What the *%$k!? Vicar resigns

It is almost enigmatic: Church Times - Brynmawr’s Vicar resigns. Surely there must be more to it than this: "An unnamed cleric told the Western Mail that he had formally complained about Mr Grey. “I was very concerned at the language he used in a conversation he had with me. It is entirely inappropriate for a clergyman to use four-letter words.”"
Can it be that a clergybeing has really been 'encouraged' to resign for swearing; or is that 'cussing'; or even 'profanity'? And there you have it. We can't even agree what to call it because the issue differs according to who is judging and where it's happening. 'Swearing' puts it in the territory of not taking the LORD's name in vain in particular by making some kind of oath or truncated oath (thereby also trespassing onto Jesus' 'Do not swear' from the Sermon on the Mount). 'Cussing' seems to have distinctly dialectal overtones -perhaps even of the wild west and may well be a variant of 'cursing' (certainly would be in Black Country dialect) -which probably means saying nasty things to or about others but possibly God. 'Profanity' seems to be taking the idea that the profane is something that shouldn't be uttered in God's hearing; it's beyond the bounds of decency.

Of course there are all sorts of difficulties here. Taking the LORD's name in vain would, strictly speaking, be nigh on impossible. The Jews of yore did such a good job of protecting the name so that it couldn't be taken in vain, that no-one now knows how to pronounce it. That's why many English Bibles put the word in capitals: to signal that it's "that" name -God's special name -which we don't know how to say.

Quibbles aside, though, we know what is meant here in actual fact. Using 'holy' titles and names to express anger, disgust, surprise and so forth. But this doesn't seem to be the what was being referred to. "Four-letter words" are not generally characteristic of 'swearing' in the sense of using 'holy' words in profane ways: most of those words are not four-letter words. "Four-letter words" geneally refers to a set of allegedly 'Anglo-Saxon' words referring to copulation, excretion or genitalia (mainly female). It is one or more of these which I think we're are supposed to understand to be 'inappropriate for a clergyman to use', or at least to do so as freely as it appears this gentleman is accused of doing. I know clergy who, in moments of extreme frustration (for example) and where they feel safe enough to do so, will use the occasional such word.

What I'm curious about is why such language should be considered 'inappropriate' for clergy. And this may require us to think past our first reactions and our cultural reflexes into places we so take for granted that the mere questioning of them seems almost ridiculous and /or offensive. But there we must go, dear reader.

You see there is a problem with all of this 'swearing' stuff. The stuff to do with invoking God or Christ 'in vain' is one thing: many believers find it jarring to hear words that, for us, have affectionate and devotional connotations being bandied about with aggressive or casual intent. However, the words to do with sexual acts, bodily wastes or genitals are another matter. There isn't a God- or devotion agenda involved with them. It might be understandable that a vicar could be leaned on to reconsider his position if he was in the habit of misusing God-words. But what would be going on with these other words?

Well, I think we need, first, to ask what is offensive, to whom and when? The first is partly answered above, Ttough some more things should be said: we should note that what constitutes offensive language differes from language to language and culture to culture. Broadly speaking it seemss that sex, excreta and the sacred normally provide the referents but which of these is considered most offensive varies. In Quebec French, for example certain catholic symbols are the most offensive, similarly in Spanish (where 'milk' is an offensive thing to say, because it's short for 'milk of the Virgin'). And of course it isn't the word itself; there's nothing mystical about the sounds. Indeed there is amusement to be had in finding innocent words in one language which sound like 'rude' or offensive words in another\ (even if on a visual pun like Thailand's Phuket). We should also note that it isn't the referent either, or at least not on it's own: most of the referents of 'four-letter words' can be expressed with more polite or acceptable words or phrases: "sex" or "poo", for example.So I'm not entirely convinced by Stephen Pinker's neurological explanation regarding the disgust factor. It's not the concepts that are taboo (though I will admit that in some company and circumstances the subject matter may be considered 'indelicate', but that's not really the same though it may be linked to the extent that the Stephen Pinker view works).

The second (offensive to whom) is something of a sociolinguistic issue as is the third (when) which also takes in pragmatics. Asking 'who is offended?' can yield some interesting observations: class differences are often involved: working class swearing hooking middle class offence, for example. This can then act as a group marker expressing solidarity and enacting differentiation: 'we' are the ones who dare to say what 'they' can't bring themselves to say (and the concomitant possibilities for image-building as, say, 'tough'). So was the vicar actually committing social class 'sins' by swearing. I'd guess there is likely to be a big chunk of this aspect in the matter: (I'm guessing on the basis of precedent) a middle class congregation for whom these words are taboo find a vicar using what they associate as 'common' and even 'offensive' terms which are certainly not acceptable in their normal speech. His choice of such language marks him as someone who is not 'one of us' and so suspect of moral deficiency or of allying himself with the 'wrong' sort of people.

And then there's the 'when?' question. There are social circumstances in which it might be considered relatively 'okay' to swear/cuss: sports occasions (see picture above !?) are often such. And some occasions where a word might be shocking (a royal banquet, perhaps). Sometimes the pragmatics of cussing is about enacting a solidary relationship: by greeting someone with an insult, one can be saying, in effect "We're the same, we are (potentially) friends ...". That's why the N-bomb can be used among black people but not in a mixed race conversation, for example. And of course, the words can be used as distancing even repudiative: when we want to express our disgust with or violent  objection to someone or something, the 'profane' words can be very helpful (hence the apostle Paul's use of a word supposed to be such, in one of the epistles).

This latter usage, though also shows up the problem over time. The power of such words tends to lead to their overuse which lessens their impact over time. In my lifetime and experience words like 'bloody' and 'shit' have become so common that their impact is now like 'damn' was when I was a kid (ie no-one thought it heavy duty except for a few older people). This leads to a search for new sufficiently 'offensive' terms to use for the more extreme ranges of emotion and circumstance, hence "motherf****r" seems to be coming into range.


See my previous posts on 'profanity'