But that’s just it: no contempt is being shown for the divine name, which is, after all, a human construct. One word is being used homonymously: God, as the divine name, and “God!” as an interjection. It’s like claiming there’s only one meaning/intent for the word “park.” To worry about similar words is, in my opinion, a sign of unhealthy scrupulosity.I think it is a serious matter for someone to show contempt for God. And the fact that there is a separate commandment for this offense alone, indicates that it is a serious matter.
Is using your name, then, a lesser affront? If I say, Oh my bobzills!" am I necessarily showing you contempt? This must be at least a venial sin given the weightiness of human dignity.The seriousness of an affront is proportional to the dignity of the person towards whom it is directed. Since then the insult in using God’s name in vain is offered to the ineffable majesty of God, it is then serious and not minor.
To worry about venial sins is not a sign of unhealthy scrupulosity! A far greater danger today than scrupulosity is unscrupulosity. There is only one thing worse than venial sin in the whole universe. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says:To worry about similar words is, in my opinion, a sign of unhealthy scrupulosity.
Why would anyone who loves God want to displease Him? Why would anyone who fears mortal sin want to become disposed to it? Why would anyone who loves his neighbor want to lessen the fervor of charity, or hinder the reception of graces God would otherwise give? Why would anyone who dislikes suffering in this world want to suffer (more) in the next?Venial sin…lessens the lustre of virtue. Frequent and deliberate venial sin lessens the fervour of charity, disposes to mortal sin (I-II:88:3), and hinders the reception of graces God would otherwise give. It displeases God (Revelation 2:4-5) and obliges the sinner to temporal punishment either in this life or in Purgatory…it is laudable to confess them.
And what do you mean by “minor”? No one is calling any sin minor, mortal or venial. A venial sin is not minor, it’s just does not result in the loss of sanctifying grace.The seriousness of an affront is proportional to the dignity of the person towards whom it is directed. Since then the insult in using God’s name in vain is offered to the ineffable majesty of God, it is then serious and not minor.
Good point. A venial sin is definitely not minor. You are absolutely correct here.And what do you mean by “minor”? No one is calling any sin minor, mortal or venial. A venial sin is not minor, it’s just does not result in the loss of sanctifying grace.
I do not mean this as an attack on you bobzills, but the words I have highlighted are the problem with this thread. There are a lot of opinions going around and not enough citing of the Catechism or other authoritative sources.Good point. A venial sin is definitely not minor. You are absolutely correct here.
In any case, my personal opinion is that it is serious matter to insult God or the Sacred. The question as to whether or not this would translate into a mortal sin for most cases would depend on various factors in each case.
What do you mean by “unscrupulosity”? I have not seen that word before. Are you referring to a lax conscience? If so, I would say they are equally dangerous since both can lead to damnation, the former in its extreme forms leading to final despair and the latter leading to an immoral lifestyle.To worry about venial sins is not a sign of unhealthy scrupulosity! A far greater danger today than scrupulosity is unscrupulosity.
Yes, I agree with this. I do suffer from mild scrupulosity, and it can take you just as far from God as any sin.What do you mean by “unscrupulosity”? I have not seen that word before. Are you referring to a lax conscience? If so, I would say they are equally dangerous since both can lead to damnation, the former in its extreme forms leading to final despair and the latter leading to an immoral lifestyle.
(P.S. To everyone, there is no such thing as “healthy” scrupulosity. ALL scrupulosity is spiritually unhealthful.)
That is ridiculous. I cited the Second Commandment.There are a lot of opinions going around and not enough citing of the Catechism or other authoritative sources.
Is using your name, then, a lesser affront? If I say, Oh my bobzills!" am I necessarily showing you contempt? This must be at least a venial sin given the weightiness of human dignity.
2158 God calls each one by name. Everyone’s name is sacred. The name is the icon of the person. It demands respect as a sign of the dignity of the one who bears it.
How about the Baltimore Catechism?There are a lot of opinions going around and not enough citing of the Catechism or other authoritative sources.
Q. 1217. {345} What is the second Commandment?
A. The second Commandment is: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Q. 1218. What do you mean by taking God’s name in vain?
A. By taking God’s name in vain I mean taking it without reverence, as in cursing or using in a light and careless manner, as in exclamation.
Q. 1219. {346} What are we commanded by the second Commandment?
A. We are commanded by the second Commandment to speak with reverence of God and of the saints, and of all holy things, and to keep our lawful oaths and vows.
Q. 1220. Is it sinful to use the words of Holy Scripture in a bad or worldly sense?
A. It is sinful to use the words of Holy Scripture in a bad or worldly sense, to joke in them or ridicule their sacred meaning, or in general to give them any meaning but the one we believe God has intended them to convey.
Q. 1239. {352} What is forbidden by the second Commandment?
A. The second Commandment forbids all false, rash, unjust, and unnecessary oaths, blasphemy, cursing, and profane words.
Q. 1241. What is blasphemy, and what are profane words?
A. Blasphemy is any word or action intended as an insult to God. To say He is cruel or find fault with His works is blasphemy. It is a much greater sin than cursing or taking God’s name in vain. Profane words mean here bad, irreverent or irreligious words.
bob, please. The issue at hand is whether saying “geez” constitutes taking the Lord’s name in vain, and whether it is a mortal sin. You have not proven that yet. We do not use the word “geez” to refer to any member of the Holy Trinity or to any of the saints.That is ridiculous. I cited the Second Commandment.
No one is debating if using the lord’s name in vain is sinful. We’re talking about words that are derivitives (sp?) of the Lord’s name and whether it would be a mortal or venial sin. If you’re Catholic I don’t know what problem you have with citing the catechism.That is ridiculous. I cited the Second Commandment.
By changing a letter or two, here or there, you are trying to get around the letter of the law, but you are still violating the spirit of the law, which prohibits the use of God’s name in vain.No one is debating if using the lord’s name in vain is sinful. We’re talking about words that are derivitives (sp?) of the Lord’s name and whether it would be a mortal or venial sin. If you’re Catholic I don’t know what problem you have with citing the catechism.
Not really. I don;t get your point at all.So, if I were to say, “Gor!” would that be wrong? Or, “Dod!” You get my point…?
Prove it. Demonstrate to us from the Bible or a Catholic catechism or an examination of conscience where it states that saying “oh my goodness” or “oh gosh” is the same thing in spirit as saying “oh my God”. Show us the proof in traditional Catholic teaching and not your personal interpretation of the Second Commandment.By changing a letter or two, here or there, you are trying to get around the letter of the law, but you are still violating the spirit of the law, which prohibits the use of God’s name in vain.
Last I checked, Greeley in no way had any sort of official approval from the Vatican. I’ve heard many people speak out with disagreements about his writing. Just because the publishing company (not Catholic, by the way) is selling these books does not mean that his books are condoned by the Catholic Church. Greeley is not the catechism. And what is the “Catholic hierarchy?”Not really. I don;t get your point at all.
For example, in Father Greeley’s books, the exclamation “Jaysus” is used. Someone is angry or someone is excited and they say “Jaysus”. Now obviously, this is a way of getting around taking the Lord’s Name in vain directly, but is still against the spirit of the law. It may not be strictly against the letter of the law, but in my personal opinion, it would be against the spirit of the law. Where did the word “Jaysus” come from anyway. Why use the word “Jaysus” the way that Father Greeley has his characters use it. And by the way, I think that this is a good example, of when Catholics should not follow what a Catholic priest is doing. In my personal opinion, just because a Catholic priest might be writing books which are sexually provocative, or contain vulgar phrases or filthy speech or expressions against the Second Commandment, and the Catholic hierarchy doesn’t raise one peep in objection, does not mean that it is right to use these expressions.
Col 3:8 :8 But now put you also all away: anger, indignation, malice, blasphemy, filthy speech out of your mouth.
The proof follows from the priniciple of the equivalence of the quasi-indiscernible. This states that two activities which share roughly the same properties are to be regarded as equivalent. This priniciple follows from the principle of sufficient reason, because otherwise there would be a distinction made between two quasi-indiscernible activities without a rational basis.Prove it…