On the vices of the tongue against our neighbor we now come to the question of cursing.
More to the point, is it lawful to curse anyone?

St. Thomas Aquinas discusses cursing in Summa Theologica, II - II, Q. 76 (4 art.).

Today, we will present only his first article, “Whether it is lawful to curse anyone?”  In presenting only this article we will give full presentation and this for two reasons, first, because the question itself is rather unusual and second, to give an idea of how St. Thomas argues his position throughout his Summa.

The first article reads, Whether it is lawful to curse anyone?

First, St. Thomas presents a series of objections in regards to his answer: 
1) It would seem unlawful to curse anyone.  For it is unlawful to disregard St. Paul’s command, “bless and curse not” (Rm 12:14).  Therefore, it is not lawful to curse.

2) Further, all are bound to obey God, according to Daniel 3:82, “O ye sons of men, bless the Lord.”  But the same mouth can not bless God and curse man according to St. James.  Therefore, no man may lawfully curse another man.

3) Further, he that curses another seems to wish him evil.  But it is not lawful to wish anyone evil.  Indeed, we are bound to pray that all be freed of evil.  Therefore, it is unlawful for any man to curse.

4) Further, the devil is the worst of all.  But it is not lawful to curse him, as it is not lawful to curse oneself as Ecclus. 21:30 “While the ungodly curses the devil, he curses his own soul.”  Therefore, much less it is lawful to curse a man.

5) Further, a gloss from Numbers 23:8,  “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?,” reads, “There cannot be a just cause for cursing a sinner if one be ignorant of his sentiments.”  But a man cannot know the sentiments of another, nor whether he is cursed by God.  Therefore, no man may lawfully curse another.

After St. Thomas lists the objections to his answer, which many times seem insurmountable, he states a contrary point which always begins, “On the contrary...”
“On the contrary, It is written, ‘Cursed be he that abides not in the words of this law.’ Moreover, Eliseus cursed the little boys who mocked him (4 Kings 2:24).”

Next, St Thomas presents his own answer, which always begins, “I answer that...”
“I answer that to curse (maledicere) is the same as to speak ill (malum dicere).    Now speaking has a threefold relation to the thing spoken.”  First, by way of assertion (indicative mood) and, in this way, maledicere signifies simply to tell another of someone’s evil, and this pertains to backbiting.

 Second, speaking is related to the thing spoken by way of cause (imperative mood), and this belongs to God first and foremost.   “He spoke, and they were made.”  (Ps 32:9); after this, it  belongs to man, who by his word, commands others and moves them to do something.

Third, speaking relates to the thing spoken by expressing sentiments or desires (optative mood.)   

St. Thomas tells us that as the indicative mood is used only to affirm an evil, only the two other ways of evil speaking, by way of desire and by way of command, will be considered.

If a man commands or desires another’s evil as evil, being intent on the evil itself, then evil speaking will be unlawful in both ways; strictly speaking, this is what is meant by cursing. 

On the other hand, if a man desires another’s evil under the aspect of good, it is lawful; this is cursing taken loosely because the main intention of the speaker is directed not to evil but to good.

St. Thomas further distinguishes that evil may be spoken, by commanding or desiring, under the aspect of a twofold good.  Sometimes under the aspect of the just ( a judge lawfully curses a man with a just penalty; the Church curses with anathema; prophets cursed evil doers in Old Testament to inspire repentance.)  Sometimes evil is spoken under the aspect of the useful (a man wishes a sinner to suffer sickness or some inconvenience so that he may reform or cease from harming others; and we may add that in this sense did St. Rita curse her two sons, by wishing their deaths, so that they would not take revenge for their father’s death; and, in the same sense, did the mothers of St. Louis IX and St. Francis de Sales desire the death of their own sons rather than that they should grievously offend Almighty God by a single sin.)

Next, after St. Thomas finishes with his answer, he ends his article by answering the objections.

Reply to Objection 1) which stated St. Paul’s admonishment,  “Bless and do not curse,” regards cursing in the strict sense, intending the evil itself; this same answer applies to Obj. 2) wherein St. James forbids cursing when he says that the same mouth should not bless God and curse man.

Reply to Obj. 3) which stated we are forbidden to wish evil to anyone, states that to wish evil to another under the aspect of the good is not opposed to the sentiment whereby one wishes him good simply, in fact rather it is in conformity thereby.

Reply to Obj. 4) which stated as we are not to curse the devil, much less any man.   In the devil we consider his nature and his guilt.  We do not curse his nature as that is from God and is good; his guilt we may curse.  Yet, when a sinner curses the devil on account of his guilt, for the same reason he judges himself worthy of being cursed and, in this sense, he curses his own soul.

Reply to Obj. 5) which stated it is unlawful to curse as we do not perceive the sentiments of another.  Although we do not perceive sentiments themselves, we may perceive them through manifest sin which has to be punished.  Just so, although it is not possible to know whom God curses in respect of final reprobation, it is possible to know who is accursed of God in respect of being guilty of present sin.

Now that is St. Thomas Aquinas’ presentation on “whether it is lawful to curse anyone?”.  Now you know the manner in which he presents every article of his Summa Theologica.

Next, and more briefly, we will cover St. Thomas’ remaining three articles on cursing.