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

Nonsense.

First, this:
is not a question; it is an accusation, that, at least, as applied to me is baseless.

And while this:
may be a simple question, this:
cannot be called an accusation. It is a suggestion that we refrain from such speculative wondering. If you do not feel that you wish to make an accusation - great. But such suggestive questions - that raise suspicion without foundation, albeit indirectly - I just can't see the point. What does that contribute?

Challenges of this sort - whether on liturgical language, music, parish closings, missions, etc. - can be done in various ways. Some ask for too much, on this and other threads, I think, if they indulge in speculation about possible ill-motives of people involved, but expects that whatever cogent points are embedded in the criticism be diligently consider. It's a lot to ask, for example, for people to put aside accusations of embracing the broad feminist agenda or acting second-class, and give serene consideration to the other, good points. Just my opinion, but I think it's easier to get a hearing if one sticks to point and avoids the overheated rhetoric.

IM wrote:
Also reported in the article was this comment:
This is the remark that I felt was too strong.

I disagree totally. I advocate that translations be made on the basis of scholarship, not politics, and, moreover, that the sterotyping of someone making an argument be avoided - that the focus be fixed on the merits of the argument. And I am puzzled by arguments against these simple points.

I very much disagree with what djs has posted.

When one sees an embracement of inclusive language � which has its origin in the politics of secular feminism � one has a responsibility to question those who within the Church who are advocating such language and set them aright. Such questions can greatly contribute to the discussion because it may help those who advocate inclusive language to see that it is really rooted in politics and not in true inclusiveness.

Inclusive language is all about politics. Many good people embrace it because they falsely believe it to be inclusive. They most likely do not see the underlying politics of those promoting the secular feminist agenda.

Those who demand the use of inclusive language are the ones you should be condemning for translating on the basis of politics. Integrity of language needs to replace false agendas of inclusiveness.

It would be interesting to hear from anyone who advocates of the use of inclusive language - horizontal, vertical, or sideways - to hear their rationale, rather than only hearing the rationales imputed to them by its opponents.

Some choose to see a poltical battle here, and of course make their vision self-fulfilling. I don't think that such fractiousness helps our church.

This we can agree on. And this is something I have asked about before, both here and to several members of the commission. I have never received an answer beyond �the commission voted for it�. I still would very much like to see the bishops publish the translation guide that would have been the basis for all translations.

It is better to see a battle that is real and engage in it than to pretend it doesn�t exist, or that it doesn�t affect us.

I just read the link that Larenzo provided: The Politics of Prayer - Feminist Language and the Worship of God [aquinasandmore.com] . The general description of the book provides a very good summary of the issue and is must reading for anyone concerned about integrity of language. Accepting the secular feminist demands for inclusive language can do great damage to the Church in the long run. Calls that those opposing what is wrong are being �fractious� must be rejected. This book will certainly be on my 2006 reading list.

It seems to me that there is no one in our Church demanding that we embrace inclusive language. It logically follows that a challenge of �fractiousness� can properly be made only against those advocating the adoption of inclusive language (or any controversial change).

Dear Friends,

All I can say is I hope I never become a member of any commission that either the Administrator or djs would have something to say about!

That would really cause undue stress for me . . . (unless, of course, either person agreed with me or the commission . . .)

Alex

djs,

____________________________________________
It would be interesting to hear from anyone who advocates of the use of inclusive language - horizontal, vertical, or sideways - to hear their rationale, rather than only hearing the rationales imputed to them by its opponents.
I also agree.
______________________________________________

One would think that Fr. Taft would be the one to have provided that argument and especially at that conference as reported by Touchstone. What did you think of Trautman's arguments?

But the most learned, Fr. Taft, has given us an explanation that is primarily political, hasn't he?

-----------------------------------------------
I disagree totally. I advocate that translations be made on the basis of scholarship, not politics, and, moreover, that the sterotyping of someone making an argument be avoided - that the focus be fixed on the merits of the argument. And I am puzzled by arguments against these simple points.
------------------------------------------------

Well, I'm all ears. However, I don't think it is steroetyping to observe the facts as they are. If the facts are not as I have said, then by all means show me and I shall stand corrected!

Does radical feminism distnguish between scholarship and politics? If the answer to that is, "no," then you may be limiting them in their ability to answer.

Alex,

Are you suggesting that people with opposing opinions cannot be friends? I am sure that djs knows that if he were passing through my neighborhood I would insulted if he did not stop for some pirohi and beer. I suspect that if I were ever in his neck of the woods he would feel the same. [I am even willing to consider his idea of a new parish in Montana! I might be willing to move and be a founding member of St. Nicholas of Myra Greek Catholic Parish of Red Lodge � one of the most beautiful places in the world.]

I live near Washington, DC. I see a few people on either side of the aisle who will not associate with people who think differently and denigrate them. But, for the most part, people agree to disagree and work together where necessary and possible. And, in truth, once the steaks are done on the grill they all gather together and eat at the same table.

Admin

From the general description:

Having been accused by you of embracing the feminist agenda, and now seeing that you feel that a very good summary of the issue includes a description of it as including "an all-out attack on the Scripture and on the core beliefs it incorporates which are common to both Christianity and Judaism", I am more than a little shocked.

This description is not, by any resonable measure, a good summary of the issue facing us. This agenda is not our that of our bishops. It is not of our sisters of Saint Basil. It is not of our scholars. It is not of our commission. If you engage our people as though they are part of this current, then it's no wonder at all that you have never received an answer.

Im posted:
Definitely. And I have expressed criticism of it for that reason. (I haven't had the time to read back over the article or the rest of your long post in detail, and don't want to be hasty, on the other comments.)

I do not object to the facts that you state, rather your use them to poison the well regarding other issues - your drawing an inference about some other issue on the basis of these not logically connected facts, that's what I object to. And since there is so much discuss cogently, why lapse into fallacy?

From your lips to God's ears!

Dearest Administrator,

I would love to join both you and djs for a steak barbecue!

As long as my goose wouldn't be cooked as well . . .

Alex (who belongs to no commission of any kind)

Why are you shocked? I do not doubt that you have no intention of purposefully advocating such things. They are, however, the result of inclusive language. When you let the camel�s nose in the tent you always wind up with the whole camel (or at least you will have a major job keeping him out). It�s better not to let the camel�s nose in the tent at all.

See my response immediately above. Such things affect us and we must be willing to realize it. When we buy into the language of the secular feminists we make the fight outlined in the book much more difficult to those who are willing to fight it.

I have only spoken to help people realize that such things do affect us and that we ought not let the camel�s nose into the tent.

I have not raised the issue of this book with the members of the commission that I am acquainted with. My questions have always been raised politely.

And I would love to have you both for dinner!

djs,

Did you notice that, while we are offering grilled steak, Alex is requesting a cooked goose? I wonder if he'd turn down some saut�ed po-pinkis?

Admin