, or may God damn me; hence of itself it is venial, but mortal if someone seriously imprecated eternal damnation against himself.³

³ This also holds concerning the English expression: God damn me; but something altogether different must be said concerning the formula: God be damned, which signifies: let God be damned.

n. ¶4623.

The vain usurpation of the name of God in the manner of an oath, for example per Deum, par Dieu, bij God, or in the manner of an interjection, for example, the name of God!, without indignation against God, is venial.

n. ¶4624.

V. Practical rules for confessors. - 1. Those who accuse themselves in confession of blasphemies are often excused from mortal sin: a) because the expressions do not have a complete sense but are corrupted, and those uttering them do not have the intention of blaspheming or dishonoring God; or b) because they are equivocal expressions or rather non-serious imprecations; or c) because they are uttered without sufficient advertence and perfect consent, for example from a sudden movement of anger, or sudden pain; or d) because on account of their ignorance they do not understand the expressions and for the most part do not judge themselves to sin mortally.

n. ¶4625.

As regards blasphemies uttered from custom, a distinction must be made: those who have not yet retracted the custom are easily to be blamed for blasphemies which they seem to utter inadvertently, if the formulas are truly blasphemous, because they are voluntary in their cause, and often in themselves on account of sufficient advertence; on the contrary, those who have retracted the custom and have seriously proposed to amend themselves, and have applied themselves to this by using means for this purpose, are not in the cause with respect to blasphemies which they utter inadvertently. See n. IX.

n. ¶4626.

Let confessors beware lest they hear the fictitious excuses of blasphemers as legitimate: I do not utter the words with the mind of dishonoring God but from custom or anger. For the custom must be taken away and anger expressed otherwise.

n. ¶4627.

Penitents are to be questioned a) concerning the words uttered: for often they confuse imprecations, curses, oaths, and blasphemies; and moreover it must be established whether the blasphemies proceeded from infidelity, desperation, or anger against God or the saints; b) concerning the times and occasion, so that they may thus know whether they are recidivists or in an occasion; c) concerning circumstances: whether they did this before children, servants, or others, because then scandal is present.

n. ¶4628.

The confessor must take great care not to condemn as certainly sinful what in itself is doubtful; likewise lest those who sin gravely because of erroneous conscience be left in their error. Hence those who accuse themselves of equivocal expressions, such as: sacred name of God, or of imprecations which by many are held as blasphemies, such as: may God damn me, are to be questioned concerning what sense they attributed to them; and if they did not pronounce them from an explicit intention of dishonoring God, it is to be said that those formulas are not blasphemous, but are to be left as venial things.

n. ¶4629.

For amendment the cause of the evil is to be considered. Blasphemies arise from irreverence toward God, from anger, from custom; these therefore are to be removed: irreverence, by considering the rights of God to our reverence, and the enormity, temerity, and uselessness of blasphemy; anger, by removing the causes which excite it and disposing oneself as far as possible to tolerate any injuries whatever; custom, by frequently renewing the purpose not to blaspheme (for example every morning) and by praying to this end, by imposing upon oneself some penance each time (for example a small alms, an act of contrition, striking the breast, asking pardon, an ejaculatory prayer, etc.), by not mixing the name of God into expressions, by substituting innocent expressions, etc. The confessor will opportunely be able to impose a penance to be recited for 7 or 14 days.

n. ¶4630.

VI. Notions and principles concerning imprecations. - An imprecation or curse is an act by which someone calls down evil upon another under the aspect of evil. This sin is not always opposed to divine reverence, religion, and the second precept of the Decalogue, but only when it imports a dishonoring of God; otherwise it will be against charity or also justice, and thus against the precepts of the second table, for example against the fifth or eighth. Hence in particular:

n. ¶4631.

A. Against religion and the second precept of the Decalogue are, and are grave sin:

n. ¶4632.

imprecations directed immediately against God, because they are great imprecatory blasphemy;

n. ¶4633.

likewise imprecations against creatures, but considered in relation to God, because then the curse redounds upon God: this easily happens concerning wind, rain, heaven, thunder, the whole world, etc., for example, cursed be the rain of God; and almost always concerning sacred things or persons; if nevertheless holy persons are considered in themselves, the sin will not be against religion but against dulia;

n. ¶4634.

likewise curses against creatures considered in themselves, but by something divine or holy which exists not for cursing but for blessing, for example: may God's blood, death, head, wounds, passion, etc., destroy you.

n. ¶4635.

B. They are not against religion, but against charity of neighbor and justice:

n. ¶4636.

to curse rational creatures or any neighbors whatever considered without relation to God, which is mortal sin from its genus, if it is done from the heart; otherwise it will be venial, as for the most part happens: thus, for example, may the devil carry you off, may God damn you;

n. ¶4637.

likewise to curse irrational creatures insofar as they serve the utility of men, for example cattle, because in fact this is to curse men;

n. ¶4638.

much more to curse parents, which is not only mortal if a grave evil is wished seriously, but sometimes if a light evil is wished, because it is also great irreverence against piety; likewise to curse children or before children, which in parents is also a sin against piety, because they easily provide scandal and are the cause that children thereafter have no reverence and obedience toward them; likewise to curse superiors, especially when present, which also easily is grave and against observance.

…and 29 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium of Moral Theology

Aloysius Sabetti, S.J., and Timothy Barrett, S.J. — 4 passages

Vol. I, Tr. VI, On the Second Precept of t…, Chapter I. On Vain Usurpation of the Name of God and Blasphemy

n. 219.

The most holy name of God is said to be usurped in vain when it is assumed without reasonable cause or without due reverence. But this can happen in many ways, for example, from impatience against creatures; from admiration by way of ordinary exclamation; or also superfluously by way of interjection, as from mere formula or custom.

But blasphemy is speech against God by way of insult. This speech can be made not only by words, but also by exterior signs, for example, by gestures or by some indecent action. In whatever way it is made, if it is insulting toward God, it contains in itself the whole malice of blasphemy; if, however, it is a question of reservation or of other penalties inflicted for blasphemy, only oral blasphemy is properly understood.

Blasphemy is distinguished in three ways, namely: 1st, direct or indirect, according as the dishonoring of God is directly and formally intended by the blasphemer, or is not intended in itself, yet is contained in sayings injurious to God which are uttered by him with advertence to the sense which the words contain, with the intention, for example, of jesting or manifesting anger; 2nd, immediate or mediate, according as it immediately affects God himself or only mediately, namely the Saints or sacred things, and in them the sanctity of God which they participate; 3rd, heretical, imprecatory, and merely reproachful, according as it contains heresy, or imprecation, or mere insult.

n. 220.

I Say 1st. To usurp the name of God in vain is indeed always a sin, excluding the case of inadvertence; but of itself it does not exceed venial sin. The reason of the first is taken both from the law of nature, which openly prohibits usurpation of this kind, and from positive law, for in Ecclus. xxiii, 10, it is said: "Let not the naming of God be continual in thy mouth." But the reason of the second is that, since that irreverence is not toward the very person of God, it is not apprehended as something grave, as is clear from the common interpretation of theologians and the sense of the faithful. - I said of itself because it can become mortal by reason of contempt, or of anger against God; for then it is judged to participate in the malice of blasphemy. Hence:

1st. Those expressions employed among our people, "by God" or "God damn," of themselves contain only venial malice, because they are reduced to vain usurpation of the name of God.

2nd. The same must be said, with proportion observed, concerning the useless usurpation of the names of Saints and words of Sacred Scripture. But to utter the name of the demon uselessly and frequently tastes only of some indecency.

3rd. To utter the most holy name Jesus with anger, and with eyes turned upward to heaven, or in such a way that from the circumstances contempt appears to be present, is a grave sin, because it contains the malice of blasphemy, concerning which it will be spoken at once.

I Say 2nd. Any formal and deliberate blasphemy, whether it is direct or indirect, immediate or mediate, is a mortal sin from its whole genus. The reason is that the malice of insult is taken from the excellence of the person to whom it is inflicted; and since in this case it is infinite, blasphemy always and by its nature has a certain infinity, and therefore will always be a mortal sin. - I said 1st, formal and deliberate, because sin can become venial from imperfection of the act. - I said 2nd, whether direct or indirect, because although the indirect voluntary is less intense, if you attend to the degree, nevertheless if you attend to the theological species of the sin, it does not differ from the direct. - I said 3rd, whether immediate or mediate; for St. Thomas says: "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 made against the Saints, consequently redounds against God." - Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 13, art. 1 and 3.

I Say 3rd. Words are to be held as blasphemous of themselves which, from common apprehension, or the usage of the country or region, or from a derisive or angry manner of speaking, or other circumstances, contain dishonoring of God and from common apprehension are reputed as blasphemous, although of themselves they do not properly sound blasphemy. The reason is that words and formulas of speaking do not have efficacy merely from grammatical force, but also from the sense attached to them by common usage and estimation. - Cf. Reuter, n. 442. - Kenrick, tract. 3, nn. 37 and following.

n. 221.

Questions

Question 1. Is it necessarily to be opened in confession whether the blasphemy was direct or indirect, immediate or mediate?

Response. Negatively, probably, for just as for blasphemy to be direct is only an aggravating circumstance, so to be mediate is only a diminishing one, but the specific malice is the same in either case. But if the blasphemy was heretical, that must certainly be opened, because then besides the virtue of religion, faith is injured. - Cf. Baller., note (c), p. 291, and note (a), p. 293.

n. 221, Q. 2.

Question 2. Is it blasphemy to curse creatures?

Response. It is certainly blasphemy to curse creatures with relation to God, for example, rain or winds, as commanded by God, or with the word God added; likewise to curse a creature which of itself has a special relation to God, for example, our soul, the Catholic faith, heaven, and similar things. But one must speak otherwise if indignation is directed toward creatures without relation to God. Wherefore that formula accustomed to be employed by our people, "God damn your soul," whether "to hell" is added or not, of itself is blasphemous. Indeed, besides the malice of blasphemy it also contains another specific malice against charity. I said of itself, for often each malice is lacking, because the soul is not usurped as a creature in which divine goodness shines forth in a special way, and because there is not an affection or desire of harming one's neighbor. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 128. - Kenrick, n. 44.

You Will Resolve. It is greatly to be commended to the faithful that they associate themselves with those Sodalities which in a special way turn members away from blasphemy and other sinful modes of speaking of this kind, such as, for example, is the Society named from the Most Holy Name.

Billuart, Summa Summae

Charles-René Billuart, O.P. — 14 passages

Billuart, Summa Summae, Tomus III. On the Secunda …, On Faith, On the Vices Opposed to Fa…, On blasphemy

Blasphemy is a Greek word signifying the same as in Latin malediction. It is taken by theologians for a malediction detracting from the excellency of goodness, especially divine goodness. Hence I say 1°: Blasphemy can be defined⁴⁷: « A speaking of the heart or of the mouth by which, in the manner of an insult, something is said derogating from the excellency of the divine goodness. » Or more briefly: « A contumelious utterance against God. » ⁴⁷ This q. 13, a. 1, o.

It is explained. It is said 1° « of the heart or of the mouth; » because we speak with both, and the demons, who speak only in mind, blaspheme.

Diss. III, Chapter V — On the various formulas of blaspheming against God and against the Saints · Diss. III, Chapter VI — On the penalties established against blasphemers, and on their judges

It is said 2° « in the manner of an insult. » By this it is distinguished from simple infidelity, which consists in assent against the faith. For blasphemy does not require assent against the faith, but it suffices that something be said of God in the manner of an insult.

n. 4.

Nor is there required for this, mark well, an explicit and express intention of insulting and dishonoring God, but virtual and implicit suffices, insofar as by words, or by the manner of pronouncing them, according to the common apprehension, God is dishonored and contemned. Hence I do not assent to those who say that it is not blasphemy but only a vain use of the divine name, when someone, out of indignation against man, not against God, utters his head, his death, his blood, and the like. For those words so pronounced are contumelious to God, though uttered on occasion of another. Consequently there is there a virtual and implicit intention of dishonoring God. And otherwise blasphemies would be exceedingly rare, whereas they are reckoned most frequent. Hence St. Thomas, this a. 2, ad 3, says that he who suddenly breaks out into blasphemous words from some passion, adverting to their signification, commits mortal blasphemy; but he who utters these and the like words not only contumeliously, but either recitatively, or historically, is not a blasphemer: whence special attention must be given to the manner of pronouncing.

n. 5.

It is said « derogating from the excellency of the divine goodness. » And this is done not only when something contumelious is said directly against God, but also against the saints and sacred things; not indeed per se (for thus it would not be properly blasphemy, but the vice of irreligion, opposed to dulia), but with some relation at least virtual to God. For just as, says the Author, God is praised in his saints, insofar as the works which God works in the saints are praised, so also blasphemy committed against the saints redounds consequently to God. Therefore he who would say that St. Peter was impious and damned, that the Blessed Virgin was a harlot, would be a blasphemer. But he who spoke of them, not as saints, but as they were men on earth, e. g., if he called St. Peter bald, St. Crispin a shoemaker, would not be properly a blasphemer, since here there is no respect to God. But if he uttered these things out of hatred and indignation, he would sin mortally against dulia and the observance due to the saints; if however out of jest or levity, it would be venial sin.

n. 6.

Therefore blasphemy is committed: 1° by denying to God what befits him, or asserting of him what does not befit him: and this whether it be done enuntiatively, optatively, imperatively, or in imperfect speech; 2° by attributing to him what befits him, but mockingly and as something blameworthy, as by naming contemptuously the members of Christ and of the saints; 3° by attributing to a creature what is proper to God, as omnipotence; 4° by deeds equivalent to contumelious words, as spitting upon a crucifix.

n. 7.

I say 2°: Blasphemy is divided into heretical and non-heretical⁴⁸. Heretical is that which asserts something contrary to the faith, or denies something pertaining to the faith. Non-heretical is that by which, although nothing openly contrary to the faith is contained, nevertheless the things that are of faith are uttered contemptuously and contumeliously, as if they were blameworthy. ⁴⁸ Ibid., o.

n. 8.

I say 3°: Blasphemy is of its genus the gravest mortal sin⁴⁹, nor can it become venial from smallness of matter, but only from involuntary indeliberateness of the act. ⁴⁹ Ibid., a. 2, c. et ad 3.

n. 9.

The first part is clear, 1° from the gravest punishments by which it is punished⁵⁰. In the old law, Lev., XXIV, 16, the blasphemer was stoned. In canon law several punishments are established against blasphemers; and if they despise these, they are to be deprived of ecclesiastical burial, cap. Statutum, tit. de maledicis, lib. V Decretal., and elsewhere. 2° Because it gravely repugns charity, since it is against the excellency of the divine goodness; likewise it is opposed to faith and religion, as I shall say presently. ⁵⁰ Ibid., in arg. Sed contra.

n. 10.

The second part is also clear; because, however slight anything may be per se, that God should be dishonored and held in contempt is always the gravest evil.

n. 11.

The third part is clear in like manner; because in every species of sin involuntary indeliberateness excuses from the whole or grave sin, because from it it comes about that the act is not perfectly human.

n. 12.

I said « involuntary indeliberateness; » because, if it arise from a habit which the blasphemer does not care to eradicate as far as he can, it does not excuse from mortal sin, because it is voluntary in its cause, namely in that voluntary habit. Let confessors attend to this.

n. 13.

You will ask against what virtue blasphemy is opposed.

n. 14.

I answer. Insofar as it contains implicitly or explicitly something false concerning God, it is opposed to the confession of faith; insofar as it is a dishonoring of God, it is opposed to religion, whose formal object is worship, honor rendered to God.

Concina, Theologia Christiana III

Daniele Concina, O.P. — 12 passages

Diss. III, Chapter V — On the various formulas of blaspheming against God and against the Saints

n. I.

I. To swear seriously by false gods, by Jupiter, by Mercury, and the like, is blasphemy, since the worship owed to God alone, or to the Saints on account of God, is thereby attributed to false gods and demons. But one who, for the sake of jest, and with the intention of mocking rather than worshipping the false gods, swears by Jupiter, does not blaspheme, nor commit any fault. Blasphemous words are those by which the faith, or those things which must be believed by divine faith, are denied — as when someone says: "I renounce God, the sacraments, the virginity of Mary," and the like. Blasphemies also include all those words that derogate from the divine omnipotence — as when someone blurts out, "Whether God wills it or not, this will happen" — commonly, "in spite of God" [al dispetto di Dio]. To praise God with obscene words, or to swear by the shameful parts of Christ or of the Saints, is blasphemy. But to swear by the honorable parts of Christ — by his head, by his body — is not blasphemy. And since Christ is God, the oaths of Christians sworn absolutely by his head, or by the body of God, are not blasphemous to unbelievers; for they know, and believe, that Christ is God. Nevertheless, because such oaths are full of scandal — especially since those who swear them almost never make such fine distinctions — such swearers are to be most severely rebuked, and kept from the sacraments, until they amend themselves. But those are especially to be considered blasphemers who, in fits of indignation, exclaim, "O blood of God! O body of God!" And although some casuists distinguish indignation against God from that directed at the man they are addressing when swearing — holding that it is blasphemy in the first case, but not in the second — it seems to me, however, more certain that such swearers are, absolutely speaking, to be reckoned as blasphemers. This is also taught by Fr. Suárez (Vol. I, On Religion, tract. 3, Bk. 1, ch. 6).

n. II.

II. It is likewise blasphemy to declare the devil omnipotent, or holy. To call a beloved girl a "goddess," as we have already said, is not commonly blasphemy, since no real divinity is attributed to her; such expressions are nonetheless unworthy. Free of the guilt of blasphemy, likewise, are these words: "I was born under this fate," or "It was fated to be so" — since this manner of speaking by no means denies contingent events, nor implies absolute necessity, but the common sense is that it was so ordained by God to happen, human freedom remaining unharmed. Not blasphemous, either, are such expressions as "May it please God," "By the power of God," "God's will be done" — since those who utter these words do not mock, but admire, God's power. Many also deny that this is blasphemy: "In spite of that goat who feeds and sustains me in this world" — meaning, in Latin, "In defiance of that billy-goat who feeds and sustains me, I shall act thus in this world." This locution, however, seems to me to carry, though indefinitely, a strong presumption of blasphemy — for he alone who nourishes and sustains men in the world is God.

n. III.

III. Question I. Are expressions such as these blasphemy: "I do not believe in God," "I deny God, the Cross, the Gospels, the sacraments" — even if they are only conditional? Response: Tamburini (Bk. II, On the Decalogue, ch. 7, §4, n. 12) denies this. But the affirmative opinion is common, and true — since the existence of God is denied for the present, even under a future condition; but that condition does not affect the negation, but only the future circumstance. Guilty of blasphemy, likewise, are those who swear by the life of God, or of the Saints, saying, "May God perish, if this is not so." When, however, they say, "By the life of God, this is so," according to some Doctors they do not blaspheme, but pronounce not an execratory oath, but an assertory one; whereas one who says, "May God perish," does blaspheme. Yet just as in the external forum such formulas are judged blasphemous, so too, unless the swearer's express intention plainly indicates that he does not wish God's life to be otherwise than it is — namely, unchangeable — nor does he place it in jeopardy, as if it were capable of perishing, they must likewise be judged so in the internal forum. "God lives" is a formula of swearing employed in Scripture, and includes no blasphemy. But formulas such as, "This is as true as the Trinity, as God, as that Christ was born of the Virgin," are not blasphemies, according to some casuists, who press the swearer's intention. But intention is wrongly invoked as an excuse when the words themselves, by their very nature, present a manifest blasphemous sense. Now the formulas cited are indeed really blasphemous, since they equate the truth of a creature to divine truth, and attribute to a creature what is proper to God alone. Heretical blasphemies are such words as: "By the body of God the Father," "By his beard," "By the entrails of the Holy Spirit" — this is clear enough.

n. IV.

IV. Question II. Is one who swears falsely thereby a blasphemer? Response: Some affirm this. But the contrary opinion is true, which St. Thomas holds (II-II, q. 13, art. 3, ad 2): "One who commits perjury does not say, nor believe, something false of God, as a blasphemer does; but he calls upon God as a witness, not indeed thinking that God is a false witness, but hoping that God will not manifest this by some evident sign."

n. V.

V. Question III. Does one who, in a single fit of anger, utters several blasphemies, commit one sin, or several? Response: Fr. Leander, according to his custom, asserts absolutely, as more probable, that this angry blasphemer commits only a single sin, citing several authors in support, and concludes at last: "See on this matter the most wise and most learned Amadeo Guimenio, treatise on penance, prop. 7." See the eloquence of casuists in mutual praise! Fr. Leander extols a booklet stuffed full of laxities, errors, and impostures, so often condemned by anathema by the Holy See. To this question I answer that the circumstances of time, of person, and of the customary habit of blaspheming must be weighed. For if the anger is prolonged — say, for a quarter of an hour, during which time the blasphemer could notice, and could, if he wished, check his anger — who doubts that there are several sins? But this question is of lesser importance in practice. For practical purposes, it suffices that the blasphemer disclose the duration of his fit of angry blasphemy, and his habit of blaspheming.

Diss. III, Chapter VI — On the penalties established against blasphemers, and on their judges

n. I.

I. Under the Old Law, blasphemers were punished with death: "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die: all the multitude shall stone him, whether he be a native or a stranger" (Lev. 24). Likewise, the common civil law decrees that all blasphemers are to be punished with the ultimate penalty. Although these laws, as regards this ultimate penalty of death, have fallen out of use through disuse, nevertheless kingdoms and principalities generally still punish blasphemers with the gravest penalties. In some places, common blasphemers are first flogged, then have their lips branded with a hot iron, and, for a third offense, their tongues are cut out. Elsewhere they are exposed to public derision. Canon law (ch. Statuimus, on maledictions) commands that blasphemers stand before the doors of the church for seven Sundays while the sacred rites are being performed, and, every Sunday, without their cloak, barefoot, a rope bound about their neck, present themselves to public view; and that on seven Fridays they fast on bread and water. If they neglect to do this, they are to be barred from entering a church, before which they must stand; and, living, are to be barred from entering the church, and after death, deprived of ecclesiastical burial. The Fifth Lateran Council (session 9, ch. Abusum) punishes blasphemous Clerics for a first offense with the forfeiture of a year's income from their benefice; afterward it removes them from the benefice; and finally declares them incapable of holding any ecclesiastical revenues whatsoever. For noble laymen, it imposes a fine of twenty ducats for a first offense, fifty for a second, and finally pronounces them stripped of their nobility. Common people who have blasphemed twice must stand before the doors of the church with a shameful miter placed on their head. If they have become habitual blasphemers, they are condemned to the galleys, or to prison.

n. II.

II. Question I. Is one who hears a blasphemer bound to denounce him to a judge? Response: The common opinion affirms this; and this is prescribed both by Julius III in his constitution beginning "In multis," and by the Lateran Council, in these words: "Whoever shall hear a blasphemer is bound to rebuke him sharply with words, if this can be done without danger to himself; and he is bound to report, or notify, this to an ecclesiastical or secular judge within three days; and if several hear the same blasphemer together, each individually is bound to accuse him, unless perhaps they all agree that one should perform this office on behalf of all." Several points arise here concerning this denunciation, which I prefer, however, to postpone to another place. This much only I will say here: that fraternal correction is enjoined on everyone, and that it is only to be omitted for a truly urgent reason, or under the pretext of a fleshly prudence. Prudence is indeed necessary; I do not deny this in correcting one's brethren; but I would likewise warn that love of earthly things, worldly regard, and considerations of convenience must not be allowed to disguise themselves as Christian prudence. If you hear a blasphemer overcome by anger, correct him once his anger has subsided. Sometimes correction ought to be made immediately, depending on the character of the one blaspheming. If the blasphemies are heretical, they must be denounced to the legitimate judge, in accordance with the pontifical precepts on this matter. The judges of heresy are either the Inquisitors, or the Bishops. But more on this in its proper place.

n. III.

III. Question II. How ought a confessor to conduct himself with blasphemers? Response: If the blasphemies are simple, the confessor can absolve the penitent of them, since such simple blasphemies are commonly not reserved. The Bishop, however, may reserve even these simple blasphemies, and once such a reservation is made, an ordinary confessor cannot grant absolution.

n. IV.

IV. Blasphemy is sometimes external and heretical in form, insofar as the words uttered smack of heresy; yet the blasphemer harbored no internal error in his mind while blurting them out. In this case, the common opinion teaches that a regular confessor can absolve the penitent in the internal forum, just as he can absolve from sortilege, magic, or sorcery — provided there was no error in the mind. On this matter, see the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 21, ch. 13, punct. 10, n. 131). But more on this in the treatise on penance.

n. V.

V. Question III. What penance ought a confessor to impose on penitent blasphemers? Response: The Lateran Council decreed that blasphemers are not to be absolved except with a most rigorous penance imposed by confessors. These are the Council's own words (session 9): "To be abolished. In the forum of penance, let no one guilty of blasphemy be absolved, except with a most rigorous penance imposed at the severe confessor's discretion." More recent Probabilist authors answer that this decree is not received in practice. And this is true in a sense. For if blasphemers were subjected to the gravest penalties, as the Council commands, and as the equity of judgment demands, God's holy name would not be blasphemed so frequently. But because not a few confessors absolve false penitents of the crime of blasphemy, as of other crimes, with only a light penance imposed, crimes of every kind run rampant, and flood the whole earth. But it is one thing to say that this decree is not received in practice, or that casuists and confessors, in fact, rarely impose the most severe penances on blasphemers as its prescription requires; it is quite another to say that the decree itself has become obsolete. This latter claim we deny, against Leander (disp. 5, q. 16), the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 21, ch. 13, punct. 10, n. 131), Castropalao (disp. 2, punct. 1, §3, n. 2), Sánchez (Bk. II, On the Decalogue, ch. 32, n. 44), and many others. If you ask them why this decree has no force, they answer only that it is not received in practice. This is their sole reason — which, if it held good, would mean the death and burial of every law that transgressors fail to receive in use, or execution. Ought not satisfaction to God be the graver, the graver the offense? Does not the Council of Trent command that penances be imposed proportionate to the gravity of the crime? Since blasphemy is a most grave crime, why should the gravest penances, which the Council commands, not be imposed on blasphemers? Both divine and natural law prescribe this equality of proportion. See, Christian reader, where the leniency of casuists tends! They make both the prescription itself, and the divine and natural laws themselves, subject to disuse. Away with so cruel a kindness! Let confessors, then, take care not to grant absolution without subjecting penitent blasphemers to worthy penances.

n. VI.

VI. Question IV. Are those bound by a habit of blaspheming obliged to abstain from confession beforehand, until freed from the habit? Response: Leander affirms, according to his custom (disp. 5, q. 17), that it is more probable, in his own view, that blasphemers ought to be absolved even if they have not amended, provided they truly grieve for their sins — even if often admonished, they have not reformed; and for this opinion of his he cites Sánchez, Castropalao, Hurtado, Trullench, and others. How lax this opinion is, everyone can see. They believe they escape every mark of laxity by saying, "provided they truly grieve for the blasphemies committed." But on what basis can you presume that a penitent is affected by sincere sorrow, if, having repeatedly spurned admonition, he has in no way turned to a better way of life, and shown no sign at all of amendment? Let the confessor, then, seriously consider with what zeal, effort, and diligence blasphemers have striven to restrain their tongue. Let him weigh whether they have put into practice the remedies prescribed for their amendment by other confessors. If he perceives progress, if he discerns a real effort at amendment in the penitent, he may absolve him. If not, let him defer absolution, and prescribe remedies more surely by which the penitent may abstain from blaspheming. An inveterate custom of long standing cannot be entirely rooted out all at once. It must, then, be broken and interrupted little by little, until, with the utmost diligence applied, it is entirely uprooted. Let him prescribe an alms to be given at once, if the penitent's means allow, as often as he happens to blaspheme; or let him impose the marking of so many crosses with the tongue on the bare ground, or some similar or harsher penance. If penitents truly grieve by this method, they will quickly amend themselves; and within a week or two, each will find himself reformed. The opinion of Leander and others cited above has been proscribed by Innocent XI, in this proposition: "To one who has a habit of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, even though no hope of amendment appears, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred, provided he says with his mouth that he intends to amend." Our younger casuists will, no doubt, clamor as usual for us to consult the theologians they cite, or will claim that similar teachings are found in other theologians too (which, if true, is only worse), or that their opinions have been reported without due fidelity. This is a rather stale objection, which we have several times, quite rightly, dismissed as ridiculous.

n. VII.

VII. But more on this when we come to discuss proximate occasion [of sin]. For now I will indicate what Comitoli teaches (Bk. IV, ch. 9, q. 9). He was accustomed to require his penitents, habituated to blasphemies against God and the Blessed Virgin, to recite the seven penitential psalms and the litanies with prayers, thirty, forty, or fifty times more or less, on bended and bare knees, touching the ground. He likewise required them to beg pardon of God, the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints ten times, on their knees; to mark a cross with the tongue on the ground ten times each day; and to strike their breast ten times. Confessors may impose these and similar penances on blasphemers, so as to free them from the habit of blaspheming. If they are wealthy, let confessors order them to give twenty solidi in alms for each blasphemy or perjury. If poor, let them oblige them to trace twenty crosses on the ground with the tongue, and to recite as many prayers. By these or similar means, some remedy will be found against this most wicked vice of blasphemy.

Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V

Gaudentius Bontempi of Brescia, O.F.M. Cap. — 28 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Tr. I, Disputation XXXV: On Whisp…, Mockery, and Cursing, Question III: On curses

MALEDICTION is defined by St. Bonaventure in the Declaratory Dictionary of Theological Terms: To curse is for anyone to wish that blows or punishments be impressed upon someone by word. So also St. Thomas.

St. Thomas, art. 1. Filliuc, Tract. 40, cap. 5, num. 146. Fagundez, l. 8, cap. 12, num. 18, and others cited by him, define cursing as: An imprecation of evil, under the aspect of evil, and they add that a curse can be made either imperatively or optatively; but I do not see that they can exercise a proper command unless they order someone killed or struck, which is not to curse.