Two emphases here seem pertinent: One, the age-old formulas of the Church, while denoting and connoting to the faithful the right images, to the widespread ignorant of Church culture, they too often connote a false, ideological authoritarianism that is anathema to the real freedom of thought and love in the real, inner world of the Church. Hence, the old words can be accurately and adequately colloquialized to some of these folks.
The other is authority: The Church is undoubtedly the source of Divine Authority in the world through the Pope, but widespread is the “freedom of thought” value that no one else can tell us what to think. This one requires only a few tests in the real world, like the “authority” of a stop light, to convey the meaning, i.e., trust of the direction of someone else.
One of the problems I have with some of Catholic Answers’ apologies is precisely this, that the tried and tested formulations of the Faith ring sometimes like authoritarian rather than authoritative, as well and good as they are in themselves but only for those of us who are sophisticated enough to recognize their orthodox implications. Many don’t and aren’t. And so my effort has been to colloquialize formulations of doctrine so that their implications are preserved and conveyed without skewing their orthodoxy into neo- or archo-heresy.
It all goes to modern connotations. For example, “redemption” strikes many as “unnecessary.” I’m “Okay,” aren’t I? God doesn’t make junk, right? Why must I be redeemed? And “Virgin Birth,” often to women, strikes many “post-moderns” as not only absurd but irrelevant. And “salvation” sounds more like Billy Graham, good man that he is, than everyone’s final goal. And so, words do make a difference, and these “neologisms” may or may not be connoting orthodoxy. Let’s hope they are read with adequate reflection by their public.
