Blasphemy

Blasphemy (pronounced blas-fuh-mee)

(1) Impious or profane utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.

(2) An act of cursing or reviling God.

(3) In Judaism, pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (the Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH or JHVH and articulated as Yahweh or Jehovah) in the original (and then forbidden) manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.

(4) In theology, the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.

(5) Irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless etc.

(6) In law, also called blasphemous libel, the crime committed if a person insults, offends, or vilifies the deity, Christ, or the Christian religion (now, in many jurisdictions effectively, if not technically, almost extinct although prosecutions continue in some countries (Malaysian, Mauritania, Bangladesh, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt etc).

1175-1225: From the Middle English blasfemye & blasphemie, from the early thirteenth century Old French blasfemie (blasphemy), from the Ecclesiastical Latin blasphēmia, from the Ancient Greek βλασφημία (blasphēmía) (speaking ill, impious speech, slander; profanity), from βλασφημέω (blasphēméō) (to slander).  The origin of the first element of the word is uncertain, possibly related to blaptikos (hurtful) although blax (slack (in body and mind) or stupid) is an alternative and some etymologists suggest as link with the root of the Latin malus (bad, unpleasant), from the primitive Indo-European root mel-.  Phēmē (utterance) is from the primitive Indo-European root bha- (to speak, tell, say).  The medieval Church Latin was blasphemare, which in Late Latin also meant "revile, reproach", hence the sense of blame which was picked up by both Canon and secular law.  In the Old Testament, the word actually applied to a more specific crime, against the reverence for Jehovah as ruler of the Jews, comparable to treason.  Unfortunately, there’s no verified evidence the Islamist militant Osama bin Laden (1957–2011) ever spoke or wrote the quote attributed to him: “It was a blasphemy for men to walk on the Moon”.  Blasphemy, blasphemer & blasphemousness are nouns, blaspheme, blasphemed & blaspheming are verbs, blasphemous is an adjective and blasphemously is an adverb; the noun plural is blasphemies.

Blasphemy and attempted blasphemy

Lindsay Lohan in Aqua drawstring silk shirt, vest & blouse with silver crown of thorns accessory (actually a necklace) by Belgian designer Ann Demeulemeester (b 1959), Purple magazine, Spring Summer 2010 edition.  In the west, if it involves Christianity, it's difficult now to be blasphemous.  There was a time, not that long ago, when the "crown of thorns" alone would have been enough to offend and if not, adopting a "crucifixion pose" would certainly have done it.  By the twenty-first century, such things attract barely a comment, even reverend and right reverend gentlemen now silent.

In Australia, although there’s been no successful prosecution for a hundred-odd years, the common law crime of blasphemy technically still exists in some Australian states and territories; abolished by statute only in Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia (the so-called “code states” which (beginning with Queensland in 1899) adopted a codified system of criminal law) and by common law in Victoria.  Where it exists, it operates not as a general law to prevent vilifying or inciting hatred against people on the basis of their religion but is a specific, special legal layer protecting God and Christian doctrine from non-deferential commentary and Christian religious sensibilities from offence.  In Australia, the crime of blasphemy protects only Christianity; it remains lawful to blaspheme against other religions although other laws do offer some protection in some circumstances.  Blasphemy can be committed by speech, writing, art or other form of communication; the old technical distinctions do not apply.

Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023) performing a ritual.  Within the Roman Curia (a place of Masonic-like plotting & intrigue and much low skulduggery), Cardinal Pell's nickname was “Pell Pot”, an allusion to Pol Pot (1925–1998, dictator of communist Cambodia 1976-1979) who announced the start of his regime was “Year Zero” and all existing culture and tradition must completely be destroyed and replaced.

In 1997, while Archbishop of Melbourne, Cardinal George Pell lodged a writ in the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking a an injunction preventing the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV) from displaying a work of art, the argument being the work was blasphemous.  Despite the archbishop’s efforts, the Supreme Court declined injunctive relief, the judge noting that as a point of law,  in Australia, the crime of blasphemy no longer existed and while a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court applies only within state boundaries, it would almost certainly be found persuasive by courts in other Australian states.  That obviously extends only to secular law and the Roman Catholic Church is not restricted from dealing with charges of blasphemy under its own rules but its sanctions are limited to stuff like denying blasphemers Holy Communion or, ultimately, excommunication.  The days are gone of blasphemers being burned at the stake after some days of enduing the most horrible tortures.

The Christian churches have, since the Enlightenment, become something of a target for those seeking some form of "shock-value" to draw attention to their product (fashion line, music video, political campaign etc) but in the West, the utility of the approach has in recent years been devalued as societies have become increasingly secular and any growth in observance has tended to be non-Christian.  Even in the US where, unlike Europe and the rest of the English-speaking world, religiosity is still demographically significant, the Supreme Court (USSC) has taken a "black-letter law" view of the First Amendment to the constitution which provides (1) that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise and (2) protects freedom of speech, the press and assembly.  This has operated to mean people generally (within the limits of other laws) have the right to practice religion, not practice it at all or say what they wish about religion (limited only by other laws such as defamation).  As a general principle, in the West, the offence of blasphemy no longer exists except perhaps as an abstraction in English constitutional law in certain matters pertaining to the office of sovereign and the Church of England but its now doubtful any modern secular court would handle such things as offences of blasphemy and given the nature of the contemporary church, probably few ecclesiastical tribunals would agree to explore the idea.  Modern Anglicans don't mind being accused of heresy but quake in fright at the idea they might be thought "non-inclusive".

Thy neighbor’s ass.

To most in the secular West, the terms “blasphemy” and “heresy” probably sound archaic although they remain fixtures in figurative use in sport, popular culture and such.  However, in the Roman Catholic Church they remain matters of significance, the latter even handled by canon law.  Although misleading, a way to illustrate the difference is to regard blasphemy as a sin against God while heresy is an offence against faith (technically against the church but according to the Holy See they’re the same thing).  Rome regards blasphemy as any speech, action, or thought which discloses one’s contempt, disrespect, or irreverence toward God, Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the saints or anything treated as sacred.  Perhaps surprisingly (given how it’s handled in other jurisdictions), in the narrow technical sense, blasphemy is not explicitly defined in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) and instead is considered a grave sin and evidence of it can be used as evidence when considering specific offenses which are codified.  Once can commit blasphemy by cursing God, mocking sacred rites or publicly insulting the Eucharist and historically “taking the name of the Lord in vain” was the best known injunction against the habit.  In the King James Version of the Bible (KJV, 1611) it was written as: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain” and was in most translations the second of the Ten Commandments in Judaism and Christianity, handed down to man by God.  In the unforgiving Old testament (Exodus 20:7 & Deuteronomy 5:11) it’s reinforced by the injunction: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” and that it appears so high in the list of ten (only: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” precedes it) does suggest it may have been thought a more critical matter than someone coveting their neighbor’s ass (tenth and last).  Not being mentioned in canon law, dealing with the offence varies on a case-by-case basis and while excommunication is now rare, depending on severity or recidivism, there can be canonical penalties, especially if there’s any whiff of scandal (ie bad publicity).

Heresy is different in that it’s codified in Canon 751 of the 1983 CIC as: “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.”  That obviously casts a wide judicial net but, since the major revision of the CIC in 1917, the most commonly cited examples have been (1) denying the divinity of Christ, (2) rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity or (3) refusing to accept papal infallibility (although of the latter there’s much de facto tolerance by virtue of papal infallibility being now something implied rather than invoked (which, in the narrow technical sense, has happened only once in the last 150-odd years)).  As students of the modern church have noted, there’s much heresy going on (indeed, for some bolshie priests it seems to be a calling) but despite Canon 1364 stating a heretic is subject to latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication (meaning they are excommunicated without and need for a formal declaration), the sanction is now rarely invoked.  These days, it seems to be excommunicated for heresy, the offense needs to be both serious and repeated.

Door not ajar: The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith where blasphemy and heresy are deracinated.

Contrasting that, the vagueness of “blasphemy” means it is available as charge for offences which don’t have to fall within defined criteria.  In other words, quite what blasphemy is can be up to the Inquisitor (the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF)) and in that sense Vatican justice can be seen as something like “the length of the chancellor’s foot” in Medieval England.  That doesn’t mean it’s quite like the apocryphal “unspecified offences” and the closest comparison is probably the CCP’s (Chinese Communist Party) 寻衅滋事 (Picking quarrels and provoking trouble) that can be used to secure a conviction when, inconveniently, no law appears to have been broken.  One heresy which can have consequences short of excommunication is a defiance of what is the core rule of the framework on which the church is built: obedience to the chain of command.  Structurally, the Roman Catholic Church operates on the Führerprinzip (leader principle) best known from the German Nazi state that was the Third Reich (1933-1945) and what that means is as the bishops must obey the pope, so priests must obey their bishop.  In practice of course there’s long been a bit of drift from this and most offences are dealt with by (1) ignoring them, (2) pretending they never happened or (3) rationalizing them as something else but if a malcontent’s conduct becomes so defiantly egregious it starts to frighten the horses, Rome will act.

Condemned blasphemer the former Father Pavone in MAGA (Make America Great Again) cap, fulfilling his broadcast media commitments, Orlando, Florida, February 2024.

Frank Pavone (b 1959 and still head of the organization Priests for Life (a US-based anti-abortion collective) despite having been laicised (defrocked) in 2022), found himself in the Inquisitor’s sights because of what was described by the Vatican as: “blasphemous communications on social media” and “persistent disobedience” of his bishop although the communiqué didn’t specify which was thought more heinous.  Ominously, a letter from the papal nuncio (the Holy See’s ambassador) to the US bishops made it clear there is no mechanism available to lodge an appeal.  Ordained in 1988, the former Father Pavone had been investigated by his then-diocese of Amarillo, Texas, for having in 2016 placed an aborted fetus on an altar and posting a video of it on two social media sites but what seems to have most disturbed Rome was him being one of those “meddling priests” who involved himself less in the spiritual and more in the earthly, posting frequently to decry crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) and extol the virtues of Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025), almost always on the basis of their respective positions on abortion.  Mr Pavone remained defiant after being defrocked, comparing his fate to that of the unborn children he vowed to continue to defend: “So in every profession, including the priesthood, if you defend the #unborn, you will be treated like them!  The only difference is that when we are “aborted”, we continue to speak, loud and clear.”  Even defrocked, he wasn’t without clerical support, one bishop calling then President Joe Biden's (b 1942; US president 2021-2025) advocacy for abortion rights “evil”, tarring Rome with the same brush: “The blasphemy is that this holy priest is canceled while an evil president promotes the denial of truth & the murder of the unborn at every turn, Vatican officials promote immorality & denial of the deposit of faith & priests promote gender confusion devastating lives...evil."  Despite explicit instructions, Mr Pavone continues to present himself as a priest.

Elsewhere, blasphemy seems alive and well.  It's a most sensitive issue in Pakistan which has a Muslim majority (97%) population although the blasphemy laws still in use were introduced in 1860 under the Raj, the British creating the offence to supress the religious and communal violence between the Hindus and Muslims (the areas which now constitute Pakistan and Bangladesh then part of India).  The Pakistan Penal Code was later amended by military ruler General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1924-1988; President of Pakistan 1977-1988) and disrespecting Prophet Muhammed or desecrating the Holy Quran are capital offences punishable by death.  However, although the death penalty has occasions been imposed by courts, it seems none of the sentences have been carried out (although executions have happened in what are essentially blasphemy cases but the convictions have been recorded as "terrorism"), but thousands of convicted blasphemers remain in prison and there's much to suggest there are many instances of what is a form of "protective custody" sheltering people from what would likely be a deadly retribution.  There have been thousands of formal complaints over recent decades and dozens of killings, many before the cases reached court and, contrary to what seems to be the impression in the West, Christians are not the most frequent targets (although their cases do attract the most publicity), most of the accused being from the minority sects of Islam.   Judicial authorities admit the laws are widely misused as a device with which to pursue personal vendettas or exert leverage in commercial disputes but judges need to be cautious, one high court judge in 1997 murdered in his chambers after acquitting two Christians accused of blasphemy; the accused murderer was acquitted because no witness was prepared to provide evidence for the prosecution.

Modern capitalism can also be blasphemous in Pakistan.  As part of the CCP's "Belt & Road" project, the Chinese-funded Dasu hydropower project in north-western Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province is under construction and the senior engineer (a Chinese national) was accused of blasphemy after commenting on the “slow pace of work” during the holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims fast from dawn to sunset.  According to a police official (who agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity), “...the labourers said they were fasting but denied that work had slowed down, which led to an exchange of heated words” with the supervisor and “...later, the labourers accused the engineer of making blasphemous remarks”.  This induced a protest by some 400 members of the local population, one of who filed a written complaint.  The police later issued a statement confirming a “...Chinese national has been taken to a safe place as a precautionary measure”.  It's expected the CCP will arranged to have the engineer recalled to China and replaced with one who has undergone what would in the West be called "culturally appropriate training.

Indonesia is the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation and in 2023, a court imposed a two year sentence on a 33 year old woman who was convicted of blasphemy because she posted on TikTok a clip of the reciting a Muslim prayer before eating some crispy pork skin.  According to the Holy Quran, flesh from pigs is regarded as haram (from the Arabic: حَرَام, (ḥarām) (forbidden) and thus under Islamic law not permissible as food for Muslims.  The offence alone might have attracted some sanction but the fact it amassed literally millions of views on the social platform was regarded as exacerbatory on the basis it “spread information that was intended to incite hate or individual or group enmity based on religion”.  In additional to the custodial sentence, the court ordered her to pay a fine of 250 million rupiah (then US$16,250).  The significance of the use of social media has been cited as one of the reasons that in recent years there has been an increase in blasphemy cases in the country, something which has impacted Indonesia’s reputation for moderation, more matters coming to the attention of those most anxious to ensure a strict interpretation of Islamic law is maintained.  In recent years notable cases have included (1) charges of both blasphemy and hate speech against the head of an Islamic boarding school which permitted men and women to pray alongside each other and women to  preach become preachers, (2) arrests after a chain of bars ran a promotion offering free beer (also haram) for patrons named Mohammed and (3) an 18-month jail sentence imposed on ethnic Chinese Buddhist woman convicted of blasphemy because it was alleged she said a nearby mosque’s loudspeakers were too loud.

There are complaints Indonesia's blasphemy laws are being co-opted to target minority groups and dissenters and that this contravenes certain international obligations in relation to respect and protection for freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, freedom of opinion and expression but not even senior politicians are exempt: in 2017 a former governor of Jakarta (a Christian) received a two year sentence for blasphemy and even some of those who admitted the charges probably were "politically motivated", nevertheless agreed his words were "blasphemous against Islam" and the sentence should stand although, in a most unusual manoeuvre, the prosecutor's office appeal the verdict on the basis it was too severe and the one year sentence they had requested was more appropriate.  The Supreme Court rejected the appeal.

The matter of blasphemy has of late been much discussed in Sweden following some instances of Quran burning as a protest against Islam (definitely haram in this context although many imams do list "respectful, ceremonial burning" as an acceptable way of handling the destruction of severely damaged copies of the Quran).  Swedish law has neither a statute which explicitly prohibits the burning or desecration of the Quran (or any other other religious texts) or any blasphemy laws.  Given Sweden's reputation for tolerance and moderation, it surprises many that as late as the nineteenth century blasphemy was considered a serious crime in Swedish law and in some circumstances a capital offence and repeal wasn't sudden, the wording gradually relaxed in line with the country's increasing secularization and by 1970, when the last reference was removed from the books, there hadn't been a prosecution for decades and most probably assumed the laws had long ago been repealed.  For all sorts of reasons however, the Quaran burning is not thought helpful and the authorities would rather those with a axe to grind would just write letters to the editor.  The police have indicated that if necessary they'll used the nation's hate speech laws which prohibits incitement against groups of people based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.

Heresy

Heresy (pronounced her-uh-see)

(1) Opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.

(2) The maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.

(3) In Roman Catholic canon law, the wilful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.

(4) Dissent, iconoclasm, dissension.

1175–1225: From Middle English heresie from Old French heresie and Late Latin haeresis (school of thought, philosophical sect) derived from the Greek haíresis (act of choosing, derivative of haireîn (to choose)).  Source of the Greek was haireisthai (take, seize), middle voice of hairein (to choose) of unknown origin but likely derived from the primitive ser (to seize), thought also to be the root of both the Hittite šaru and the Welsh herw, both best translated as “booty".  The modern meaning emerged from the use by early Christian writers who used the literal translation from the Latin (sect or doctrine) to convey their disapproval of unorthodox thoughts or ideas.  The Greek word was used in the New Testament in reference to the Sadducees, Pharisees, and even the Christians, as sects of Judaism, but in English bibles it usually is translated as sect.   The meaning "religious belief opposed to the orthodox doctrines of the Church" evolved in Late Latin and was adopted for non-religious use as early as the late fourteenth century.

The Church of England Rejects Heresy Courts Proposal

Lindsay Lohan offering salvation to a heretic in Machete (2010).  The revolver is a Smith & Wesson Model 500 (8.38" barrel; .50 Magnum load)

In mid-1999, in a rare moment of clarity, the Church of England flirted, after a gap of one-hundred and fifty years, with the re-introduction of heresy trials to deal with clergy accused of deviation in matters of doctrine or ritual.  The last heresy trial was in 1847, when the Bishop of Exeter (Henry Phillpotts (1778–1869; Anglican Bishop of Exeter 1830-1869) accused the Reverend George Cornelius Gorham (1787–1857) of being unsound on the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration", Mr Gorham not agreeing a person was cleansed of original sin at baptism and born again into Christ.  Although the Court of Arches agreed with the bishop, on appeal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council overturned the ruling which caused a (very Anglican) controversy about whether a secular court should be able to rule on matters of doctrine (as opposed to law or procedure).  Since then clergy and bishops have been (more or less) free to deviate from doctrine without punishment and the Right Reverend David Jenkins (1925-2016), a former Bishop of Durham (1984-1994), famously raised a few eyebrows when he discussed his heterodoxic view on the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Christ.  The new disciplinary procedure for clergy was to include offences against "doctrine, ritual and the ceremonial" because those who profess atheism or deny the doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation “should be disciplined”.

Heretic crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) being burned at the stake (digitally altered image).

Although not as well known as other inquisitions, in England, in the sixteenth century Reformation during the reign of Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England (and Ireland after 1541) 1509-1547), about 60 heretics were executed.  Heresy laws were repealed in 1547, but reintroduced in 1554 by Mary I (1516–1558; Queen of England and Ireland 1553-1558 & Queen of Spain 1556-1558), under whom about 290 heretics were burned at the stake after the restoration of papal jurisdiction.  Executions of some 180 religious opponents continued under Elizabeth I (1533–1603; Queen of England & Ireland 1558-1603) but on grounds of treason rather than heresy although the offence remained on the books.  To the condemned, it must have seemed a tiresome technical distinction.  The last execution of a "heretic" in England occurred in 1612 although technically that was for the offence of blasphemy.  Puritanical, if not quite to the end but certainly for as long as they could, there was one later execution in Scotland in 1697 when Thomas Aikenhead (circa 1676-1697) was accused, inter alia, of denying the doctrine of the Trinity.  In a example of Scottish judicial modernization, Mr Aikenhead was hanged rather than burned at the stake although blasphemy as a capital offence was retained until 1825.

Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) and Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023) discuss the fate of heretics. 

Unfortunately, after mulling over things for half-a–decade, the General Synod of the Church of England rejected the revival of a heresy court and didn’t, even more regrettably, consider bringing back burnings at the stake.  It seems there were fears the court could be used to enforce a traditionalist view, targeting clergy, who for example, support same-sex marriages or gay clergy, both now apparently matters of greater theological importance than a belief in the resurrection.  That does seem strange given it’s the central tenet of Christianity but that’s clearly become view from both the General Synod and Lambeth Palace.  In an address to the synod, displaying his flair for simultaneously changing the subject and answering a different question than the one asked, then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams (b 1950; Archbishop of Canterbury 2002-2012), said it was important for the church “…to be able to speak out against issues like Apartheid.  The question I think we ought to be asking is whether this does or does not serve the integrity or credibility of the church in the long run.  I believe that such a measure can serve the integrity and credibility of the church if we do indeed step back in this way.  It is over twenty years since the World Alliance of Reform Churches declared that the theological justification for Apartheid was a heresy.  It would be, I think a very incredible and inadequate Christian church which did not have the resource to say something like that.”

Thy neighbor’s ass.

To most in the secular West, the terms “blasphemy” and “heresy” probably sound archaic although they remain fixtures in figurative use in sport, popular culture and such.  However, in the Roman Catholic Church they remain matters of significance, the latter even handled by canon law.  Although misleading, a way to illustrate the difference is to regard blasphemy as a sin against God while heresy is an offence against faith (technically against the church but according to the Holy See they’re the same thing).  Rome regards blasphemy as any speech, action, or thought which discloses one’s contempt, disrespect, or irreverence toward God, Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the saints or anything treated as sacred.  Perhaps surprisingly (given how it’s handled in other jurisdictions), in the narrow technical sense, blasphemy is not explicitly defined in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) and instead is considered a grave sin and evidence of it can be used as evidence when considering specific offenses which are codified.  Once can commit blasphemy by cursing God, mocking sacred rites or publicly insulting the Eucharist and historically “taking the name of the Lord in vain” was the best known injunction against the habit.  In the King James Version of the Bible (KJV, 1611) it was written as: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain” and was in most translations the second of the Ten Commandments in Judaism and Christianity, handed down to man by God.  In the unforgiving Old testament (Exodus 20:7 & Deuteronomy 5:11) it’s reinforced by the injunction: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” and that it appears so high in the list of ten (only: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” precedes it) does suggest it may have been thought a more critical matter than someone coveting their neighbor’s ass (tenth and last).  Not being mentioned in canon law, dealing with the offence varies on a case-by-case basis and while excommunication is now rare, depending on severity or recidivism, there can be canonical penalties, especially if there’s any whiff of scandal (ie bad publicity).

Heresy is different in that it’s codified in Canon 751 of the 1983 CIC as: “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.”  That obviously casts a wide judicial net but, since the major revision of the CIC in 1917, the most commonly cited examples have been (1) denying the divinity of Christ, (2) rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity or (3) refusing to accept papal infallibility (although of the latter there’s much de facto tolerance by virtue of papal infallibility being now something implied rather than invoked (which, in the narrow technical sense, has happened only once in the last 150-odd years)).  As students of the modern church have noted, there’s much heresy going on (indeed, for some bolshie priests it seems to be a calling) but despite Canon 1364 stating a heretic is subject to latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication (meaning they are excommunicated without and need for a formal declaration), the sanction is now rarely invoked.  These days, it seems to be excommunicated for heresy, the offense needs to be both serious and repeated.

Door not ajar: The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith where blasphemy and heresy are deracinated.

Contrasting that, the vagueness of “blasphemy” means it is available as charge for offences which don’t have to fall within defined criteria.  In other words, quite what blasphemy is can be up to the Inquisitor (the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF)) and in that sense Vatican justice can be seen as something like “the length of the chancellor’s foot” in Medieval England.  That doesn’t mean it’s quite like the apocryphal “unspecified offences” and the closest comparison is probably the CCP’s (Chinese Communist Party) 寻衅滋事 (Picking quarrels and provoking trouble) that can be used to secure a conviction when, inconveniently, no law appears to have been broken.  One heresy which can have consequences short of excommunication is a defiance of what is the core rule of the framework on which the church is built: obedience to the chain of command.  Structurally, the Roman Catholic Church operates on the Führerprinzip (leader principle) best known from the German Nazi state that was the Third Reich (1933-1945) and what that means is as the bishops must obey the pope, so priests must obey their bishop.  In practice of course there’s long been a bit of drift from this and most offences are dealt with by (1) ignoring them, (2) pretending they never happened or (3) rationalizing them as something else but if a malcontent’s conduct becomes so defiantly egregious it starts to frighten the horses, Rome will act.

Condemned blasphemer the former Father Pavone in MAGA (Make America Great Again) cap, fulfilling his broadcast media commitments, Orlando, Florida, February 2024.

Frank Pavone (b 1959 and still head of the organization Priests for Life (a US-based anti-abortion collective) despite having been laicised (defrocked) in 2022), found himself in the Inquisitor’s sights because of what was described by the Vatican as: “blasphemous communications on social media” and “persistent disobedience” of his bishop although the communiqué didn’t specify which was thought more heinous.  Ominously, a letter from the papal nuncio (the Holy See’s ambassador) to the US bishops made it clear there is no mechanism available to lodge an appeal.  Ordained in 1988, the former Father Pavone had been investigated by his then-diocese of Amarillo, Texas, for having in 2016 placed an aborted fetus on an altar and posting a video of it on two social media sites but what seems to have most disturbed Rome was him being one of those “meddling priests” who involved himself less in the spiritual and more in the earthly, posting frequently to decry crooked Hillary Clinton and extol the virtues of Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025), almost always on the basis of their respective positions on abortion.  Mr Pavone remained defiant after being defrocked, comparing his fate to that of the unborn children he vowed to continue to defend: “So in every profession, including the priesthood, if you defend the #unborn, you will be treated like them!  The only difference is that when we are “aborted”, we continue to speak, loud and clear.”  Even defrocked, he wasn’t without clerical support, one bishop calling then President Joe Biden's (b 1942; US president 2021-2025) advocacy for abortion rights “evil”, tarring Rome with the same brush: “The blasphemy is that this holy priest is canceled while an evil president promotes the denial of truth & the murder of the unborn at every turn, Vatican officials promote immorality & denial of the deposit of faith & priests promote gender confusion devastating lives...evil."  Despite explicit instructions, Mr Pavone continues to present himself as a priest.

Fatwa

Fatwa (pronounced faht-wah)

(1) In Islam, a religious decree issued by a high authority (such as a mufti) or the ʿulama (a body of Muslim scholars who are recognized as having specialist knowledge of Islamic sacred law and theology).

(2) In Islam, a non-binding judgment on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized religious authority.

1620s: From the Arabic fatwā or fetwā (a legal ruling given by a mufti) and related to fata (to instruct by a legal decision).  The Arabic فَتْوَى‎ (fatwā) was the verbal noun of أَفْتَى‎ (ʾaftā) (to deliver a formal opinion; he gave a legal decision), مُفْتٍ‎ (muftin) (mufti) the active participle of the same verb.  The noun mufti, one of a number of titles in the Islamic legal and institutional structures, dates from the 1580s muphtie (official head of the state religion in Turkey), from the Arabic mufti (judge), the active participle (with formative prefix mu-) of afta (to give) a conjugated form of fata.  The alternative forms are fatwah, fetwa, fetwah, futwa & (the archaic medieval) futwah although in some early sources it appeared as fotyā (plural fatāwā) & fatāwī; in English use, it’s written usually as fatwa.  Fatwa is a noun & verb and fatwaing & fatwaed are verbs; the noun plural is fatwas or fatawa.  The occasionally used adjectives fatwaesque & fatwaish are non-standard.

Portrait of the Imam as a young man: Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900–1989; Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979-1989).

Apart from the work of historians and other scholars, the word was rare in English, popularized in the West only when, on Valentine’s day 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwā sentencing to death the author Salman Rushdie (b 1947) and others associated with publishing The Satanic Verses (1988), the charge being blasphemy.  The fatwā was revoked in 1998.  Interestingly, in purely juristic terms, The Satanic Verses fatwā is thought neither remarkable nor innovative, the call for extra-judicial killings, the summary execution of those condemned without judicial process, was well grounded in the historic provisions of Shiʿite (and Sunni) jurisprudence.  What lent this fatwā its impact was it had been issued by a head of state against the citizen of another country and seemed thus archaic in late twentieth century international relations.

A fatwā is the authoritative ruling of a religious scholar on questions (masāʾel) of Islamic jurisprudence either (1) dubious or obscure in nature (shobohāt) or (2) which are newly arisen and for which there is no known precedent (mostaḥdaṯāt) and it’s in connection with the latter category that the word fatwā has long been regarded as cognate with fatā (young man); the sense of something new.  However, the enquiry eliciting a fatwā may relate to an existing ordinance (ḥokm) of Islamic law (particularly one unknown to the questioner) or to its application to a specific case or occurrence which is sufficiently different to the way something has historically been applied.  In this case, the fatwā functions as an act to clarify the relevant ordinance (tabyīn-e ḥokm).  This can apply to something novel like new technology.  The International Space Station (ISS) operates at an altitude of 250 miles (400 km) and travels at 17,500 mph (28,000 km/h), thus orbiting Earth every ninety minutes so when a Muslim astronaut requested guidance about the correct protocols to ensure he was facing towards Mecca when in prayer, a Malaysian scholar issued a fatwā.

The process of requesting a fatwā is termed esteftāʾ; the one who requests it is the mostaftī; its delivery is the eftāʾ; and the one who delivers it is the moftī.  There is nothing in Islamic law which dictates a fatwā must be either requested or provided in writing although this has always been the common practice and certainly followed in matters of importance.  However, request and fatwā may be delivered orally and the practice is doubtlessly widespread, especially when merely confirming things generally known. The technical process of the fatwā wasn’t an invention of Islam.  In Roman civil law, the principle of jus respondendi (the right of responding) was an authority conferred on senior jurists when delivering legal opinions; thought essentially the right to embellish a ruling with an opinion, some historians maintain it was even a right to issue a dissent although there’s no agreement on this.  Perhaps even closer was the Jewish practice of Responsa (in Latin the plural of responsum (answer)) which in practice translated as “ask the Rabbi”.

As a general principle, fatwās exist to address specific and actual problems or uncertainties, although rulings are not infrequently sought on a set of interrelated questions or on hypothetical problems the occurrence of which is anticipated.  A legal scholar can thus provide what is, in effect, an advisory opinion; something generally unknown in the Western legal tradition.  Nor are fatwās of necessity concerned purely with legal matters, doctrinal considerations necessarily involved whenever a fatwā results in takfīr (the condemnation of individuals or groups as unbelievers).  This is a feature especially in Shiʿite collections of fatwās which are sometimes prefaced with a summary of essential doctrines, intended to create concise handbooks for the common believer of both theology and law.

A misunderstood aspect of the fatwā is the extent to which it can be held to be mandatory.  Because of the structures of Islam, a fatwā is not comparable to a papal bull which is an absolute ruling from the Holy See; a fatwā is intrinsically obligatory simply because there is in Islam not the one lineal hierarchy, it is an expression of learned opinion which relies for its authority upon the respect afforded to the author and the willingness of followers to comply.  That’s not to say that some strains of Islam don’t attempt to formalise a structure which would impose that obligation.  In Shiʿism, the authority to deliver a fatwā is generally restricted to the mojtahed (the jurist qualified to deduce the specific ordinances of the law (forūʿ) from its sources (oṣūl), and obedience to the mojtahed of their choice (the marjaʿ-e taqlīd) is incumbent on all who lack learned qualifications.  As a specific point of law, the ruling given in the fatwā of a mojtahed is obligatory for those who sought.

Holy Quran commissioned by the last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1919-1980).

One curious aspect of the fatwās is that while the process is only partially based on anything from the Holy Quran, by definition the content of a  fatwā can be based on nothing else.  The theological point is that while there are Quranic verses in which the Prophet was asked for rulings (yasʾalūnaka (they ask you) & yastaftūnaka (they ask you for a ruling)), the Prophet himself is not the source of the rulings for in these versus he is instructed to say, “God provides you with a ruling” (Allāho yoftīkom); a fatwā, ultimately relying for its authority not on the scholarship of the writer but upon it being Quranic: the word of God.  This relationship is made explicit in the injunction in 16:43 (“Ask the People of Remembrance (ie those learned in the Holy Quran) if you do not know”).  This accounts also for the brevity of most fatwās compared with Western traditions, it being superfluous for the moftī to cite textual or other evidence simply because all that can be issued is what can easily be referenced in the in Holy Quran.  It can be no other way because, under Islamic doctrine, Muhammad was the last prophet and thus, after his death in 632, God ceased to communicate with mankind through revelation and prophets; from that point onward, for all time, there are only the words of the Holy Quran.

Lindsay Lohan in hijab.

The vexed matter of the wearing of the hijab (or any of the other variations in Women’s “modest” clothing associated with Islam (as it is with some other faiths)) is an example of the fatwa in operation.  The Holy Quran contains passages discussing the concept of modesty in attire (for both men and women) but the interpretation and application of these has varied greatly within Islam’s many strands.  The Quranic verse most commonly cited is in Surah An-Nur (24:31) where it instructs believing women to “draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, or their brothers' sons or their sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves whom their right hands possess, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children who are not yet aware of the nakedness of women.”  So there’s no explicit mention of “heads or hair” but many Islamic scholars have constructed this as a directive for women to cover their hair when in the presence of those not immediate family members or close relatives.

Lindsay Lohan in hijab.

It’s not only in Islam that interpretations of religious texts can vary widely but in the early twenty-first century (and the trend has been accelerating since the triumpt of the 1979 revolution in Iran) it’s upon Islam where much of the liberal West’s attention has been focused, this interest not the garments but the allegations of coercion imposed on women.  Some in the West have even gone as far as to deny Islamic women the possibility that in choosing to hijab they are exercising free will, suggesting they are victims of what the Marxists call “false consciousness”.  In Islamic communities, cultural, regional and historic customs also play a significant role in how hijab is understood and practiced which is why there have been fatwas which interpret the Quranic verses as severely as dictating a burqa, as a head-scarf or merely a mode of dress and conduct which could be described as “modest” or “non-provocative”.

Lindsay Lohan in hijab.

So when there are competing fatwas, a choice must be made.   Were one to take a purely theoretical position, one might hold that choice would be made on the basis of an individual's personal beliefs, level of religious observance and understanding of Islamic teachings and, because within Islam there is such a diversity of opinion, a follower might be encouraged to consult with knowledgeable scholars and from that make an informed decision.  However, it’s absurd to suggest that process might be followed in a state like Afghanistan which maintains a “hijab police” and enforces a dress code as specific as a military parade ground.  A fatwa thus exists in its cultural, social and legal context and even in for those living in the liberal West, forces may within families or communities operate to mean the matter of choice is a rare luxury.

Adultery

Adultery (pronounced uh-duhl-tuh-ree)

(1) Voluntary sexual intimacy between a married person and someone with whom they do not enjoy the benefit of lawful marriage.

(2) Used loosely, based on biblical traditions, lewdness or unchastity of thought as well as act; sinful sexual behavior as a category (priests have long lists of what's deemed sinful).

(3) In historical biblical use, faithlessness in religion (obsolete). 

(4) In English common law, the fine and penalty formerly imposed for the offence of adultery (obsolete).

(5) In historic ecclesiastical jargon, the intrusion of a person into a bishopric during the life of the bishop.

(6) In political economy, adulteration; corruption.

(7) Injury; degradation; ruin (obsolete). 

1325-1375: From the Middle English adulterie, from the Classical Latin adulterium (voluntary violation of the marriage bed).  Adulterie replaced an earlier Middle English form advouterie, drawn from the Old French avoutrie.  So, construct was: adulterie, altered (as if directly from Latin adulterium) from avoutrie, via Old French from Latin adulterium, from adulter, back formation from adulterāre.  Modern spelling, with the re-inserted -d, is from early fifteenth century.  Interestingly, in Middle English, word also applied even to "sex between husband and wife for recreational purposes”, sex for other than procreation being regarded by the church as idolatry, perversion and heresy.  The church variously classified the sin as single adultery (with an unmarried person) and double adultery (with a married person).  In Old English the word was æwbryce (breach of lawful marriage), drawn from the German Ehebruch.  The old English synonym advowtry is long obsolete.  Adultery, adulterousness, adulterant, adulterer & adulteress are nouns, adulter is a noun & verb, adulterize is a verb, adulterate is a verb & adjective, adulterous is an adjective and adulterously is an adverb; the most common noun plural is adulterers (the pleasing feminine form adulteresses seems to have been sacrificed in the quest for gender-neutrality).

In the US, Adultery Dune in Arizona corresponds to the Navajo sei adilehe (adultery sand), the place where, prior to European settlement, illicit lovers met.  It’s apparently something between Hampstead Heath and Death Valley as depicted in Michelangelo Antonioni’s (1912-2007) Zabriskie Point (1970).  Everyone should see Zabriskie Point before they die.

As one might imagine, the tradition of adultery goes way back and so does the condemnation by clerics and others; it is of course proscribed by one of the Ten Commandments (coming in usually at 6 or 7 in most translations) in the Christian Bible's Old Testament and the ever zealous Leviticus (at 20:10) spelled out the consequences: If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.  In the hierarchy of sin, that the injunction again adultery appears usually at (6) or (7) in the Ten Commandments has by some been used to suggest it may not be thought by God to be as serious a matter as blasphemy (3) but worse than coveting thy neighbor’s ass.  That’s probably theologically dubious and the order of listing is thought thematic rather than a ranking of relative sinfulness.  The first four commandments focus on the “vertical” relationship between man and God while the later six deal with the “horizontal” relationships between people.  Still, while unlikely much to impress the uncompromising Leviticus, some have tried to gloss over the sinfulness, occasionally on the basis of “the end justifying the means”.  In De vita Caesarum (circa 121) (literally “On the Life of the Caesars” but better known in English as The Lives of the Twelve Caesars (twelve (substantially anecdotal) biographies of Julius Caesar (100-44 BC; Roman general and dictator of Rome 49-44 BC) and the first eleven emperors of the Roman Empire during the Principate)), Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (circa 70-circa 123) wrote of August Caesar (63 BC-14 AD): “That he was guilty of several acts of adultery is not denied, even by his friends; but they allege excuse for in, that he engaged in these intrigues, not from lewdness, but from policy, in order to discover more easily the designs of his enemies, through their wives.”

Double Adultery: adulterousness Cheryl Kernot (left) & adulterer Gareth Evans (right).

Although adultery can be a difficult, complicated business, to avoid things ending badly, there are really two options.  One is not to commit adultery because, in the words of  English author, Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861), "advantage rarely comes of it."  Option two is not to get caught but there is a long list of politicians who made the greatest mistake of all: getting caught.  Although adultery seemed once almost obligatory (and once also tolerated) for French politicians great and humble, in the English-speaking world, it's always a scandal.  Of late, we’ve had the helpfully named Anthony Weiner (b 1964), Bill Clinton (b 1946; US president 1993-2001) who had only himself to blame and Sir John Major (b 1943; UK prime-minister 1990-1997) who really must be admired; an affair with Edwina Currie (b 1946) hardly being safe-sex.  Jim Cairns (1914–2003) perjured himself while lying about his affair and John Profumo (1915–2006) committed adultery with Christine Keeler (1942–2017) while she was enjoying another adulterous affair with a Russian spy.  While leader of the opposition, Ben Chifley (1885–1951; prime minister of Australia 1945 to 1949) told the prime-minister he was going home to read a detective story, dying that night in the company of his mistress; men wept at the news of his death.  John Kennedy's (JFK, 1917–1963; US president 1961-1963) adultery was (within the beltway), famous even at the time and David Lloyd George (1863–1945; UK prime-minister 1916-1922) blatantly took his mistress to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919; one author claimed even the long-assumed faithful Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) may have strayed.  Doing his bit, Gareth Evans (b 1944; Australian Labor Party (ALP) senator or MP 1978-1999, sometime attorney-general & foreign minister) had an affair with then Democrats leader Cheryl Kernot (b 1948) who subsequently rated on them and joined the ALP although whether that was because or in spite of Gareth’s adulterous caresses has never been clear but, in the absence of contrary indications, he deserves the credit.  Unfortunately, when Ms Kernot published her memoir Speaking for Myself Again (2002), she neglected to discuss her adulterous affair which prompted one journalist to reveal what had until then been only “insider knowledge”.  Whether or not that lack of disclosure contributed to be book being reputedly the least successful Australian political memoir isn’t certain but it was out-sold even by Peter Howson’s (1919–2009) The Howson diaries: the life of politics that, while packed with fascinating details to delight the insiders, also lacked the juicy bits which might have interested a wider audience.

End of the line for Sir Billy Snedden.

Most illustrious are those said to have died on the job, expiring usually in hotel rooms following heart-attacks or strokes.  The list includes the 70 year old Nelson Rockefeller (1908-1979; US vice-president 1974-1977) who was with a 25 year old aide and the 76 year old Albert Speer (1905–1981; Nazi court architect 1934-1942; Nazi minister of armaments and war production 1942-1945) who was in the company of an admirer of 37.  Lord Palmerston (1784-1865; variously UK prime-minister or foreign secretary on several occasions 1830-1865) is rumoured to have died on a billiard table with a housemaid and Pope John XII (circa 933–964; pope 955-964) is said to have died in circumstances not dissimilar.  Famously, Sir Billy Snedden (1926–1987), at 61, breathed his last in a Travelodge at Sydney's Rushcutter’s Bay with a somewhat younger woman who was his son’s ex-girlfriend, an event recorded by what was perhaps the Melbourne Truth's most memorable front page.  Remarkably, despite decades of speculation, her identity has never publicly been confirmed.

Escorting then-wife Natalie (b 1969, left) and noticing mistress Vicki Campion (b 1985, right). Former National Party (the old Country Party) leader Barnaby Joyce (b 1967; thrice (between local difficulties) deputy prime minister of Australia 2016-2022).

Mr Joyce joined a long line of adulterous politicians who made the greatest mistake of all: getting caught.  He's pictured here escorting (then) wife to the parliament's mid-winter ball in June 2017 (left) and casting his mistress an admiring glance (right).  The whip he carried was thought a photo-opportunity prop, verisimilitude for his “rural & regional shtick” rather than an indication of any other proclivities but who knows?  In a sense, Mr Joyce was a victim because when rugby union (and other codes) player Israel Folau (b 1989) in 2019 posted on social media a list of those God condemns to Hell which included “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters”, while there was strident support for the gay community, despite the mention of “adulterers” and “drunks” being obviously a blatant attack on Mr Joyce's character, not a whisper was heard in his defence.  Still, at the time she became his mistress, Ms Campion was unmarried, Mr Joyce thus guilty only of  “single adultery” so there's that.