Audrey English's article in the August issue of AD2000 is good and affirms what many of us, including Mr Westmore have been harping on for a long time now, that is, that the language we use is important, and terms used constantly become part of the norm.
I personally don't like the term "same sex marriage" because what we are doing is linking marriage as it always has been (man and woman) into a different context and even in some ways legitimising it.
Every time those of us who speak in public or write publicly and use these terms are, in effect, affirming them until they soon become synonymous with marriage. I would use "unities", "unions" or even relationships – but not marriage.
We know that the abortion industry sabotaged the meaning of conception so that today it has attached to it "wantedness factor", "tissue", "cells", "conceptus", "products of conception", even "embryo". All in themselves acceptable words but rendering the conception of a child invisible.
No longer is it "baby" bringing to mind an image of a baby, but imageless and thus easier to dispose of.
Language had to first be manipulated before action could be sold to the unsuspecting public.
I am also reminded of the term "post birth abortion", using the word "abortion," not infanticide, because society has become desensitised to abortion but not infanticide.
This ploy is used because society has still not become acclimatised to the murder of children ex utero, which is of course what "post birth abortion" means.
So Audrey thank you for your article on this matter, but I still do not agree with you or Mr Westmore about Apps or even missals being used during Mass.
Because missals are too heavy for you carry how about attending Mass and giving the required responses which are known by heart now, and for the rest close your eyes and rest in His presence.
Remember not one of the Apostles had an App or missal during His first Mass or even when they shared a meal at Emmaus.