Articles 2147 and 2149 specifically refer to false oaths as
misuses of the Divine Name. This is important, because in article 2148 Blasphemy is defined as consisting in the following:
- in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance;
- in speaking ill of God;
- in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech;
- in misusing God’s name.
We see here that 4) is really a basic definition of Perjury. Moreover, when people think of blasphemy, they usually think of 1) or 2), which we see Bookcat do in her post. What’s interesting is that 3) is the basic definition of Profanity.
I say this is interesting, and also a source of confusion, because here it appears that the Church has defined blasphemy as including also the sins of profanity and perjury. In other words, it seems like there’s a upper case “Blasphemy,” so to speak, and a lower case blasphemy, which is categorized under the blanket upper case Blasphemy, along with profanity and perjury.
Furthermore, because the Catechism defines it this way, and then proceeds to say “[Blasphemy] is in itself a grave sin,” it would appear that even perjury and profanity are also grave.
One might object to this reading by citing article 2149, “Oaths which misuse God’s name, though without the intention of blasphemy, show lack of respect for the Lord,” which appears to make a distinction between false oaths and blasphemy. However, I would point out that in article 2148, it states, “Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name,” which immediately precedes the statement of article 2149, which affirms that false oaths in the same way show a lack of respect for the Lord.
In other words, though one may not have the intention of blasphemy (i.e., intentionally misusing God’s name), it is still a kind of blasphemy in that it is still a misuse of God’s name, and as such shows a lack of respect for Him.
This is an important distinction, because the same may be said about profanity. That is, though one may not have the intention of blasphemy, lack of respect toward God in one’s speech is still a kind of blasphemy.
And as I write this, it occurs to me that perhaps the distinction is this: intention. What I mean is, perhaps the definitions given in the Catechism are not, in fact, for blasphemy, perjury and profanity. Rather, they are simply blasphemy, and what makes them blasphemy is the intention of the speaker.
In other words, perjury as the misuse of God’s name is only perjury when the intent is not specifically to misuse God’s name, but rather, for example, to hide a crime out of fear, or to renege on a sworn oath unintentionally.
Likewise, profanity as a lack of respect toward God in one’s speech is only profanity when it is not done so as a deliberate lack of respect toward Him, but rather, for example, as a habitual act of an unbeliever, or an accidental outburst.
It is the intention of a deliberate act of disrespect toward God that elevates what are normally perjury and profanity to the level of the grave sin of blasphemy.
But this takes us right back to the beginning, wherein we said that such actions are grave matters, but are rendered venial due to lack of full knowledge/reflection and full will/consent. And that’s really the point, isn’t it? If you know it’s a grave matter, and you deliberately choose to show that lack of respect anyway, then you’ve committed a grave sin, you’ve blasphemed.
So what does this mean with reference to acting? I think what it means is this: as an actor, if you know that this is a grave matter, as showing lack of respect toward God is a direct violation of the Second Commandment, as outlined in the Catechism, then you sin gravely if you choose to play the part anyway. However, discretion has to be had with respect to the part being played, for if it is toward a lofty end, such as a portrayal of our Lord’s Passion, then this changes the matter.
Moreover, if the actor has no understanding of the seriousness of this matter, then despite fully consenting, it is still only a venial sin due to his lack of knowledge.
And what about the viewer. I continue to maintain that if one knows of the objectionable speech prior to viewing the show, then he bears some burden of guilt in attending anyway. The level of guilt would depend firstly on whether the actor in question is blaspheming or only profaning (depending on their knowledge and intent), secondly on how much the viewer knows about the actor playing the part (i.e., if the viewer knows he’s Catholic, then he may understand this to be a grave sin, meaning his complicity in the sin would impugn greater guilt, but if he knows the actor is, say, Hindu or holds some other belief, then he may understand the sin to be venial, meaning his complicity in it would impugn a lesser guilt), and thirdly on his own knowledge that he’d even be complicit in it, and fourthly on whatever other factors might be present to affect his will in the matter (perhaps he has a relative who is also in the show).
As always, the question of sin and its gravity is complex, and ultimately the gravity of the sin is dependent upon the conscience of the person engaged in it. So, as you’ve said earlier, talk to your priest.
