Sociological concerns have been one of the main reasons that is given for inclusive language in the new translation:





I think it is quite clear that the theological and eccelsiological reasons for inclusive language have been shown to be non-existent and even contrary to the faith. What, therefore, is the relevant sociological evidence which necessitates inclusive language?

I suggest the most important sociological evidence for the Church to consider is that 50% of marriages end in divorce which of course is destructive of the family. I would add that the other relevant sociological evidence is that birth rates are down especially in Europe, but also in the United States.

This evidence means that there is a failure to understand the very nature of marriage, which is to fail to understand marriage as a sign of Christ's love for the Church, and a failure to understand what is really important about the relationship between the sexes. This evidence does not mean that we need inclusive language, but rather that we need to develop a radical understanding of Genesis and what true masculinity is and what true femininity is.

What a strawman argument that is being made. There is not going to be a war between men and women over language, because most women know proper english.

My 12 year old daughter knows that the term "men" in the creed knows that it includes her.

The problem isn't with the language. The problem is with a group of women who want to re-engineer language to make themselves "feel" better.

Im,

Would you please tell me who those quotes are from?

Wondering

The quotes are from Fr. David Petras who was on the committee responsible for the translation. The first is from this website. The second is from his website and response to Fr. Serge.

Thank you, Im.

It is my opinion that the female vs. male "war" was mainly played out in the '60s through the '90s, and we are only seeing small skirmishes now. It is clear that our society as a whole is shifting more traditional and conservative. For instance, newspaper reports abound about the number of college-educated women who are choosing to marry and stay home to parent. Abortions and adoptions among teens have both dropped, with the young mothers often choosing to parent as well. The stigma of being a stay-at-home-mom is quickly being lost. The rigidity of "pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen" is also being dropped by most allowing for personal expression in the family unit for how best to play out the traditional needs and roles. We really have gone through a revolution of sorts, but I believe the random shots we hear nowadays are just the sounds of retreat.

I agree with Im. Now is the time to evangelize to these hungry people who have a new-found freedom of choices their parents and grandparents didn't have, but also have a new-found respect for the traditional gender roles. Many of them have little to no examples and they need guidance and support to make such a radical transition.

If the commission was concerned about the massive cultural shift of today, they should have concentrated more on masculinity than femininity, which was the shift of decades past. The latter have already started finding their groove while the former are now in the position of needing to find their place among it all. Not only must they now be the equals in the housework and parenting, but also be the family providers most times. If we get them the message now of what their primary roles as husband, father, and provider are, it will spare us the male version of the '60s from being played out a decade from now when they are burned out from trying to do it all, with no guidance or support along the way.

I think if we want to appeal to pious women outside the Church who are unlikely to become Christian because of their infantile view of the world and who are 50+ years old then this PC language is just what we need. It should gain us 2 or 3 bitter old women.

If we wish to have a vibrant growing Church that puts God first then we should not be promulgating a new liturgy.

CDL

I am in total agreement with IM.

"The problem isn't with the language. The problem is with a group of women who want to re-engineer language to make themselves "feel" better."

My question- now which one of these women were on our commission? Lets not make excuses or blame some unidentified group of women. Our commission members suggested the changes and our bishops agreed.

I wonder why the revisionists stopped where they did with the translations, because by starting what they did, one could make a case with their logic (or lack there of) and go onto other areas. This should be an additional concern for the future. As of June 29th, we will be on the slippery slope.

On a side note: I'm still amazed that the Our Father has stayed in tack as long as it has. I mean, it has old English terms like 'hallowed be thy name'. Who the heck talks like that. And dare I say the title of the prayer is pretty offensive. 'Our Father', tisk tisk you revisionists. You still have more work to do. Now my kids might end up thinking that God is male.

Monomakh

It is quite obvious that the issue of "inclusive" language is VERY emotional and touches many issues that good people feel very deeply about. It is not my point in this brief post to discuss the pros and cons of using inclusive language, but I did want to briefly address the question of "sociological evidence" as mentioned in the original quotes from Fr David.

Over the years, as I have taught in higher education, I have noticed a change in the way in which students are taught in Composition I and Composition II. This change then bleeds through to the courses I teach (especially as it relates to research papers).

The texts that are routinely used in these early writing courses uniformly teach the students that the use of "man" and "mankind" is sexist and reflects a patriarchal/misogynist attitude towards women. I have had the opportunity to "sit in" a couple of these courses and have heard professors go on at length about the "misuse" of the words "man" and "mankind", etc. I have even heard them use liturgical texts as examples of this misogyny, etc.

Obviously, I disagree with these professors. I want to make this point clear. But ...

The point is this: these students, having been taught that "mankind" refers only to males and the word "man" refers only to males, hear the Liturgy differently than I do. When they hear the statement "You are good and love mankind," they hear "You are good and love males." As the years pass, more and more of our young people will hear incorrect theology when they attend the Liturgy. (There is a sad parallel to this in ecclesiastical history -- think about the 4th Ecumenical Council and the unfortunate split in the Church because people from the edges of the Byzantine Empire heard and understood the words "nature" and "person" differently from the people in the center of the Empire. Most scholars now recognize that this division was caused by a misunderstanding of language and not a real theological difference. But think about the consequences of using a word that people did not understand correctly!)

So what is the Church to do? She has two choices. 1) To instruct people what the words "mankind" and "man" mean as they are used in the Liturgy; OR 2) To change the words so that the confusion is removed. As far as I am concerned, cogent arguments can be made to support each decision.

For me, the point at issue is not our theological understanding of gender, God's plan for salvation, etc. What we are debating is the best way to communicate this unchanging ("once and for all") theology of the Church to the people of today.

The Apostle Paul said, "I become all things to all men/people so that I might win some." What does this mean for the Church today? How does the Church remove cultural obstacles (i.e., cultural understandings of words) to the faith without changing the substance/essence of the faith? What is the relationship between the words we use and the faith we profess? When are the words so important that should not be changed? Etc. I think these are very difficult questions -- and I respect those who disagree in the answers they give.

I believe that the vast majority of people who are struggling over this are trying to be faithful to the Church's teaching while at the same time trying equally hard to be obedient to Christ's command to evangelize and make disciples of every nation. (Are errors made on both sides? Absolutely. Are there a few people with agendas on both sides? Absolutely. But I believe these are the exception rather than the norm. Perhaps I am naive, but I would rather err on the side of charity in this regard.) In my experience, most of the people I have listened to as they debate the issue really are good loving Christians trying to help other people come to know and understand the Truth of God's saving love for "all of us"/"mankind"/"humanity". And for that, I am thankful!

Here is what Rome has said about the issue:



Liturgiam Authenticam

Here is what St. Paul has said:



Chapter 12 of Romans

Please find the text where St. Paul says, "I become all things to all men/people.

St. Paul actually says:



1 Cortinthians 9

You are revising scripture to defend revisions in the Creed and the Liturgy which demonstrates that the revisionist project to exterminate so called "sexist" language must, by it's own logic, make further revisions. Therein lies the problem.

I would say that it is only emotional on one side, for that is all there is to defend its use, emotion, that some men feel very strongly that it ought not to be used

On the other side, it is simply a matter of sound principle and argument.



I too would rather err on the side of charity and risk offending with the truth, rather than overlook the fact that the Creed is being changed without the benefit of an Ecumenical Council.

Let me be more clear. The it in the next to the last line above, refers to the antecedent "men" and which is used in its unmarked sense so as to include men and women.

I would say that the eradication of so called "sexist" language is only emotional on one side, for that is all there is to defend its eradication, the emotion some men feel that "sexist" language ought to be eradicated.

And now for a quick moment of irony...

In LA itself:
"the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community "

Fr. Deacon Lance,

There is no irony there, that's the Vatican telling us what "men" means. It's doing exactly what it was saying should be done--it is teaching--it is not changing the Creed because of a political agenda.

lm