Navy SEAL or undercover DEA and The Church

[1ke]

Since when is cursing sinful?

“You must put that aside now: all the anger and quick temper, the malice, the insults, the foul language” (Colossians 3:8) also translated as “obscene language”

“It is not what goes into a man’s mouth that makes him impure; it is what comes out of his mouth… Do you not see that everything that enters the mouth passes into the stomach and is discharged into the latrine, but what comes out of the mouth originates in the mind? It is things like these that make a man impure” (Matthew 15:11, 17-18)

“[E]veryone who grows angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; any man who uses abusive language toward his brother shall be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and if he holds him in contempt he risks the fires of Gehenna” (Matthew 5:22).

“We use [the tongue] to say, ‘Praised be the Lord and Father’; then we use it to curse men, though they are made in the likeness of God. Blessing and curse come out of the same mouth. This ought not to be, my brothers!” (James 3:9-10).

“Nor should there be any obscene, silly, or suggestive talk; all that is out of place” (Ephesians 5:4).

“A man who has the habit of abusive language will never mature in character as long as he lives” (Sirach 23:15)

“The tongue defiles the entire body” (James 3:6)

“If a man who does not control his tongue imagines that he is devout, he is deceived; his worship is pointless” (James 1:26)

The Commandment is to not take the name of the Lord in Vain. Standard sexual or scatalogical profanity does not violate this.

I did not base my statement off the Second Commandment. That is an assumption on your part. While not violating the commandment against curses or swearing oaths, obscene/profane/foul speech violates the virtues: prudence, piety, modesty, temperance. The Scriptures are full of admonitions againts profane language.

I know plenty of priests who curse like sailors when the occasion call for it.

Yes, well, priests are sinners too.

 

[grandfather]

grandfather;9411921:

I don’t wish to believe that priests are shuffled around after being found to be abusive either, but if you do the research and it walks and quacks like a duck…

.

That is an entirely different matter. There is no connection between the two. It is like saying President Nixon lied about Watergate therefore that proves he lied on his college application.

 

[grandfather]

I am not responding simply based on what I think is right and wrong. I researched this.I specifically said in my last post that the scenario presented did not excuse either cursing someone or to use the lord’s name in vaid. These actions are objectively sinful, in every situation.

Other profanity, is not as absolute.

Here is what you wrote:

Assuming that “*****” represents in the statement “drop the gun or I’ll blow your ******* head off”, does not meanusing the Lord’s name in vain, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Using profanity is wrong in the vast majority of cases, I agree. But it is not absolute IMO, unlike using the Lord’s name in vain or cursing someone. When someone is pointing a gun at you, with even the slightest reason to believe he will respond to that language better and by better it will save his life or yours; it seems to be a very reasonable thing to do.

I see absolutely…
I agree
IMO
it seems to be a

 

[tafan]

Here is what you wrote:

Assuming that “*****” represents in the statement “drop the gun or I’ll blow your ******* head off”, does not meanusing the Lord’s name in vain, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Using profanity is wrong in the vast majority of cases, I agree. But it is not absolute IMO, unlike using the Lord’s name in vain or cursing someone. When someone is pointing a gun at you, with even the slightest reason to believe he will respond to that language better and by better it will save his life or yours; it seems to be a very reasonable thing to do.

I see absolutely…
I agree
IMO
it seems to be a

In Catholic moral theology, there are actions which are objectively sinful, or always wrong. Using the Lord’s name in vain or cursing are examples.
There are also actions which may or may not be sinful, depending on the circumstances. Using profanity is an example.

Here is an unrelated example: stealing is always wrong. Taking someone else’s property is not; it normally is, but if a reasonable man would give it to you out of charity, no theft occurs ( the classic need of a loaf of bread to feed my family)

Or another: Murder is always wrong, Killing is not.

 

[shipwrkd]

shipwrkd;9412123:

That is an entirely different matter. There is no connection between the two. It is like saying President Nixon lied about Watergate therefore that proves he lied on his college application.

Of course there is no connection, it was stated as an example of someone not doing his homework. I wouldn’t offer an opinion on Vietnam, Kennedy or Popes that have had mistresses without looking at several sides. Who knows, if enough research was done, it may be found that Nixon did lie on his college application.

 

[jwinch2]

Wow, this type of thinking REALLY bothers me. Can you think of any other group in history who claimed they were “just following orders” and therefore weren’t responsible for their actions?? Yeah, these guys. It didn’t fly for them, and I don’t think it flies just because the uniform is American either. :dts:

Your analogy does not hold at all. Members of the American military can make decisions for themselves as to whether an individual order they are given is legal or not. They are not bound to follow illegal orders. As such, they were given an order to kill or harm innocent people, that would be illegal and they are not to follow it.

What they cannot do is judge whether the overall war is just or unjust according to Catholic moral teaching, not and stay in the military that is. They can certainly be a conscientious objector, that is within their legal right as a US Citizen, but they will be discharged from the military should they choose to invoke such status. Even then, it is difficult because one of the questions you are asked to answer both written and verbally when you are entering is whether or not you are a conscientious objector or not. There is no option to choose “it depends on the war”, it is a yes or no question.

 

[jwinch2]

I could not disagree more. I can certainly see how a cop has to use that type of language in an arrest situation or when facing a risk. And his reasoning is spot-on; it is a life or death situation and he has to get the other guys attention ASAP, before something really bad happens.

Has the Church ever defined what are and are not swear words? I do not believe she has.

 

[shipwrkd]

It was unjust, because it targeted two cities full of civilians, two cities that incidentally contained the most Catholic population in Japan. The theory of just war says civilians are not to be indiscriminately killed or targeted. Dropping the bomb was an act of terrorism that caused immediate surrender. It may have saved more lives than were taken in the end. It was a show of overwhelming power that could not be defended against and it terrified the leaders of a nation that were prepared to fight to the last Japanese citizen in a culture that believed suicide was honorable.

It was not condemned until years later as was the fire bombing of Dresden which was carried out by 1300 heavy bombers carrying 3900 tons of explosives and destroyed 15 square miles of the city. The pilot of the second plane bound for Nagasaki was a devout Irish Catholic who had his plane blessed by a Catholic priest.

Second guessing the decision we might have shown the Japanese the power a different way. We could have destroyed a harbor and limited the casualties. The strikes could have been more strategic and not indiscriminately targeted civilians.

See the post “The Atomic Bomb” in this forum and read all 586 posts. It answered many of my questions but was pretty much a draw. If a pilot had the opportunity, should he have shot down the aircraft on 9/11 knowing he would kill many more civilians then hijackers, or should he have second guessed?

The guidelines were formulated by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 1200s. Second guessing yourself how might have life turned out differently if you chose jail?

Here we go second guessing again. Good question, Muhammad Ali was convicted and sentenced to 5 years, fined $10,000 and banned from boxing for 3 years. He had the means and support to appeal, I did not. We also did not know that President Carter would pardon the “majority” of draft evaders 10 years later. Even with this hindsight, I’m not sure what I would have done.

It is the disgrace of a nation that would send young people to a warn condemn them for going. America disgraced itself. Think about the word; dis grace.

Yes, it was disgraceful. But I would still give my life in defense of Her.

Kennedy was Catholic in name only. He was an immoral politician who sought power for the sake of power. His brother Ted carried on the family legacy claiming to be Catholic while being the great defender of abortion and admitting to sex with a thousand women in his career as a Senator. The idea that the pope and Kennedy were in league in prosecuting the war to spread Catholicism is ludicrous. It is akin to the idea the Bush orchestrated 9-11. All kinds of wild speculation is believed by those who want to believe it.

This is like saying Pope Alexander VI was not Catholic, or the other Popes who admitted to sexual affairs. They were immoral but were certainly Catholic.

What do you call it when you keep doing the same thing over and over and think the results will be different the next time

War is not a new thing, it’s been around quite some time and the one with the biggest stick wins. What WWII did teach us is that we should finish what we start (one of the four guideline for a just war). We didn’t do that in the first Iraqi war and look where we are now. But here we are, and second guessing will still do no good.

This is kinda getting off subject, but I feel it needed to be responded to.

 

[grandfather]

This is kinda getting off subject, but I feel it needed to be responded to.

Thank you. All very helpful.

 

[Bix]

My son’s a Cop in an area heavy with drug use and gangs. My wife is a devout Catholic and recently walked in on a video from my sons dash cam and the language disturbed her. We turned it off and later, I asked my son what his thoughts were. His responds was that his “clients” understood the language of the street and “drop your weapon” was no where near as effective as “drop the gun or I’ll blow your ******* head off”. My responds was to do or say whatever it took to stay alive. His best friend is a Navy SEAL who was trained to take orders which can end in someone’s life being “terminated” He doesn’t have the opportunity to judge whether his mission is just or unjust and most often he’s not told what the mission is until it’s underway and are always offensive and become defensive only if they fail. There are “wars” being fought that we know very little about and I’m sure the Church wouldn’t approve of. My son is also looking into undercover Gang Task force work or drug enforcement. He’s told that, in all likely hood he 'd need to do things that would be considered repulsive to a liberal, let alone a Catholic.

That said, i’d like thoughts on street language and if one can be an undercover agent or even a Navy SEAL and still have a clear Catholic conscience?

Tried this post under Vocations and got only 2 responses.

At the end of the day, God can only judge. He knows the situations and our hearts and minds. There is more evil in the world ( and in our neighborhoods/ cites ) than most people are aware of around them.

A person can not go and infiltrate a gang or group and expect to be accepted or trusted without matching similar behaviors and mannerisms. He would be lunch meat otherwise. The people that do this type of work must sacrifice much and be mentally and morally strong. They do much to protect us and I doubt God is going to punish them at the end of the day when their work is done properly. As long as he prays about his situations and actions, asks forgiveness if he is wrong, at the end of the day we should thank God for people like this. It’s unfortunate that people are in these situations, but thank God we have some good, brave people.

 

[grandfather]

Has the Church ever defined what are and are not swear words? I do not believe she has.

I am reminded of an old Supreme Court case on pornography when our culture still had some morals. The lawyer claimed there was no definition of pronography. The judge said, “I may not be able to define it, but I sure know it if I see it”.

Think of the word curse. It is seen as taking God’s name in vain, but it is also any malediction. The word imprecation has fallen out of common usage, but it was once well understood as a very serious sin. Also the word revile comes to mind. You will find it condemned by the Early Church Fathers. Chrysostum said revilement was extremely evil no reviler would be saved.

It is not so much the words in particular that are used. There is no list of what words are ok and not ok that define what constitutes cursing, revilement, making imprecations. It is in intent and tone. It is an expression of verbal malice and disrespect of another’s person.

 

[shipwrkd]

It is not so much the words in particular that are used. There is no list of what words are ok and not ok that define what constitutes cursing, revilement, making imprecations. ** It is in intent and tone.** It is an expression of verbal malice and disrespect of another’s person.

The most vulgar profane words that ever came from my father’s mouth were bland compared to “Don’t make me stop this car…”

 

[SaintPatrick333]

Why are you so sure of this? There is a concept of “just war” in the Church. Police work, detective work, and military missions are honorable professions that help protect all of us. Yeah, the language thing…In the general scheme of things, I think he knows what will/won’t work in his job. He has to make up his own mind about that. Tell him not to leave his dash cam tapes around where his mom can see them.

I think the argument being made is the morality of the present and past wars. We haven’t been in a “just” war since world war 2. It’s all been unjust and taking part in it, by choice, is morally offensive at best and sinful at worst. Sometimes the honorable thing to do is say no.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I think a review of the three fonts of morality would be in order for your son.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5Q.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM

Certainly we can be members of law enforcement and the military. But, we must still follow moral principles. What your son said, regarding language, does not hold up to the bright light of day. He does not have to be like the criminals he arrests. He can maintain moral ways of acting and do his job, and he can treat people with dignity.

He’s made up a story in his head that he has to go along to get along, but really that is a choice he is making.

The Church also has extensive teachings regarding just war.

What does the Church say about burning people at the stake?..

Morality is always best analyzed over coffee or in the comfort of the living room.

True, there are choices to be made.
True, the choices are subject to each individual situation.

For example, would it be better to say:

Would you please put your weapon down? I really don’t want to shoot you but you will force me to do so if you insist in raising your weapon and pointing it at me.

Hmm… You do realize that most of the time in a violent encounter you have seconds and fractions of a second to react and execute short and concise commands in order to take control of the situation.

You also need to take in consideration the culture you are interacting with. Some will respond to worse if foul language is used. Others will laugh and act on their malicious intent if you don’t use strong language and a loud voice.

It is so much more complex than what TV and Sunday Morning QBs make it seem.

To preserve and protect life: ours, theirs and others.

Being close with a Priest/Pastor is a must for LEO. A very thin line is walked every single day and the reality of this world is a lot more depressing than everything the news show on the screen.

Just my 2 Law Enforcement cents.

 

[shipwrkd]

I think the argument being made is the morality of the present and past wars. We haven’t been in a “just” war since world war 2. It’s all been unjust and taking part in it, by choice, is morally offensive at best and sinful at worst. Sometimes the honorable thing to do is say no.

Right from the CCC

All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. Despite this admonition of the Church, it sometimes becomes necessary to use force to obtain the end of justice. This is the right, and the duty, of those who have responsibilities for others, such as civil leaders and police forces. While individuals may renounce all violence those who must preserve justice may not do so, though it should be the last resort, “once all peace efforts have failed.” [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 4]

It’s all been unjust and taking part in it, by choice, is morally offensive at best and sinful at worst

I would certainly NOT call the young men returning from Iraq or Afghanistan morally offensive at best or sinful at worst
I salute them…whether they be Catholic, Protestant, or Atheist! They are all Americans doing something they would rather not do, but they do it for us.

Can you maybe think of someone else who did the same???

 

[1ke]

What does the Church say about burning people at the stake?..

It says that capital punishment is not intrinsically immoral.

For example, would it be better to say:

Would you please put your weapon down? I really don’t want to shoot you but you will force me to do so if you insist in raising your weapon and pointing it at me.

Hmm… You do realize that most of the time in a violent encounter you have seconds and fractions of a second to react and execute short and concise commands in order to take control of the situation.

I don’t believe I proposed inviting a criminal to tea.

Also, my primary response-- which has been completely overlooked-- was in response to the OP’s query regarding his son joining an undercover unit and doing things that are “morally repugnant”. We may not do “morally repugnant” (by which I mean intriniscally evil) in the even in the pursuit of good.

I was not directly respoding, in the post you quote, to the profanity aspect.

Profanity can be sinful, sin against virtue. Perhaps mortally, perhaps not. That might depend upon the situation, the habituation, and the specific type of profanity or cursing, etc.

IMO, one does not have to use profanity to make oneself heard or obeyed.

Let me reiterate my primary focus in posting the links to the fonts of morality was in response to his question about doing “morally repugnant” things in the name of undercover work.

So, for example, a married undercover police officer having sex with someone not their spouse in the name of “undercover” police work would be (a) morally repugnant and (b) intrinsically evil.

 

[shipwrkd]

So, for example, a married undercover police officer having sex with someone not their spouse in the name of “undercover” police work would be (a) morally repugnant and (b) intrinsically evil.

:thumbsup:Yup! In this example, the OP would inflict bodily harm on said undercover Cop.

On the other hand, If I had a daughter, could she solicit sex without following through to arrest someone looking for it illegally? She may not have to be “morally repugnant” but she’d have to give the impression of selling herself which might mean using language that may be morally questionable. Not sure…but I’m glad I don’t have a daughter. Just wondering…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It says that capital punishment is not intrinsically immoral.

Intrinsic:
1: originating or due to causes or factors within a body, organ, or part
2: originating and included wholly within an organ or part—used especially of certain muscles

Immoral:
: not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles. In other words: depends on the eyes of the beholder… convenient. Again, coffee table talk.

I don’t believe I proposed inviting a criminal to tea.

You’d be surprised at how many times this has been fruitful. Again, depending on the totality of the circumstances.

Also, my primary response-- which has been completely overlooked-- was in response to the OP’s query regarding his son joining an undercover unit and doing things that are “morally repugnant”. We may not do “morally repugnant” (by which I mean intriniscally evil) in the even in the pursuit of good.

Is it OK if I let someone kill you because I find it intrinsically evil to kill someone else?
To some people it is morally repugnant to take another person’s life regardless of the circumstances.
To others, it is a duty to defend the innocent and the weak.
To others, it is ok to burn someone at the stake.

I was not directly respoding, in the post you quote, to the profanity aspect.

Profanity can be sinful, sin against virtue. Perhaps mortally, perhaps not. That might depend upon the situation, the habituation, and the specific type of profanity or cursing, etc.

Agreed.

IMO, one does not have to use profanity to make oneself heard or obeyed.

Hmmm, define profanity. I personally will not use the name of God in vain or in any other context outside of praise, worship, prayer, good works, etc. However, I have used language that you might see as profane. I definitely don’t use that language at my house or other private settings. It served a purpose at the time. A good purpose, and I’m not going all Machiavelli here.

Let me reiterate my primary focus in posting the links to the fonts of morality was in response to his question about doing “morally repugnant” things in the name of undercover work.

You can give your point of view, but unless you have actually been in that type of situation you can’t really say what is or isn’t effective.

So, for example, a married undercover police officer having sex with someone not their spouse in the name of “undercover” police work would be (a) morally repugnant and (b) intrinsically evil.

That would get you fired as well… In most departments anyway…

There is a line, I’m not advocating a free for all mentality. However, I am sick and tired of hearing these moralistic wannabe’s criticizing the hard work put up by our men and women in military and civil uniforms that are actually contributing to the community other than recycling their trash to feel good about themselves…

Rant’s over

 

[shipwrkd]

Intrinsic:
1: originating or due to causes or factors within a body, organ, or part
2: originating and included wholly within an organ or part—used especially of certain muscles

Immoral:
: not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles. In other words: depends on the eyes of the beholder… convenient. Again, coffee table talk.

You’d be surprised at how many times this has been fruitful. Again, depending on the totality of the circumstances.

Is it OK if I let someone kill you because I find it intrinsically evil to kill someone else?
To some people it is morally repugnant to take another person’s life regardless of the circumstances.
To others, it is a duty to defend the innocent and the weak.
To others, it is ok to burn someone at the stake.

Agreed.

Hmmm, define profanity. I personally will not use the name of God in vain or in any other context outside of praise, worship, prayer, good works, etc. However, I have used language that you might see as profane. I definitely don’t use that language at my house or other private settings. It served a purpose at the time. A good purpose, and I’m not going all Machiavelli here.

You can give your point of view, but unless you have actually been in that type of situation you can’t really say what is or isn’t effective.

That would get you fired as well… In most departments anyway…

There is a line, I’m not advocating a free for all mentality. However, I am sick and tired of hearing these moralistic wannabe’s criticizing the hard work put up by our men and women in military and civil uniforms that are actually contributing to the community other than recycling their trash to feel good about themselves…

Rant’s over

You sound VERY much like my son…a Cop:thumbsup:

 

[1ke]

Is it OK if I let someone kill you because I find it intrinsically evil to kill someone else?
To some people it is morally repugnant to take another person’s life regardless of the circumstances.
To others, it is a duty to defend the innocent and the weak.
To others, it is ok to burn someone at the stake.

Intrinsically evil acts are not a matter of opinion. They are objective acts. Again, i refer you to the Catechism

It isn’t my “point of view” at issue here. It is the Church’s clear teaching on the fonts of morality. One may not do evil, even if one is in pursuit of a good. To do so is gravely wrong.