PART ONE
The principles of expression
according to which
Catholic writers should express themselves
CHAPTER 1
Obscurity in writing, and its causes
6. Generally speaking, a writer has a duty to express himself clearly. It is not easy, however, to define what constitutes clarity and obscurity in writing, although some kind of criterion for judging obscurity in a writer may be established if we consider the possible causes of obscurity.
Victorinus, a celebrated 4th century orator teaching at Rome, reduced these causes to three. According to him, they depend either upon ‘the immensity of the matter in hand, or lack of skill in the teacher, or obtuseness in the reader.’(3) *{OLR} We can express these three causes of obscurity in a more general way: obscurity depends upon the difficulty of the subject, upon the writer, or upon the reader. We shall study each of these causes briefly, beginning with the obscurity produced by the writer himself.
CHAPTER 2
7. A writer or speaker can express himself obscurely through lack of skill, through negligence or malice, or for some praiseworthy end. If the writer’s incapacity embraces his subject-matter as well as his way of expressing himself, he could suitably be reminded of Horace’s, ‘Writers should choose subjects on a par with their powers; and think carefully of the burdens they are able or not able to embrace.’ (4) *{OLR}
If he knows his material, but expresses himself defectively, the fault may not be too serious. Not everyone can achieve the same kind of skill in expression, and it does occur that profound and learned persons, bereft of the gift of natural, clear and easy diction, cannot make up for it even with great effort. Heraclitus the Obscure, as he was called, is a good example. In some outstanding persons, however, obscurity in expression is the result not of carelessness, but of their exaggerated search for metaphor or simile or brevity: ‘In striving to be brief, I become obscure.’(5) * {OLR}
8. Obscurity arising from negligence is more culpable, especially if it betrays confused concepts rather than neglect in style. Here, the Catholic writer has a very grave duty, when dealing with dogma or morality, to employ great care in ensuring that obscurity does not give rise to equivocal teaching that could reasonably be interpreted in a mistaken sense. This kind of negligence could throw suspicion on the purity of a writer’s faith, or seriously harm the faithful in contact with the ambiguity.
Nevertheless, excessive criticism is to be avoided at this point. Not every equivocal expression can be laid to the bad will or the negligence of the writer. Even the best religious writers cannot refrain from occasional verbal ambiguities which are adequately rectified by the general presentation of their teaching. Moreover, the rigorous, competent language required in dealing with abstract and subtle doctrines, especially in theology, cannot be thought out and perfected by one person alone. This comes about with time and study, and application to the problem by many learned people. Even now, after so many controversies and so much thought on the part of saints and theologians, it would be out of place to maintain that language has been finally perfected in every respect. A great deal has been achieved, and theological language has been approved in large part by the authority of the Church and common consent amongst theologians, but this has been done gradually as hidden ambiguities have come to light through erroneous interpretations. Even the Fathers of the Church liberius loquebantur [spoke more freely], before heresies made them more cautious, as Augustine says.(6) One of the benefits unwillingly rendered by heretics to sacred doctrine and to the Church of Jesus Christ has been to make ecclesiastical writers more wary and exact in the exposition of revealed dogmas. Augustine noted this: ‘What is wrong on the part of heretics has helped progress on the part of true Catholic members of Christ. What is wrong, God uses well, and all things work towards the good of those who love God.’(7) * {OLR}
However, grave malice is present in those writers who disguise perverse teaching in obscurity in order to impress it more easily upon simple people, or to avoid censure by the Church. Heretics, especially the more astute and subtle such as Arians, Jansenists, Pelagians and so on, have provided many well-known examples of such detestable malice. When they were under pressure from defenders of Catholic faith, and still more after their condemnation by the Church, they worked hard to deck out their errors in expressions which were either unclear or in great part Catholic.
This made it difficult to uncover and pin-point where they had abandoned Catholic faith and inserted their own error.
Finally, a writer or a speaker can deliberately produce a certain, moderate obscurity in his work without causing ambiguity about matters of belief. This may be praiseworthy rather than defective, if it is done with a good end in view. The Scriptures, for example, sometimes provide such respectable obscurity, destined, as Augustine says, ‘to exercise and temper in some way the minds of readers, to break down the difficulties and focus the efforts of those wishing to learn, and to veil the spirits of the imp ious so that they either be converted to piety or excluded from the mysteries.’*(8) {OLR}
This obscurity cannot, however, be imitated by Christian teachers, who are obliged to elucidate the doctrines contained in God’s written word with the greatest possible clarity. Nevertheless, a person sent by JESUS Christ can and must adapt his way of teaching to different types of people, just as the great Master of mankind veiled the superabundant light of doctrine with parables or enigmas, and gradually disclosed the mystery to his disciples as they grew more capable of penetrating it. Sometimes the teacher can usefully omit obscure parts, provided there is no equivocation about truths to be believed, in order to stimulate reflection and arouse a desire for further understanding in the minds of his more eager disciples.
Notes
(3) St. Jerome, On Ezechiel., bk. 13.
(4) [Horace, Art, 38–40].
(5) [Ibid., 25–26].
(6) Against Julian, 1, n. 22. Vobis non litigantibus securius loquebatur [He spoke to you with greater surety before you quarrelled] (St. John Chrysostom).
(7) City of God, 18; 51. Cf. City of God, 16, 2; Letter 105; On True Religion, c. 8; Genesis against the Manichaeans, I, 1.
(8) On Christian Teaching, 4, 22.