When one reads the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and The Dicipline of Sacraments,a Roman congregation,to the Latin Church on the issue of liturgical translations, it would appear that the term "Mankind" is not at all any kind of a problem.

But the above would seem to imply that "mankind" is NOT the word to be used for philanthropos, Father Deacon, since it lacks the sense of the individual, and stresses the collective in a way that, say, "Lover of man" does not. I can love all men, or there can be three men in Church. The same interplay is not present in mankind. ("Mankind" may still preferable simply because it is widely used, but it DOES violate the second part of your quote above.)

In any case, I too would like to see an answer to your questions, Recluse.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Greetings Fr Deacon,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Yes. I am familiar with this document--thus the confusion. I am ultra curious as to where Fr Petras as gleaned the understanding that the word "mankind" is a sexist term.

Separate from these issues, I would add a persoanl reflection. I have become convinced that the reason "men" was used in the English language to mean both "men" and "women" is that before the 20th century, "women" simply had no standing in the body politic of "mankind." They did not vote and were not expected to take part in public affairs, therefore, their status was "meaningless." In the context of the late 18th century, therefore, the statement "All men are created equal" means exactly what it says.

It should be obvious that there are some people in favor of some "inclusive" language, though I think the questions were more of a challenge to me personally than to opening a dialogue on the subject.

I am at a disadvantage, because "recluse" knows who I am, but I have no idea who is challenging my position on this point.

My basic premise is - "without extreme emotion" - that we should occasionally say explicitly that women can be saved too.

"any prejudice or unjust discrimination on the basis of persons, gender, social conditions, race or other criteria ... has no foundation at all in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy."

LA goes on to say that if exact literal translation can be misunderstood, it is the duty of the catechist and/or homilist to explain the text.

I do not want to appear confrontational but I must say that the original questions seemed straight-forward enough and I would be interested in answers or explanations from anyone with pertinent input. So let me rephrase the two questions in the original post:

1. Was there an actual problem that arose with having "men" in the Creed and using "Mankind"?

2. Who thinks "men" in the Creed and/or "Mankind" are sexist or not inclusive and why?

Deacon Anthony (Kotlar)
patronagechurch.com

My basic premise is - "without extreme emotion" - that we should occasionally say explicitly that women can be saved too. I will add one reflection, many have cited Liturgiam Authenticam as being opposed to "inclusive language." LA is not opposed "ex professo" to inclusive language, but supports literally accurate translation. Cf. paragraph 29: "any prejudice or unjust discrimination on the basis of persons, gender, social conditions, race or other criteria ... has no foundation at all in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy." LA goes on to say that if exact literal translation can be misunderstood, it is the duty of the catechist and/or homilist to explain the text.

Liturgiam Authenticam:

29. It is the task of the homily and of catechesis to set forth the meaning of the liturgical texts,29 illuminating with precision the Church's understanding regarding the members of particular Churches or ecclesial communities separated from full communion with the Catholic Church and those of Jewish communities, as well as adherents of other religions and likewise, her understanding of the dignity and equality of all men.30

Similarly, it is the task of catechists or of the homilist to transmit that right interpretation of the texts that excludes any prejudice or unjust discrimination on the basis of persons, gender, social condition, race or other criteria, which has no foundation at all in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy. Although considerations such as these may sometimes help one in choosing among various translations of a certain expression, they are not to be considered reasons for altering either a biblical text or a liturgical text that has been duly promulgated.

30. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the "inclusive" sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. 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.

Letter from Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship, entitled Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal:

III. Examples of problems related to questions of "inclusive language" and of the use of masculine and feminine terms

A. In an effort to avoid completely the use of the term "man" as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost. The term "humankind", coined for purposes of "inclusive language", remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo. The latter, just as the English "man", which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.

B. In the Creed, which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural "We believe" instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave. This text - "For us and for our salvation" - no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.

Father David has been asked a number of times to respond to paragraph 30. He never responds. I ask him again to respond to paragraph 30 in the context of the explanatory letter of Cardinal Estévez.

Father David might consider that “who for us men and our salvation” already and specifically includes women. The intent of paragraph 29 becomes clear in paragraph 30. Here they are together:


Or maybe Father David is accusing Rome of teaching that women are not saved because of Rome’s insistence on using only the term “men” in its official English translations of theological documents?

Here’s more:


Rome has clearly stated that when we say “who for us men and our salvation” we include women.

Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship has clearly stated that “to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave.”

How could anyone not understand this clear teaching?

Father David has been asked a number of times to respond to paragraph 30. He never responds. I ask him again to respond to paragraph 30 in the context of the explanatory letter of Cardinal Estévez.

Surveys among Catholics indicate that there is no demand for inclusive language in the liturgy. Accuracy is in. Agendas are out. The 1970s are gone. The Church has moved on from such things.