www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology horizontal gender inclusive language in the Liturgy

Dear Im,
I'd like to suggest that you make a lengthier review. I think your claim about suggestions about your motives are a little hasty; and the issues of "common" versus formal usage already addressed. I think that all who have written would agree that there are situations in which inclusive language is just theologically wrong. But those situations do not make inclusive language wrong in every case: as LA indicates, you can't just undertake translations on auto-pilot. Finally, I am not sure why the Jesuits as a whole are brought up instead of considering Fr. Taft's comments and expertise in liturgy on an individual basis.

I don't disagree with the raised suspicion, but the suspicion, the poisoned well as it were, cannot be considered as a probative argument. After all, even a watch stopped dead has the right time twice a day. As I suggested, an argument of this type raises suspiscions of its own that detract from the serious arguments involved in working out the best translation.

Fr. Deacon Lance,

Christologically or not, what is the original wording in the Scriptures? What is important is that we get the Scriptures right and not cherry pick what we want to change.

Was it important to use the LXX wording for "virgin" instead of the Hebrew preference of "young woman"? Probably not too important. What word should our liturgy use?

Joe

djs,

That a watch only has the right time twice a day indicates something very significant. It is quite unreliable.

What was Bob Rossi suggesting then?

My arguments are quite serious. I think it is extremely probative to examine where the movement to change the English langauge originated.

Taft's expertise on the English language is no more (admittedly I can't spell anymore) than my own. That his order lacks vocations is extremely significant.

Finally, the primary change to which I objected, is leaving, "men," (anthropoi) our of the Creed in "for us men...and was made man" (anthropos). This is the type of change directly rejected in LA and I have yet to see a real argument why leaving out "men" in this instance is good, for it certainly is not a translation. The burden to leave something out of the Creed is not on those who oppose leaving it out.

So what is the theological reason for leaving out "men?"

John, I actually don't need to say anything on this thread as it seems you have amiably made the relevant points quite well.


Again, what more needs to be said, other than do you need a deacon there already well familiar with ROCOR English translations?

Well, in a way, so does the anti-inclusive-language movement ("AILM), doesn't it? I mean, for purposes of language, isn't the AILM saying that male and female are not different, that "men" and "he" and "him" all refer to males and females, with no difference?

Joe,

"What is important is that we get the Scriptures right and not cherry pick what we want to change."

That depends on many factors as I am sure you know. Following literal or dymaic equivalence or a balance of both. What you are using as a base text, LXX, Peshitta, Masoretic. What codices or manuscripts you are cross referencing

"Was it important to use the LXX wording for "virgin" instead of the Hebrew preference of "young woman"? Probably not too important. What word should our liturgy use?"

I thought I made it clear by posting: "Since the Byzantine Church has interpreted this as a Christological Psalm this is important."

The LXX, as well as the Byzantine text of the New Testament, has (or should have) pride of place in Byzantine Churches.

Obviuosly the use of virgin is important and is agreed upon by all Churches. I am not convinced interpreting Psalm 1 Christologically is as crucial as interpreting say Psalm 22 that way. If the Psalmist was prophecying about Christ in Pslam 1 thatn man is very important. If he is simply refering to anyone use of one is not that important unless one believes in translating literally as opposed to dynamically.

Fr. Deacon Lance

A lack of reliability is cause for suspicion. It is not, however, probative of whether or not a given item is correct or not.


Ditto. Significant to the lack of vocations, but not to his understanding of liturgical translations.

Such arguments eptimoize the ad hominem fallacy. They are not logically valid and detract from otherwise sound arguments.

I completely agree that, to my theologically uneducated mind, this is a clear case of typology. I am a little distracted, however, by the use of "us" as a demonstrative pronoun/adjective. In addition, while "man" in English clearly carries the generic, "men" is rarely used in this way. (I.e., a salient characteristic of man is advanced use of language and tools; a salient characteristic of men is the inability to ask for directions. Genus in the former, male in the latter.) So my preference would be to emphasize type (and English) and have it: "For man ... was made man", and leave the "us" understood.

Perhaps it is fortunate that I am not on the liturgical commission.

Funny that you said that I was making an ad hominem attack on the feminists - and I knew exactly what you were saying!

The only thing I know about Fr. Taft's opinion is what was reported in Touchstone magazine, " East meets English:" "He endorsed �horizontally� inclusive language, on the grounds that liturgical translations are for �people of today� and should be in an idiom and style most readily comprehensible to them." The CWR survey which I cited in my first post, suggests that he was wrong. Moreover, if he or the Bishops wanted to know what's comprehensible to the people, why not ask the people who fill the Byzantine Churches? But more importantly why ignore LA on this important issue.

As to my arguments as to feminists and vocations, you're right there are no perfect syllogisms there. However, the facts are that the orders (this is an ad ordinem attack) which are concerned with inclusive language, by and large, have few vocations and the feminists who started making the complaints about sexist language, by and large, weren't having children and were advocating the right to kill them. It seems, therefore, before the Bishops introduce the inclusive langauge (an issue which is closely associated with the culture wars) changes into the Creed or elsewhere in our ancient liturgy, those important facts should have been closely studied and LA ought to be faithfully followed in the meantime.

Below is one attempt at giving reasons for inclusive langauge by Bishop Donald Trautman of the Roman Rite and head of the Liturgy Committee of the USCCB. As to the issue of anthropos below, I think he is wrong. See for example: Matthew 19:5 "Therefore shall an anthropos leave his father and mother, and hold fast to his wife." (also in Ephesians 5:31)
Matthew 19:10 "If such is the case of an anthropos with his wife, it is better not to marry."
I Corinthians 7:1 "It is good for an anthropos not to touch a woman."

Here is a portion of Bp. Trautman's text which is an attempt to justify the changes within the Roman Rite:

How important an issue is inclusive language? Is it much ado about nothing? Consider the experience of two college girls who attended mass in their parish church. Recall that they have grown up with textbooks, newspapers, television and songs that use "man" to mean male. This is what they heard on the Fourth Sunday of Ordinary Time in the Opening Prayer at Mass: "Lord our God, help us love you with all our hearts.. and to love all men as you love them." Then came the Scripture reading from I Corinthians 1,26-31 (Year A): "Brothers, you are among those called..that many of you are wise, as men account wisdom..let him who would boast, boast in the Lord." Then came the Prayer of the Faithful, a petition "that all men might discover peace and happiness in their faith, we pray to the Lord." The priest prayed the Fifth Preface for Sunday's Ordinary Time: "You chose to create man in your own image, setting him over the whole world. You made man the steward of your creation to praise you day by day." The priest celebrant chose Eucharistic Prayer IV and prayed: "Father, we acknowledge your greatness. All your actions show your wisdom and love. You formed man in your likeness and set him over the whole world to serve you, his creator..even when he disobeyed you and lost your friendship, you did not abandon him to the power of death, but helped all men to seek and find you. Again and again you offered a covenant to man and through the prophets taught him to hope for salvation." In eleven lines of this Eucharistic Prayer, the words "man, he and him" occur seven times. One girl turned to her friend and said, why should I come to church when all I hear is language that excludes me?


If those girls attended Mass before 1981, they would have heard these words spoken by the priest over the chalice at mass: "This is the cup of my blood. The blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men." In 1981, the Apostolic See permitted the dropping of that one word "men" making the text inclusive. For those opposed to inclusive language, is there anyone who would go back to restoring the word "men" to the words of consecration?


Inclusive language is a complex and sensitive issue which has ramifications far beyond translations. It has become the focal point for judging continued liturgical progress or retrenchment. It is a major pastoral concern for the Church in the United States.


There has been a noticeable loss of the sense of grammatical gender in the American usage of the English language. Modern English does not have grammatical gender the way French, German and Spanish do. With the course of time and the influence of culture, the meaning of words have changed. Words that once referred to all human beings are increasingly taken as gender specific and consequently exclusive. Words such as "man, brethren, forefathers" which were once understood as inclusive generic terms, today are often understood as referring to only males. Certain usages of "he, his, and him" once were considered to be generic and included both women and men, but today, in contemporary American usage, refer to only males. For more and more people, generic language no longer works. To refer to women using masculine language appears to many to be unjust and inaccurate. It does not promote full participation in the liturgy. The Church today must grapple with the gender specific singular pronoun.


It is important to distinguish vertical inclusive language from horizontal inclusive language. Vertical inclusive language is God language, and the bishops of the United States have stated: "In fidelity to the inspired word of God, the traditional biblical usage for naming persons of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to be retained."(19)

9 Horizontal inclusive language refers to the use of inclusive or gender neutral phrasing for references to humans, that is terms which are intended to refer to both men and women. Today, major newspapers, magazines, television, textbooks used in schools employ sex inclusive language. Continued use of terms which are interpreted as sex exclusive will harm the Church's pastoral mission. Our younger people are taught routinely in their secondary and college education to use sex inclusive language.

In many instances, a more inclusive translation will actually be closer to the original Greek or Hebrew text. For example, consider Mark 8:36,37: "For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? For what can a man give in return for his life?" This is the Revised Standard Version translation. However, if you consult the original Greek text, you will find that the word "anthropos" is used for "man". That Greek word does not mean a male human being, but rather a human being in general. In this instance, inclusive language actually corrects a distorted translation and accurately brings out the meaning of the inspired text.

Addressing women, using male language, denies women their own identity. When women are not named specifically, they are excluded from full participation. This diminishes the Church. It is a problem for the whole Church, for men and women alike.

While we all admire and welcome the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is regrettable that it does not employ inclusive language. In paragraph 1579, the Catechism deals with celibacy, and states: "Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to the affairs of the Lord, they (the ordained ministers of the Latin Church) give themselves entirely to God and to men." This is a most unfortunate translation in view of pedophile behavior in our society. This is not the language to promote celibacy in the contemporary culture of the United States. This is a dramatic example of why exclusive language is unacceptable.

The longer the confirmation of the new Lectionary is delayed, the greater difficulty we will have in preventing people from changing biblical texts on the basis of their own personal likes and dislikes. Great havoc is being done to the inspired word by people not trained in Scripture. There is an urgent pastoral need for an approved scripturally- sound Lectionary with the use of horizontal inclusive language.

We have a number of very loaded political statements here---"politically correct," "secular feminist agenda," "...whole liberal 'Jesus is our sister as well as our brother'...," "feminism is a radical hatred of God..." and "the feminists are telling us that male and female are not different." So it must not be that people who make these statements object to politics in the Church, or a politicized Church, but a specific kind of politics. Correct?

These are very vague terms and assumptions, all made without definition or attribution.

And politics is always about power, so these vague and unattributed turns of phrase have a distinct relationship to power. The question is what this relationship is and in what context it occurs. What is really being attacked and defended here?

For my part, I can think of nothing more political than feeding the hungry, visiting people in prison, supporting the widows, clothing the naked, driving moneychangers from temples, being executed by the state, taking seriously the thousands of times wealth and its misuse are mentioned in the Bible, a call to voluntary poverty and thinking of the Trinity as a model for how society can work. Nothing new here; if you're interested you can read "Theology of a Classless Society" by Metropolitan G. Mar Osthathios as a starting point.

Thanks!

Faithfuly,

bob rossi

I think that everyone who participates here agrees with the need to take care of those in need are are (hopefully) already doing their part. Are you suggesting that those of us who do not support the introduction of inclusive language into the Liturgy are refusing to follow the Lord�s command to feed the hungry, visit those in prison and the other tasks the Lord expects from us? I do not understand the connection and ask you to please explain the connection between your comment and the topic of inclusive language.

Most of Bishop Trautman�s comments are specious. But the one I quoted above shows that he is not approaching the issue evenly. He has defined an embracement of inclusive language as �progress� and the opposition of inclusive language as �retrenchment�. He does not seem to be using the term �retrenchment� correctly but from the context he appears to mean curtailing progress or cutting back progress.

In the end what he is arguing is that because some people do not have an accurate understanding that the term �man� is inclusive of all male and female human beings then we should dumb down the language. Does the Church dumb down the technology of the Eucharist because people might not understand it? No. The Church calls for people to learn theology so that they might understand. The same goes for language. People need to learn what words mean.

I disagree. It is offensive for you to assume because I ask questions I am accusing people of attempting to advance subversive agendas. Did you realize that just after you re-labeled a legitimate question about the intent of the translators as a personal attack you then condemn the practice?

Translation style guides are the product of many things. The translators bring to the task of translation their own personal preferences. Since the translators have not published their written translation guidelines (and probably will never do so) we can only look to the proposed translations together with our knowledge of the translators to see where they are coming from and what they are trying to do with the Liturgy.

Individual Byzantine Catholics (both laymen and clergy) who have major disagreements with the revisions to the Liturgy (both rubrics and texts) have not only the right but also the responsibility to challenge these changes. This forum is nothing more then the church steps or church hall and the discussions that take place in those places every Sunday. Those who disagree with the revisions also have the right and the responsibility to raise their concerns until they are addressed � even by the Holy Father himself.

There is also another problem with calling for the people to meekly accept whatever the commissions produce (with the best of intentions). The real world just doesn�t work like that. When people come across change they don�t like they leave and go someplace else. I was talking with someone at my own parish a few months back who helps keep track of attendance. Since the time the revised rubrics were introduced participation in Sunday Liturgy is down by almost a third. Participation at Lenten Presanctified is down about 65%. While there are many factors at play here (and the new texts have not been used) there is still a regular litany of people who are complaining that the Liturgy is not the same. People tend to stay away from things that they don�t enjoy, especially those that commute from distances as far away as 60 miles.

Exactly! I don't accept the inclusive language because it takes away from the original languages..and I don't like the paraphrasing versions of the Bible either... e.g. The Living Bible

We don't need to water down the scriptures. My entire life I have always recognized that "mankind" includes all of us women too. And although God is pure spirit...it does not bother me to refer to God as He. Also, I think something is really lost if we don't recognize God as Father.

In Christ,

Porter.

In regards to so-called 'horizontal inclusive' language, I would recommend a book that has over a dozen essays on the matter from various authors commenting from different religious and academic disciplines. The matter is serious. The Book is entitled THE POLITICS OF PRAYER - FEMINIST LANGUAGE AND WORSHIP (Ignatius Press). http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Store.ItemDetails/sku/421
The articles deal not only with the more radical attempts at changing liturgy & scripture, but also with the effects of "minor" adjustments in the attempt to make our worship language more "inclusive".

This matter is less an issue with the general public as it is with academics, women religious, and liturgists.

I want a translation not a revision based on ideology.

My thanks for the recommendation of the book on THE POLITICS OF PRAYER - I shall buy myself a copy ASAP.

Attention IM: Congratulations on the wonderful comment "Funny that you said that I was making an ad hominem attack on the feminists - and I knew exactly what you were saying!" I only wish that I'd said that (and I will, I will!).


In response to another posting: would I wish to restore "all men" instead of "all" at the Institution Narrative? No. I would wish to restore "many", which is what the Latin, the Greek and the Aramaic actually say.

Incognitus