BLARER
595
BLASPHEMY
Blarer of Waxtensee. See St. Gall, Abbey of.
Blasendorf. See Fogar.\s, Diocese of.
Blasphemy (Gr. ^Xa-miv. "to injure", and 4>^f-ri, "reputation") signifies etj-mologically gross irrever- ence towards any person or tiling 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 Vul- gate employs the word blasphemare to designate abusive language directed either against a people at large (II Kings, .x.xi. 21; I Par., xx, 7) or against indix-iduals (I Cor., x, 30; Tit., iii, 2).
I. Me.\xin'o. — While etjTnologically 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 .^^in of the tongue, it will be seen to be opposed directly to the rehgious 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. (1) 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". (2) It is imprecatory' when it would crj' a malediction upon the Supreme Being as when one would say: "Away with God". And finally (3), it is simply contumelious when it is wholly made up of contempt of, or indignation towards, God, as in the blasphemy of Julian the Apostate: "Thou hast conquered, O Galilsean". 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 blasphemotis words are used with advertence to their import.
II. The Malice of Bl.a^sphemy. — Blasphemy is a sin against the virtue of religion by which we render to God the honour due to Him as our first beginning and last end. St. Thomas says that it is to be re- garded 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. xlv, disp. v, n. 26), but as Esco- bar (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 con- tempt expres.sed 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 Nnrtue of religion but that of faith as well. Blasphemy is of its whole nature (ex toto genere swo) 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 everj' blaspliemous 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, imprecatorj' 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 blas-
phemy against the saints differs in kind from that
uttered immediately against God. While De Lugo
thinks that such a diijerence obtains (De Pcenit.,
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. 1.32).
The Penalties Att.\ched to Bl.^sphemt. — In the t)ld 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 blasphcmeth 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, d^nng let him die" (Lev., xxiv, 15-16). L'pon hearing blas- phemy the Jews were wont in detestation of the crime to rend their clothes (IV Kings, x\-iii, 37, xix, 1; Matt., xx\T, 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 punish- able, though rot by death (Manutius, "De Legibus Romanis", quoted by Disney, "A view of Ancient Laws against Immorality and Profaneness", p. 826). In the time of Justinian we find most severe enact- ments 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 blas- pheming the name of Christ or expressing contempt of the Trinity had his head shorn, was subjected to a hundred stripes, and suffered perpetual imprison- ment in chains (LI. Wisigoth., lib. XII, tit. iii, 1. 2). 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 centurj- 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 Con- stitution "Cum primum apostolatus" (§ 10). Ac-
