B
Baelor
Guest
I did not misquote you. I made a typo; I meant to say perversity.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
Portrait
Guest
F.A.O. Baelor
Dear Baelor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou again for your responses.
This is really an argument from silence, dear friend, saying that because the Church has not officially declared the use of bad language to be wrong or sinful, then it is not inherently immoral. This is misleading and against the whole spirit of Catholic thinking which expects the faithful to have a well-formed conscience to be able to arrive at the truth regarding such an issue. However, as I have said previouly, if we have a radically defective conscience then our decision making is likely to be wide of the mark. Unfortunately, this is the case on a whole range of issues within contemporary Catholicism because so many have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice, a sort of Catholicism Lite. Worldly conformity results in men bending over backwards to defend and sanction that which is undeniably wrong and sinful. The inward transformation of the mind is the only effective preservative against outward conformity with the spirit of the age.
Regardless of whether certain individual people may not be offended by bad language, that still does not, dear friend, justify its usage, at least from a Christian standpoint. St. Paul exhorts us: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt…” (Col 4: 6). Bad language fails to comport with the Christian standard of language and that is why it is unacceptable. The gift of language was given to mankind by God and it should be used positively and not in an unsavoury manner. Alas, we are hearing today, even in normal discourse, an increasing amount of profanity, especially those coarse four-letter words. It is also quite common now to hear men utter profanity when speaking about good and holy topics, for example they profane human sexuality or the act of marital love. Bad language, dear brother, is not only negative, vulgar, impolite and downright offensive, but it also debases the dignity of each human being. Moreover, cursing and swearing is not only evidence of a man’s sinful heart and want of respect for others, but also his own immaturity and insecurity in his dealings with his fellow men. The man who habitually uses bad language tends to build barriers rather than bridges with other people because he will always come across as boorish.
As regards the use of swearing as an exclamation in response to pain or a major mistake, my dear grandparent’s always told me to count to ten rather than fall into the habit of using expletives. No one has to swear, dear friend.
Now I freely admit that many who routinely swear do not necessarily intend to offend others and see nothing bad about their use of it. However, just because there is no harm intended in a man’s heart that does not automatically mean that the action is right. Society would not long tolerate a person who constantly uttered racial epithets, irrespective of the intention behind the words, and neither should we tolerate profanity, dear friend: “Let not your mouth become used to coarse talk, for in it lies sinful matter” (Sirach 23: 13).
As regards swearing being a violation of the Second Commandment, I agree that it is not specifically refered to, but I do believe that it is a reasonable deduction from it, dear friend. However, be that as it may, I would be most interested to hear what others have to say about this.
No, dear friend, swearing is clearly incongrous for those who profess the holy religion of Christ, see the preceding paragraphs.
Christ is the Catholic’s true Model and we are, as I am sure you would agree, to be imitators of Him. Now we need to ask ourselves, would He, the Holy Son of God, have used or condoned bad language? From what we know of our Lord’s holy life upon earth, we must surely answer with an emphatic no, then neither should we, the members of His Holy Church, use or condone bad language. This is surely a very cogent argument against the use of profantity by the faithful.
By “unwholesome” I mean that which is unlikely to promote good moral health and thus foster the Christian virtues. That is the benchmark that I would use to evaluate a peice of art and determine whether it is permissible or not. All this really does boil down to having a well-formed conscience to aid us in our decision making. Without a good spiritual formation, dear friend, we are likely to make some catastrophic errors of prudential judgment about all manner of things and not just the use of bad language.
It is a self-evident fact, even in these days of widespread worldly conformity among professing Catholics, that the vast majority do not, thankfully, habitually use foul language in their discourse with others. Therefore they still seem to instinctively know that it is wrong and unbefitting in those who profess the religion of Christ. Perhaps we could do a poll here at CAF to find out if modern Catholics now have no problem with the use of bad language. It would be interesting to see the results.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
Dear Baelor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou again for your responses.
This is really an argument from silence, dear friend, saying that because the Church has not officially declared the use of bad language to be wrong or sinful, then it is not inherently immoral. This is misleading and against the whole spirit of Catholic thinking which expects the faithful to have a well-formed conscience to be able to arrive at the truth regarding such an issue. However, as I have said previouly, if we have a radically defective conscience then our decision making is likely to be wide of the mark. Unfortunately, this is the case on a whole range of issues within contemporary Catholicism because so many have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice, a sort of Catholicism Lite. Worldly conformity results in men bending over backwards to defend and sanction that which is undeniably wrong and sinful. The inward transformation of the mind is the only effective preservative against outward conformity with the spirit of the age.
Regardless of whether certain individual people may not be offended by bad language, that still does not, dear friend, justify its usage, at least from a Christian standpoint. St. Paul exhorts us: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt…” (Col 4: 6). Bad language fails to comport with the Christian standard of language and that is why it is unacceptable. The gift of language was given to mankind by God and it should be used positively and not in an unsavoury manner. Alas, we are hearing today, even in normal discourse, an increasing amount of profanity, especially those coarse four-letter words. It is also quite common now to hear men utter profanity when speaking about good and holy topics, for example they profane human sexuality or the act of marital love. Bad language, dear brother, is not only negative, vulgar, impolite and downright offensive, but it also debases the dignity of each human being. Moreover, cursing and swearing is not only evidence of a man’s sinful heart and want of respect for others, but also his own immaturity and insecurity in his dealings with his fellow men. The man who habitually uses bad language tends to build barriers rather than bridges with other people because he will always come across as boorish.
As regards the use of swearing as an exclamation in response to pain or a major mistake, my dear grandparent’s always told me to count to ten rather than fall into the habit of using expletives. No one has to swear, dear friend.
Now I freely admit that many who routinely swear do not necessarily intend to offend others and see nothing bad about their use of it. However, just because there is no harm intended in a man’s heart that does not automatically mean that the action is right. Society would not long tolerate a person who constantly uttered racial epithets, irrespective of the intention behind the words, and neither should we tolerate profanity, dear friend: “Let not your mouth become used to coarse talk, for in it lies sinful matter” (Sirach 23: 13).
As regards swearing being a violation of the Second Commandment, I agree that it is not specifically refered to, but I do believe that it is a reasonable deduction from it, dear friend. However, be that as it may, I would be most interested to hear what others have to say about this.
No, dear friend, swearing is clearly incongrous for those who profess the holy religion of Christ, see the preceding paragraphs.
Christ is the Catholic’s true Model and we are, as I am sure you would agree, to be imitators of Him. Now we need to ask ourselves, would He, the Holy Son of God, have used or condoned bad language? From what we know of our Lord’s holy life upon earth, we must surely answer with an emphatic no, then neither should we, the members of His Holy Church, use or condone bad language. This is surely a very cogent argument against the use of profantity by the faithful.
By “unwholesome” I mean that which is unlikely to promote good moral health and thus foster the Christian virtues. That is the benchmark that I would use to evaluate a peice of art and determine whether it is permissible or not. All this really does boil down to having a well-formed conscience to aid us in our decision making. Without a good spiritual formation, dear friend, we are likely to make some catastrophic errors of prudential judgment about all manner of things and not just the use of bad language.
It is a self-evident fact, even in these days of widespread worldly conformity among professing Catholics, that the vast majority do not, thankfully, habitually use foul language in their discourse with others. Therefore they still seem to instinctively know that it is wrong and unbefitting in those who profess the religion of Christ. Perhaps we could do a poll here at CAF to find out if modern Catholics now have no problem with the use of bad language. It would be interesting to see the results.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Ed,By the grace of God, I have helped create many fictional worlds and characters. I have helped young artists improve their craft and even mentored a young screenwriter. Never. Not once - out of a love for God - did I feel a need for “cursing in fiction.” I was raised on fiction (books, TV shows, movies and song lyrics) that included zero cursing. I was in awe, fascinated and inspired by them, and God saw to it that I am now in a place to bring my ideas to young and old alike.
Sure, sin and evil were portrayed in the past, but not with cursing.
Metric? What is that? I think you’re trying to make the simple sound more complicated than it is.
I ask you to re-read everything Portrait wrote. I also ask you to abandon the false maze that was created for all creative people during the great assault on God that began in the late 1960s.
As Catholics, we are called to imitate Christ, not the world. That is the answer.
But I see it all the time: young creatives who see what is available today in fiction, and think, “This is what I have to do. I need to embrace this because I was never taught that there’s something better. Or, I love the bad, the wrong and the incomprehensible.”
Metric?
I read the last issue of a fine arts magazine and it was filled, from cover to cover, with junk. Incomprehensible nonsense. But it does contain one strange thing: a page where each artist talks about their work presented, what motivates/inspires them, and then they resort - ever so briefly - to becoming human schizophrenics. They explain what the meaningless scratches and scribbles and distorted faces and other flotsam actually means! And, in all cases, it always means nothing that the viewer himself could ever know. To use a coarse example, if someone put a piece like that in front of me with a gun to my head, and asked me to explain it or else – I’d be dead. Laying in a pool of blood.
How’s that for a metric?
Those artists have been brainwashed. They have been taught that art is NO LONGER A COMMUNICATIONS MEDIUM, it is only what their brainwashers say it should be. It can never be anything else. So they all imitate each other, while the rational part of their brain – like a disembodied voice – tells us what their work means and why they do what they do. They then go back to living in their fantasy world as if they are unaware of the other part of them that gave their art what it needs - a message that is the gift of a true piece of art to a viewer. Not confusion. Not, as I read one brainwasher tell his students: “The viewer – not you – is responsible for interpreting the art.”
And as far as fiction ---- more schizophrenia. “I am not responsible for what my characters say or do.” “I am not responsible for the words they speak because I did not speak them.”
How’s that for a metric? Let’s try Psychology 101.
All action starts with an idea. As a working writer, I create everything: the scene, the mood, the plot, the characters. As I write, I give each character a personality. I imagine being that character. As my story is being developed, I usually run across parts that don’t work or don’t sound right. I then become the problem solver. It may take a day or two, but the solution comes to me. I always need to keep the pace, tone and goal of a particular piece in mind. I have to discard anything that doesn’t advance the story, even if I think it’s a cool idea at the time (I can save that idea for another story). Like a movie, all the words and actions have got to make the reader want to turn the page - to find out what happens next. This applies to action-adventure, or any other genre.
So here’s an interview with you on the TV show: Authors Tonight.
Good evening, book lovers. I’m Jack Grey and our guest tonight is Baelor Smith, author of Dark Hand.
(usual exchange of greetings, etc.)
Jack: I must say, after reading your book, I was reminded of Michael Forest and his best seller.
Baelor: Yes. Murder in Minot County. I must admit I drew some inspiration from his work.
Jack: What most impressed me with Dark Hand was the smooth interactions of the characters and the tone you set. Can you comment on that?
Baelor: Well, I wanted it to be suspenseful without presenting the reader with too many frightening moments. As I was writing it, I found that a little hard to do. I didn’t want to go too over the top. So I had to set up the scenes in such a way that the reader would keep turning the page while keeping the fear at a medium level throughout.
Jack: What about some of your critics who complain that there’s too much cursing in this book and your other books?
Baelor: All I can say is: I’m not responsible for any of the cursing. My characters are.
Jack: What do you mean?
Baelor: I never actually said any of those words. My characters did.
Jack: But you came up with those words, correct? I mean, don’t you think your critics have a valid complaint? You did write the book, not your characters. Right?
Baelor: What’s so hard to understand? I didn’t say those words.
Jack: I hate to press the point, but you wrote the book and as we all know, people are affected by what they read. Don’t you feel in any way responsible for what one critic wrote that you were “aiding and abetting the coarsening of the media culture”?
Baelor: No. Not at all.
Peace,
Ed
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Splendid post and bang on target. Given that you are a working writer who intently avoids the use of bad language in fiction, I pray that what you have said above and previously will not go unheard but will be read and marked carefully by all viewers of this thread.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Ed,By the grace of God, I have helped create many fictional worlds and characters. I have helped young artists improve their craft and even mentored a young screenwriter. Never. Not once - out of a love for God - did I feel a need for “cursing in fiction.” I was raised on fiction (books, TV shows, movies and song lyrics) that included zero cursing. I was in awe, fascinated and inspired by them, and God saw to it that I am now in a place to bring my ideas to young and old alike.
Sure, sin and evil were portrayed in the past, but not with cursing.
Metric? What is that? I think you’re trying to make the simple sound more complicated than it is.
I ask you to re-read everything Portrait wrote. I also ask you to abandon the false maze that was created for all creative people during the great assault on God that began in the late 1960s.
As Catholics, we are called to imitate Christ, not the world. That is the answer.
But I see it all the time: young creatives who see what is available today in fiction, and think, “This is what I have to do. I need to embrace this because I was never taught that there’s something better. Or, I love the bad, the wrong and the incomprehensible.”
Metric?
I read the last issue of a fine arts magazine and it was filled, from cover to cover, with junk. Incomprehensible nonsense. But it does contain one strange thing: a page where each artist talks about their work presented, what motivates/inspires them, and then they resort - ever so briefly - to becoming human schizophrenics. They explain what the meaningless scratches and scribbles and distorted faces and other flotsam actually means! And, in all cases, it always means nothing that the viewer himself could ever know. To use a coarse example, if someone put a piece like that in front of me with a gun to my head, and asked me to explain it or else – I’d be dead. Laying in a pool of blood.
How’s that for a metric?
Those artists have been brainwashed. They have been taught that art is NO LONGER A COMMUNICATIONS MEDIUM, it is only what their brainwashers say it should be. It can never be anything else. So they all imitate each other, while the rational part of their brain – like a disembodied voice – tells us what their work means and why they do what they do. They then go back to living in their fantasy world as if they are unaware of the other part of them that gave their art what it needs - a message that is the gift of a true piece of art to a viewer. Not confusion. Not, as I read one brainwasher tell his students: “The viewer – not you – is responsible for interpreting the art.”
And as far as fiction ---- more schizophrenia. “I am not responsible for what my characters say or do.” “I am not responsible for the words they speak because I did not speak them.”
How’s that for a metric? Let’s try Psychology 101.
All action starts with an idea. As a working writer, I create everything: the scene, the mood, the plot, the characters. As I write, I give each character a personality. I imagine being that character. As my story is being developed, I usually run across parts that don’t work or don’t sound right. I then become the problem solver. It may take a day or two, but the solution comes to me. I always need to keep the pace, tone and goal of a particular piece in mind. I have to discard anything that doesn’t advance the story, even if I think it’s a cool idea at the time (I can save that idea for another story). Like a movie, all the words and actions have got to make the reader want to turn the page - to find out what happens next. This applies to action-adventure, or any other genre.
Peace,
Ed
Hello again.
BTW Ed, do you remember The Fugitive series back in the 60’s which ran for some four years, concluding in August 1967? My wife and I are presently watching Season 2 on the US Region 1 DVD’s - thankfully we have a multi-region player - and find the show jolly riveting stuff and good clean entertainment devoid of any profanity or unwholesome content.
This superb series is anything but “insipid and mentally dead” and, as you may recall, it concerns the sad case of Dr. Richard Kimble (David Janssen), falsely convicted of killing his wife and determined to prove his innocence (following a miraculously escape on the way to the death house) by leading his pursuer, Lt. Philip Gerard (Barry Morse), to this one-armed man who actually committed the crime. In each episode Dr. Kimble was always to be found among new people and in new places but always getting involved, sometimes against his better judgment, with strangers in need - all good heartwarming stuff, the like of which is seldom seen on TV screens today.
The series was immensely popular and the shows finale in America in 1967, which revealed the fate of Dr. Kimble, held the record at that time for the highest share of American homes with television sets to watch the conclusion of a series, 72% (the episode was called ‘The Judgment’). Evidently the show was not considered to be tedious by many but, on the contrary, rather compelling viewing. Alas, they do not make TV shows of this high quality anymore and if anyone watches the series they will soon discover how eminently superior it is to today’s ignoble offerings.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
E
edwest2
Guest
Dear Portrait,Dear Ed,
Hello again.
BTW Ed, do you remember The Fugitive series back in the 60’s which ran for some four years, concluding in August 1967? My wife and I are presently watching Season 2 on the US Region 1 DVD’s - thankfully we have a multi-region player - and find the show jolly riveting stuff and good clean entertainment devoid of any profanity or unwholesome content.
This superb series is anything but “insipid and mentally dead”
The series was immensely popular and the shows finale in America in 1967, which revealed the fate of Dr. Kimble, held the record at that time for the highest share of American homes with television sets to watch the conclusion of a series, 72% (the episode was called ‘The Judgment’). Evidently the show was not considered to be tedious by many but, on the contrary, rather compelling viewing. Alas, they do not make TV shows of this high quality anymore and if anyone watches the series they will soon discover how eminently superior it is to today’s ignoble offerings.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
First of all, thank you for your ongoing clarity in describing and contrasting Church teaching with worldly behavior/teaching. I dare say the problem for many, especially Catholics, is that the moment we leave the Church building, we are surrounded with magazine covers, talk on the radio, immorality on TV and the movies and the behaviors of the average people around us. I have read that “we are the only Bible some people will ever read.” Jesus tells us: “By their fruit you shall know them.” This applies to Catholics as well as non-Catholics.
I watched The Fugitive as it was originally broadcast. It was one of my favorite TV shows. And as kids growing up in America, we were looking forward with excitement, for years, for the new TV shows for the next season, which started in September of the following year. There was adventure, drama, crime and justice (I suggest the TV show, Perry Mason). The television news had an entirely different approach to news – It really, truly informed the viewer in a comprehensive way. There were fewer TV commercials back then. The TV news reporter, Walter Cronkite, was called “the most trusted man in America.” And his career dated back to World War II as a War Correspondent.
Regardless of the TV show, even the comedies, there was respect, politeness, decorum, and obvious good behavior in general. We lived it. Just like the TV shows, we said Hello to our neighbors, we said please and thank you and we respected our elders. We didn’t say, “Hey, old man.” We said, Hello, Mister So and So, Hello Missus So and So. People exhibited obvious restraint in their speech. Even the way people dressed and groomed themselves meant that being clean and well groomed was a sign of respect. I am appalled at the way people dress in the States today. They were house slippers and “jogging pants” to go to the store. Some look like they just woke from bed and threw on whatever was in reach. Women carried themselves with dignity. Young men did not yell: “Hey m***** f*****!” across the street." I walked into a supermarket and heard a young man having an obscene phone conversation.
The message permeating all level of media, including a few books meant for children, is that what we know to be false is marketed as good and true. As long as everybody is smiling and having a “good time,” nothing else matters. This was purposefully done. Our consent was engineered over a 40 year period.
amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1581824599
Look at it this way - almost all media today speaks with one voice. It acts as a subtle and direct form of advertising for which ideas, lifestyles and types of behavior are good and which are bad. But since pleasure and comfort are advertised as the highest goods, and being made to feel uncomfortable is frowned upon, even the way bad ideas are presented is often made to sound a bit fair when it is not. For too many, including Catholics, it has become our educator. Take this forum: If a Christian source is cited, I can see the signs of conditioning appear, i.e., it is regarded as bad, biased, untrustworthy, and agenda driven in a non-helpful and even dishonest way. When a secular source is cited, it is either totally embraced or, on an emotional level, our false conditioning tells us it is more trustworthy, just because it is secular.
At every opportunity, we can no longer afford to be Silent Christians. We must be vocal Christians. And we can, just like you did, embrace a previous media culture that embodied the behaviors you and I have been writing about. Like The Fugitive on TV. If you can, get the Disney movie Fantasia (1940) on DVD. There is a scene where we hear the song Ave Maria. There are many, many examples of writing, TV, movies and magazines from the time period I grew up in that reflect this, and reinforced us, as a nation, and as Christians.
First, we must separate truth from falsehood, and keep repeating the truth. Next, we must purge ourselves of those habits and those media that negatively impact us. I don’t need to read or hear the same falsehoods/news repeated by 20 different outlets on the internet. We need to always get the Catholic perspective so that we are always reminded that we are a community of believers, not just isolated individuals.
ncregister.com/
Finally, I encourage you to look through media produced prior to 1970. There are many gems - beautiful, uplifting, moral and fun. Entertainment worthy of the name and that can be watched by the whole family with a clear conscience.
Peace,
Ed
B
Baelor
Guest
It is hardly an argument from silence; that argument is predicated on the reasonable and incidentally correct belief that the Church speaks on morality that is absolute, cf. all Church teaching on morality at all.This is really an argument from silence, dear friend, saying that because the Church has not officially declared the use of bad language to be wrong or sinful, then it is not inherently immoral.
Indeed, but you are claiming, with no valid justification, that all consciences should align on a particular issue, untaught by the Church, in exactly the same way. I am correctly pointing out that a ‘problem’ that is so widespread in the modern world, so perennial through millennia, would not have remained unaddressed by the Church if your bizarre conception of absolute morality were correct.This is misleading and against the whole spirit of Catholic thinking which expects the faithful to have a well-formed conscience to be able to arrive at the truth regarding such an issue.
On what basis, then, is swearing problematic? Please answer in the form: “Swearing is incorrect because it violates principle X of Catholicism, as seen in this teaching.”Regardless of whether certain individual people may not be offended by bad language, that still does not, dear friend, justify its usage, at least from a Christian standpoint.
St. Paul need not be referring to swear words, and Christianity has not defined a standard of language in the way you describe.St. Paul exhorts us: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt…” (Col 4: 6). Bad language fails to comport with the Christian standard of language and that is why it is unacceptable.
For some, the profanity carries no shock value, no pejorative or confrontational sense, etc.The gift of language was given to mankind by God and it should be used positively and not in an unsavoury manner. Alas, we are hearing today, even in normal discourse, an increasing amount of profanity, especially those coarse four-letter words.
To you, but bad language is not absolute, as I explained before. Please read my posts more carefully in the future.Bad language, dear brother, is not only negative, vulgar, impolite and downright offensive, but it also debases the dignity of each human being.
I addressed this in my previous post; please read my posts more carefully in the future.Moreover, cursing and swearing is not only evidence of a man’s sinful heart and want of respect for others, but also his own immaturity and insecurity in his dealings with his fellow men. The man who habitually uses bad language tends to build barriers rather than bridges with other people because he will always come across as boorish.
I addressed this in my previous post; please read my posts more carefully in the future.As regards the use of swearing as an exclamation in response to pain or a major mistake, my dear grandparent’s always told me to count to ten rather than fall into the habit of using expletives. No one has to swear, dear friend.
I addressed this in my previous post; please read my posts more carefully in the future.Society would not long tolerate a person who constantly uttered racial epithets, irrespective of the intention behind the words, and neither should we tolerate profanity, dear friend: “Let not your mouth become used to coarse talk, for in it lies sinful matter” (Sirach 23: 13).
B
Baelor
Guest
Then it is not a violation of the Second Commandment.As regards swearing being a violation of the Second Commandment, I agree that it is not specifically refered to,
It is impossible to infer a ban on swearing from the Second Commandment; no one of any credibility would do this. It is easy to see why: those who are unfamiliar with English or who are unable to grasp its nuances see “swear” or “oath” (and the related “curse,” depending on your translation) and immediately, in their ignorance of diachronic semantics, assume erroneously that this is related to “swearing” in the modern sense. Not so.but I do believe that it is a reasonable deduction from it, dear friend.
Furthermore, none of the rest of your argument even mentions the Second Commandment; it references “boorishness,” “offensiveness,” etc. Note that the Second Commandment concerns itself with these concepts in no way, but rather in swearing false oaths and respecting the name of the Lord. Knowing the history of Judaism should inform us that this commandment was meant literally.
Your question is worthless because it is self-answering. Obviously the perfect embodiment and agent of the Good would not engage in any way with the bad. That does not tell us what the “bad” is, nor why it is bad.Now we need to ask ourselves, would He, the Holy Son of God, have used or condoned bad language?
That does not tell me anything. I am looking for a metric that can be applied objectively to any piece of art and can produce an answer. How can you tell whether something promotes good moral health? Give me a metric that will determine that. I will keep asking until you produce it and stop rewording your terms without eliminating their vagueness.By “unwholesome” I mean that which is unlikely to promote good moral health and thus foster the Christian virtues. That is the benchmark that I would use to evaluate a peice of art and determine whether it is permissible or not.
Portrait, I hope that you understanding what you are saying:All this really does boil down to having a well-formed conscience to aid us in our decision making.
- We need to use our consciences.
- I (Portrait) know exactly what the consciences of every single other person on the planet, if well-formed, would say.
May I recommend that you read Aristotle’s Topics and other treatises on logic and syllogism? You are constructing a fallacious argument:Therefore they still seem to instinctively know that it is wrong and unbefitting in those who profess the religion of Christ.
- Non-Christians have are shocked when Christians swear.
- This is because swearing is wrong.
- Therefore, swearing is wrong.
P
Portrait
Guest
F.A.O. Baelor (response to #66)
Dear Baelor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou again for your reponses.
As you are probably aware it is my custom to take a breather from the boards at weekends, so this will be my final but one reply to you. May I just thankyou for taking the time to engage in discussion with me but I am truly sorry, dear brother, that my efforts to convince you that the use of profanity does not comport with a profession of the holy religion of Christ have been unavailing. At any rate, edwest and myself have, I think, now written sufficient upon the topic under review and my only plea is that you muse over again what we have said in our replies.
Certainly Holy Mother Church declares universally valid standards, not admitting exceptions, but she also expects us to repair to the collective wisdom and moral sense of the faithful in times past. Now this Christian consciousness down through the ages has greatly influenced the way secular society thinks about things, be it immodesty in attiire, women fighting in war zones or using four-letter words and ribaldry. Respectable society, which prior to the Sixties, was the vast majority, passionately disapproved of such things and quite rightly so. Alas, since the permissive revolution our Western society has been in an increasing state of moral and cultural deterioration and this has been exemplified in all aspects of life, not excluding the arts and literature. What we have witnessed is the corrosion of traditional values and an arrogantly self-assertive rejection of the collective wisdom of past generations. This is why moral relativism prevails and why men now take a perverse delight in challenging traditional
values and the wholesome social mores of the old days. The ‘societal stereotypes’ of which you speak, dear friend, were themselves engendered by the Christian consciousness and therefore are not inherently bad or wrong, notwithstanding what our irreligious modern culture may now say respecting them. Therefore, as Catholics, our Church expects us to look to this collective wisdom as it will not only aid us in our spiritual formation but also protect us from making repeated catastrophic errors of prudential judgment on a whole range of matters. An authentic Catholicism will always highly esteem traditional values and the moral sense of the faithful out of which they evolved. The moral sense of the faithful has always, and quite rightly, deemed the uttering of profanity to be vulgar, impolite and unbefitting of those who profess godliness and that is why its use was avoided and frowned upon.
There will be uniformity among the faithful as regards what is considered to be inappropriate and unacceptable, provided they humbly turn to the traditional values of the past for enlightenment and spiritual direction. Unfortunately, many contemporary Catholics , especially the youth, are stubbornly refusing to do this, believing that their thinking upon matters is superior to that of the past and that man has now finally come of age. This is not only arrogant but eminently immature and un-Catholic, resulting in every man doing that which is right in his own eyes, provided that there has been no official magisterial pronouncment upon an issue. For example, a liberal Christian author may think to himself that because the Church has not declared four-letter words to be wrong or sinful he can freely make use of them in his latest novel if he thinks the narrative requires them; dublis libertas (where doubt exists freedom should be granted). This, I will concede, dear friend, sounds superficially plausible (like so many arguments advanced by modern day Catholics), but it is, notwithstanding, fundamentally flawed reasoning because it completely disregards the extrinsic tradition of the Church and the role of a well-formed conscience in correctly discerning that tradtion as true and trustworthy. The Christian consciousness (which has been reflected in traditional values) has always disapproved of the use of foul language, in any context, including literary works. If proof is required of this then I appeal to the fiction written prior to the Sixties, that decade of decadence. Whilst you might be able to produce a few isolated exceptions by the avant-garde, they are not the norm and would have been dismissed as rebellious mavericks. How sad that such people are now regarded as pioneers and innovaters in literature, daring to break away from banal novels with cardboard characters!
You ask for a ‘metric’ dear brother and I would point you to the most true and trustworthy measuring stick that there is, namely the collective wisdom of previous generations of Catholics, which itself permeated secular society and evolved into what we now refer to, and often contemptuously dismiss, as ‘traditional values’. As Catholics we will not lightly walk away from this noble tradition but rather we will allow it to inform our thought so we will have a well-formed conscience that will aid us in all our decision making in a very crazy confused world.
“Let not your mouth become used to coarse talk, for in it lies sinful matter” (Sirach 23: 13).
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
Dear Baelor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou again for your reponses.
As you are probably aware it is my custom to take a breather from the boards at weekends, so this will be my final but one reply to you. May I just thankyou for taking the time to engage in discussion with me but I am truly sorry, dear brother, that my efforts to convince you that the use of profanity does not comport with a profession of the holy religion of Christ have been unavailing. At any rate, edwest and myself have, I think, now written sufficient upon the topic under review and my only plea is that you muse over again what we have said in our replies.
Certainly Holy Mother Church declares universally valid standards, not admitting exceptions, but she also expects us to repair to the collective wisdom and moral sense of the faithful in times past. Now this Christian consciousness down through the ages has greatly influenced the way secular society thinks about things, be it immodesty in attiire, women fighting in war zones or using four-letter words and ribaldry. Respectable society, which prior to the Sixties, was the vast majority, passionately disapproved of such things and quite rightly so. Alas, since the permissive revolution our Western society has been in an increasing state of moral and cultural deterioration and this has been exemplified in all aspects of life, not excluding the arts and literature. What we have witnessed is the corrosion of traditional values and an arrogantly self-assertive rejection of the collective wisdom of past generations. This is why moral relativism prevails and why men now take a perverse delight in challenging traditional
values and the wholesome social mores of the old days. The ‘societal stereotypes’ of which you speak, dear friend, were themselves engendered by the Christian consciousness and therefore are not inherently bad or wrong, notwithstanding what our irreligious modern culture may now say respecting them. Therefore, as Catholics, our Church expects us to look to this collective wisdom as it will not only aid us in our spiritual formation but also protect us from making repeated catastrophic errors of prudential judgment on a whole range of matters. An authentic Catholicism will always highly esteem traditional values and the moral sense of the faithful out of which they evolved. The moral sense of the faithful has always, and quite rightly, deemed the uttering of profanity to be vulgar, impolite and unbefitting of those who profess godliness and that is why its use was avoided and frowned upon.
There will be uniformity among the faithful as regards what is considered to be inappropriate and unacceptable, provided they humbly turn to the traditional values of the past for enlightenment and spiritual direction. Unfortunately, many contemporary Catholics , especially the youth, are stubbornly refusing to do this, believing that their thinking upon matters is superior to that of the past and that man has now finally come of age. This is not only arrogant but eminently immature and un-Catholic, resulting in every man doing that which is right in his own eyes, provided that there has been no official magisterial pronouncment upon an issue. For example, a liberal Christian author may think to himself that because the Church has not declared four-letter words to be wrong or sinful he can freely make use of them in his latest novel if he thinks the narrative requires them; dublis libertas (where doubt exists freedom should be granted). This, I will concede, dear friend, sounds superficially plausible (like so many arguments advanced by modern day Catholics), but it is, notwithstanding, fundamentally flawed reasoning because it completely disregards the extrinsic tradition of the Church and the role of a well-formed conscience in correctly discerning that tradtion as true and trustworthy. The Christian consciousness (which has been reflected in traditional values) has always disapproved of the use of foul language, in any context, including literary works. If proof is required of this then I appeal to the fiction written prior to the Sixties, that decade of decadence. Whilst you might be able to produce a few isolated exceptions by the avant-garde, they are not the norm and would have been dismissed as rebellious mavericks. How sad that such people are now regarded as pioneers and innovaters in literature, daring to break away from banal novels with cardboard characters!
You ask for a ‘metric’ dear brother and I would point you to the most true and trustworthy measuring stick that there is, namely the collective wisdom of previous generations of Catholics, which itself permeated secular society and evolved into what we now refer to, and often contemptuously dismiss, as ‘traditional values’. As Catholics we will not lightly walk away from this noble tradition but rather we will allow it to inform our thought so we will have a well-formed conscience that will aid us in all our decision making in a very crazy confused world.
“Let not your mouth become used to coarse talk, for in it lies sinful matter” (Sirach 23: 13).
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
F.A.O. Baelor (response to #67)
Dear Baelor,
Hello again.
It is freely acknowledged, dear friend, that the Second Commandment does not specifically proscribe against the use of profanity, but I am not so certain that it is consistent with it either. It would, as I said, be very interesting to hear what others have to say regarding this matter. However, I understood that “swearing” did not have reference to our contemporary understanding of that word.
With respect to our dear Lord, He who is “holy, blameless, unstained, separate from sinners” (Heb. 7: 26), can we seriously envisage him either using or condoning the use of the sort of four-letter words with which we sadly hear so much of in modern discourse? Of course not, and that is why I stand by what I have said, dear brother. Our Holy Saviour would have recoiled at the hearing such vulgar and unsavoury speech and would have considered it the evil fruit of man’s fallen nature; He would see it as coming from a heart filled with darkness and sin. This being the case, we also should avoid using it and condemn its use in others, regardless of the context. It is never morally permissible for the pious Catholic.
If Non-Christians have been ‘conditioned’ by anything then it is the Christian consciousness, which I have spoken of in #66, that has also, thanks be to God, permeated secular society and which continued to exert a huge influence until the emergence of the sexual revolution of the Sixties. It is for this reason that they are surprised and outraged when they hear Christian themselves uttering vullgar and impolite expletives are engaging ribaldry - “does a fountain send forth both bitter sweet water at the same place?”. They instinctively know that it does not comport with a devout profession of religion. Can I ask, dear brother, that you read and ponder carefully what I have said respecting traditional values and the moral sense of the faithful in my previous post as it explains why swearing is incongrous and unacceptable from a Catholic standpoint.
God bless and may you have an enjoyaable and peaceful weekend, whatever are your plans. Thankyou for your time this week. Goodbye for now, dear friend.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax:tiphat:
PS Will keep working on the verbosity problem!
Dear Baelor,
Hello again.
It is freely acknowledged, dear friend, that the Second Commandment does not specifically proscribe against the use of profanity, but I am not so certain that it is consistent with it either. It would, as I said, be very interesting to hear what others have to say regarding this matter. However, I understood that “swearing” did not have reference to our contemporary understanding of that word.
With respect to our dear Lord, He who is “holy, blameless, unstained, separate from sinners” (Heb. 7: 26), can we seriously envisage him either using or condoning the use of the sort of four-letter words with which we sadly hear so much of in modern discourse? Of course not, and that is why I stand by what I have said, dear brother. Our Holy Saviour would have recoiled at the hearing such vulgar and unsavoury speech and would have considered it the evil fruit of man’s fallen nature; He would see it as coming from a heart filled with darkness and sin. This being the case, we also should avoid using it and condemn its use in others, regardless of the context. It is never morally permissible for the pious Catholic.
If Non-Christians have been ‘conditioned’ by anything then it is the Christian consciousness, which I have spoken of in #66, that has also, thanks be to God, permeated secular society and which continued to exert a huge influence until the emergence of the sexual revolution of the Sixties. It is for this reason that they are surprised and outraged when they hear Christian themselves uttering vullgar and impolite expletives are engaging ribaldry - “does a fountain send forth both bitter sweet water at the same place?”. They instinctively know that it does not comport with a devout profession of religion. Can I ask, dear brother, that you read and ponder carefully what I have said respecting traditional values and the moral sense of the faithful in my previous post as it explains why swearing is incongrous and unacceptable from a Catholic standpoint.
God bless and may you have an enjoyaable and peaceful weekend, whatever are your plans. Thankyou for your time this week. Goodbye for now, dear friend.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax:tiphat:
PS Will keep working on the verbosity problem!
B
Baelor
Guest
At the same time, the Church acknowledges that some things are sinful for some persons and not for others, in fitting with our individual circumstances and what leads us to sin. Note that none of the absolute morals the Church teaches fit into this category.Certainly Holy Mother Church declares universally valid standards, not admitting exceptions, but she also expects us to repair to the collective wisdom and moral sense of the faithful in times past.
They were still societal stereotypes.The ‘societal stereotypes’ of which you speak, dear friend, were themselves engendered by the Christian consciousness and therefore are not inherently bad or wrong, notwithstanding what our irreligious modern culture may now say respecting them.
I have no reason to believe that the moral sense of the faithful has always been that all profanity of any kind in any situation is immoral. Furthermore, if that were that case, it would be reflected in Church teaching; q.v. my earlier posts.The moral sense of the faithful has always, and quite rightly, deemed the uttering of profanity to be vulgar, impolite and unbefitting of those who profess godliness and that is why its use was avoided and frowned upon.
If this were the case, we would see it in the Catechism.The Christian consciousness (which has been reflected in traditional values) has always disapproved of the use of foul language, in any context, including literary works.
Portrait, no one is buying your evasion. At this point, it is crossing the line from potential misunderstanding to outright dishonesty.You ask for a ‘metric’ dear brother and I would point you to the most true and trustworthy measuring stick that there is, namely the collective wisdom of previous generations of Catholics, which itself permeated secular society and evolved into what we now refer to, and often contemptuously dismiss, as ‘traditional values’.
You claim that the current generation does not grasp the collective wisdom. You also claim that you do know exactly what the collective wisdom of our forebears is.
Stop evading an answer because you are unwilling to commit to one. You say that you know what the “collective wisdom” is, but then refuse to say what it is.
What specifically is not permitted in fiction?
You must know, since you know (without referring to any Church teaching) that cursing and “unsavory” content is immoral. What else do you know? Please, o Infallible One, share with us godless masses the pearls of your unfathomable wisdom.
I treated this in my previous post; please read my posts more carefully in the future.It is freely acknowledged, dear friend, that the Second Commandment does not specifically proscribe against the use of profanity, but I am not so certain that it is consistent with it either.
Why should I not believe it is a matter of societal conditioning? This conditioning is not necessarily valid, and to claim that it is is engaging in the circular reasoning I pointed out earlier. Please read my posts more carefully in the future.If Non-Christians have been ‘conditioned’ by anything then it is the Christian consciousness… It is for this reason that they are surprised and outraged when they hear Christian themselves uttering vullgar and impolite expletives are engaging ribaldry - “does a fountain send forth both bitter sweet water at the same place?”.
Perhaps you should tell other people what else they think and why they think it. I am sure we could all benefit greatly from your piercing telepathy.They instinctively know that it does not comport with a devout profession of religion.
E
edwest2
Guest
This isn’t about mathematics. As a professional editor and writer, I can tell you there is no secular metric as you call it.
ALL you are doing is living out the lie that everything is social conditioning. We are all born into this world stupid. Unaware of what hot and cold means until we burn our fingers or until mom tells us, “Don’t touch that because you will burn your fingers.” Got that? Because if you don’t… then stick to what you believe at your peril. Oh, I know there are people who think the Bible is boring (not you), the Church is boring, the Church is putting a drag on my lifestyle and limiting my creative freedom. Because if I don’t get that pure, 100% unadulterated by anybody freedom – I CAN’T CREATE!!! I can’t do it. I can’t live it because it annoys me: “What? The Church teaches I can’t do that? But I like doing that. So the Church is either wrong, or I’ll just ignore it or come up with a way around it or maybe even leave the Church because it’s getting in the way of my life. My life is about me, no one else. I guess I believe in God, but the rest of it will put me into conflict with the things all my friends are reading or watching or listening to. I don’t want to be an outcast - to them. Nobody should care about nudity or cursing or sex without marriage. That’s my business.” As a sacred book tells us: “What do you have that wasn’t given to you?” And may I add: including your own life?
Here’s a great illustrator/storyteller talking sense: “I think it’s opening a lid on a tunnel, an endless tunnel in which we all run down and we just don’t know how it’s going to end, and we get deeper and sicker and sicker until we become adjusted to unmentionable things.”
Go ahead. Say it as often as you like: I found exceptions to what you call the rule so the rule doesn’t really matter. Or, show me the page and verse that gives me the STANDARD which I should apply to all my work. You’ve been given that standard, but it’s apparent that what you want is what you want.
By accepting the ‘it’s all social conditioning’ lie, you’ve fallen into the same trap as so many others. There are only two ways to go: good or bad. If it’s all relative and there are no hard and fast rules, you think you’re free? You’re a slave to nameless, faceless men who hate the truth. Who believe in no truth except what they create for themselves. And you know what the tragic part is? IT’S ALL BEEN DONE BEFORE!!
We live in the 21st Century! Yeah. So? Everything’s got to change! Yeah? Who told you that? Because I can point to a book that relates how people lived and behaved over two thousand years ago, and - guess what - we are still those people. That’s right. And that book should be our standard - our measuring stick. And only one man did not live like the rest of them, and it is He we should imitate.
I know what it’s like to create, but unlike the brainwashed and self-deluded artists I’ve met, there’s nothing new to learn. The basics are still the basics. Men have tried for thousands of years to create something new, and what did they create? Things? Or they realized how formerly incomprehensible things worked, or they came to know some part of the truth and said, “I - no one else - has made/written this great thing!” And you know what? Take away our electronics, our cars and our electricity, and we are back to square one.
I’ve created things. I’ve invented things. I’ve made characters that had personality and talked and behaved in certain ways, including alien beings. But, at the end of the day, they were all people - even the aliens. The reader had to see something he could relate to even in the most alien being I could create.
You’ve been given a gift from God, and Portrait has given you sound guidance. Use it as you would a diamond cutter who has been given the largest diamond ever found. Since, even as the diamond cutter knows there are precise rules for cutting a diamond, there are precise rules for all we do. And people who can answer our questions that are not part of this world though they live in it.
Peace,
Ed
ALL you are doing is living out the lie that everything is social conditioning. We are all born into this world stupid. Unaware of what hot and cold means until we burn our fingers or until mom tells us, “Don’t touch that because you will burn your fingers.” Got that? Because if you don’t… then stick to what you believe at your peril. Oh, I know there are people who think the Bible is boring (not you), the Church is boring, the Church is putting a drag on my lifestyle and limiting my creative freedom. Because if I don’t get that pure, 100% unadulterated by anybody freedom – I CAN’T CREATE!!! I can’t do it. I can’t live it because it annoys me: “What? The Church teaches I can’t do that? But I like doing that. So the Church is either wrong, or I’ll just ignore it or come up with a way around it or maybe even leave the Church because it’s getting in the way of my life. My life is about me, no one else. I guess I believe in God, but the rest of it will put me into conflict with the things all my friends are reading or watching or listening to. I don’t want to be an outcast - to them. Nobody should care about nudity or cursing or sex without marriage. That’s my business.” As a sacred book tells us: “What do you have that wasn’t given to you?” And may I add: including your own life?
Here’s a great illustrator/storyteller talking sense: “I think it’s opening a lid on a tunnel, an endless tunnel in which we all run down and we just don’t know how it’s going to end, and we get deeper and sicker and sicker until we become adjusted to unmentionable things.”
Go ahead. Say it as often as you like: I found exceptions to what you call the rule so the rule doesn’t really matter. Or, show me the page and verse that gives me the STANDARD which I should apply to all my work. You’ve been given that standard, but it’s apparent that what you want is what you want.
By accepting the ‘it’s all social conditioning’ lie, you’ve fallen into the same trap as so many others. There are only two ways to go: good or bad. If it’s all relative and there are no hard and fast rules, you think you’re free? You’re a slave to nameless, faceless men who hate the truth. Who believe in no truth except what they create for themselves. And you know what the tragic part is? IT’S ALL BEEN DONE BEFORE!!
We live in the 21st Century! Yeah. So? Everything’s got to change! Yeah? Who told you that? Because I can point to a book that relates how people lived and behaved over two thousand years ago, and - guess what - we are still those people. That’s right. And that book should be our standard - our measuring stick. And only one man did not live like the rest of them, and it is He we should imitate.
I know what it’s like to create, but unlike the brainwashed and self-deluded artists I’ve met, there’s nothing new to learn. The basics are still the basics. Men have tried for thousands of years to create something new, and what did they create? Things? Or they realized how formerly incomprehensible things worked, or they came to know some part of the truth and said, “I - no one else - has made/written this great thing!” And you know what? Take away our electronics, our cars and our electricity, and we are back to square one.
I’ve created things. I’ve invented things. I’ve made characters that had personality and talked and behaved in certain ways, including alien beings. But, at the end of the day, they were all people - even the aliens. The reader had to see something he could relate to even in the most alien being I could create.
You’ve been given a gift from God, and Portrait has given you sound guidance. Use it as you would a diamond cutter who has been given the largest diamond ever found. Since, even as the diamond cutter knows there are precise rules for cutting a diamond, there are precise rules for all we do. And people who can answer our questions that are not part of this world though they live in it.
Peace,
Ed
B
Baelor
Guest
There is, since you state that ALL swearing in fiction is impermissible. Clearly, then, you know how swearing fits into that metric. I am wondering about the other members of the metric. Since your tirade against swearing has no explicit basis in Catholic teaching, I am sure that your knowledge of God’s will extends beyond the issue of swearing, and thus I exhort you to share your immense theological knowledge with us.This isn’t about mathematics… I can tell you there is no secular metric as you call it.
I will help you out:
The Metric:
- No swearing ever
- …]
First of all, that demonstrates my point, if it does anything. Second, we know empirically that touching hot surfaces is harmful, so that is not even social conditioning.ALL you are doing is living out the lie that everything is social conditioning. We are all born into this world stupid. Unaware of what hot and cold means until we burn our fingers or until mom tells us, “Don’t touch that because you will burn your fingers.”
If you are saying a rule is absolute and yet acknowledge exceptions, then you are contradicting yourself. Pointing this out is hardly rhetorical finesse, it is a desire for rationality and logical validity in a discussion. If neither of those matter to you, may I suggest a faith other than Catholicism, which prides itself on a high intellectual standard?Go ahead. Say it as often as you like: I found exceptions to what you call the rule so the rule doesn’t really matter.
What I want is what God wants. You are not helping anyone find out what that is.Or, show me the page and verse that gives me the STANDARD which I should apply to all my work. You’ve been given that standard, but it’s apparent that what you want is what you want.
I never said that.By accepting the ‘it’s all social conditioning’ lie,
That is manifestly absurd. Are you going to tell me that my favorite color is inherently a choice of “good” or “bad?”There are only two ways to go: good or bad.
I never said that.If it’s all relative and there are no hard and fast rules,
I never said that.We live in the 21st Century! Yeah. So? Everything’s got to change!
No, he did not. The fact that you are mentally closed-minded does not mean that your readers are. If you made anthropomorphic aliens, that is certainly your right as an author. But it is not a requirement in fiction, and this is where we differ: I like stimulating art that is still moral, you only like insipid, platitude-filled art. That is certainly your prerogative, but please do not claim that it is the obligation of everyone else.I’ve created things. I’ve invented things. I’ve made characters that had personality and talked and behaved in certain ways, including alien beings. But, at the end of the day, they were all people - even the aliens. The reader had to see something he could relate to even in the most alien being I could create.
I would recommend that you take some time to calm down and read your posts more carefully before subjecting any readers of this thread to them.
E
edwest2
Guest
Let’s try this again:
Rule one: We should imitate Christ.
Next:
"The standards of clean language rise and fall, and at the current day we are in the middle of a trough. Anything written to be ‘normal’ by our current (diseased) standards will be unacceptable in one generation, or whenever the cultural pendulum swings back. Anything written according to an older and cleaner standard, will be able to be read with pleasure by any generation.
"There is a process going on in this country analogous to the “dumbing down” we see in public schools. Let us call it “filthing down.” Sometimes with malice aforethought, and sometimes without malice aforethought, authors and playwrights set about to coarsen the public.
"Here is how it works. Some of it is unintentional. You say “Bad*ss” a few dozen times, and by the 144 th repeat of the word, you no longer realize you are saying a word women and children should not hear.
“Some of it is intentional. Women, driven insane with the modern fashion to be as unfeminine as possible as quickly as possible, now go out of their way to talk like sailors and drill-sergeants. It’s not pretty. Some of it is intentional and zealous. Sexual perversion becomes not merely a mental or moral disorder, but a Noble Cause to be trumpeted and spread, and every effort is made to make it seem normal.”
Hope this helps,
Ed
Rule one: We should imitate Christ.
Next:
"The standards of clean language rise and fall, and at the current day we are in the middle of a trough. Anything written to be ‘normal’ by our current (diseased) standards will be unacceptable in one generation, or whenever the cultural pendulum swings back. Anything written according to an older and cleaner standard, will be able to be read with pleasure by any generation.
"There is a process going on in this country analogous to the “dumbing down” we see in public schools. Let us call it “filthing down.” Sometimes with malice aforethought, and sometimes without malice aforethought, authors and playwrights set about to coarsen the public.
"Here is how it works. Some of it is unintentional. You say “Bad*ss” a few dozen times, and by the 144 th repeat of the word, you no longer realize you are saying a word women and children should not hear.
“Some of it is intentional. Women, driven insane with the modern fashion to be as unfeminine as possible as quickly as possible, now go out of their way to talk like sailors and drill-sergeants. It’s not pretty. Some of it is intentional and zealous. Sexual perversion becomes not merely a mental or moral disorder, but a Noble Cause to be trumpeted and spread, and every effort is made to make it seem normal.”
Hope this helps,
Ed
B
Baelor
Guest
Ed, I am still waiting on the metric. Your last post suggests that we may consume novels written in the 19th century with nothing but pleasure despite the overt racism and sexism, which seems to run counter to your larger argument, so I assume that that is not the case. Providing your metric will be useful. I even set up a template for you to use.
For someone so vitriolic, you are equally vague. Perhaps that is necessary for those who pontificate like snakes: pinning them down will reveal what they are, which is nothing good.
For someone so vitriolic, you are equally vague. Perhaps that is necessary for those who pontificate like snakes: pinning them down will reveal what they are, which is nothing good.
E
edwest2
Guest
Insults noted.Ed, I am still waiting on the metric. Your last post suggests that we may consume novels written in the 19th century with nothing but pleasure despite the overt racism and sexism, which seems to run counter to your larger argument, so I assume that that is not the case. Providing your metric will be useful. I even set up a template for you to use.
For someone so vitriolic, you are equally vague. Perhaps that is necessary for those who pontificate like snakes: pinning them down will reveal what they are, which is nothing good.
You have been carefully warned. I have no doubt that you are an intelligent person. By their fruit you shall know them. I pray that your work bears good fruit. If not, you, and all writers, will be called to account for what we did with the Talent given to us when our Master inquires about it.
Peace,
Ed
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
I think to express my writing ideas in a dignified manner I will have to write something like Chronicles of Narnia.
E
edwest2
Guest
Human dignity in writing requires respect. And the enemy and the evil need to be clearly defined. That’s all.I think to express my writing ideas in a dignified manner I will have to write something like Chronicles of Narnia.
Peace,
Ed
B
Baelor
Guest
This is not Church teaching.Human dignity in writing requires respect. And the enemy and the evil need to be clearly defined. That’s all.
T
ThePuppyTurtle
Guest
May I ask what property of the use of those words makes them intrinsically disordered? Granted they have unique properties in that they sometimes function to express emotion rather than meaning but that would make the word “ouch” sinful.
Failing that what negative consequence does their use lead to? If you seek to say “Cultural degeneration” without circular reasoning you must show that they lead to cultural degeneration in other areas.
If you seek to say it depends on social convention then you must accept that once social convention abandons the idea that these words are forbidden, which it is poised to do, they will no longer be immoral. In fact I dare say that there being less things that are sinful and therefore people sinning less Is a GOOD thing.
Also remember Jesus cursed (“He who says to his brother RAKA [a curse word]…”)
He was commanding people not to use it to insult others but he was still cursing.
Failing that what negative consequence does their use lead to? If you seek to say “Cultural degeneration” without circular reasoning you must show that they lead to cultural degeneration in other areas.
If you seek to say it depends on social convention then you must accept that once social convention abandons the idea that these words are forbidden, which it is poised to do, they will no longer be immoral. In fact I dare say that there being less things that are sinful and therefore people sinning less Is a GOOD thing.
Also remember Jesus cursed (“He who says to his brother RAKA [a curse word]…”)
He was commanding people not to use it to insult others but he was still cursing.
E
edwest2
Guest
We do not decide, on our own initiative, what words are immoral. The same words I was told not to repeat in the 1960s are still the same words I should not repeat today, and such was the case with all those people I grew up with. In fact, so-called comedian/propagandist, Louis Black, did just such a thing. Based on nothing more than his own authority, he told his audience: “There’s no such thing as bad language.” Who died and put him in charge?May I ask what property of the use of those words makes them intrinsically disordered? Granted they have unique properties in that they sometimes function to express emotion rather than meaning but that would make the word “ouch” sinful.
Failing that what negative consequence does their use lead to? If you seek to say “Cultural degeneration” without circular reasoning you must show that they lead to cultural degeneration in other areas.
If you seek to say it depends on social convention then you must accept that once social convention abandons the idea that these words are forbidden, which it is poised to do, they will no longer be immoral. In fact I dare say that there being less things that are sinful and therefore people sinning less Is a GOOD thing.
Also remember Jesus cursed (“He who says to his brother RAKA [a curse word]…”)
He was commanding people not to use it to insult others but he was still cursing.
"Raca: vain, empty, worthless, only found in Matthew 5:22. The Jews used it as a word of contempt. It is derived from a root meaning “to spit.”
Bad words are still bad words. Nothing is poised to do anything in this case.
Peace,
Ed
- Status
- Not open for further replies.