Cavaradossi, Roman Interloper, ftbond, NitaMacdonald1930, SOL, etomaria, Kostyantyn, Benny, Ivanov325, DocH, andria, Joe Smith, CanuckK8, AJG80, gzt
4464 Registered Users |
|
|
8 registered (antv, haydukovich, Slavophile, Sbdn. John, Pani Rose, john ford, Cavaradossi, 1 invisible),
178
Guests and
4
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
4464 Members
26 Forums
30146 Topics
373641 Posts
Max Online: 1087 @ 07/16/07 01:09 PM
|
|
|
#208867 - 06/25/06 11:39 PM
Inclusive language and Pastors
|
Member
Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 115
Loc: Annunciation Byzantine Catholi...
|
Pastors will be on the front lines of the fallout from the implementation of the new translation of the Liturgy. We will need adequate explanations for some of the sticking points. I am already catching it from parishioners. Therefore in the way of reporting in from the “trenches” I must submit a concern that I have of a potential credibility problem for the Church in regard to the issue of inclusive language in the new translation.
The question that I hear already bubbling up from the ranks is “why would Rome approve inclusive language for the Byzantine Catholic Church and yet oppose it for their own Church?” Secondly, there has been no outcry for inclusive language from among the rank and file of our Church. So why is it being insisted upon in the new translation especially in light of the fact that it is already creating unrest in our Church? The perception is that this insistence must therefore be the agenda of a few. Furthermore, the perception is that the rank and file are being told, “We don’t care if you want this or not. WE think it is good for the Church and that is what is going to be.” In the name of
sensitivity and inclusiveness we could end up being insensitive and exclusionary.
The question is why the imperative for inclusive language? Is it important enough to risk what could very well be a “schism like” repercussion in a Church that is already rapidly declining? For pastors, loss of membership or morale in the ranks because of an unnecessary insistence on inclusive language is going to flip some hot buttons.
As a pastor my plea to our Hierarchs has been to bring the new text to the rank and file before implementing it. Liturgy is the one thing owned by all of us yet by none of us at the same time. It is the one meeting point of the whole Church. I am not advocating liturgy by vote and incessant or interminable input and revision. But I think it is not too late to obtain the “Sensus Fidelium” factor before the new translation is implemented. It may be difficult at this point or even a bit embarrassing but it seems that this would pale in comparison to what might happen if the new translation with inclusive language is mandated to a largely unsuspecting audience.
In regard to the fact that Rome “approved” this translation it seems to me that Rome is adopting a posture these days of respecting the sui iuris-“ness” of the Eastern Churches and giving to us what they think we must want. But the question is did Rome really hear from our Church? It heard from representatives who were certainly sincere. But did Rome really hear from our “Church?” Although there were pastors on the translation committee, I know that there was some opposition to inclusive language. If there was opposition why did inclusive language win out? At least personally I do not know of any fellow Ruthenian pastors who have been clamoring for inclusive language as a necessary ingredient to the health, future and evangelical effectiveness of our Church.
I would like to offer this perspective on the inclusive language issue for whatever it may be worth to the whole discussion:
I believe that the problem is not so much the language itself but the philosophical foundation out of which it springs. I believe the whole question is a choice between a liturgical or non-liturgical worldview. The call among some in the Church for inclusive language was essentially a reach into the secular world, a reach outside the Church rather than a vertical gaze deep into the theological anthropology of the Church. It was a way of allowing the secular world to set the standard for the fundamental question of human existence: Who is God? Who is God in relation to us? Who is man for woman and who is woman for man? Liturgy is a way of living out the answer to these fundamental questions. If we get things wrong here we get everything else wrong. Gender confusion begets theological confusion. This is because in addition to qualities such as will and intellect the complimentarity of gender is a specific way in which we image God. It is the way in which we as humans participate in the “Nuptial Mystery.” This nuptial mystery is woven throughout all of existence. Complimetarity, union and communion seems to be the mystical DNA that God has built into the entire Order of Creation. Gender is the way in which we participate in the interior life of the Trinity and in the spousal relationship of Christ the bridegroom to His Bride the Church. Gender is precisely the way in which we can love as God loves. This is true on the mystical level as well such as in the spousal character of celibate love. Without this spousal character celibacy is meaningless and is defined only in terms of the negative.
The foundation for inclusive language is based upon the secular understanding of equality. The secular worldview is utilitarian in nature. This non-liturgical worldview defines equality in terms of function and usefulness. In this way it actually commits the very error that it purports to oppose: It adopts the fallen side of the masculine worldview, denies woman’s equality and strikes at her inherent dignity. Many of those who oppose inclusive language do so not because they are “conservative” or are against women or they are “chauvinists. Rather, they are FOR the equality and dignity of woman. But the starting point of the secular worldview, does not account for an intrinsic dignity of womanhood inherent in the very fact of femininity itself. Womanhood is essentially seen in its very construction as “defective” and that defect must be “corrected” for instance, by encouraging women to become as sexually irresponsible as a man can biologically afford to be. In the secular worldview woman’s worth is measured by roles and the degrees to which women can be like a man, do what a man does and be every place that a man is (including male sports locker rooms although the reverse was not permitted—so much for “equality.”)
The secular, non-liturgical worldview has bled into the thinking of some in the Church in recent decades. A woman’s worth in the liturgical assembly is measured by what she is allowed to ‘do’ (function.) Importance at liturgy is measured by roles, functions and tasks which are often coveted for their public (on stage) dimension. The worth of anyone, especially of women is therefore measured by how much they are “allowed” to “do” or not “do” in the liturgical (public) assembly or the degree of profile especially if these roles are seen as embodying power or authority.
The Liturgical worldview of the Church on the other hand is measured by sign, sacrament (Mystery) and symbol whereby the sign participates in the very reality that it signifies. In the liturgical (Sacramental) worldview there is a critical Revelatory value in the very fact of being male and female. This sets the foundation for determining
all else such as “roles.” Ratzinger’s (Pope Benedict) book the “Spirit of the Liturgy” is helpful on this issue of ‘function.’ Liturgy preserves and plays out the Revelatory value of maleness and femaleness in a mystical and comprehensive way. As John Paul II says in his Theology of the Body, “Liturgy in some sense becomes conjugal and conjugal relations between husband and wife are in a sense liturgical.” (The Theology of the Body was John Paul II’s reach beyond Thomism into the mystical and into Eastern Christian spirituality. See Paul Evdokimov. Could this explain why the international alliance for this teaching is headed up by Eastern Catholics?!)
I believe that the liturgical worldview offers a true, instead of false view of the equality of women because its starting point is the intrinsic dignity of womanhood. In this view womanhood itself has an intrinsic holiness. This is because of what the Theology of the Body refers to as the ”genius of woman.” Woman is the “archetype of the human race” by virtue of the gift of her receptivity stamped in the very feminine construction of her body (and consequently her entire personhood.) It is woman who images the entire liturgical assembly precisely in her femininity. Womanhood models the posture of receptivity to the Word, to the Eucharist, to the initiative and “loving intrusion” of the Bridegroom toward His Bride. This explains in part the important point Father David Petras touched upon in regard to many parishes by and large being “dominated” by women. The gift of receptivity makes woman more naturally “receptive” to the matters of spirituality.
For the male priest, stamped in his very body as a man (and therefore in his personhood) is the action of the “giving” of the seed, the Word of God that must be proclaimed with ‘great power’ and ‘planted’ in the hearts of the Faithful. A certain quality of authority and strength must pervade this action. By its very design the male body, voice, gate, stature, etc. images authority.
I remember Fr. Taft teaching that the Eucharist is something that is “passed down,” received from “on high.” (I believe this is how Fr. Taft put it.) The bishop must “pass down” the Eucharist to the other clergy and laity. This is a very male action, mirroring the initiating love of God the Father who moves outward from the Trinity (while remaining in the Trinity) to “bring the gift,” to act upon His bride. The male body (and therefore personhood) acts in a kind of “phallic action,” whereby it moves outward from itself to act upon the environment (a beloved.) The male body images the transcendent (“ineffable, incomprehensible”) God while the female body, with its orientation to connectedness and receptivity images the immanence of God as well as the human race. Although all human beings, male or female must of course image Christ, in the very nature of our maleness and femaleness we mirror in a particular way the ingenious, integrated, complimentary, non-dualistic Eastern Christian description of God: “The Righteous Judge, and the Lover of Mankind.” It is the God who is at the same time beyond us and with us. This Mystery is stamped in our very maleness and femaleness.
If we overlook the Revelatory value of our maleness and femaleness we set the stage for all kinds of theological and liturgical confusion. We blur the Bridegroom-Bride “Nuptial” imagery which is indeed very present in the Eastern Liturgy: the Paschal stichera, liturgical texts for martyred women or the Nymphos icon over the table of preparation. The Nymphos icon in this place points in a sense to the Rite of Preparation as a type of “liturgical foreplay” leading to the consummation of the marriage between the Bridegroom Christ with His Bride the Church which takes place in the Anaphora and reception of Holy Communion. In western liturgy the analogy is of course even more specific with the priest seen as ”Alter Christus,” Nonetheless even in Eastern Liturgy the priest stands ‘in place of Christ.’ To blur the Nuptial Mystery inherent in the Liturgy is to deprive the Bridegroom of His Bride and vice versa. This does not protect the inherent dignity of women but in fact ignores it and makes it dependent upon function, role, power and degree of usefulness.
I would like to offer a very concrete experience of the reality of this Nuptial Mystery and I ask that the reader bear with me for just a moment because I have to “talk about my own parish.” As mentioned above Fr. Petras touched upon the domination of females in many parishes and the need for the development of masculine spirituality. He is very correct in this. However, my parish of Annunciation in Homer Glen, IL. is not dominated by women. In fact the male involvement at my parish actually astounds observers. It astounds even the pastor. This male involvement also inspires the female population of the parish. I cannot presume to adequately explain this phenomenon but I do believe that the reason for it may lie in the fact that the Nuptial Mystery is taught and preached and there is an ongoing attempt at establishing an eastern “liturgical culture.” Eastern Liturgy is inherently integrated. It inherently preserves the Revelatory value of maleness and femaleness in so many ways, even beyond the presence of the all male priesthood.
I believe that the male population of my parish senses this ‘right ordering’ of things in a deeply intuitive way and the men have responded with a masculine passion and zeal.
As a pastor, I have a concern that if we tamper with the Nuptial Mystery inherent in our liturgical life with inclusive language and the secular foundation from which inclusive language springs I could very well loose membership or erode the powerful and blessed involvement of the many zealous males of my parish. If the males go, so go our children’s lasting involvement in Church. This has been studied and proven to be so.
In conclusion I cannot emphasize enough that for many people their opposition to inclusive language in our liturgy is not a matter of being “conservative” or because they are “against” women or insensitive to women. Rather it is precisely because they are FOR women that they oppose inclusive language and its foundation. And in fine Theology of the Body style, we cannot be FOR one gender without necessarily being FOR the other gender at the same time. I believe that an integrated, liturgical worldview is the answer. I continue to propose a comprehensive renewal of the Eastern Churches. I believe that liturgy translations will be more fruitful and accepted when they are set within the context of a comprehensive renewal of the Church. This would help answer the question of “Why did we need a new translation?” We need to return to a correct sense of mission, have a vision and a plan to realize the vision. Since it is the soul and forte of the Eastern Churches, why not make liturgy the foundation for renewal of our Church on all levels? My motto continues to be: ‘raze our Church to the ground in order to rebuild it according to the authentic, thriving, glorious version of itself. “
--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB., MA.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#208870 - 06/27/06 08:17 AM
Re: Inclusive language and Pastors
|
Member
Registered: 06/09/02
Posts: 5153
Loc: somewhere betwixt the Alpha an...
|
Father Tom, Thank you for your courage to post on this and other topics. I believe you point out a topic that is worthy of consideration by the commission. And yet...all we hear are crickets!  The Metropolia is risking the loss of many and much by going with an inclusive language translation. Gordo
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#208878 - 06/28/06 08:12 PM
Re: Inclusive language and Pastors
|
Member
Registered: 08/29/05
Posts: 942
Loc: usa
|
I post some comments made by Fr. David at the end of this section. They are from his website and are part of his response to Fr. Keleher’s book. Contrast these with Fr. Loya’s comments above. Fr. David sees that a masculine spirituality is necessary but he also states: The problem is not the biblical or theological or liturgical language, the problem is the secular language, and as much as we would like to say that the Church is free from all secular influence, that it is the Church’s duty to preach to the world and not vice versa, this ignores the Church’s mission to proclaim the gospel to all peoples. We just have not become aware yet what it might mean to English-speaking secular men and women in the twenty-first century. I have faith that a road will be found in which we can reach out with the gospel to all people. This might mean some horizontal inclusive language. As much as the Church would like to close the book on this change of “text” in the modern world, ministers on the grass roots level feel the problem, and so inclusive language is used in everyday and liturgical discourse whether the official Church allows it or not. This is true in Orthodoxy as well as Catholicism.
This is precisely the point where Liturgiam Authenticam and Fr. Petras part ways: LA states: When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word 'adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission.
As Fr. Loya has stated, the issue involves more than language: I believe that the problem is not so much the language itself but the philosophical foundation out of which it springs. I believe the whole question is a choice between a liturgical or non-liturgical worldview. The call among some in the Church for inclusive language was essentially a reach into the secular world, a reach outside the Church rather than a vertical gaze deep into the theological anthropology of the Church. It was a way of allowing the secular world to set the standard for the fundamental question of human existence: Who is God? Who is God in relation to us? Who is man for woman and who is woman for man? Liturgy is a way of living out the answer to these fundamental questions. If we get things wrong here we get everything else wrong. Gender confusion begets theological confusion.
I think it is legitimate to ask the question , “If we don’t use the language of the secular world, will the world hear the gospel?” Likewise, it is legitimate to ask the question, “I we do use the language of the secular world will the world hear the gospel [or something else]?” This is a question that all of us must consider. Here I refer the reader to Cardinal Newman in “The Gospel, A Trust Committed to Us": "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called; which some professing, have erred concerning the Faith." 1 Tim. vi. 20, 21.
THESE words are addressed in the first place to the Ministers of the Gospel, in the person of Timothy; yet they contain a serious command and warning for all Christians. For all of us, high and low, in our measure are responsible for the safe-keeping of the Faith. We have all an equal interest in it, no one less than another, though an Order of men has been especially set apart for the duty of guarding it. If we Ministers of Christ guard it not, it is our sin but it is your loss, my brethren; and as any private person would feel that his duty and his safety lay in giving alarm of a fire or of a robbery in the city where he dwelt, though there were ever so many special officers appointed for the purpose, so, doubtless, every one of us is bound in his place to contend for the Faith, and to have an eye to its safe custody. If indeed the Faith of Christ were vague, indeterminate, a matter of opinion or deduction, then, indeed, we may well conceive that the Ministers of the Gospel would be the only due expounders and guardians of it; then it might be fitting for private Christians to wait till they were informed concerning the best mode of expressing it, or the relative importance of this or that part of it. But this has been all settled long ago; the Gospel Faith is a definite deposit,—a treasure, common to all, one and the same in every age, conceived in set words, and such as admits of being received, preserved, transmitted. We may safely leave the custody of it even in the hands of individuals; for in so doing, we are leaving nothing at all to private rashness and fancy, to pride, debate, and strife. We are but allowing men to "contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints;" the Faith which was put into their hands one by one at their baptism, in a form of words called the Creed, and which has come down to them in that very same form from the first ages. This Faith is what even the humblest member of the Church may and must contend for; and in proportion to his education, will the circle of his knowledge enlarge. The Creed delivered to him in Baptism will then unfold, first, into the Nicene Creed (as it is called), then into the Athanasian; and, according as his power of grasping the sense of its articles increases, so will it become his duty to contend for them in their fuller and more accurate form. All these unfoldings of the Gospel Doctrine will become to him precious as the original articles, because they are in fact nothing more or less than the one true explanation of them delivered down to us from the first ages, together with the original baptismal or Apostles' Creed itself...
This sense of the seriousness of our charge is increased by considering, that after all we do not know, and cannot form a notion, what is the real final object of the Gospel Revelation. Men are accustomed to say, that it is the salvation of the world, which it certainly is not. If, instead of this, we say that Christ came "to purify unto Himself a peculiar people," then, indeed, we speak a great Truth; but this, though a main end of our preaching, is not its simple and ultimate object. Rather, as far as we are told at all, that object is the glory of God; but we cannot understand what is meant by this, or how the Dispensation of the Gospel promotes it. It is enough for us that we must act with the simple thought of God before us, make all ends subordinate to this, and leave the event to Him. We know, indeed, to our great comfort, that we cannot preach in vain. His heavenly word "shall not return unto Him void, but shall prosper in the thing whereto He sent it." Still it is surely our duty to preach, "whether men will hear, or whether they will forbear." We must preach, as our Lord enjoins in a text already quoted, "as a witness." Accordingly He Himself, before the heathen Pilate, "bore witness unto the truth;" and St. Paul conjures us to keep our sacred charge as in the presence of Him, {268} who "before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession." Doubtless, His glory is set forth in some mysterious way in the rejection, as well as in the reception of the Gospel; and we must co-operate with Him. We must co-operate so far, as to be content to wound as well as to heal, to condemn as well as to absolve. We must not shrink from being "a savour from death unto death," as well as of "life unto life." We must stedfastly believe, however painful may be the duty, that we are in either case offering up a "sweet savour of Christ unto God both in them that are saved, and in them that perish." We must learn to acquiesce and concur in the order of God's providence, and bear to rejoice over great Babylon and her inhabitants, when the wrath of God has fallen upon her.
This consideration is an answer to those who would limit our message to what is influential and convincing in it, and measure its divinity by its success. But I have introduced it rather to show generally, how utterly we are in the dark about the whole subject; and therefore, as being in the dark, how necessary it is to gird our garments about us, and hold fast our treasure, and hasten forward, lest we betray our trust. We have no means of knowing how far a small mistake in the Faith may carry us astray. If we do not know why it is to be proclaimed to all, though all will not hear, much less do we know why this or that doctrine is revealed, or what is the importance of it. The grant of grace in Baptism follows upon the accurate enunciation of one or two words; and if so much depends on one sacred observance, even down to the letter in which it is committed to us, why should not at least the substantial sense of other truths, nay, even the primitive wording of them, have some especial claim upon the Church's safe guardianship of them? St. Paul's Articles of Belief are precise and individual; why should we not take them as we find them? Why should we be wise above that is written? Why should we not be thankful that a work is put upon us which is so plainly within our power, to hold the Gospel Truths, to count and note them, to feed upon them, to hand them on?
Here are the comments from Fr. David to which I referred above: In my personal opinion, since we believe that God saves both men and women, we should say this more often. In the Byzantine Liturgy, one of the main problems is the term “lover of mankind,” Philanthropos, “mankind” being labeled as a sexist term. This could actually be easily solved, saying simply “Lover of humankind.” It means exactly the same thing, avoids gender exclusivity, adds one syllable, and is not a “neologism,” since it has been around since the sixteenth century, as the Oxford English Dictionary has pointed out. Of course, it is not possible to propose this without “extreme” emotion, and those opposed to inclusive language generally go ballistic at this suggestion. Why? I think because it is an easy fix. They don’t want an easy fix, but to force “feminists “ to use more circuitous language that can be more easily ridiculed. “Humankind” then is rejected as bowing to the “feminist agenda.” The critics point out that “loving us all,” is ambiguous, and as much as I am in sympathy with the problem, I think fairly that it is a double standard. “Man” can be ambiguous also, but the critics say that it’s always clear from “context.” As clear, I think, from “context,” as “lover of us all.” The divine title philanthropos is particularly a Byzantine problem, and it occurs so frequently. If there is going to be such trouble over the gender problem, I would propose that we simply use “lover of humankind,” and in other cases conform to what has been approved for the Roman Catholic Church in America. It is undoubtedly too late for this suggestion, however.
What should one say about “feminism.” I would certainly hold to a sound theology, which would hold that men and women, as human persons, are equal in dignity and redemption but not in role. In the world today, however, gender roles are changing. This bodes massive sociological realignments. Whenever this happens, there is social displacement, even violence. When America faced the problem of slavery and thus of social realignment in the nineteenth century, it led to one of the most bloody wars in history. This is perhaps the reason for “extreme” emotion. We cannot have a physical war between men and women. In time, I think, things will settle down again. The world has changed, and the “text,” the language by which we govern our relationships, has also changed. The Pittsburgh Metropolia, nor the Oriental Congregation, nor for that matter the Holy See, has control over the language used in the world. This is the problem that the Church has not adequately faced. The problem is not the biblical or theological or liturgical language, the problem is the secular language, and as much as we would like to say that the Church is free from all secular influence, that it is the Church’s duty to preach to the world and not vice versa, this ignores the Church’s mission to proclaim the gospel to all peoples. We just have not become aware yet what it might mean to English-speaking secular men and women in the twenty-first century. I have faith that a road will be found in which we can reach out with the gospel to all people. This might mean some horizontal inclusive language. As much as the Church would like to close the book on this change of “text” in the modern world, ministers on the grass roots level feel the problem, and so inclusive language is used in everyday and liturgical discourse whether the official Church allows it or not. This is true in Orthodoxy as well as Catholicism.
There is in the background another problem that has not been addressed. This is related, but getting off-topic a bit, so I’ll just mention it. As any real pastor knows, the church is dominated by women. What is needed is a masculine spirituality to attract more men. Unfortunately, many proponents of a masculine spirituality think this means putting women down. I think the central spirituality of men is fatherhood, either spiritual or physical. The role of a father is to bring out the best in the potentiality of his children. In regard to physical children, sometimes fathers abuse this by forcing their own image on them. Fathers frequently do not know how to relate to their daughters or their wives, or how to bring out their best potential. I tell my seminarians over and over again, if the church says that the priesthood is a male role, then you must be a spiritual father to the women under your pastoral care. You must bring out their best spiritual potential, not put them down, but men often do not know how to do this. Our culture does not teach this. The challenge to priests and fathers in these days is unbelievably high pressure, so it is no wonder that men sometimes “crack,” and become abusers.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index