How do You Feel about Inclusive Language

[iguana27]

dutch:

This is exactly why we should use Latin more frequently in the mass: it is set in stone.

I wish there would be some way to make obstinate dissenters and femi-nazis join the Episcopal Church. There, they can use all of the inclusive language they want where anything goes.

Do you really think that Catholics who disagree with you on this point should pack up their bags and leave, or do you think that you have an obligation to love them and pray for them?

 

[Ray_Marshall]

I would suggest that some of the problem with inclusive language is a “language” problem. Not every language has a proper word with can be translated from the Latin. And sometimes theologians choose translations which are intended to convey the “spirit” of the message, rather than a literal translation.

For example, in the Mass, there is the response to the Priest’s “The Lord be with you.” The congregation responds “And also with you.”

But the Latin for the congregation is “Et cum spiritu tuo”, “And with your spirit.”

In the Nicene Creed the “for us men” phrase is regularly changed to eliminate the word “men.”

This might be considered to be a translation problem.

Here is the entire passage in four languages:

Latin: **Qui propter nos homines ** et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis.Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est.

 **The word for "man" in Latin is "vir."  But the word used in the phrase is "homo/hominis" which means human being.**

French: **Pour nous ** et pour notre salut il descendit des cieux par le Saint-Esprit il a pris chair de la Vierge Marie et il s’est fait homme.

** The French drop the word “men” and just say, “for us.”**

German: **Für uns Menschen ** und zu unserem Heil, ist er vom Himmel gekommen, hat Fleisch angenommen durch den Heiligen Geist von der Jungfrau Maria und ist Mensch geworden.

** In German, rather than use the word “Mann/Maenner” for “men”, they use the word “Menschen” which means more like the Latin “hominis”, that is “human being.”**

English: For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

** In English “hominis” has been translated as “men” rather than a more literal “humans” or “mankind” or the phrase “for us.”**

Who made that decision and why it is so rigidly adhered to, I don’t know.

But I have read recently that there is under consideration the possibility of changing the phrase to just “for us.”

 

[Capt_K]

“Inclusive language” is a misnomer. It is essentially “Exclusive Language”. It forces a differentiation where none exists. As Karl, I think, has made mention “men and women” excludes children and babies.

An example of what ‘inclusive language’ implies, for example, Jesus became Man - a man. By the logic of ‘inclusive language’, anything He did only applies to men, so women aren’t saved. And man-eating tigers won’t eat women.

“For us” doesn’t work because it means ‘for all of us here’ and not for all mankind. You can’t use “human” because it’s huMAN. You can’t use “perSON” because a son is a male offspring.

It’s insane.

 

[kwitz]

When people write or speak now, I think trying to use inclusive language is appropriate.

Having said that, I don’t think we should re-write things to bring them up to what is currently considered inclusive.

And I absolutely hate when people refuse to use He or Him in reference to God or call Him Father. Ugh!!!

Kris

 

[Ransom]

jp, I went to a church where they sang “Sing of the Lord’s Goodness” the way you described and it almost made me cry. But what drives me nuts on a more regular basis is the church I go to when I’m up at college. They say “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good and the good of all God’s Church.” And Ugh. Why do people feel that they can do a better job wording parts of Mass than the Church can? Grrrr. And what’s worse, the on-campus “Catholic” group: one of the upper-ups (it wasn’t the priest, but one of the lay non-student officers) had a bumper sticker on the door to her office (which was right next to the priest’s) saying, “Trust in God. She will provide.”

 

[JimG]

Ransom:

jp, “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good and the good of all God’s Church.”

Wow. I’m surprised that “Lord” managed to stay in there. Thankfully I’ve never heard that one before, but the same thing often happens to many hymns.

JimG

 

[tcaseyrochester]

Isn’t it funny how the attempts we make at what I call “social engineering” often lead to the exact opposite effect?

I find, as does my wife, that so called “inclusive language” actually has a dividing effect, putting emphasis on our differences instead of highlighting us as unified in the Body of Christ.

 

[tcaseyrochester]

It would be interesting to have a thread that was “women’s responses only” along these lines. I never realized how many people felt the same way I do (aka its divisive).

Once it got long enough I’d print it out and share it with my Pastor and my Pastoral Associate (then step back and watch the show, hee hee hee ).

 

[JCPhoenix]

I think inclusive language has no place in the Liturgy.

As a woman, I am insulted that the “PC” police have invaded not only my career and friendships, but now my religion as well. PC has no place in the Church. Christ was not PC, did not want us to be PC and so why are we so worried about offending anyone in a place of worship by traditional language?

I don’t want to go to church and hear what a minority of the world’s population thinks is appropriate addressing. I want to hear what Christ said, I want to hear the scripture translated truthfully, and I don’t want to have to consider how I’m supposed to be insulted by “old-fashioned male-dominated anglo-etc. language.”

Why does this even have to be a topic??? I don’t mean to be harsh, but what has happened to the Church??? It is becoming secularized by society, and all I can imagine is Jesus crying over the battleground that is religion on Earth.

If the LIturgy or any other part of our worship life is being affected by secular society, then the implication is that we have lost our view of Jesus’ message. We really need to focus on truth, not the fluff that surrounds us every day.

Thank you for “hearing” my vent. I’ll go on reading other responses now.

 

[milimac]

JCPhoenix:

I think inclusive language has no place in the Liturgy.

Don’t mean to be overly nitpicky, but based on the remainder of your post, perhaps what you meant to say is that the Liturgy is already inclusive the way it is. Or perhaps you meant to put quotes around the word “inclusive”.

Otherwise, those who want to change the wording may actually have a valid point in many cases.

 

[Thomas2]

Way to go JCPhoenix!

You’re absolutely right - Jesus was anything but P.C.!

Be grateful that you don’t live in Canada were the P.C. Police have effectively hindered the homilies of the priests in residence there by passing the anti-hate speech law that supports homosexual and other deviant minorities so-called “rights.” After this law passed up there, it created an atmoshpere were depending upon how adamant Father or the Deacon is in speaking Truthfully against the sinful acts of homosexual persons, and depending upon who is within earshot of when he does so, he can be brought before legal authorities for so doing! This type of censorship isn’t far off for us in the good ole U.S.A. if we don’t wise up to it.

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

 

[hmhanel]

I agree with the previous posts regarding my own dislike for the use of inclusive language in the Scripture. There are two other areas in which I have a problem with the PC changes made to specific gender references:

1. The substitution of the word ‘God’ for ‘He’ in the Nicene Creed, and 2) The changing of hymns to contain inclusive language.

When I was a member of the choir in our former church, the choir director would always rework the hymn to eliminate any male references, but would never think about doing that if the hymn contained female gender references. Feminism was alive and well in the choir.

 

[Charlemagne]

My feeling is use of inclusive language should be vigorously opposed. I look at it as a “slippery slope.” When you interpret instead of translate (i.e., Paul really meant to say “Brothers and sisters”), you leave the door open for always pushing the envelope - maybe someday some translator would find a way to make gay marriage appear acceptable or to shed doubt on the Real Presence. There are people out there who want to do these things - ICEL was full of them. I find the five year review of the Missal comical. Latin is a dead language. How hard can it be to accurately translate?

 

[milimac]

Ray Marshall:

I would suggest that some of the problem with inclusive language is a “language” problem. Not every language has a proper word with can be translated from the Latin. And sometimes theologians choose translations which are intended to convey the “spirit” of the message, rather than a literal translation.

Here is the entire passage in four languages:

Latin: **Qui propter nos homines **et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis.Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est.

The word for “man” in Latin is “vir.” But the word used in the phrase is “homo/hominis” which means human being.

…

Who made that decision and why it is so rigidly adhered to, I don’t know.

But I have read recently that there is under consideration the possibility of changing the phrase to just “for us.”

Thank you Ray for that language analysis. I have noticed also that some prayers seem to take on slightly different meanings in different languages (such as “no nos dejas caer in la tentacion” in the Spanish Our Father which I believe would be translated back to “do not leave us to fall in temptation”).

I would also say that “men” in the English language was probably the best translation of “hominus” from the Latin. We could use “humans”, but in the English language that seems to lean a little more towards our scientific classification as animals rather than our being people with souls. Was “hominus” used in that way by a Latin speaker? Being an older language, I have a feeling it wasn’t. “Men” is the term used throughout the translation of the
Bible, so that term has the most going for it in my opinion.

I have no problem using “for us and our salvation” rather than “for us men and our salvation”. To me they mean the same thing. Perhaps it would even be a good change, especially for those who are genuinely confused about the term “men” – such as young children and uneducated adults. Language is fluid and constantly changing (for example, the word “gay”), so perhaps a retranslation
into English from time to time may be in order. If the Church recommends that we say it that way, I’m all for it and I’ll be saying it that way at the very next Mass.

What I don’t like is the presumption that it can be arbitrarily changed by a priest or layman (ok, layPERSON). If priests have the authority to make such arbitrary changes, then I will be obedient (which is, by the way, a good virtue). If not, which I believe to be the case, it seems to me to be the first step toward becoming the “Independent” “Catholic” Parish, with your Pastor, Father Enlightened.

 

[Ham1]

Milimac and Ray,

Great posts. You hit the nail right on the head. The issue is not inclusive language. We need to have the absolute best translation possible. Right now, we don’t. Hopefully that will change. In the meantime, obviously, all of us are required to follow the words as they are written.

The spanish translation of the Our Father makes more sense to me than the english. Thanks for posting that.

Does anyone have the latin text of that portion of the Our Father?

 

[Melissa]

Latin words to the Our Father (emphasis on phrase added):

Pater noster, qui es in caelis,
sanctificetur Nomen tuum.
Adveniat regnum tuum.
Fiat voluntas tua,
sicut in caelo et in terra.
Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie,
et dimitte nobis debita nostra
sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
**Et ne nos inducas in tentationem,
sed libera nos a malo. **

 

[vitalsigns]

My first encounter with inclusive language was in a religious order. It grated me. But I spoke to some folks and they said that it’d be common in religious orders (which I took to mean that it’s OK). That soothed me some. But after browsing this forum, I see that deep down, inclusive language really does rub me the wrong way–for the same reasons that it rubs everyone else here the wrong way.

What’s worse, in some of these orders they’ve even permitted/endorsed the possibility that God can be referred to as “she”. Arrrgh!!

I find the stupidity of it quite embarrassing.

 

[Olympia]

Here’s another stupid one: (I’m paraphrasing slightly)

“. . .to stand in your presense, Lord. . .”

has now changed to:

“. . . .to be in your presence, Lord. . .”

Speaking as a handicapped person myself, I find this insulting. The word “stand” has other meanings besides the physical act of standing. For instance:

standing (up),
standing (firm),
standing (proud),
standing (strong)
standing (to show respect)

All these other meanings are more relevant to worship than the posture of standing!!!

 

[antiaphrodite]

Olympia:

Here’s another stupid one: (I’m paraphrasing slightly)

“. . .to stand in your presense, Lord. . .”

has now changed to:

“. . . .to be in your presence, Lord. . .”

Speaking as a handicapped person myself, I find this insulting. The word “stand” has other meanings besides the physical act of standing. For instance:

standing (up),
standing (firm),
standing (proud),
standing (strong)
standing (to show respect)

All these other meanings are more relevant to worship than the posture of standing!!!

true! thank you for sharing this.

 

[John_of_Woking]

catholiclady:

One of my pet peeves is inclusive language in the liturgy - what are your toughts?

Inclusive language

Head: One should charitably avoid using Inclusive language

Heart:
Grow up happy clappy feminst new age nuns…Mother Earth goddess we are church self righteous people grrrrrrrrrrrr