Post by NMHave the courtsey not to change the subject line of my post, I didn't
change any part of yours, do you god botherers not like free speech?
Blasphemy
Blasphemy (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 (1 Corinthians 4:13) and
the Latin Vulgate employs the word blasphemare to designate abusive
language directed either against a people at large (2 Samuel 21:21; 1
Chronicles 20:7) or against individuals (1 Corinthians 10:30; Titus
3:2).
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.
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 cry a malediction upon the Supreme
Being as when one would say: "Away with God".
3. 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.
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" (Leviticus 24:15-16). Upon hearing blasphemy the Jews
were wont in detestation of the crime to rend their clothes (2 Kings
18:37, 19:l; Matthew 26:65).
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" (Matthew
15:20; Mark 7:21-23).
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.