Taking God's name in vain

201. Notion and malice. 1. He is said to take the divine name in vain who usurps the name of God without due reverence.

a. This vain assumption of the divine name proceeds: a. from impatience and indignation: My God, how greatly these are troublesome! or b. from admiration: My God, Jesus, Mary, who would have said this! My God, what are you saying! or c. from mere custom.

b. What is affirmed concerning the name of God must, with proportion preserved, also be said concerning the vain and useless usurpation of the names of saints or of sacred things: for irreverence inflicted upon saints and sacred things redounds upon God.

2. Vain usurpation of the name of God is a venial sin against the virtue of religion: for this virtue demands that the name of God, on account of the special relation which the name has to God Himself, be uttered only from a reasonable end and with due reverence. Hence Sacred Scripture warns: Let not the naming of God be constant in thy mouth.¹ Nevertheless it does not exceed venial sin, because, since it does not contain insult, it does not bring grave irreverence.

Wherefore without doubt they offend venially who are accustomed to utter the most holy names at nearly every word, at jokes, and at vain things of this kind; nevertheless because of inadvertence there is often no sin.

3. To use frequently and uselessly the name of the demon, although it is not a sin, is nevertheless very unbecoming, especially in clerics and religious: for the name of the most hostile enemy of God and of the faithful is not to be continually uttered by a Christian man.

¹ Ecclus. 23:10.

WE take God’s name in vain and break the Second Commandment when we use the word “ God” as an exclamation of wonder or impatience, or merely as an interjection in such phrases as “ good God,” ‘‘ my God,” “by God.” If these phrases are used at fitting times and with due reverence they are, of course, not sinful but meritorious; the sin consists in using them without due reverence, too frequently, and merely as expletives, for such an abuse of the holy name of God shows a want of reverence to him and is displeasing to him.

This irreverence, however, is not grave, and so the sin of taking God’s name in vain is of itself only venial; indeed, want of advertence will often prevent it from being even venially sinful. Still, care should be taken to correct any bad habit that may have been contracted in this matter.

What has been said of the name of God may be applied with due proportion to those of our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints.

296. • 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:

1. 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.

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

3. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.