He was banned for cursing someone who could very well be in the state of grace -- namely, me.

As many of you know, it is a mortal sin to curse someone in the state of grace. That is why we shouldn't curse anyone -- we can't read the state of people's souls. And if there is ANY DOUBT that the person might be in the friendship of God, you dare not curse them! How dare we curse someone whom God has blessed?

He formally consigned me to the fires of hell. I figured that was a pretty clear-cut line he crossed.

  Not to disagree but just a question:
Are curses really granted? I mean does God take it serious and listen to the one who curses?

Can we bring his holiness back? He has got to be my favourite internet personality of all time. Truely great value. Some of the funniest stuff I have read in a long time. He added character to the forum. Those who took hime seriously need a personality transplant.

Can we bring his holiness back? He has got to be my favourite internet personality of all time. Truely great value. Some of the funniest stuff I have read in a long time. He added character to the forum. Those who took hime seriously need a personality transplant.

I agree with you -- up until the point he went too far.

When a person starts cursing someone (to the lowest pits of Hell, if I'm not mistaken -- I only skimmed the curse, but Judas was mentioned...) it's no longer funny.

Are curses really granted? I mean does God take it serious and listen to the one who curses?

This is an interesting question, and ought to be a thread unto itself.

I believe that there is a distinction to be made between a vulgar expletive cried out loud as a knee-jerk reaction in a moment of anger or frustration, and the act of will whereby one deliberately wishes ill to another and expresses this act in words or gestures. This latter act is a mortal sin, depending on the gravity of the ill in question, and the sin is even more grave if this act of will constitutes the final cause of an act of superstitious ritual.

God regards such maledictions insofar as they are a transgression committed against His laws and an injury against His sanctity and justice.

Sometimes, I think, God permits the realization of such maledictions in order to test the virtue of those individuals against whom a curse was pronounced, or in order to manifest the imminent reprobation of the one who pronounced the curse (if he does not repent and repair the damage of his sin). Sometimes the apostate Angels are allowed to interfere when their assistance is sought by the sinner in question for the same purpose. This is to manifest the omnipotence of God, Who can draw greater good from evil and thus punish the demons with the humiliating reminder of their ultimate powerlessness and absurdity.

When it comes to anathemas pronounced by (real) clerics according to the rituals of liturgical books and disiplinary norms (as when a Oecuмenical Council issues an anathema against those who deny a defined doctrine, or the famous anathema pronounced by the Bishop in the rite of the Consecration of Virgins found in the Roman Pontifical), it is an entirely different case. God does indeed regard these necessary maledictions both as a medicinal means to lead the transgressors to penance rather than to well-deserved reprobation, or as a means to manifest His zeal for the integrity and sanctity of Holy Mother Church.