The good Sisters who taught me in grade school knew how to use language correctly.
One of my earliest teachers was a Franciscan Sister. As a first-grade teacher, she was very practical. I still remember several of her lessons in detail. She was exceptionally good at explaining things in ways a child could understand.
Once she talked about how the devil enjoys tricking people into sin. She used the parallel of receiving a beautifully wrapped present, complete with ribbon and bow. I vividly remember picturing a crimson foil wrapped box in my mind as she described the package. Once unwrapped, however, all one finds is a rotten apple, bruised, moldy, and taut with the stench of decay.
Manipulating Language
This lesson holds true in today’s modern world. The packaging may be different, but the comparison is identical.
Beverage cans and bottles display the number of fluid ounces. Ounces have a fixed definition that protects the consumer from being cheated. The language is clear. But one must actually understand what ounces are.
When ordering drinks at a fast-food drive through, however, ounces are irrelevant. The common language is small, medium, and large. And some companies have even dispensed with small and only offer medium, large, and supersize. What does medium really mean? How many ounces is ‘large?’
Still other companies have created whole new language for their drink sizes. Medium and large are replaced with terms like tall or venti.
The language used in not by accident. Businesses are deliberately trying to manipulate consumers to improve sales. Companies are selling ‘the perception of more’ masked in imaginative language.
Packaging Sin in Handsome Language
Products are not the only thing being sold to us. Opinions, philosophies, and even sin are peddled to society.
In today’s world, every sin is packaged in very handsome language. It seems the devil has enlisted the aid of the greatest marketing and public relations firms to transform the ugliness of mortal sin into language that sounds warm and welcoming.
After years of incremental creep, the meaning of words has changed. In numerous cases, the narrative is entrenched so deeply that calling a sin by its rightful name has itself become a sin in the modern world. One need not look far to find many examples.
Pro-Choice as a Case Study
Do you know anyone against choice? I don’t. No one is against choice. Even God gives us a choice to follow Him or to deny Him.
In today’s world, when someone says they are pro-choice, the language sets a tone of moral superiority. Choice is established as freedom given to us by God.
But what does pro-choice mean? Does it mean you can choose to send your children to Catholic schools? No. Does it mean you can choose to get married and start a family? Again no. Does it mean you can choose to put your baby up for adoption if you do not have the means to care the child? Wrong again. Let us take another hot button topic. Does it mean you can choose to carry a firearm legally for sport or self-defense? Absolutely not! Of course, pro-choice really only applies to abortion. So, if it means only one choice, it’s really not choice at all.
It should be no surprise that the one who first denied God has conspired in this world to mask the sin of murdering unborn children with the language of “choice.” This is no accident.
Gay as a Second Case Study
Sometimes the definition of a word is intentionally twisted to mean something it did not. The first time I heard the word gay was in the theme song of the Flintstones cartoon. At the time, I did not know what it meant to “have a gay old time.” My parents told me it meant happy, merry, keenly alive, exuberant. This is how the word was defined in their 1930’s era dictionaries.
During the last half of the 20th century, a swing occurred. My 1984 edition of Webster’s dictionary lists 3 definitions for the word gay. The first 2 definitions were about being happy or bright. The third definition listed was a single word – homosexual.
In today’s Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first definition reads, “of, relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to people of one’s same sex.” The first meaning of “gay” has been redefined in the last 50 years.
The word Homosexual is very clear. Gay, however, sounds much more positive and has displaced the former.
When looking closer at the current definition of gay, one finds that the word homosexual is completely omitted. If gay is the replacement word for homosexual, why not use it in the definition? The only reason can be to conceal its true nature.
Other Examples
These are only two examples in a lengthy list. The whole contrived dispute of gender is ripe with illustrations.
Sometimes the manipulation of words is a bait and switch like replacing the phrase freedom of religion with freedom to worship. In this case, a similar sounding phrase was injected into public discourse with an intentionally different meaning. Catholics can ‘worship’ as they wish, but don’t actually ‘practice’ the principles of your religion in the public square.
How does one combat this? One of the priests in my parish has often said that we must name our sins during confession and not be cowards hiding behind vague language.
This option is a possible approach when engaging others. We must be polite and loving without conceding to sin. Our mission is to extend a hand and pull people away from the fires of hell. Part of our challenge is to speak to them in a way in which they will want to reach back to us, to grasp our hand, and leave sin behind them. This is difficult when someone is convinced that their actions are not sinful.
Politely Stating the True Definition
I recently learned that a close friend’s son is homosexual. My friend has embraced the sin and vehemently defends this behavior. Apparently he loves his son more than God.
I did not bring this up, however, I would not affirm his position when pressed. I stated that I thought choosing homosexual behavior was sinful. He was upset by this, and the fact that I used the word homosexual as opposed to gay or having pride. He said the word homosexual is insulting. I told him I did not understand why. I am not insulted when someone says I am heterosexual. If he is proud of that behavior then way not be proud of the word?
This very awkward discussion went on for over an hour. Fortunately, both of us remained calm. This was really a challenge, especially when he accused me of condoning the killing of homosexuals in muslin countries because I would not concede that homosexual behavior was acceptable. I reminded him that murder was a sin, just as adultery. That sparked a tangent discussion on adultery and the sacrament of marriage.
We are still friends, but I suspect that this topic will come up again. I am glad that I was blessed with calm because I believe I will have the opportunity to be a witness again. A shouting match would have ended any chance to witness Catholic teaching.
Uncomfortable Conversations
Standing up for the Faith can be extremely uncomfortable. Keeping discussions polite without conceding can be difficult. Both are necessary, however, if the goal is to bring others to Christ.
Such conversations are part of the spiritual works of mercy. It is our duty to admonish the sinner, instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful, bear wrongs patiently, forgive injuries, comfort the sorrowful, and pray for the living and the dead. Sometimes the trouble with our friends is not that they’re ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.
12 thoughts on “Controlling Language to Hide Sin”
Good expose…
And I’ll bet you have a black and white dog too. Sorry to disappoint.
Thanks for taking one on the chin J Man and throwing that uppercut which is a bigger challenge. Was it a sin in the 12th century for the RC church to start an insurrection that tortured and maimed ten of thousands of people because they believed something the church considered worthy of death ? Maybe not. You see, the 2nd condition for sin is that you must know it is wrong. Would it be a sin today ? Oh ya, you’d end up at the Hague for crimes against humanity. What changed ? Our conscientiousness was raised and with that we could no longer revert to our old selves. Now to premarital sex – are two hetero persons whose wanton passions cause them to risk pregnancy and (say , most likely the woman) the emotional trauma after the fact when the guy gets up and leaves her cold. Yes, no matter what century it is. Say a 43 year old man and woman who’ve been celibate
for years due to the emotional trauma of divorce or rejection meet on a cruise ship. And, in a short while experience a mature bond and love them that sees them sharing marital intimacy which (in many instances) goes on to become permanent devotion – is that a sin ? Not even close compared to the former example. Do you see all the degrees ? Now to something that started so long ago that even a man I enjoy reading didn’t want to take a stab at … who taught whom when taken to the alpha point … all because the implications troubled his blood. Are two gay persons in a bar anxiously looking to spend their lust at any cost with no intention of respect, continuity or emotion guilty of a much worse sin than two persons in a committed relationship for 25 years ? What do you think ? After
30 years of gay adoptions which I once vehemently opposed, the expected flood of child molestation which righteous people predicted, because all homo’s (your term) are surely
pedophiles ( your ignorance ) has not yielded results. Are these trans folks really that whacked out to think they are the opposite gender ? I don’t know. I don’t walk in their shoes. Of course, if this is some trendy shift to find another reality they’ve miscalculated, oh the misery their lives will become and word will get out they were nothing but ignorant fools to take such a chance. But hey, if a half century goes by and a new society is formed that contributes to the common good, does no harm, what is that to you ? The inevitable sexual evolution of our species as we head to the stars is not ours to judge. And with that, I’ve truly had it talking about sex.
This last comment fits perfectly with this article as an example of using language to hide sin. A single simple yes or no question was deflected with nearly 500 words.
Dear Faithful, let me explain the premise again, my motivation. which may seem vindictive, especially to a small cadre of seemingly pious and talented columnists, one or more of whom tag me as a troll, which to my generation was a fable about dwarfs who lived under bridges waiting to snatch up unsuspecting children. However, I do troll (as in fishing) for statements made that reflect outdated, prejudicial and raw, edgy religious concepts. One topic that rears up quite, quite often among a clique (mostly men) whose affection seems to be gay bashing -or baiting, is homosexuality. Their apocalyptic visions of where human sexuality will lead stimulates their perseverance, even as the idea they could be wrong or misplaced becomes a heavy burden on their masculinity – and so they beat the subject to death under the guise of virtue and righteousness even as our Pope tries to intervene with mercy. My point again, is that I believe this author would not find it in himself to correctly label a glutton (or otherwise) because he would dismiss the sin as venial or use discretion solely because it’s not his pet peeve. And with that, I’m done.
Pingback: SATVRDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
For those who might be somewhat illiterate, the definition of papist is: (a) n, an adherent of the Church of Rome – and I have been scorned by Protestants.
I doubt if anyone ever referred to you aloud as heterosexual. Referencing your ‘friend’,
I’m absolutely sure that had his son wantonly indulged in overeating you would not have called him out as a Glutton. Had that same person routinely exhibited “ a life of dignified otiosity “ it’s apparent your comments would not include that he was practicing Sloth. Had this son of a friend craved material wealth in an inordinate form you would not have mentioned that he was practicing Covetousness – all deadly sins. No, what is being shown here is blatant discrimination; in the aforementioned instances you would have most likely practiced discretion; by not “politely stating the true definition” you risk making yourself look like a hypocrite.
Dear J.a.c.Man
You need to totally disregard the comments of The Ordinary Papist. He/she is an internet troll. A “papist” is the term used by Protestants to show contempt for Roman Catholic practices, tenets and (in my opinion) people.
Your article is well written and thoughtful. There is a manipulation and packaging in language. Pro-abortionist like to use the term fetus rather than unborn child. Fetus is more clinical and doesn’t have the warm and fuzzy sound of child. It does not sound as bad to abort a fetus than an unborn child! Killing 66 million fetuses sounds okay. Killing 66 million children is an abomination. Just another example of language manipulation.
OP, your comparisons are inapt. There is no reason to assume that the man’s friend would have “embraced the sin” and vehemently defended the behavior of the various sins; gluttony, sloth, covetousness, which you listed. Per the article he did so with regards to homosexuality. You are seeing hypocrisy where it doesn’t exist, outside of your own imagination.
This is not your first response to my articles. Just as before, I believe you missed the point of the article. I do not think I can offer you a good example in Western society where sloth, glutton, or greed is promoted and marketed as a good thing by manipulating language.
Your comment at 4:40PM on 22May2021 has compelled me to ask you a direct question. Is homosexual behavior a sin?
An excellent conversation. I have found it useful for me to keep in mind the distinction between the idea of something and the reality of something. For example, as a kid growing up in a post-modern, broken home, I had the idea that abortion meant something as innocent and benign as just becoming un-pregnant. The reality of the act of aborting a living baby is very different, however. To use your other example, there is a popular notion that being “gay” is good and is just about love and is equivalent in every way to a heterosexual union. The actual reality of a “sexual” relationship between two people of the same sex is very different, however. There is absolutely no equivalency between a man and a woman cooperating with God to create a new life, and two people of the same sex using illicit substitutes for actual intercourse. I find that many people who hold these popular views on abortion and homosexuality are either unaware of, or violently resist being bothered by the reality of the thing they are accepting of.