A
angel12
Guest
Even St. Alphonsus Liguori. In other words, you know best, everyone else (including saints) can just shut up and go away. Got it.
- Status
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
Huh? If it’s wrong but not blasphemy, then what is it?
E
exnihilo
Guest
Cursing is saying ‘da** it’ or ‘darn it’. This is easily seen as a sensible substitution is ‘curse it’. ‘S***’ isn’t a curse. Sometimes people roll it up into the category of curse words. Strictly speaking it isn’t. But the other words mentioned are.
Not really. I’m not saying this is a clear teaching of the Church. Likewise I’ve yet to see any evidence that the Church clearly teaches it isn’t wrong. Maybe this is a more modern problem. And if so we have bigger issues to deal with these days.
Nor do you.
Not at all. You cited one source. The source did say it was not blasphemy. So one could consider the original poster’s question answered. However, another source you cited did not approve of minced oaths. I think there are two questions. Is it blasphemy and is it right to say.
No source has extensively covered the topic or explained the reasoning. The sources also seem to be limited. If multiple sources all pointed to minced oath being perfectly fine I’d accept that.
Nope. That isn’t even close to anything I’ve written. If that is what you see the you need to pay better attention.
It could still be wrong even if not blasphemy. There might be more specific ecclesiastical meanings to blasphemy. There could be a distinction betweeen profanity, which is wrong, and blasphemy.
M
Mintaka
Guest
If you want me to go into Liguori on malediction/cursing, I will. But man, those Italians have some harsh expressions – and a lot of them still don’t constitute cursing. Or if they do, Liguori says that using cursewords is not a sin if you don’t really mean to call down a curse on someone.
As you would expect from an Italian saint, pretty much everything can be said in a fleeting fit of anger, without it being even a venial sin. It’s stuff that you brood upon that is a problem.
There are some sources that Liguori quotes, who do say that stuff is a mortal or venial sin based only on content; but they also tend to say that extenuating circumstances excuse practically everybody.
They do take it pretty seriously if you cuss at the ground for not giving enough crops. There were apparently a lot of neighbors accusing other neighbors of this, so it caused destructive bad feelings as well as showing contempt for God’s Creation.
I have to say, this has been a very vocabulary-enlarging read. And a lot of the vocab is not suitable for this forum. (Although Liguori explains obscure nasty words in very pretty Latin.)
As you would expect from an Italian saint, pretty much everything can be said in a fleeting fit of anger, without it being even a venial sin. It’s stuff that you brood upon that is a problem.
There are some sources that Liguori quotes, who do say that stuff is a mortal or venial sin based only on content; but they also tend to say that extenuating circumstances excuse practically everybody.
They do take it pretty seriously if you cuss at the ground for not giving enough crops. There were apparently a lot of neighbors accusing other neighbors of this, so it caused destructive bad feelings as well as showing contempt for God’s Creation.
I have to say, this has been a very vocabulary-enlarging read. And a lot of the vocab is not suitable for this forum. (Although Liguori explains obscure nasty words in very pretty Latin.)
Last edited:
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
I just want to say I’m very much enjoying the erudition you’re bringing to this thread. Keep it up, please! 
J
Joe_5859
Guest
You are the one making the claim, though. So it is incumbent on you to support the claim, not for those who disagree to prove the negative.
I have no problem with you having a personal preference for avoiding minced oaths. But you are stating with utter and complete confidence and no wiggle room that minced oaths are blasphemy and intrinsically sinful. And you are doing this all based on your own opinion with not even a quote from a random, obscure theologian to support what you are saying.
And people have given several quotes (one from a saint, and the other from one of the best moral philosophers in the past 50 years who wrote the textbook on moral theology that most seminaries use) that cast serious doubt on your claim. No, no one has provided an official Church statement on it, but the Church cannot be expected to make a statement affirming that every single thing is not a sin. Yet it would be very surprising for the Church to remain silent if it were a sin.
E
Elizabeth3
Guest
Ok. I’m going to get a little spiritual now so forgive me for that because I’m no where qualified to be getting this deep into it but I’ll try anyway.
We have to realize that there are steps in reaching spiritual perfection. I think in the beginning most people on their assent to holiness work really hard to rid themselves of mortal sins. Their love for God grows to the point that they are never tempted to commit mortal sins, they then work on practicing virtue, seeking to not even commit venial sin, then they work on perfecting their personal faults and keep climbing and their love for God grows to where even anything that has any proximity to offending God (even if it’s not sin per se) is avoided out of love for God.
It sounds to me, like with this issue anyway, and where you are in your personal spirituality and love for God, you are feeling called to that deeper level of holiness or spiritual perfection that goes beyond just avoiding sin but even the desire to avoid the appearance or proximity to it. So while those who are maybe still baby-stepping their way to holiness and working on rooting out actual sin (whether that be mortal or venial sins of worse gravity), it’s not even on their radar yet, at least in this area, to begin rooting out things that perhaps aren’t sins but have any taint of even being associated with a sin out of love for God.
I do think we have to be careful not to call every step on the way to the perfection of holiness as scruples, but we also have to be aware that we don’t fall into this spiritual problem as well.
Maybe that’s the heart of what is going on in this conversation. We’re talking about the difference between what is an actual sin and the kind of spiritual growth that doesn’t even want to “walk up to the line” or give the appearance of it, out of love for God. The latter is commendable if it’s true growth in the perfection of holiness and not just scruples, but we can’t insist that others be at that spiritual level when there is still sin that is being rooted out, which for some will take an entire lifetime and time in Purgatory to reach. It’s a laudable goal but for some on the journey, it’s like asking a toddler to run a 5k and it seems so impossible that it may even make some feel like giving up or even despair at how much further they have to go.
If God has given someone the necessary graces to reach the heights of spiritual perfection in their lifetime then that can be a good and holy thing to edify those of us still chugging along somewhere along the bottom rung or so, but to lay the burden of spiritual perfection across the shoulders of someone who’s striving but no where near that level is something we should be careful about. I think when someone gets to that level, they should be working under a spiritual director and that they also are more concerned with how it’s between them and God and where God is leading them personally by His grace and not whether others are at the same level or being called to that level at the moment.
We have to realize that there are steps in reaching spiritual perfection. I think in the beginning most people on their assent to holiness work really hard to rid themselves of mortal sins. Their love for God grows to the point that they are never tempted to commit mortal sins, they then work on practicing virtue, seeking to not even commit venial sin, then they work on perfecting their personal faults and keep climbing and their love for God grows to where even anything that has any proximity to offending God (even if it’s not sin per se) is avoided out of love for God.
It sounds to me, like with this issue anyway, and where you are in your personal spirituality and love for God, you are feeling called to that deeper level of holiness or spiritual perfection that goes beyond just avoiding sin but even the desire to avoid the appearance or proximity to it. So while those who are maybe still baby-stepping their way to holiness and working on rooting out actual sin (whether that be mortal or venial sins of worse gravity), it’s not even on their radar yet, at least in this area, to begin rooting out things that perhaps aren’t sins but have any taint of even being associated with a sin out of love for God.
I do think we have to be careful not to call every step on the way to the perfection of holiness as scruples, but we also have to be aware that we don’t fall into this spiritual problem as well.
Maybe that’s the heart of what is going on in this conversation. We’re talking about the difference between what is an actual sin and the kind of spiritual growth that doesn’t even want to “walk up to the line” or give the appearance of it, out of love for God. The latter is commendable if it’s true growth in the perfection of holiness and not just scruples, but we can’t insist that others be at that spiritual level when there is still sin that is being rooted out, which for some will take an entire lifetime and time in Purgatory to reach. It’s a laudable goal but for some on the journey, it’s like asking a toddler to run a 5k and it seems so impossible that it may even make some feel like giving up or even despair at how much further they have to go.
If God has given someone the necessary graces to reach the heights of spiritual perfection in their lifetime then that can be a good and holy thing to edify those of us still chugging along somewhere along the bottom rung or so, but to lay the burden of spiritual perfection across the shoulders of someone who’s striving but no where near that level is something we should be careful about. I think when someone gets to that level, they should be working under a spiritual director and that they also are more concerned with how it’s between them and God and where God is leading them personally by His grace and not whether others are at the same level or being called to that level at the moment.
Last edited:
P
Pup7
Guest
More opinion.
Do you not see this is a circular argument you’ve got here?
You have no evidence to back your claims. You’re splitting hairs.
Ex, seriously.
Do you not see this is a circular argument you’ve got here?
You have no evidence to back your claims. You’re splitting hairs.
Ex, seriously.
Last edited:
P
Pup7
Guest
This is my “it’s not in the AFI so it’s up for interpretation” thing. And some supervisors will say “yes it’s permitted” and some will say “no, we’re not doing it that way/permitting that”. And that’s the way it’s supposed to be - it’s like the USAF grants her airmen some free will because she trusts us.
(LOL what a scary analogy.
)
E
exnihilo
Guest
Everyone is making claims. I’m arguing my case the same as everyone else.
No, I don’t have complete confidence in my position. I’m not an expert in this topic. I have spent some time thinking about. What is the basis for everyone else’s answers? It seemed to me to be merely their own gut opinion. Most people had never even heard of the term ‘minced oath’. I hadn’t until a few years ago.
You are criticizing me for not digging up claims to support my position?
The moral handbook actually was on my side with saying one shouldn’t use such words. Again, there could be a technical distinction between blasphemy and profanity. Or the words might not even be profane but some lesser category to be avoided.
I’m terrible at avoiding things that are far worse sins. I’m nowhere near holy.
I agree with your general point though. And I think as we grow in holiness we’ll have less idle words.
No I don’t.
M
Mintaka
Guest
Elizabeth3 – Good point. Sometimes it isn’t pride or scruples; it’s a “tender conscience,” which is a good stage on the spiritual road.
Okay, back to Liguori.
Okay, back to Liguori.
P
Pup7
Guest
How? You keep saying it’s a problem, evidence to the likely contrary is presented, you insist it’s a problem, more evidence is supplied, you say that’s not good enough, someone else posts more…
Round as a beach ball.
J
JRS_831
Guest
I’m truly astonished that this has gone on for 196 comments.
P
Pup7
Guest
Ditto.
2,456 characters
2,456 characters
M
Mintaka
Guest
If a moral handbook says it’s not a good idea to wear shoes made out of meat, because that would be wasteful, stinky, uncomfortable, and fly-collecting; but that sausage shoes are not actually sinful – it means that sausage shoes aren’t sinful.
People have the Christian freedom to do non-sinful things, even if they are stupid or silly. You have the Christian freedom to tell them it’s stupid; but not to say that it’s sinful.
People have the Christian freedom to do non-sinful things, even if they are stupid or silly. You have the Christian freedom to tell them it’s stupid; but not to say that it’s sinful.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Circular arguments are assuming the conclusion to make the argument. I’m not doing that.
P
Pup7
Guest
You’re arguing the same thing continuously, going round robin with anyone who disagrees or challenges you, and you are assuming you’re correct and that it’s sinful.
Round as a baseball.
Round as a baseball.
E
exnihilo
Guest
You may think it round but it’s not circular reasoning. Everyone else, including you, is doing the same.
R
rondirect
Guest
I agree. In the case of this thread, those who sincerely do not want to use the Lord’s name in vain, find expressions that sound close to it, and they have all been mentioned already here. It’s a tough call if you would consider it blasphemy or not. To substitute “oh my gosh” for “oh my God” is basically saying the same thing because you really are implying “oh my God.” How about saying or teaching children to say, “Oh no,” or “Oh wow,” when their building blocks fall?
If I said, “O shoot,” what am I really implying? Unless I’m a hunting trip, I mean something else.
There are subs for many other 4 letter words as well, but what is really on your mind as you say them?
A visiting retired priest within his Homily a few years ago had brought this subject up. He was totally against saying words that we really know are substitutes for the real thing. To a gasp of some, he actually said the common substitute for a very nasty curse word. He continued with, using the sub word is really the same because we know what you really mean to say.
Don’t mean to sound like a saint here, since I have a slip of the tongue from time to time myself.
J
JRS_831
Guest
I think if everyone tries their best, we can get this topic to 400 replies
- Status