A couple days ago, I wrote about the A Form of Sound Words post about "synthetic cursing" and the response from Joe Missionary. I promised I’d respond to Messy Christian and Jeff the Baptist. Today I will.
Let’s start with Messy Christian. FYI, all cuss word edits were made by me and are set off with brackets.
"If people had known me before my Conversion, they would have known that I sure know how to use language, if you know what I mean. And I have a fiery temper to go with it."
"But then I became a Christian, and I quickly tried to ‘purify’ my language. The funny thing was, I thought by ‘Christianizing’ my swear words it would be more acceptable. I know, funny."
"So, I replaced [f***] with ‘fish’, [G*ddamnit] with ‘Gosh’, ‘Damn’ with "Darn" and the rest I totally exorcised from my language."
"Then, recently, thanks to a combination of things I’d rather not go into detail now, I realised that it was just utter foolishness and stupidity to Christianize my swear words."
"I mean, what’s more worrying? The words or the nasty emotions behind them?"
"I may use ‘fish’, but the feelings of hate, anger, jealousy blah blah is still there. We so tend to focus on the externals. We dress prim and proper, but don’t deal with our wandering eye. We clean up our language, but don’t deal with the nasty feelings inside. Dressing up one’s swear words is just another fancy way of putting on a Christian mask."
There is some logic to this position. Who are we fooling? Doesn’t God know we’re using foul language? Don’t people know what we mean to say? It sounds attractive. It sounds honest. Who wouldn’t want to avoid self-righteousness and hypocrisy?
Attractive though it is, it is also flawed.
Let’s make an analogy to quitting smoking. Is the use of a nicotine patch or nicotine gum hypocritical? Does it somehow make an addicted smoker a phony? No, of course it doesn’t. Do smokers intend to use either patches or gum for the rest of their lives? Of course not. They are means to an end. Nobody has any doubt that people using either would rather be smoking cigarettes. However, by using "synthetic" means instead, they are demonstrating a desire to quit. They are set apart from other smokers. By quitting, they will likely enjoy better health, as will those formerly exposed to their second-hand smoke, and their loved ones will likely be blessed by their continued presence on Earth for more years. Even by just taking the step of using synthetic sources of nicotine, they are helping themselves and others. They are starting to break the addictive cycle and they become one less source of filth in the air. Words can be air pollution, too.
Unrepentant cursing is not appropriate behavior for Christians. We are to be in the world but not of it. By attempting to filter or edit or swear words – and ultimately discard them entirely – we set ourselves apart from the rest of society. This has two benefits. The first regards witnessing. If we demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit, among them self-control, we will be recognizable to each other and to the world as Christians. Let us not be stumbling blocks – scandals – to anyone. The second benefit is to ourselves. As Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, "If you don’t behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave.". Substitutions for curse words are not meant to be an optimal solution. Like nicotine patches and gum. they are a means to an end. The more you use foul language, the more desensitized to it you will become. Substitution should be an exercise for our atrophied internal editors. Many of us in the Body of Christ seem to have forgotten how to guard our thoughts. The process of remembering starts with biting our tongues.
"Now I am just too apathetic to play the masking game, so I don’t even bother hiding my swear words anymore. Sure, I don’t swear as much as I used to because I’d rather control myself and not pepper my dialogue with as many [‘f***s’] and "damn yous" just to look cool. I mean, that’s sad and lame."
"But when I’m angry – which happens far too often these days – I don’t bother disguising my language for Christian consumption anymore. Let’s call a tulip and tulip, shall we?"
….
"I know some of you may not agree with my stance, and you know what? I wish I can come to a point when I don’t have to swear anymore, but here I am … where I am!"
Apathy? Should any Christian lack empathy and sympathy for others? St. Paul taught that though all things are permissible, not all things are edifying. If your language offends other Christians, you should curb it, not because foul language is forbidden, but because your brother/sister is offended by it. Being a disciple of Christ often means taking people as they are. That doesn’t mean we should expect that of others. Aim for the laudable. When people reach out to you, hopefully, they’re willing and able, with God’s help, to meet you where you are. Why make that difficult for them? Be considerate of your brothers/sisters and meet them halfway.
Now let’s see what Jeff had to say.
"I’m of the opinion that if you are going to swear do it seldomly, but make it a good one…[‘F***’] is an amazingly flexible word, but I’d rather make due with only one rather than having to scream multiple forms of it for a full five minutes."
So, what you’re basically saying, Jeff, is that it’s too much trouble for you to curb your language. Maybe the goal should be anger management, not language management per se. See above.
Jeff goes on to explain the difference between profanities and obscenities. It’s interesting and worth a read, but not really relevant to the issue at hand.
"In the end though, while I think we should watch our colorful dialogue, I have a hard time going the Gosh route. It seems false to me and I try my best not to put on masks. In some ways using wussy profanity just bothers my integrity more than if I just stuck with the good stuff."
Again, I can sympathize with the desire to avoid hypocrisy. However, we are called to put on a mask – that of Jesus Christ. That’s not to say that our identities are obscured, annihiliated, or subsumed by Christ’s, but that we should always endeavor to demonstrate Jesus’ meek and loving nature to others. All Christians are witnesses to the Gospel. We should exercise self-control for ourselves, for others, and for Christ. Lack of self-control results in unloving behavior toward others. How does that witness to the God Who is Love?
I linked to the original posts in their title so folks can read previous comments. If you choose to comment on either post, please do so here. Thanks. 🙂
The ease with which some pastors and priests fling about “coarse language” never ceases to ice up my insides. I think it falls largely to a lack of respect for authority. I remember cursing almost every sentence before submitting to Christ and conciously considered several times that I was putting it “in someone’s face” and that was fun for me.
After a while it became habit, but even then I knew when I should and shouldn’t do it. It was about feeling the power of being abrasive
http://uccatholic.blogspot.com/2005/11/why-we-need-to-watch-our-potty-mouths.html
Try owning parrots. There’s a segment of the brain that is active when we use profanity or profanity substitutes. It’s why profanity is a universal concept. Parrots have this in spades — they learn profanity better than just about anything. Teaching a parrot to swear is cruel, and so we must be very careful.
Campolo is right, though. Why aren’t we more upset about the kids dying? Is it that, if they’re dying, we don’t have to worry about them swearing? Campolo’s point is that our priorities are out of whack. I care much less about people’s use of profanity than about those children.
There are also times when profanity is useful. In emergency situations, for example, well-chosen profanity shocks bystanders, family members, patients, co-workers, and supervisors, enabling them to stop panicking and think. I got rather good at that trick, and I have no qualms about using it that way. I figure I can apologize for the profanity later, but if someone dies, the apology doesn’t really set things right.
I disagree that Campolo’s point is relevant. Simply because there are worse things doesn’t mean that lesser evils aren’t still evil.
I agree that the death of innocent children is far worse than many things, but that doesn’t make everything less bad than kids dying a-okay.
Tom, I think Campolo’s point might resonate with you more if you were part of the Evangelical sub-culture he was addressing. There’s a lot of form over substance. Actually, that’s part of the reason why we need to be careful how we handle our approaches to liturgy. Worshipping well and meaningfully is certainly important, but it’s for naught if we aren’t loving our neighbors. We must be careful, lest we should appear as Pharisees to others. Let’s not strain flies and swallow camels. Getting back to cursing, under most circumstances it’s not something worth nitpicking.
Read the linked posts for a more thorough version of my opinions. Comments are welcome and encouraged.
Tom,
How do people react to what Campolo said? They respond that he shouldn’t swear. That’s the first thing they do. The first thing they do is not try to figure out some way of saving those kids.
Clearly, to them, Campolo’s use of profanity is far more serious than the dying children.
I’ll worry about the profanity after we stop the kids from dying. Until then, I’m busy.
I think Campolo’s point has merit. I have never considered “shit” a bad word. It is a sin to use the Lord’s name in vain. I am opposed to all dirty joking. And it is wrong to curse another human being.
Saying “shit” is not sinful. Under certain circumstances, it might be impolite or rude and that would be wrong. But in other company, saying “shit” is neither offensive nor shocking. So I couldn’t care less that Campolo said “shit” in public.
What I do care about deeply is that Tony Campolo is a raving heretic. He wrote an article after Katrina saying that the reason bad things happen is because God is not omnipotent. Uh…heresy.
And what I also care about is the fact that many Christians are far more bothered by the fact that I wrote “shit” five times than that Campolo believes that God is not capable of controlling the weather.
And by the way, malnutrition is not the biggest killer of children int eh third world. Mosquitoes are. And the diseases they carry. And we could completely eradicate these mosquito borne diseases by using effective pesticides. But because the Greens care more about sparrows the children… well, you get my point.
I’ll all for putting children above mosquitos, but large-scale use of poisons that mess with ecosystems makes me nervous. For all we know, by killing most/all mosquitos, we’d be giving a leg up to a far worse parasite. Also, pesticides tend to be harmful to humans as well. Since mosquitos breed in water, that means there’s a good chance the pesticides would get into drinking water.
Anyhow, I don’t want to divert conversation away from the topic of cursing. I just think the issue is more complicated than it was portrayed by the good pastor.
The complete banning of DDT would appear to be a mistake, but it may be a necessary mistake. If DDT were used sparingly in homes, malaria would be greatly reduced. The problem is, humans are idiots, and DDT would not be used sparingly and it wouldn’t only be used in homes.
A perfect example would be trying to use Tamiflu to treat Bird Flu in humans. The Chinese used Tamiflu prophylactically (am I allowed to use that word on a Catholic Blog? Sorry about that, F.D.) to treat the chickens, resulting in most strains of H5N1 being resistant to Tamiflu.
Ironically, vaccinating chickens and ducks in Asia against H5N1 may be the best way to prefent an H5N1 outbreak — better than vaccinating humans anywhere else.
Casual (repeat:casual) cursing belies a dark spot on the spirit. I am completely turned off by the forawding ot the opinon that as long as one certain problem exists, others aren’t worth addressing. If we start with one and ignore all others until that one is dealt with we will never solve anything.
We will always have the poor with us, Jesus said so. Does that mean take less action to aid the poor? Not in the least. It means that we’re just going to have to be willing to make the effort to address multiple problems, each in the order most productive.
Standing in the midst of a village of starving people, if someone curses in the line as they are getting food, I’m not likely to even give a second glance. However, in that same village, later in the night once all is quiet until the next day, if I am with that person and he/she curses casually I might (repeat: might) take that opportunity to address it in some non-confrontational way.
To hear a pastor or priest curse is a complete turn-off not only to me, but to unsaved people as well because even if they can’t voice it the same way, the thought becomes one of “if they sound just like me, there ain’t that much of a change”. I had a friend who is a fishing guide tell me of several priests that “are just like every other guy” because when they lose a big fish or hang up a fly in a tree, they start cursing.
I can guarantee you that this makes a negative impression more often than is revealed.
Mark, thank you for explaining my point better than I did.
This type of reasoning, that because something very bad is happening, we’re suddenly freed from our obligations to not do less bad things, is BS. First off, it takes almost no effort to stop cursing. If you think it’s bad, stop. Although I don’t think it’s a big deal, it’s still a deal, if that makes any sense.
Rob:
“I’ll worry about the profanity after we stop the kids from dying. Until then, I’m busy.”
Really? You’re too busy trying to save starving kids. Right. I know it takes ten seconds of your precious time to say a prayer asking God to help you control what comes out of your mouth, and you could save about 0.00132 lives or something with that ten seconds.
Sorry for the sarcasm. I don’t think ill of you or anything, Rob, but I do think that this is a kind of lazy reasoning that society employs, because it doesn’t take away any of our effort from saving kids to make an effort to stop cursing, and because very bad things do not justify somewhat bad things.
Casual (repeat:casual) cursing belies a dark spot on the spirit.
Not sure what you mean by “casual”, Mark, but I’d offer that senseless talk, i.e., purposeless noise, of all types belies a dark spot on the spirit. It is akin, I think, to the classic deadly Sin of Sloth. Sensible, i.e., purposeful, cursing is a veritable virtue… as is purposeful vulgarity, itself being quite distinct from per se’ cursing, and each being distinct from lewd or lascivious speech.
Good point about purposeless noise Steve, though I am at a loss to understand declaring cursing a virtue.
… cursing, that is to say, things worthy of being cursed!
Pingback: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » More Unclean Lips
Pingback: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Unclean Lips Redux
Pingback: Joining St. Blog's Parish @ Ales Rarus