Ambiguity-by-design.

Dear editor,

I commend you for raising the problem of "waffling" and "weasel words" and ambiguity-by-design with regards to church statements (Why can't we simply say what we mean? June). This has the inevitable result that clarity of exposition, surely a prelude to informed analysis and discussion, suffers.

While many things in life preclude simple analysis, surely defining the parameters of one's argument, irrespective of one's intellectual or religious leanings, is a most desirable goal. If I fail to grasp what someone is telling me, genuine communication is frustrated and misconceptions arise, often of a higher order.

Your comments are particularly challenging for all religious publications where an inherent desire to avoid giving offence to one's readership renders the message worthless. Balance, mutual respect and fair comment are, of course, also needed to govern dialogue. But as with any discussion, at some point, in order to advance subsequent argument, a conclusion is required. I do not recall too many instances where the apostles, the early church fathers and subsequent great Christian thinkers and believers hesitated to make their positions clear, although not necessarily consistent.

Philipp Straub

Toronto