Saint Thomas More regarding Martin Luther:

"Luther is a person in whose pen there is nothing but calumnies, lies and deceptions; in whose spirit there is nothing but venom, bombast and ill will; who conceives nothing in his mind but folly, madness, and insanity; who has nothing in his mouth but privies, filth and dung .... But if he proceeds to play the buffoon in the manner in which he has begun, and to rave madly, if he proceeds to rage with calumny, to mouth trifling nonsense, to act like a raging madman, to make sport with buffoonery, and to carry nothing in his mouth but bilge-water, sewers, privies, filth and dung, then let others do what they will; we will take timely counsel, whether we wish to deal with the fellow thus ranting according to his virtue and to paint with his colors, or to leave this mad friarlet and privy-minded rascal with his ragings and ravings, with his filth and dung, shitting and beshitted."

      :roll-laugh2:   :roll-laugh1:  :applause:  :shocked:  :pop:

 

Yes, you are right!!! SORRY!

 

 :plant:

I think the great St. Thomas More chewing out the arch-heretic and Satan's own son, Martin Luther, is on a whole different level than a poster on a Catholic Internet forum flinging around profanity at another poster over a disagreement on economics or canon law.

Or are St. Paul's comments to the Ephesians not to be taken seriously?

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: [4] Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. [5] For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

from http://drbo.org/chapter/56005.htm

I think the great St. Thomas More chewing out the arch-heretic and Satan's own son, Martin Luther, is on a whole different level than a poster on a Catholic Internet forum flinging around profanity at another poster over a disagreement on economics or canon law.

Or are St. Paul's comments to the Ephesians not to be taken seriously?

Quote

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: [4] Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. [5] For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

from http://drbo.org/chapter/56005.htm

There had been rending of garments in the St. Mary's Kansas thread, due to my earthy description of someone.

The irony is that I think you may have also used this term, but in your case there was no rending of garments.

Bumping for the sake of arguing the sinful/non-sinful nature of vulgarity.

Discuss if you are so inclined.

While you are welcome to your opinion about the sinfulness of vulgarity, in and of itself, your opinion is both wrong and at variance with what moral theologians have said on the matter.  I do not offer that as a defense or excuse, but because it is the truth.  Cheerio :)

Quote from: gunfighter

Saints are not sinless, so quoting St. Thomas does not mean his speech was not sinful. That being said, using vulgar terms are usually only venial sins. That does not mean that they are proper for civil conversation.

Venial sins are NEVER proper in any situation, regardless of the audience and setting. I think you need to do some research on this question as you appear to be giving us your entirely uniformed opinion.

The operative term was "usually."

With all due respect, I do not consider you the authority on moral theology.  When I get a chance, I will check a source I trust.  If I am wrong, I will correct myself.

Notwithstanding, Mr. SJB, the catechism teacher, was commenting on venial sins.  He twisted my statement to imply I advocate venial sins.  I was simply correcting him on his error in comprehension.