Is it wrong to learn foreign languages?

[InNomineDomini]

… though it may be…

OK. How do you square that with Acts chapter 2, where God seemingly infuses knowledge of foreign languages into the Apostles in a supernatural manner.

God cannot contradict His own eternal law, of course, and neither can He somehow suspend it just to accomplish some good, since this would be contrary to His nature.

So what needs to give in order for this seeming contradiction to be relieved? Our definition of God? Of Biblical inspiration? Of the Canon?

… or maybe simply our interpretation of Genesis 11?

 

[InNomineDomini]

By the way, just the actually answer the question:

It is permissible for a Catholic to be what is called an equiprobablist.

There’s not a lot of information about this on the internet, so excuse me for quoting from Wikipedia:

Æquiprobabilism holds that it is not lawful to follow the less safe opinion when the safe opinion is certainly more probable; that it is not lawful to act on the less safe opinion even when it is equally probable with the safe opinion, if the uncertainty regards the cessation of a law; but that if the existence of the law is in question, it is lawful to follow the less safe opinion if it has equal or nearly equal probability with the safe opinion.

This basically is the view of St. Alphonsus de Ligouri, who’s really the preeminent Catholic moral theologian. “Opinions” references the views of the Doctors or other moral authorities.

In our case, I’m not sure that the view that learning foreign languages is sinful is ever mentioned by **any **Catholic authority. Therefore, even the condemned rigorist position would permit it, let alone something more sound like equiprobablism.

But to learn more, you’d need to consult with a priest with a solid background in moral theology. I’m not sure we can be of much more help.

Some links:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_probabilism
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=289127&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=
newadvent.org/cathen/12441a.htm

 

[MysticMissMisty]

OK. How do you square that with Acts chapter 2, where God seemingly infuses knowledge of foreign languages into the Apostles in a supernatural manner.

God cannot contradict His own eternal law, of course, and neither can He somehow suspend it just to accomplish some good, since this would be contrary to His nature.

So what needs to give in order for this seeming contradiction to be relieved? Our definition of God? Of Biblical inspiration? Of the Canon?

… or maybe simply our interpretation of Genesis 11?

To your first point, I was going to say that it was God doing the language-infusing and not us and that this was a special case through which God wished to accomplish His purposes…until you shot that point down by (what I presume to be) sound and accepted exegetical ctechnique! (As I said, THANK YOU! for this. We need more of it out there when it comes to discussing/debating these kinds of issues.)

However, though you have dealt well with the issue of whether people within the Church can are permitted the use of foreign languages, we still need to deal with the secular side of it, i.e., whether God approves of those outside of the Church learning foreign languages even for good purposes of their own. After all, we have the advantage of the Holy Spirit guiding us and are, as a whole, less prone to the kind of pride/etc. that God was seemingly (and according to my understanding of the passage) trying to prevent (or, rather, was preventing as “trying” would imply lack of future knowledge of the outcome of events) our very early ancestors from falling into. Some may say that this is irrelevant to us, but, most of us likely have friends outside of the Church whom this could concern, but, hmm…

Come to think of it, I suppose God could’ve foreseen that even sinful man (here, I mean, those not committed to God) would still try to learn each others’ languages. Even after He confused them, if there was still that potential, one would think He would’ve found another way to thwart it as He did with their confusion. In other words, even after the confusion, if the potential for pride/etc. still existed from man learning each others’ language, God’s plan of confusion would have been for naught. So, we, once again, return to the possibility that God foresaw in His plan of confsing languages that, even if we did learn one anothers’ languages to whatever extent, it would still not be enough to create the state of potential for excessive pride/separation from God that existed before His confsion of the languages.

All right, I know I’m not putting this as clearly as I could above, so, if you have any questions about it, please do ask and I shall attempt to clarify further.

 

[InNomineDomini]

… whether God approves of those outside of the Church learning foreign languages even for good purposes of their own. .

Those outside of the Church are also bound by the eternal law, and we’ve seen evidence that the eternal law does not forbid foreign languages.

Furthermore, we couldn’t argue that foreign languages contradict natural law, since we could only perceive languages as being suspect based on a particular interpretation of revelation.

 

[graciew]

I just want to really quickly clarify that I have not at all come to any conclusions about this topic, at least, not yet. I am suspending judgment until I can flesh all these issues out as much as possible.

As I said in my original post, I myself am a Latinist by training and a general language enthusiast by hobby, so, in a way, I don’t want the conclusion that might arise of it being sinful to learn a foreign language to be true. However, I am not a seeker of what I want to be true. I am a seeker of what is true.

Again, the reason I am seeming to “contradict” people so much is, I am, as it were, and, please, forgive the metaphor, but, playing the “devil’s advocate” so that I can, as I say, fully flesh out all the ins and outs of this issue. I am not at all trying to be “nasty” to people who bring up this or that in reply. Just trying to be honest.

So, let’s continue to try to work this out. I continue to look forward to responses to this issue.

So would you propose going back to a common spoken language ?
Do you really believe that God may want that ?
I studied Latin and Historical Grammar loooong ago and learnt how languages evolved from a common root. As another poster said it was a natural process. It would naturally happen in spoken language again and again by proximity of people. Such is the nature of spoken language.
So God wants us to be close to each other not " another brick in the wall" Love is our common language.

 

[ProVobis]

Love is our common language.

Yes, but what kind of love?

 

[graciew]

Yes, but what kind of love?

Hahahahahaha you are unbeatable !!

 

[PolarGuy]

Misty:

First off you say “God confused our languages…”

–To which I say, “no, languages got ‘confused’ because humanity spread out geographically and language changed over the millennia.” As a linguist, I’d assume you’d know how languages change. The example that occurs to me is that in certain Inuit/Esquimaux language, there are 30 different words for ice, all of which are totally unnecessary if you live your entire life in the equatorial regions.

–For your conclusion (that learning languages might be sinful) to follow, you need to assume that ALL languages “got confused by God” based on 1 instance of that (allegedly) occurring in the Babel passage; I say allegedly because there’s no proof we have to take this passage literally, nor is there anything about this passage requiring me to believe it to be verbatim true. For example, if I believe this passage is a myth or a metaphor, I’m no less a Christian for thinking this. 1 instance does not equal all instances.

You are taking 3 verses from the Bible, and extrapolating that to the conclusion that learning a language is bad.

So: You haven’t proven that God always confuses our languages when they are confused.

Also, Jesus told us to preach the good news to all nations. He did this at a time when languages were many. This implies we need to learn their languages to do so.

Lastly, you say, in response to another poster, “show me where learning languages are not sinful.” Sorry, we can’t prove a negative. There are some Bible passages as to what is sinful (idolators and drunkenness, etc.,) but no list of what isn’t. So languages are not sinful because…they’re not. Period. Sorry, that’s all there is to it.

I’ve noticed this about some of your posts: You look for a rule as to every action (as lots of people do). Sorry, it doesn’t work that way either: There just aren’t a lot of hard fast rules for 100% of all instances.

 

[graciew]

As a side note ,Polar Guy ,could you tell us about those 30 words for ice ,please ? It sounds so interesting !

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;13032907:

I’m curious, where did you get that idea from? My son in law, a tongue speaking Pentecostal, recently said something similar. Is this a new concept going around in Evangelical and Pentecostal circles? It happened after I showed him that the King James translation of certain Greek terms didn’t correspond to the correct meaning.

It seems like that’s just a way to limit people from pointing out his errors. Did something similar happen to you? You might want to consider the motivation of the one telling you that.

How I got the idea was simply from reading the Genesis passage logically and thinking through its implications.

It’s interesting that that idea is starting to become common in some Protestant circles. Also, it only seems to come up after pointing out that the King James translation of certain Greek terms doesn’t correspond to the correct meaning of those Greek terms.
Interesting coincidence.

 

[thistle]

For one thing, it could be going against the command to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, etc. in that it might be going against His purpose in separating the languages as I articulated above (to keep us separated so that we would not progress as a society to such an extent as to become too prideful and possibly separate ourselves from our need for God). (Not saying that this could be the ONLY way to understand God’s purpose in separating the languages, but it seems a most logical understanding from the passage itself.)

Sorry but that is just nonsense and your claim has no basis at all.

 

[mikekle]

So, then, do you think it’s wrong to learn foreign languages?

What is most curious about this, is this and so many other incidents, its clear God intervened in their world quite often and usually in dramatic fashion, when is the last time modern man did something that goes against God and he did something DRAMATIC to put a stop to it? I cant think of anything.

If God threw a wrench in their attempt to build a structure tall enough to reach heaven in such a way, yet in modern time, when we have scientists trying to beat death, trying to clone life, etc, and God does nothing, yeah, imo, that proves something has changed since then.

 

[ProVobis]

The example that occurs to me is that in certain Inuit/Esquimaux language, there are 30 different words for ice, all of which are totally unnecessary if you live your entire life in the equatorial regions.

Good example.

When one considers that there are no perfect 1-1 mappings between languages, it almost behooves one to learn as many as possible. But unless the person can find practical use for himself, he probably won’t bother to learn any of them.

There seems to be this growing feeling that English is able to convey the same theology and carry the nuances of any ancient language. IMO this is a dangerous trend and can only corrupt one’s faith.

 

[ProVobis]

As a side note ,Polar Guy ,could you tell us about those 30 words for ice ,please ? It sounds so interesting !

Not as interesting as the many words of “love” in Greek and Latin.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

By the way, just the actually answer the question:

It is permissible for a Catholic to be what is called an equiprobablist.

There’s not a lot of information about this on the internet, so excuse me for quoting from Wikipedia:
This basically is the view of St. Alphonsus de Ligouri, who’s really the preeminent Catholic moral theologian. “Opinions” references the views of the Doctors or other moral authorities.

In our case, I’m not sure that the view that learning foreign languages is sinful is ever mentioned by **any **Catholic authority. Therefore, even the condemned rigorist position would permit it, let alone something more sound like equiprobablism.

But to learn more, you’d need to consult with a priest with a solid background in moral theology. I’m not sure we can be of much more help.

Some links:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_probabilism
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=289127&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=
newadvent.org/cathen/12441a.htm

Oh, I think you’ve done tremendously in helping me to wrestle with this question, and I truly appreciate it!

However, I do admit that I certainly don’t have a formal background in Catholic moral theology (that’s probably way down the line for me at this point!), so do forgive me ifI show any ignorance on what may be to you obvious points.

So, is “law” in your quotation referring to Mosaic law, to moral/divine law, to natural law (the definitions ofthe latter two terms I am indeed still trying to wrap my head around)? I’m just wanting to be sure that its context is as close to ours as it can be so that any transference ofmeaning may not further problematize the situation.

So, then, implicitly, with this quote, you are making the claim that the statement, “It is wrong to learn foreign languages,” falls under of a questionable divine)?)/moral)?) law, correct? (I was going to say, “, no?” or “, nonne?”, but that doesn’t sound good in English…Wish we had something like that in our language, but that’s for another day. ) You claim this even though the implications which may be derived from our Genesis passage may rather strongly point to the correctness of the above statement? You (or, I should say, at least aequiprobablism) claim)s) that a position is less probable if there has been no Catholic teaching concerning the positivity of the statement? How can one draw this conclusion? Would you mind please explaining how the aequiprobablist position might specifically apply to our current discussion?

You seem a very thoughtful person whose opinions could carry a lot of weight, so I’m also interested in whar your own personal thoughts are about this situation. Do you support an aequiprobablist position, a rigorist one, etc.? Could you perhaps elaborate on it based on our current topic under discussion?

Finally, I suppose that, while I may be made somewhat more comfortable with an affirmative stance on learning foreign languages based on probabilities, there is still, by the very nature of probability, some, even remote, chance my position may be incorrect. I guess I’m trying, if possible to discover 100% certainty in this matter and, if not, to come as close to certainty as I can about it.

Again, thank you so very much for all your help!

P.S. Please do forgive me if I use certain terminology in a rather loose (or even incorrect) way above! As I say, I almost certainly do not have the kind of background you do on these subjects.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Those outside of the Church are also bound by the eternal law, and we’ve seen evidence that the eternal law does not forbid foreign languages.

Furthermore, we couldn’t argue that foreign languages contradict natural law, since we could only perceive languages as being suspect based on a particular interpretation of revelation.

OK, probably my lack of background coming out again, but, would you mind elaborating further on these points? And also, please, giving a down-and-dirty (if that’s possible) definition of natural and eternal law?

Graitas maximas!!

 

[MysticMissMisty]

So would you propose going back to a common spoken language ?
Do you really believe that God may want that ?
I studied Latin and Historical Grammar loooong ago and learnt how languages evolved from a common root. As another poster said it was a natural process. It would naturally happen in spoken language again and again by proximity of people. Such is the nature of spoken language.
So God wants us to be close to each other not " another brick in the wall" Love is our common language.

Actually, I’m proposing the possibility (without drawing any conclusions) of exactly the opposite–that we should all stick to our own languages, despite any advantages that might accrue to us by learning others due to the fact that, in the Babel account, God’s intentions are shown as (apparently) being to separate us so that we might not become too prideful in aour accomplishments and do damage to our spiritual lvies because we might separate ourselves from God–or, at least, that seems to be the implication.

Also, while I have somewhat a linguistics background, I am certainly no expert, so I’m currently taking the (safer?) position that what is told us about Babel is an accurate account, at least insofr as this question goes. With that in mind, I am trying to understand whether God would still permit and, indeed, even approve of our learning foreign languages.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Hahahahahaha you are unbeatable !!

Great wit, gotta admit…

 

[mikekle]

Actually, I’m proposing the possibility (without drawing any conclusions) of exactly the opposite–that we should all stick to our own languages, despite any advantages that might accrue to us by learning others due to the fact that, in the Babel account, God’s intentions are shown as (apparently) being to separate us so that we might not become too prideful in aour accomplishments and do damage to our spiritual lvies because we might separate ourselves from God–or, at least, that seems to be the implication.

Also, while I have somewhat a linguistics background, I am certainly no expert, so I’m currently taking the (safer?) position that what is told us about Babel is an accurate account, at least insofr as this question goes. With that in mind, I am trying to understand whether God would still permit and, indeed, even approve of our learning foreign languages.

I think you are right, it was very clear back then, God scrambled the languages for a reason, but in modern times, the non-action of God sort of reminds me of a parent who has an unruly child, at first, the parent tries to lay down the law, punishes swiftly, and the punishments are very clear, there is no question why they are being punished, but then after the unruly child just keeps on disobeying, keeps doing the same thing over and over, eventually or after the child reaches a certain age, the parent gives up, they dont throw out harsh punishments anymore, because they have seen they dont work.

In modern times, its pretty clear we are trying to create a society without God, so just like Babel, we are trying to build a tall enough ‘building’ to reach heaven (on our own), yet today, we dont see God doing anything to punish us anymore.

Id like to know what happened, and why God seems to take no action anymore in our world, but I doubt this will happen anytime soon.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Actually, I’m proposing the possibility (without drawing any conclusions) of exactly the opposite–that we should all stick to our own languages, despite any advantages that might accrue to us by learning others due to the fact that, in the Babel account, God’s intentions are shown as (apparently) being to separate us so that we might not become too prideful in aour accomplishments and do damage to our spiritual lvies because we might separate ourselves from God–or, at least, that seems to be the implication.

Also, while I have somewhat a linguistics background, I am certainly no expert, so I’m currently taking the (safer?) position that what is told us about Babel is an accurate account, at least insofr as this question goes. With that in mind, I am trying to understand whether God would still permit and, indeed, even approve of our learning foreign languages.

How does Christ’s command to “go forth and teach all nations” work in the setting of people only using their native language and never learning those of others?