"You just watch your phraseology!"

I believe it is Mayor Shinn who warns off young whippersnappers with that expression. He is, IIRC, objecting to bad language such as .... (clutch your pearls now in anticipation of hte horror,) "jeepers."

Someone called my attention to the ugliness in the combox of a recent National catholic Reporter post on which I had already commented, I certainly don't want to re-turn my gaze upon the scum rising to the top, as more and more supporters of the columnist's way of thinking spewing have their say.

Ugly, ugly, ugly.

And it reminds me of another internecine quarrel two years back.

In fact it was, IIRC, in NcR that a piece by a young phenom who fancied himself an expert on Latin, railing against the lousy language of the new translation, was featured.
Now I, who am not a betting woman, would nonetheless wager every penny to my name that if said phenom took Latin when essaying his College Board Exams, he did not score higher than I, every cent, confidently -- but I've forgotten most of it, so I'll grant that his judgemnet of what constitutes good translation may be better than mine.
Fair enough.
But reading through his little essay, when he arrived at the Credo it became quite clear that his objection was not really with the supposed poor quality of the translation - it was, in fact, in many instances, with the improved accuracy of the translation!

Because the root of his objections was his antipathy to the actual words of the Liturgy, what the Mass  intends to say.
For instance, he was one of numerous people who didn't want pro multis translated correctly, because they do not believe what the Creed is saying there.

Similarly, nowadays, and especially in the time leading up to, and of the Synod on the Family, there has been an enormous amount of, what I can only read as, embarrassment being voiced, supposedly at the language the Church uses to describe, say, the spiritual or mental state of a man such as St Paul mentions here," or of a woman such as Jesus addressed here.

But upon closer examination of their arguments, (when actual arguments exist, for many are nothing more that contradictions and ad hominem attacks,) they are clearly not objecting to the language at all, they are not suggesting it be reworded - they object to the beliefs, and are suggesting they be struck down!

If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if I 

have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?

If  one admits that sin exists, how can one fail to understand that it couldn't, successfully, if it weren't made to seem attractive?
And given that, how can one not consider that the more attractive a thing seems, the more one must be wary to know if it is indeed a good?