[Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 A.D.]
(Greek blaptein, "to injure", and pheme, "reputation") signifies
etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of
exalted esteem. In this broad sense the term is used by Bacon when in his
"Advancement of Learning" he speaks of "blasphemy against learning". St.
Paul tells of being blasphemed (I Cor., iv, 13) and the Latin Vulgate
employs the word blasphemare to designate abusive language directed either
against a people at large (II Kings, xxi, 21; I Par., xx, 7) or against
individuals (I Cor., x, 30; Tit., iii, 2).
MEANING
While etymologically blasphemy may denote the derogation of the honour due
to a creature as well as of that belonging to God, in its strict
acceptation it is used only in the latter sense. Hence it has been defined
by Suarez as "any word of malediction, reproach, or contumely pronounced
against God: (De Relig., tract. iii, lib. I, cap. iv, n. 1). It is to be
noted that according to the definition (1) blasphemy is set down as a word,
for ordinarily it is expressed in speech, though it may be committed in
thought or in act. Being primarily a sin of the tongue, it will be seen to
be opposed directly to the religious act of praising God. (2) It is said to
be against God, though this may be only mediately, as when the contumelious
word is spoken of the saints or of sacred things, because of the
relationship they sustain to God and His service.
Blasphemy, by reason of the significance of the words with which it is
expressed, may be of three kinds.
THE MALICE OF BLASPHEMY
Blasphemy is a sin against the virtue of religion by which we render to God
the honour due to Him as our first beginning an last end. St. Thomas says
that it is to be regarded as a sin against faith inasmuch as by it we
attribute to God that which does not belong to Him, or deny Him that which
is His (II-II, Q. xiii, art. I). De Lugo and others deny that this is an
essential element in blasphemy (De just. et jure caeterisque virt. card.,
lib. II, c. xiv, disp. v, n. 26), but as Escobar (Theol. mor., lib. xxviii,
c. xxxii, n. 716 sqq.) observes, the contention on this point concerns
words only, since the followers of St. Thomas see in the contempt expressed
in blasphemy the implication that God is contemptible--an implication in
which all will allow there is attributed to God that which does not belong
to Him. What is here said is of blasphemy in general; manifestly that form
of the sin described above as heretical is not only opposed to the virtue
of religion but that of faith as well. Blasphemy is of its whole nature (ex
toto genere suo) a mortal sin, the gravest that may be committed against
religion. The seriousness of an affront is proportioned to the dignity of
the person towards whom it is directed. Since then the insult in blasphemy
is offered to the ineffable majesty of God, the degree of its heinousness
must be evident. Nevertheless because of slight or no advertence blasphemy
may be either a venial sin only or no sin at all. Thus many expressions
voiced in anger escape the enormity of a grave sin, except as is clear,
when the anger is vented upon God. Again, in the case where blasphemous
speech is uttered inadvertently, through force of habit, a grave sin is not
committed as long as earnest resistance is made to the habit. If, however,
no such effort is put forth there cannot but be grave guilt, though a
mortal sin is not committed on the occasion of each and every blasphemous
outburst. It has been said that heretical blasphemy besides a content
directed against religion has that which is opposed to the virtue of faith.
Similarly, imprecatory blasphemy is besides a violation of charity. These
forms of the sin being specifically distinct from the simpler kind, it is
necessary to specify their character in confession. Whether blasphemy has
been direct or indirect, however, calls not for specification on the part
of the penitent, since both these forms are specifically the same, though
clearly differing in the degree of malice. The question has been raised
whether blasphemy against the saints differs in kind from that uttered
immediately against God. While De Lugo thinks that such a difference
obtains (De Poenit., disp. xvi, n. 178 sqq.) the opposite opinion of St.
Alphonsus seems more tenable, for as the latter theologian observes, the
saints, ordinarily speaking, are not blasphemed because of their own
excellence but because of their close relationship to God (Theol. Moral.,
lib. IV, n. 132).
THE PENALTIES ATTACHED TO BLASPHEMY
In the Old Law the blasphemer was punished by death. So God appointed on
the occasion of the blasphemy of Salumith's son: "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
native or a stranger. He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let
him die" (Lev., xxiv, 15-16). Upon hearing blasphemy the Jews were wont in
detestation of the crime to rend their clothes (IV Kings, xviii, 37, xix,
l; Matt., xxvi, 65).
Among the Athenians blasphemy was actionable and according to Plutarch,
Alcibiades was made to suffer the confiscation of his goods for ridiculing
the rites of Ceres and Proserpine (Plutarch, Alcibiades). Among the ancient
Romans blasphemy was punishable, though not by death. In the time of
Justinian we find most severe enactments against this sin. In a
constitution of A. D. 538 the people are called upon to abstain from
blasphemy, which provokes God to anger. The prefect of the city is
commanded to apprehend all such as shall persist in their offence after
this admonition and put them to death, that so the city and the empire may
not suffer because of their impiety (Auth. Col., Tit. vii, 7 November).
Among the Visigoths, anyone blaspheming the name of Christ or expressing
contempt of the Trinity had his head shorn, was subjected to a hundred
stripes, and suffered perpetual imprisonment in chains. Among the Franks,
according to a law enacted at the Diet of Aachen, A. D. 818, this sin was a
capital offence. In the Gospels blasphemy is described as one of "the
things that defile a man" (Matt., xv, 20; Mark, vii, 21-23).
Medieval canon law punished the blasphemer most severely. By a decree of
the thirteenth century one convicted of blasphemy was compelled to stand at
the door of the church during the solemnities of the Mass for seven
Sundays, and on the last of these days, divested of cloak and shoes, he was
to appear with a rope about his neck. Obligations of fasting and
alms-giving were likewise imposed under heaviest penalties (Decret., lib.
V, tit. xxvi). The rigours of the ancient discipline were insisted upon by
Pius V in his Constitution "Cum primum apostolatus" (p. 10). According to
the law herein laid down, the layman found guilty of blasphemy was fined.
The fine was increased upon his second offence, and upon his third he was
sent into exile. If unable to pay the fine, he was upon the first
conviction condemned to stand before the door of the church, his hands tied
behind him. For the second offence he was flogged, and for the third his
tongue was pierced, and he was sentenced to the galleys. The blasphemous
cleric, if possessed of a benefice, lost upon his first offence a year's
income; upon his second he was deprived of his benefice and exiled. If
enjoying no benefice, he was first subjected to a fine and bodily
punishment; on repeating the offence he was imprisoned, and still
persisting, he was degraded and condemned to the galleys.
BLASPHEMY IN CIVIL LAW
Blasphemy cognizable by common law is defined by Blackstone to be "denying
the being or providence of God, contumelious reproaches of our Saviour
Jesus Christ, profane scoffing at the Holy Scripture, or exposing it to
contempt or ridicule". The United States once had many penal statutes
against blasphemy, which were declared constitutional as not subversive of
the freedom of speech or liberty of the press (Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law,
Vol. IV, 582). In the American Decisions (Vol. V, 335) we read that
"Christianity being recognized by law therefore blasphemy against God and
profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures are punishable at Common
Law", Accordingly where one uttered the following words "Jesus Christ was a
bastard and his mother was a whore", it was held to be a public offence,
punishable by the common law. The defendant found guilty by the court of
common pleas of the blasphemy above quoted was sentenced to imprisonment
for three months and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Sum. Theol., II-II, Q. xiii, a. 3; Q. ev. a, 2ad, 3am;
Q. lxxx, a. 3; I-II, Q. x, a. 2;
Blasphemy
* It is heretical when the insult to God involves a declaration that is
against faith, as in the assertion: "God is cruel and unjust" or "The
noblest work of man is God".
* It is imprecatory when it would cry a malediction upon the Supreme Being
as when one would say: "Away with God".
* It is simply contumacious when it is wholly made up of contempt of, or
indignation towards, God, as in the blasphemy of Julian the Apostate: "Thou
has conquered, O Galilaean".
Again, blasphemy may be (1) either direct, as when the one blaspheming
formally intends to dishonour the Divinity, or (2) indirect, as when
without such intention blasphemous words are used with advertence to their
import.
ST. LIGUORI, Theol. moral., lib. IV,
tract. ii, c. i
