Saint Thomas More's shocking and extremely coarse language!

[LilyM]

Not to worry, I’ll just keep checking around.

But I must say that I find it hard to believe that St. Bernadette, of all people - that innocent child, that chosen vessel of God! - should give herself to the telling of ‘rude’ jokes - of any kind, under any kind of circumstances! Quite frankly, I find such a notion rather abhorrent.

Vulgarity, triviality and the like are bad enough in the “average” person, but how utterly out of place, how utterly unbecoming are they in a Bernadette for example, with whom, we believe, the Most Blessed Virgin regularly conversed!!

Well, remember firstly that saints are flesh and blood, and not perpetually sinless. That particular privilege only belongs to Our Lord and Our Lady, not Bernadette. And I don’t believe Our Lady would be any more discriminatory about her associates than Our Lord was - and we all know the riffraff HE associated with!

Then too, Bernadette didn’t come from some refined noble family where polite speech or fine manners were necessarily a high priority. Her folks and many of their associates were the poorest of the poor. Possibly not the most edifying of examples for her.

I’d almost be more surprised if she DIDN’T at least hear, and possibly repeat (perhaps without being fully aware of their import), the occasional vulgar joke or expression while growing up. Not that she would have revealed such weaknesses, surely, for any purpose other than to discuss her struggles in trying to overcome them.

To me it is the epitome of a saintly attitude to be frank about one’s shortcomings (we all have plenty of them, after all) and at the same time striving with all one’s might to increase in holiness. The (far from idealised) earthy humanity of a St Augustine type has always appealed to me more than the possibly-whitewashed image of the innocent types who are apparently born already halfway between earth and heaven.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Well, remember firstly that saints are flesh and blood, and not perpetually sinless. That particular privilege only belongs to Our Lord and Our Lady, not Bernadette. And I don’t believe Our Lady would be any more discriminatory about her associates than Our Lord was - and we all know the riffraff HE associated with!

“Perpetually sinless?” No, that would indeed require an extraordinary grace! But surely you do believe that we can avoid, at least some sins - perpetually? I mean, you haven’t been knocking off any banks lately, have you? LOL

Then too, Bernadette didn’t come from some refined noble family…

Very true - but neither did I!

Nevertheless, if I, with all my many faults and failings, am offended by rude jokes and bad language, I would certainly expect that the Good Lord, His Spotless Mother, and all his holy angels and saints must be also!

I’d almost be more surprised if she DIDN’T at least hear … the occasional vulgar joke or expression while growing up

Well, of course, who didn’t? I mean, even the saints - St. John the Baptizer, the Blessed Virgin, the apostles … all them - were undoubtedly from time to time, exposed to objectionable things.

To me it is the epitome of a saintly attitude to be frank about one’s shortcomings (we all have plenty of them, after all) and at the same time striving with all one’s might to increase in holiness.

I agree. To be able to humbly admit one’s faults - neither exaggerating nor diminishing them – is indeed a wonderful grace. As for “striving with all one’s might to increase in holiness,” I presume you do mean, of course, striving with the assistance of grace, for, as Augustine tells, us, “what more useful gift does the grace of God confer upon us, in this present evil world, than our dying unto sin?” Letter 215:8

The (far from idealised) earthy humanity of a St Augustine type has always appealed to me more than the possibly-whitewashed image of the innocent types who are apparently born already halfway between earth and heaven.

Hmmm…not sure just what you mean about Augustine’s “earthy humanity,” but it might be instructive to hear what he himself has to say, not so much about vulgarity, but about swearing:

Swearing is not a sin; but swearing to something false is a sin.” Sermon 180:9:1, p. 319

I too have sworn heedlessly and all the time, I have had this most repulsive and death-dealing habit. I’m telling your graces; from the moment I began to serve God, and saw what evil there is in forswearing oneself, I grew very afraid indeed, and out of fear I applied the brakes to this old, old, habit.” Sermon 180:10:1, p. 320.

Sermons 151-183 (Works of Saint Augustine), New City Press (1993), ISBN-10: 1565480074 ISBN-13: 978-1565480070

If you like, you can read most of the above sermon here, courtesy of Google books.

---

---

St. Augustine:

I, whom by God’s grace you see before you as your bishop, came to this city as a young man, {6} many of you know that. I was looking for a Place to establish a monastery, and live there with my brothers.

I had in fact left behind all worldly hopes, and I did not wish to be what I could have been; {7} nor, however, was I seeking to be what I am now. I have chosen to be a nobody in the house of my God, rather than to dwell in the tents of sinners (Ps 84:10). I separated myself from those who love the world; but I did not put myself on an equal footing with those who preside over Churches. {8}

Nor did I choose a higher place at the banquet of my Lord, but a lower, insignificant one; and he was pleased to say to me, Go up higher (Lk 14:10). So much, though, did I dread the episcopate, that since I had already begun to acquire a reputation of some weight among the servants of God, I wouldn’t go near a place where I knew there was no bishop. {9}

I avoided this job, and did everything I could to assure my salvation in a lowly position, and not to incur the grave risks of a high one. But, as I said, a servant ought not to oppose his Lord. I came to this city to see a friend, whom I thought I could gain for God, to join us in the monastery. It seemed safe enough, because the place had a bishop. {10} I was caught, I was made a priest, {11} and by this grade eventually came to the episcopate. – St. Augustine, Sermon 355:2:2, p. 166.

The Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century, III / 10, Sermons (341-400), Edmund Hill, O.P., tr., John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., 1995, New City Press, Hyde Park, New York, ISBN 1565480287

books.google.com/books?id=iE30Zob4v98C&pg=PA165&dq=%22I+was+looking+for+a+Place+to+establish+a+monastery%22&lr=#PPA166,M1

 

[LilyM]

“Perpetually sinless?” No, that would indeed require an extraordinary grace! But surely you do believe that we can avoid, at least some sins - perpetually? I mean, you haven’t been knocking off any banks lately, have you? LOL

True - but I have used vulgar (not blasphemous - not involving misusing the Lord’s name or anything - but vulgar) expressions in moments of extreme provocation. Each person has their weaknesses, food is one of mine as it was for St Thomas Aquinas, and the very occasional use of profanity is another. Don’t presume that yours are the same as another person’s.

Nevertheless, if I, with all my many faults and failings, am offended by rude jokes and bad language, I would certainly expect that the Good Lord, His Spotless Mother, and all his holy angels and saints must be also!

I’m sure Our Lord was offended by all sin while He was on earth - didn’t stop Him for a moment from associating with sinners though, did it? In fact did He not say He particularly came to seek the lost because they needed Him more?

I seem to remember one of the first things Our Lady did was correct a minor failing of Bernadette’s - she taught Bernadette to make the sign of the cross slowly and prayerfully. I must admit sometimes I myself am a bit too quick and heedless when I bless myself, and when I catch myself I think of that story.

Hmmm…not sure just what you mean about Augustine’s “earthy humanity,” but it might be instructive to hear what he himself has to say, not so much about vulgarity, but about swearing:

By ‘earthy humanity’ I mean he was very frank and open in his admissions of his own sinfulness - perhaps I’ve read too many second-hand accounts of saints’ lives which make them look positively inhumanly perfect.

And St Augustine firstly starts off by saying swearing is not a sin :extrahappy: and secondly seems to be talking about ‘swearing’ in the sense of making formal oaths (which some people do too often and too lightly) rather than the use of vulgar or blasphemous language.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

True - but I have used vulgar (not blasphemous - not involving misusing the Lord’s name or anything - but vulgar) expressions in moments of extreme provocation. Each person has their weaknesses, food is one of mine as it was for St Thomas Aquinas, and the very occasional use of profanity is another.

I’ve been known to have a weakness for food myself!

Don’t presume that yours are the same as another person’s.

Well, of course!

I’m sure Our Lord was offended by all sin while He was on earth - didn’t stop Him for a moment from associating with sinners though, did it? In fact did He not say He particularly came to seek the lost because they needed Him more?

Yes, yes, all very true! But I seem to recall one reason in particular for his coming to this earth - to teach us how to be, you know, perfect.

“Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.” Matt. 5:48

And although few but the greatest saints actually come close to absolute perfection in this life, still, that is what we all are called to achieve, that is what we all should strive for, that is the goal of the Christian life. But alas, I do know how difficult the way, and how *easy * it is to fall - Alas.

God could have saved us, after all, without our involvement or knowledge. But instead he chose to redeem us in part by teaching us how to live the example of his own Son, and that of his saints and martyrs, and by doing so, gave redemptive value to our sufferings, our moral struggles, and our good works.

I seem to remember one of the first things Our Lady did was correct a minor failing of Bernadette’s - she taught Bernadette to make the sign of the cross slowly and prayerfully. I must admit sometimes I myself am a bit too quick and heedless when I bless myself, and when I catch myself I think of that story.

Ah, there, you see! The Spotless Virgin wishes to correct even our “minor” failings!

By ‘earthy humanity’ I mean he was very frank and open in his admissions of his own sinfulness - perhaps I’ve read too many second-hand accounts of saints’ lives which make them look positively inhumanly perfect.

Augustine was indeed open about his own sinfulness! But he also taught the need to avoid sin, as best we can, remember to do good works (help the poor for ex.), live grace filled lives, and perhaps most importantly, never despair of God’s great mercy!

The following little snippets are from my Augustine notes. Excepting the first one, they can be found online, so you can follow up if you like. They’ll give you a general idea of where he’s coming from on sin.

“after all, not to sin afterword is in their power” Sermon 97:3:2, p. 41.

“…by living purely and without sin, they might become like God.” NG, 77, p. 256

“Sin can be avoided, but it is avoided with the help of him who cannot be deceived. NG 67:80, p. 257

NG= Nature and Grace.

Answer To The Pelagians I (Works of Saint Augustine) (Pt. 1), New City Press (2003) ISBN-10: 1565480929 ISBN-13: 978-1565480926

books.google.com/books?id=veOaGZnGSUUC&pg=PA256&dq=%22by+living+purely+and+without+sin,+they+might+become+like+God%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2009&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=XaXDScWkHab0ygSBjpDaDQ&client=firefox

And St Augustine firstly starts off by saying swearing is not a sin :extrahappy: and secondly seems to be talking about ‘swearing’ in the sense of making formal oaths (which some people do too often and too lightly) rather than the use of vulgar or blasphemous language.

Holy smoke (a.k.a. incense), I think I just made somebody’s day! LOL!

 

[Filioque]

Well my two cents. While there are a few saints who remained holy and who sought to do the will of God throughout their lives. Many, did not. What made the difference was how their lives became influenced by and bound to God at some point in their lives and to the end.

St. Thomas More was a Lawyer, and good friend of Henry VIII, (the king was not known for his subtlety) Henry had replied to Luther with his book, ‘Defense of the Seven Sacraments’ which got for him the award from the Pope of Defensor Fidae, or Defender of the Faith. More and anyone who wanted to meet with the king’s favor would also want to attack Luther’s errors. Later Henry broke with the Pope and More declined to take the oath which would prove his fidelity to the King as the Head of the Church of England. More refused and was later martyred for his upholding the Faith. While he was not a bad Catholic prior to Henry’s break, being forced to decide if he would retain the Original Faith, or cave into the King and his new Church is what made him a Saint. He at the end stood up not as a good Catholic, but as a Great Catholic, and example to us all.

As Catholics we can hope, no matter what our past lives have been like that we can advance spiritually and morally through the graces Jesus gives to us in the Sacraments, and picking ourselves up and dusting ourselves off in the Confessional.

 

[GKC]

Well my two cents. While there are a few saints who remained holy and who sought to do the will of God throughout their lives. Many, did not. What made the difference was how their lives became influenced by and bound to God at some point in their lives and to the end.

St. Thomas More was a Lawyer, and good friend of Henry VIII, (the king was not known for his subtlety) Henry had replied to Luther with his book, ‘Defense of the Seven Sacraments’ which got for him the award from the Pope of Defensor Fidae, or Defender of the Faith. More and anyone who wanted to meet with the king’s favor would also want to attack Luther’s errors. Later Henry broke with the Pope and More declined to take the oath which would prove his fidelity to the King as the Head of the Church of England. More refused and was later martyred for his upholding the Faith. While he was not a bad Catholic prior to Henry’s break, being forced to decide if he would retain the Original Faith, or cave into the King and his new Church is what made him a Saint. He at the end stood up not as a good Catholic, but as a Great Catholic, and example to us all.

As Catholics we can hope, no matter what our past lives have been like that we can advance spiritually and morally through the graces Jesus gives to us in the Sacraments, and picking ourselves up and dusting ourselves off in the Confessional.

The story of how Hank got the title, is, as I often say, a little more complicated than just the tale of the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. Fun, too.

More, also a fascinating man, was indeed complicated.

GKC

 

[Filioque]

The story of how Hank got the title, is, as I often say, a little more complicated than just the tale of the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. Fun, too.

More, also a fascinating man, was indeed complicated.

Bandwidth and arthritis in my hands and fingers, require a synopsis. Books have been filled with the history. My favorite from Catholic Authors, are Msgr. Philip Hughes (three vol set) on the History of the Reformation in England, (Msgr. Hughes, as you GKC probably know started his clerical life as an Anglican, and swam the Tiber.) And the series by Theodore Maynard, on the major personalities of the English Reformation. Maynard also a convert to Rome pulls no punches, even when he writes about the failures on the Roman side.

P.S. Walsingham Guild has reprinted the english version of Henry VIII’s book. I’ve never read it, and will save up my shillings to get it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Anyway, here goes…(Luther, of course, is the “scoundrel” to whom More refers).

And again:

The unfiltered version of these quotes, for anyone interested, can be found at Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More#Religious_polemics

Finally, I was going to recommend everyone buy and read this very interesting and important work for himself, but as can be seen below, it’s a bit on the pricey side! Better probably to do what I did - just go to the library.

The Yale Edition of The Complete Works of St. Thomas More: Volume 5, Responsio ad Lutherum, John Headly, ed., Yale University Press (September 10, 1969), ISBN-10: 0300011237,ISBN-13: 978-0300011234

amazon.com/Yale-Complete-Works-Thomas-More/dp/0300011237

I like St Thomas More, and being a person who struggles with a colorful vocabulary, I like him even more. Perhaps he can be our patron for foul language. Helping to overcome, that is.

 

[GKC]

Bandwidth and arthritis in my hands and fingers, require a synopsis. Books have been filled with the history. My favorite from Catholic Authors, are Msgr. Philip Hughes (three vol set) on the History of the Reformation in England, (Msgr. Hughes, as you GKC probably know started his clerical life as an Anglican, and swam the Tiber.) And the series by Theodore Maynard, on the major personalities of the English Reformation. Maynard also a convert to Rome pulls no punches, even when he writes about the failures on the Roman side.

P.S. Walsingham Guild has reprinted the english version of Henry VIII’s book. I’ve never read it, and will save up my shillings to get it.

Yep. I have several of his books. I would dearly love his 3 vols. on the English Church, but even for a rabid bibliophile such as I’m, that would require saving up a little. But some day. Maynard I do not have. I shall immediately look him up. Right now there are only 2 books actively on order. Something must be done about that.

Our Mary shrine is an image of OL of Walsingham. A propos of nothing in particular.

Your pardon, but do you mean that you would like the tale of Hank and his title?

GKC

 

[TheWhoFreak]

Wait, are you guys saying that foul language isn’t sin if it’s not used in a false oath?

 

[LilyM]

Wait, are you guys saying that foul language isn’t sin if it’s not used in a false oath?

Not all foul language is created equal to say the least. So yes, there are differences in sinfulness.

You can distinguish, for example, between mere vulgarities (pss, sht, fk, words that refer to parts of the body etc) and blasphemy (words like dn, misuses of the names of Our Lord and Our Lady and so on). Only the latter consitute breach the commandment not to take the name of the Lord in vain - or else constitute an expressed wish for someone’s damnation which is equally grave. There’s really no reason why the former class of swearwords, not breaching this command, would be grave sins.

The former, while they are undignified and unbecoming of a Christian, and for the most part sinful for those reasons, are probably not sinful in certain contexts (like I said, extreme provocation, dropping a hammer on your toe, etc).

 

[TheWhoFreak]

Oh thanks!

 

[raumzeitmc2]

We read of St Bernadette sometimes telling rude jokes …

Well to date, I’ve found nothing even hinting at Bernadette ever telling a rude joke.

Maybe someone else knows something about this?

---

“Let us rejoice and give thanks. Not only are we become Christians, but we are become Christ. My brothers, do you understand the grace of God that is given us? Wonder, rejoice, for we are made Christ! If He is the Head, and we the members, then together He and we are the whole man.” - St. Augustine, Homily on John 21.
The Whole Christ, Emile Mersch, p. 415. P. L., Vol. 35, 1568.

“Let us rejoice, then, and give thanks that we are made not only Christians, but Christ.”
The works of Aurelius Augustine: A new translation, 1873, Volume 10, p. 304.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

You all are tied up in knotts about changes in the acceptability of some words in English. Nowadays, we don’t say these words in polite company, but we all say them, all of us. In Henry VIII’s time and in Elizabethan times, these words were in common use.

To accuse Sir Thomas More of vulgarity is really petty and silly and well…(I shall not drift into the language standards of another time).

A few months back, I *documented *on this forum Luther’s use of foul language (not surprisingly, it wasn’t my most warmly received post. Again, I am very sorry if I offended anyone. And again, I want to emphasize: I’m only interested in documented historical facts, not silly sensationalism.).

Anyway, I was recently shocked to learn that St. Thomas More himself, also used much the same kind of foul language as did Luther!

In his Response to Luther, St. Thomas More resorted to - albeit very occasionally - the use of very unsaintly language!

Now I’ve heard it said that the use of such coarse language was somewhat justified on the basis of the times. But hmmm…somehow, I don’t find that very convincing. But I’d like to hear others opinions.

So friends (both Catholic or Protestant), what do you think; is anyone ever justified in using such foul language, even in the heat of controversy?

I’ve posted a sampling of More’ language below (you never know when something might disappear from Wikipedia!). The last two quotes are from the Wikipedia article on More, section on Religious polemics. The first quote I found after having just recently read More’s Responsio for myself.

But before going further, I’d like to emphasize the fact that, while More does indeed come down very strongly on Luther throughout this work, having now read the work for myself, I can honestly say that the vast majority of More’s words are nowhere near the egregious nature of the following. And yes, there are a few more rough statements, but again, they are the exception, not the rule.

Anyway, here goes…(Luther, of course, is the “scoundrel” to whom More refers).

And again:

The unfiltered version of these quotes, for anyone interested, can be found at Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More#Religious_polemics

Finally, I was going to recommend everyone buy and read this very interesting and important work for himself, but as can be seen below, it’s a bit on the pricey side! Better probably to do what I did - just go to the library.

The Yale Edition of The Complete Works of St. Thomas More: Volume 5, Responsio ad Lutherum, John Headly, ed., Yale University Press (September 10, 1969), ISBN-10: 0300011237,ISBN-13: 978-0300011234

amazon.com/Yale-Complete-Works-Thomas-More/dp/0300011237

 

[Palaeologos]

Agreed. It is a mistake to judge 16th-century discourse by 21st-century rules. Imagine if he were to look at us and judge our 21st-century dress by his 16th-century rules.

DaveBj

Thank you, Dave. This is spot on.

Anyone else who has trouble with this would do well to read the Authorized Version of the Bible, specifically the eleventh verse of the sixteenth chapter of the first Book of the Kings!

 

[Palaeologos]

Wait, are you guys saying that foul language isn’t sin if it’s not used in a false oath?

The foul language in itself isn’t a sin. Insulting another person is a sin, and vulgarity that scandalizes others is a sin. But a collection of phonemes can’t of itself be sinful. There’s no difference between calling it “excrement” on the one hand and using a more Anglo-Saxon word on the other, unless by using the latter you’re offending someone.

 

[adstrinity]

I had replies to all of these, but, this thread is a year old.

The comedian Lewis Black, in less than clean terms, said that profanity is what keeps normal people from picking up a tire iron and beating the **** out of each other.

Mark Twain once said that at times there is a comfort in profanity that is denied even to prayer.

Or as my wife’s grandmother said, “Sometimes a ‘shucky darn’ just isn’t enough.”

I don’t think I’ve heard those lines since my 10th grade English class, but they still ring a bell. (If I remember the tale right, the “mustache” line came before the other.)

Fe, Fie, Foe and Fum are blasphemous curses that are now part of a fairy tail.

And just between us, don’t nothing get me into sinful thoughts like a end-table leg with a naked chicken leg on the table

 

[Student09]

I followed the Wikipedia link … I think it’s been a while since I laughed so hard. Anyway, it demonstrates that St. Thomas More was a human being and felt things passionately.

 

[KathleenGee]

St. Thomas More’s language sounded like English literary upper class ‘guy talk’.

There were references to where Martin Luther was when he had his inspirations…I don’t want to go there either.

You can go back to several centuries…but this time, you can hear a woman talk trash…
St. Catherine of Siena and she was referring to the ecclesiastics of her time…‘You worm!..’…‘their offering a stench to heaven…’

I have heard it said that American Catholics are ‘Jansenistic’.

I don’t like my kids At All talking trash or being crude in my house. But my one son knows a priest who was in the military…and tried to get me to believe that the priest most likely talked trash in his past. I must admit, if he had not had a vocation to the priesthood, had a girlfriend, she could have called him, ‘Killer’. He still looks like he can beat somebody up.

I think people meditate too long in churches and see all these holy images…but it is best to meditate on God where you live most of your time… Real Life.

Time to ‘Get a Life!’

 

[DaveBj]

Thank you, Dave. This is spot on.

Anyone else who has trouble with this would do well to read the Authorized Version of the Bible, specifically the eleventh verse of the sixteenth chapter of the first Book of the Kings!

You don’t have to go to the KJV; look at that same verse (and several others) in the D-R. (Bear in mind that I Kings in the KJV is III Kings in the D-R).

DaveBj