The Second Commandment states, “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord, your God, in vain. For the Lord will not hold guiltless anyone who misuses his name in vain” (Ex 20:7). The Hebrew term used here, lashshav, signifies uttering God’s name in a fraudulent or hollow manner. Therefore, to make a false statement under an oath calling upon God as a witness — for instance, I promise to tell the complete truth … so help me God — is considered a serious offense.

The Hebrew term also suggests that invoking God’s name in a meaningless (futile) manner is wrong. There are numerous ways individuals employ the Lord’s name in a hollow or corrupt fashion. Frequently, when feeling astonished or frustrated, someone may exclaim, “Jesus Christ!” or “God damn!” A milder version of this can notably be found among Irish Catholics — “Jesus, Mary and Joseph!” In modern times, there’s the widely used, “Oh my God!” (OMG!). The level of sin associated with these utterances varies. At times, individuals have formed a routine of using such phrases and may utter them almost thoughtlessly. It certainly is a habit needing correction, but when reflection is inadequate, the sin is less than grave. Routine also tends to limit one’s freedom, and without complete agreement of the will, the sin may be less than grave.

Ultimately, phrases like “Oh my God!” should be avoided, and individuals ought to strive to eliminate the habit of using God’s sacred name merely as an exclamation of shock or frustration.

Exorcism and sanctification

Question: Concerning the recent dedication of the nation to Mary, I am curious whether an exorcism took place prior to the actual Mass of dedication. I heard a priest mention that exorcism ought to be conducted first, although it could be handled privately. He referenced Isaiah 6 — the seraph cleansing Isaiah’s lips before commissioning him for his task. Therefore, if the exorcism was not performed beforehand, would that imply that the dedication was ineffective?

— Esther Williams, Arlington, Virginia

Answer: There are no clear regulations or statutes mandating this. Therefore, a consecration can occur without an exorcism taking place beforehand, and the absence of a preceding exorcism does not nullify the consecration in any manner.

An age-old practice of exorcism occurs before formal blessings. For instance, when holy water is ceremonially blessed, both the salt and the water are exorcized prior to their blessing and mixing together. A comparable process was applied to blessed olive oil. Additionally, in baptism, exorcisms typically took place before the actual baptism. Even within the modern baptismal rite, there is an exorcism present, though its tone is significantly gentler than the robust exorcisms found in the traditional rite.

St. Thomas Aquinas remarks regarding the pre-baptismal exorcisms: “Anyone who intends to undertake a task wisely must first eliminate the barriers to that task; thus it is mentioned (Jer 4:3): ‘Break up again your unplowed land and do not sow among thorns.’ The devil is a foe to man’s salvation, which is attained through baptism; he possesses certain influence over man simply because the latter is under the sway of original, or even actual, sin. Therefore, it is appropriate that prior to baptism, demons should be expelled through exorcisms, so they do not hinder man’s path to salvation.”Summa Theologiae, III, q. 71, a. 2, Reply).

Thus, it could be reasonably contended that an exorcism conducted prior to a consecration would be beneficial and likely enhance the efficacy of the consecration. However, its omission does not impact the legitimacy of the consecration.

Msgr. Charles Pope is the pastor of Holy Comforter-St. Cyprian in Washington, D.C., and writes for the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. at blog.adw.org. Send questions to msgrpope@osv.com.