Congregation Receiving Communion Before Priest

  • Thread starter Thread starter MN19
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree that it’s not necessary but why is non gender inclusive language better in your opinion?
 
Elf01 said:
If referring to human beings gender neutral language would not change the meaning unless it was only intended to refer to one sex.
Click to expand...
Would changing the pronouns to gender-neutral not be tantamount to making a statement implying that the Bible has been written in a way that is predjudiced against women and therefore had to change?

What about words such as “mankind” or the expression, “fellow men”? Are they too sn issue?
 
Brendan_64 said:
Would changing the pronouns to gender-neutral not be tantamount to making a statement implying that the Bible has been written in a way that is predjudiced against women and therefore had to change?
Click to expand...
I don’t think so.

Why do you think gender neutral language was not used?
 
No need for gender neutral/inclusive language. We all understand what the prayers mean by “men” and “mankind”.
 
“Man” was originally a gender-neutral term; it was the Old English word for “human,” while “wer” or “guma” meant an adult human male, and “wif” or “wifman” meant an adult human woman. Mankind just meant humankind, the human kindred, the human sort of creature.

So moving away from using mankind is actually less gender-inclusive.

And you kids get off my Anglo-Saxon meadow sward!
 
Last edited:
CapitalistCatholic said:
No need for gender neutral/inclusive language. We all understand what the prayers mean by “men” and “mankind”.
Click to expand...
Why do we use “people”.in the Gloria and “men” in the Creed?

The thing is that language changes. We no longer refer to mankind or whatever. Using sexist language is just another way of making the Church seem irrelevant.
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
The thing is that language changes. We no longer refer to mankind or whatever. Using sexist language is just another way of making the Church seem irrelevant.
Click to expand...
When did we stop referring to mankind? Will the word human be the next target?

The issue, I think, is that the call for the use of ‘gender-inclusive’ language sometimes seems to be laced with sociopolitical ideology.
 
Last edited:
Elf01 said:
What’s bad about gender neutral language in and of itself?
Click to expand...
There’s nothing bad about it of itself, but nor is it automatically good of itself. I think one of the issues is that the push for increased use of it is bound up in socio-political ideology. I think there is sometimes the implication that to use language that isn’t gender neutral is to somehow be unfairly discriminatory against women.
 
Those people who think that this makes the church seem “sexist” and “irrelevant” are being, for lack of a better word, petty. They fail to realize the Church is referred to as she, and femininity is a revered aspect of the Christian religion: BVM, Female Saints & Visionaries, etc.
 
Elf01 said:
I get that. What I don’t get is preferring non inclusive language.
Click to expand...
I know your question wasn’t addressed to me, but to me, the language isn’t non-inclusive. That’s why I (and I suspect many others) don’t have an issue with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top