The meaning of words and the use of words are constantly shifting, changing, and evolving, for better or for worse.
Remember the 1939 epic movie, “Gone with the Wind”? There was a controversy whether the censors would approve it for general release and showing in movie theatres.
Why? Well, in a climactic scene toward the end, Rhett Butler (played by Clark Gabel) leaves his desperate and distraught wife, Scarlett O’Hara (played by Vivien Leigh), who pleads with him to stay, claiming what will she do without him.
His famous reply was, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!” The use of that last word was prohibited by the 1930 Motion Picture Production Code!
Today the whole issue seems curious. First, because “damn” now is regarded as a fairly common, mild expletive. Second, because censorship of speech or scenes seem archaic—the current practice, in effect, is almost “anything goes.”
One result is that for a modern audience, that final, farewell scene doesn’t have the force, shock, and dramatic impact that it had in 1939. That means that the final impact of the film is substantially different for 2020 viewers.
A similar observation can be made about a lot of our familiar religious language. We use many words that belong to earlier, much earlier, generations and whose original meaning, force, and impact are substantially different—sometimes to the point of being misunderstood or almost unintelligible—for people of our day.
It’s tough to make a lot of our traditional religious language understandable not only because the meaning of the words has shifted but also because the underlying mentality, customs, and values of the people who use these words has changed also.
For example, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225- 1274), after the rediscovery of the works of Aristotle (384-322 BC)—preserved by Iberian Muslim scholars who had translated his works into Arabic—used some of Aristotle’s ideas and concepts to illuminate Christian beliefs.
Thomas’s philosophy and theology in pre-Vatican II days was at the core of seminary formation, and its vocabulary was still in use (Latin words translated from the Arabic, translated from the Greek).
Take two important concepts derived from Aristotelian philosophy: “substance” and “accident”.
For For Aristotle, “substance” referred to the essence of something, usually what we mean by the word we use to name it—e.g., a car may be of any size, shape, color, make, décor, value, or the like, but it still is a “car”.
For Aristotle, “accident” referred to the non-essential or secondary aspects or properties of something—e.g., human beings may be tall, short, dark, light, male, or female, but all are equally human beings.
St. Thomas is famous for his explanation of “transubstantiation,” using these concepts to try to help us understand the mystery of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Martin Luther (1483-1546) called “transubstantiation” a monstrous word for a monstrous idea. To say the least, for him “transubstantiation” was way out-of-date.
We face similar challenges. By now, Luther’s explanations and language are also somewhat out-of-date and bewildering, along with Thomas’s and Aristotle’s.
We’re still believers, but it’s hard to find the right words, understandable words, to explain our beliefs!
20 September 2020