Is not subscribing to less confrontational terminology possibly sinful?

[TraditionalistThomas]

Hi, another question!

Since Vatican II, as you would all know, terminology regarding other religions and protestant groups has changed. We no longer call protestants heretics but rather "separated brethren". We no longer call Eastern Orthodox schismatic but again, "separated brethren". We no longer call the various protestant groups heretical sects but rather "denominations", or, "ecclesial communities".

My question is, if you deliberately cling to the older terminology, is it possibly sinful? I mean, why wouldn't we traditional Catholics subscribe to the new terminology? Is it out of malice that we pick the more confrontational terminology? What if we offend (sorry to sound like a liberal) protestants or other non-Catholics by the use of this old terminology that their souls go further astray? Will we be held accountable for that?

Thanks!

[Ray M Facere]

It's a sin to lie. Our words should do everything possible to convey the objective truth in concert with this moral imperative. So no, using the traditional terminology is not a sin of itself, otherwise, we would have to accuse the previous Popes, Saints, even the Apostles who used the terminology of sin in such a thing.

Remember that every moral action comes with three aspects: the object, the circumstances and the intent. Poison anyone of these streams and you have an immoral action. So yes, if someone used those words solely out of malice instead of a desire to more accurately convey the truth, then it could be a sin.

We can debate whether this new terminology is in concert with the foregoing points, some here would doubtlessly say that the new terms are weasel words that get away from conveying objective truth. Still, we must see that the stated motivation was out of respect at a human level, so I wouldn't immediately dismiss them. Nonetheless, we ought to be concerned with the spiritual level first, so I suspect most here would prefer the Church resuming using the older terms because they better convey the objective reality of the situation at the spiritual level and arguable shock the person into action, the same way that excommunication is meant as a medicinal action.

[Scriptorium]

It is a matter of prudence. Saying "heretic" can be charitable, or downright sinful. Saying it to just lash back at someone is not good. Saying it when it is deemed to be well placed and good for the soul, to, say, shock it out of its slumber of sin, then it can be helpful. And the opposite holds. Withholding saying certain things when it would be well placed to do it can be sinful, especially if someone is purposely omitting an act of religion out of human respect. The adjustments made are based on a prudential measure of the person's reception. How much does this person know? Are they prideful? Are they your family member or friend, or a stranger? Etc. If you look back, there was always a context to the statement. That was when people had the Faith. Now, some people don't have the Faith, or they think they do, and they say things which are formed from their ignorance.

[Ray M Facere]

Scriptorium -- you're on a roll. I like you replies in this and the other thread in this forum better than mine. 

[Tim]

...and a perceived notion they should always confront people in the spirit of truth, just to anger them, and then accuse them of being thin skinned.

tim

[Scriptorium]

Scriptorium -- you're on a roll. I like you replies in this and the other thread in this forum better than mine. 

Must be the extra fiber in my diet. Thanks. Onward and upward men!  back to you.