Cussin'?

A reader writes:

I guess my first question is: Are there situations where consciously swearing is not a sin?

First we need to give a brief taxonomy of what commonly goes by the name of "swearing" or "cussing" or other use of "bad language." Though people lump all this under one heading, there are several distinctions here that are relevant.

The first distinction is between profanity and everything else.

Profanity is treating what is sacred as if it is not. For example, using the name of Jesus Christ as an expletive.

In addition to profanity, there are several other forms of tabooed language, which can be classified several different ways. Among them are:

• Malediction, or wishing someone or some thing ill, such as saying "God damn it" or "Devil take the hindmost" or "Go to hell." (The first of these may also count as profanity but does not necessarily for reasons that will become clear. The latter two are not profanity since the devil and hell are not sacred.)
• Vulgarity, or the kind of language that would be used by "the common people" (Latin, vulgus) but not in polite society. Into this category go tabooed scatalogical, anatomical, and sexual terms.
• Slurs, or derogatory ways of referring to people or things. These may be terms applying to a particular religious or ethnic group (fill in your own examples mentally–not in the combox!) or terms referring to personal dispositions (e.g., "He’s a jerk" or "He’s a nerd").

Now, the question was: Can these forms of language ever be used without it being a sin?

The simple answer is: Yes.

Here are two examples:

1. Suppose that you are an actor in a play or movie and the script calls for you to use such language. As long as the play or movie is not glamorizing or otherwise endorsing the use of such language, it is morally licit for the actors to utter the lines. It is understood (on the above conditions) both by the actors and the audience that the language is not meant in earnest but is a depiction of how certain people (e.g., the vulgar) speak. For example: Many locales have Passion Plays in which the crowd present in front of Pilate cries "Crucify him!" Now, in real life this would be a species of profanity (specifically: it would be blasphemy; CCC 2149). But it is not blasphemous when uttered by actors who are in fact devout Christians and do not mean it and who are depicting the events of Our Lord’s life. Neither, for that matter, is it sinful when a lector reads these words at Mass.
2. Some slurs, such as "jerk" are mild (i.e., weakly tabooed at best) and do not carry a huge emotional load. They also can be useful shorthand. "Jerk," for example is simply shorthand for "an obnoxious person." If it is true that someone is behaving in an obnoxious manner then it is perfectly within bounds to say "He was acting like a jerk."

Having answered the initial question as phrased, let’s go on to the reader’s elaboration of the subject:

I can see where swearing at someone would be a sin because of the anger behind the words but in that case it is a sin of anger, right? Or is the swearing itself sinful as well? What if the anger were just? Obviously it would be a sin if the swearing were somehow taking the Lord’s name in vain.

Obviously. But it seems that two things would be in play here. The first is the anger. Emotions themselves are not sinful. What can be sinful is how we react to our emotions. If we foster anger when we should be trying to cool it, that is a sin. If we undertake an evil action based on our anger (e.g., attacking someone we’re angry with), that also is a sin. But the emotion itself is not sinful.

If one is feeling an emotion–be it anger, frustration, awe, surprise, or what have you–there is nothing wrong in principle with expressing that emotion. One can do this either discursively (e.g., "I am remarkably angry at the moment, old chap") or by the use of an interjection if the interjection is not otherwise problematic.

In the case of using God’s name as an interjection, this gets us to the second element in play. The name of God is not a fitting interjection for use when we are angry. It is sacred and should not  be used simply to communicate what we are feeling at the moment. That is a misuse of the name.

This is not to say that God cannot be brought in to emotional expression. Of course, he can be. If you say "Praise God!" when something good happens, and you really mean that you want someone to praise (or at least attribute mentally credit to) God for the good thing, that’s no problem at all.

In principle, the same could be true of maledictions against evil things. For example, on 9/11 after the Twin Towers fell, many in America could have literally meant the malediction "God damn Osama bin Laden." That’s not automatically sinful since Osama bin Laden committed acts objectively worthy of damnation by God.

Saying "God damn Osama bin Laden" thus represents a wish that Osama would experience the just rewards of his actions. One has to hold out hope, even for bin Laden, that he will repent and not be damned, or that he was too crazy to be accountable for his actions, but so long as those are not the case, it is entirely appropriate to wish to see divine justice accomplished in his case.

God himself is willing to damn those who culpably do things like Osama bin Laden did, and if God is willing to do so (as the Church teaches) then it is not sinful for us to make our own what God is willing to do, as long as we also make our own the other things God is willing to do (like not damn Osama if he repents or if he was too crazy to be culpable for his actions).

In this case, the justified anger experienced by the attack of 9/11 finds expression in an utterance expressing this emotion and corresponding to reality (Osama bin Laden is damnworthy) on the appropriate assumptions (e.g., he is gravely culpable for his actions).

The reader continues:

And what if you were not swearing at someone but just let out an expletive in a situation of surprise or dismay?

If you just let an expletive slip out without it being a fully deliberate utterance then it affects your personal culpability for the action. Assuming that the use of the expletive was not otherwise morally permissible (e.g., like saying "God damn Osama bin Laden" in the wake of 9/11) then one will be venially accountable for it if it were done with partial deliberation and non-accountable for it is it were done with no deliberation.

Also, does it matter how coarse the word is considered? When I was a kid, I got scolded once the parents of a friend because I used the word "damn". At the time I really thought it to be equivalent to "darn".

It does matter how strong the taboo associated with the word is perceived to be. This is in two respects: how strong the speaker perceives the taboo to be and how strong the language community considers the taboo to be.

For purposes of illustrating this point, though, let’s prescind from talking about profanity and talk about non-profane tabooed words. In this case the issue of profaning the sacred is not involved. What is involved is the question of whether and in what circumstances it is okay to be break a social taboo–a convention of the linguistic community–not whether the sacred is being violated.

F’rinstance: I have a friend whose native language is an east Asian tongue but who came to America to go to college, where she heard a lot of college-age language. Not being a native-speaker of English, she didn’t have a native’s feel for what words were tabooed and how much. She didn’t even necessarily hear correctly what was being said.

Thus one day years ago I was talking to her in a chatroom and she described a particular software application as "a piece of crab."

I just about died laughing.

She obviously had misheard something from her English-speaking college friends. As members of the vulgus, they no doubt used a particular, well-known expression a great deal as a way of describing things of poor quality. My friend, not being a native-speaker, misheard the expression and thought it was customary in English to refer to things of poor quality using a seafood metaphor.

She was, appropriately, horrified when–so that she wouldn’t use this phrase again in polite company–I clarified for her what the actual phrase was and explained that it was tabooed. (Once she understood what the original phrase was, she also understood why it was tabooed.)

My friend didn’t perceive the taboo in the word, and that would have correspondingly negated her culpability for using it–assuming she’d used it correctly.

What if everyone felt that way? What is everybody (or at least the language community as a whole) didn’t perceive the taboo? Then there would be no taboo and it would not be inappropriate to use the word.

It’s important to realize that the taboos associated with words, like the meaning of words themselves, are arbitrary. They are assigned by society and thus not intrinsic to the word. For example: Think through a list of biological words that are tabooed. In each case (assuming that your vocabulary size is normal), you should be able to think of another word that means exactly the same thing but is not tabooed (or that is at least much less strongly tabooed).

The taboo levels of words also change over time. For example, back in the 1950s the word "pregnant" had a form of taboo associated with it that it simply lacks today. When Lucille Ball got pregnant while the series I Love Lucy was on the air, the producers decided not to hide the pregnancy (as some TV shows do) but they wanted to make sure that they didn’t offend audience sensibilities.

To cover themselves, they consulted several religious leaders (the proverbial priest, minister, and rabbi, if I remember correctly) and got several terms that could be used to refer to Lucy’s condition ("expecting" and the French word for "pregnant," as I recall), but the religious figures agree that she should not be referred to on the air as "pregnant." That word was too indelicate.

Today, whatever taboo was affecting the use of "pregnant" in this case is simply gone. As a result, people can and do say "pregnant" on TV with no moral impropriety at all.

Taboo levels thus change over time. They go up and down based on social mores.

But when a word is tabooed by a language community, and to the degree it is tabooed, it should be avoided apart from special circumstances warranting its use. The impulse to put taboos on words corresponds to something very deep in the human psyche. Every language community has them. They are bound up with politeness codes and when one uses them in circumstances where the taboo applies, one is being impolite.

Being impolite, in turn, causes a rupture in social discourse, tends to create feelings of pain and anger and revulsion, and these feelings should not be thoughtlessly or deliberately created without adequate reason. Sometimes, though, there are situations in which being impolite is warranted, and there may be a good to be achieved that allows the breaking of a social taboo.

The general rule, however, is what St. Paul articulates:

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen (Eph. 4:29, NIV).