By the way, I have just discovered that the revision (in the works) of the Presanctified Liturgy has been completely neutralized with inclusive language. See my post on the "Comments on Draft copy of Presanctified" thread.

Be watchful my Byzantine Catholic brethren. This campaign will not end.

Our Church feels like kumbaya!

"To start, I would like to read how the Kingdom is being advanced in inclusive language. On many threads, we read about the reasons not to use inclusive language. Now, I would like to read the opposite of those reasons."

Corsair,
I would like to see this as well. Personally, I can't really think of anything but there may be others who can.

We have all been asking for this. But the only response is silence. One would think that something so controversial would be rigorously defended by those who feel it is an absolute necessity. I have seen one (somewhat veiled) explanation that seems to equate the issue of inclusive language with the issue of slavery. And although this comparison is outrageous to me, at least someone tried to give a reason.

Here is a comment from a Roman Catholic woman (against inclusive language) who gave me permission to post this:

I am referring to the movement of the 1960's in the Church which began before Humanae Vitae was published. Clamoring from the underbelly of the Church was dissent on the issue of birth control from feminists and the male clergy who, for some unholy reason, were swept up in their frenzy. From this grew a louder cry for all manner of "women's equality" issues, among them "reproductive" rights (aka abortion), women's ordination, homosexual rights, and inclusive language. This inclusive language was meant to permeate all aspects of the Liturgical language (just check the modern Catholic Bibles), including the elimination of all references to God as male.

In Rome the opposition to the new American lectionary was led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, an prominent conservative from Germany who since 1981 had served as Prefect of the Vatican's Congegation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the agency responsible for taking action against heretical tendencies in the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger perceived that the "inclusive" language of the proposed lectionary involved an erosion of doctrinally significant language in the biblical text, and that (despite the claims of liberal American bishops that such language was necessary on "pastoral" grounds) its main purpose was to give aid and encouragement to the increasingly heretical feminist element in the Church. Nevertheless, even after it became clear that the Vatican was resolutely opposed to the whole concept of "inclusive language" in the Mass, American bishops did not withdraw the proposed lectionary from consideration, and held out for a compromise.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/catholic-conflict.html

Inclusive language, that form of gender neutral language designed to include women by eliminating male nouns and pronouns and also male generic terms where both men and women are meant, has made significant inroads into secular usage in the media and academia, if not in popular, everyday usage.

The method of introducing inclusive language is a progressive process and begins with the gradual and systematic modification of certain words and expressions to conform to a minority ideological agenda. This language is slowly accepted and necessarily leads to new ways of thinking – the invariable consequence of language change.

This in turn will lead to the demand for still further changes because behind the assumptions of the use of inclusive language is the belief that English will inevitably move to gender inclusive terms. And so still further changes will follow until the desired objective has been achieved.

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1998/jul1998p8_549.html

"I'm tired of inclusive language that refuses to admit that the Son of God is a man. I'm tired of you, liberal church in America. You're sick."
Mother Angelica

In response, the Council of Nicea (325), followed by The Council of Constantinople I (381), issued the Creed we recite to this day at Mass. The phrases "one in being with the Father," "For us men and for our salvation," and "became man" represent key truths of our faith, truths for which saints suffered. To simply play with the words or discard them because they might not be "politically correct" or in accord with one's personal agenda reveals ignorance and pride.
(Father William Saunders)

Feminism, inclusive English and the Church

The Church has never been immune to the destructive effects of various fads in secular culture and this has been remarkably true with respect to feminism. By far, the best account of what feminism in general has done to the Church in North America is Donna Steichen's masterful book, <Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism,> published by Ignatius Press in 1991. As she documents beyond question-and nothing has happened in the four years since her book was published to change the picture-one of the foremost demands of the Catholic feminists has been the use of so-called "inclusive" English in catechetics and the liturgy itself. As we know, this form of English is a deformation of the language which has as its object the same "gender-free" standards applied to English nouns, pronouns, prefixes and suffixes as the feminists seek to impose on society as a whole.


But with the prospect of new "inclusive" translations of liturgical and scriptural texts, there is a distinct sense that these Catholics feel that a line may have been crossed. If the campaign of the language engineers succeeds, they will have no escape and will no longer be able to worship and hear God's Word proclaimed in their mother tongue, standard English. This possibility is so appalling that they cannot, and will not, remain silent.


http://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/VIORIGHT.HTM

Feminist ideology insists that when we speak of "mankind" we leave women out of the picture — although the ordinary dictionary defines "man" as representing first a member of the human race and only second — or third or fourth — a male adult.
(MSGR MICHAEL WRENN)

"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul… I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past."
Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli when he was Secretary of State before becoming Pope Pius XII

Good quote. I have met Msgr. Wrenn several times. Last time I saw him, in 1993, he was pastor of a church on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, NYC (Archdiocese of New York). He was involved in the English translation of the Catechism of The Catholic Church, and rescuing it from "inclusive" language. We owe a huge debt of thanks to him.

Dn. Robert

Inclusive language is a fraud. It may be a pious fraud, although
I am inclined to think otherwise. In neither case does it make our thought more precise; in neither case does God's love for us shine more clearly through Sacred Scripture and sacred worship. I applaud the dignity of womanhood as I applaud the virtue of chastity. Yet, as Cardinal Heenan remarked during the last Council, "<Timeo peritos et dona ferentes.>": I fear the little men with magnifying glasses; I fear the hyper-sensitive reformer with scissors and paste; I fear the experts, even when they bear gifts.

(Paul V. Mankowski, S.J.)

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/SILKPURS.TXT

As this change doesn't affect me directly, but it does break my heart reading about the damage that it is doing to my fellow Catholics, I can only pray that this situation will be resolved as God wills it.

I pray for the discernment of those being affected by this change in the Liturgy.

Sts. John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, and Gregory the Great pray for us!

Well Jody, it seems as if a proper explanation is not forthcoming.