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.

Father,

This is a powerful witness for the need for a comprehensive review of the liturgy by the faithful people of God because you have seen the liturgy and you are a pastor of the Church. You realize more than most of us the powerful impact a liturgy can have on the work of a parish.

I can testify to the involvement of men in our parish and the concommitent deeper appreciation women have for the parish because of that. No one loses in a situation in which our respctive roles are respected and developed.

It is enough for me to know that you as a pastor after showing yourself to be a man who gives his life for the sheep encourage the deep study of this new recension before it is promulgated. As one of the faithful I must insist upon it. I don't believe the request is out of line at all.

The Theology of the Body is very profound. Let us examine this text through that prism even as we examine the actual wording of the translation.

The time is now to rise up, see the old dieing ways ended, die to that so that we may see our Church rise out of the ashes. This is the place to do it. This is the time and the examination of this liturgy is the instrument God seems to have given us to see the renewal of our Church. Our Church has been given a mission. This is our opportunity to pursue it.

God sets before us life and death. Let us choose life.

CDL

Amen Fr. Tom, this will not help women, but will oppress them, as the founders of inclusive language have done already.

As one of his younger men (18) I'll agree and am astounded by how many of us there are at Annunciation. Maybe instead of taking potshots at our parish the others could learn a thing or two and imitate it; our world is dying, and right now political squabbles are not needed in any way, shape, or form.

Bishops, wake up. It's your time to lead.

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

What does the commission and the hierarchy hope to gain by trying to keep all of this from the people. There are surely many good things about this recension and some that will need to be amended. Why won't they explain it and get the feed back from the people?

CDL

Amen to what Fr. Tom posts above.

Dn. Robert

Perhaps the forum is a dread to the Commission and the hierarchy. I'm not suggesting that we stop posting here. What I am suggesting is that we also send all sorts of messages to the commission members and the hierarchs; Phone them, send them emails, send them snail mail letters. Be respectful. They are chosen and holy. But be upfront. The people deserve to see the recension, to have it explained, and to be heard from before the recension is promulgated. It only makes good sense if we want our liturgy to be a full blessing to God, the people, and to the world.

Send in those cards and letters.

CDL

As much as I love being a member of the Ruthenian Catholic Church, if the inclusive language Liturgy is implemented, I will most likely take my family to the Orthodox Church.

Recluse,

Tell that to your bishop. They need to hear that younger members and newer members and vital members really want from the Church.

Ask him also when a public study of the liturgy will be held so that people can comment on it and see it amended where necessary. I don't think that our bishops realize that we exist.

CDL

Good advice Carson, I shall do that!

Amen Father Thomas!

The older women in our parishes are not demanding inclusive language. They see it for what it is.

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:

This is precisely the point where Liturgiam Authenticam and Fr. Petras part ways:

LA states:

As Fr. Loya has stated, the issue involves more than language:

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":

Here are the comments from Fr. David to which I referred above:

lm,

"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."

I hope Father David clarifies this. I don't quite know what he is saying here. Do you know what he could mean?

CDL

The Church should not lower her language to the people, the Church should raise up the people to her language. Otherwise the bar keeps getting lower and lower and lower. This is the reason why iconographic standards have not become more secularized within the past 100 years. People still love the art form and it has not changed with the times. Since both the words and the art reflect the same thing, shouldn't it also follow that the words should not change because people will love and understand them anyway?

Maybe in 2012 we will have an ebonics liturgy.

I've read the pages and pages and pages of complaining about this issue and have felt compelled to finally add something.

I'm a Linguist by training and my field is Sociolinguistics, which is how language is used in society. So I'm very attentive to modern speech and it's variation (I'm a "variationist"). To further explain myself, I'm very conservative with regards to liturgy and praxis, in most cases.

With regards to this new translation, I think that as long as the so-called inclusive language does not contradict Theology, I see no problem with it. It is modern English. We speak, read, and write in modern English. The suggested idea in another thread that we translate the Liturgy into Elizabethan English was, I hope, a joke. He who hath made that comment knoweth not the problem for sooth we would encounter if we need speak such tongue in Church. Woulde we use moderne spellyng or olde?

I know folks are upset, but I've seen little to be so upset about when I read through the translation and it seems to me that this is being blown a bit too much out of proportion. Perhaps there are some problems, but it's not the end of the world some of us here are making it out to be. Just my 2 cents.

Dear Marc,

There are indeed places where the current language does indeed distort the theology but it appears those are not the issues causing the gravest concern in many of the posts here. They have been outlined pretty clearly by at least one poster.

I do think that the idea that one expands options for a full liturgy by removing the text is something kin to raffling off a car with no engine or wheels.

I think you perhaps have taken the suggestion for Elizabethan English too seriously. That was corrected in several places to indicate the use of a hieratic vernacular. Would that cause a problem for you as a linguist?

Eli

In the topic Changes in the Roman Catholic Mass there were some very good links that touch on this topic.

One link from an article written by Michael Foley of Baylor University included this which I found very interesting. He is speaking about the changes to the texts of English translation of the RC Mass recently approved by the Latin bishops of the USCCB.

This is very much the approach that the New ICEL has taken with the translations of the Latin Mass.
I have also mentioned that I recently switched from the RSV to the ESV for my personal Scripture reading. I have found in my reading (and verified it on their website at www.esv.org) that there were occasions in the RSV were the term “man” was employed when it really didn’t belong. The editors of the ESV removed the references to “man” and “men” where it was not in the original for purposes of accuracy. This is the kind of translation I support.

Thought the Administrator would like this tidbit from CWNews Off the Record...

Controversial since its inception, ICEL became a focus of serious alarm among the orthodox in the 1980s, when it embarked on a revised translation of the Roman Missal. Feminist ideology had made its deepest inroads into English-speaking hierarchies at this time, and Wilkins continues to put forth the party line in his account of the conflict:


Any commission charged with English translations at that time would have felt the need to use inclusive language. By the 1980s it was hardly possible in ordinary speech or writing to continue to use the words "men" or "man" as applying also to women. The ICEL translators felt their way forward, both on the horizontal level, where masculine collective nouns, pronouns, and adjectives described groups including both women and men, and on the vertical level, where references to God were wholly masculine. Women religious, concerned that they should not yet again be marginalized by terms that excluded them, lobbied powerfully and effectively.
Effectively indeed. It has never been satisfactorily explained how masculine references to God "exclude" women, nor how translators can be licensed to "correct" their originals in this regard. But correct them they did. The first segments of ICEL's revised Missal declared war on the overly masculine deity which feminists found in the Latin editio typica (official text). You'd never guess it from Wilkins's superficial treatment, but ICEL engaged in a wholesale transformation of divine imagery, dropping masculine pronouns for God, changing third-person texts to second-person (genderless) addresses, and inserting supposedly feminine attributes to counter-balance masculine ones.

In ICEL's revised Proper of Seasons, for example, the following titles were substituted for the simple vocative Deus ("God") -- i.e., without any qualifier:


God of mystery
God of life
God of blessings
God of majesty
God of mercy
God of our salvation
God of nations
God of hope
God our Creator
God our Creator and Preserver
God ever-faithful
Ever-faithful God
All provident God
Compassionate God
Merciful God
Gracious God
Just and gracious God
Likewise, the title "Lord" was deemed too sexist, and got the gelding treatment. This is what ICEL gave us in place of simple (unqualified) vocative Domine. I'm not making this up, folks:


God of light
God of wisdom
God of majesty
God of forgiveness
God of mercy
God of mercy and compassion
God our Creator
All-provident God
To make it clear: ICEL was not commissioned to create a renewed liturgy but to translate Latin originals. The Church understands that the renewal process the Council called for produced the Latin originals, whence the Latin editio typica was itself the renewed text. But ICEL felt the renewal didn't go far enough, and sent to Rome a gender-titrated, androgynous, 1980s-style God/dess for its recognitio.

Dead on arrival. Somebody in the Holy See was paying attention, understood that "merciful and faithful God" did not translate omnipotens Deus, and sent it back to ICEL with a "What have you guys been smoking?" letter.

The ICELites are understandably bitter. After all, they were one rubber stamp away from a grand slam. We shouldn't forget, however, that the controversy was not a controversy over methods of translation. They were out to give us a different deity.

PAX

james