How do You Feel about Inclusive Language

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholiclady
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Karl Keating:
My point was that standard English already is inclusive. The problem isn’t with those who use the generic “he” or “man.” The problem is with those who, because of their ignorance of their own language, take offense where not only is no offense intended but where no offense is present.

Should we modify our language to mollify such people? I don’t think so, since there always will be people who can’t comprehend elements of their native tongue. The answer isn’t to dumb down the language but to “smart up” the people. And, if for some reason that can’t be done, the best thing is benign neglect.
Click to expand...
 
  • The answer isn’t to dumb down the language but to “smart up” the people.*
Tell them to search a dictionary for synecdoche.
 
40.png
cecelia:
So the push for inclusive language in is essence the push to change thinking…change the word, change the connotation, change the connotation, change the action, change the action, change the habit, change the habit, change the world view.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. The push for “inclusive” language was never an organic development of the language, but was rather politically driven. Prior to this push, no one was conscious of being “excluded.” The generic use of “man” in English is naturally inclusive. It is the attempt to change the meaning that has caused division. There are really no good generic substitutes, and the attempts to change the meaning of what had previously been generic words only causes stilted language, and demeans several centuries worth of perfectly good English literature.

JimG
 
I really think that we should stick to the original language (translated of course, just not changed to be politically correct). There is too much private interpretation that can be done when we start allowing inclusive language.
 
40.png
catholiclady:
One of my pet peeves is inclusive language in the liturgy - what are your toughts?
Click to expand...
I think its stupid and it offends me. The language in the Bible and handed down by Sacred Tradition is just fine for me.
 
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.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, yes! I am with you all the way!
 
This is one of my pet peeves. I can’t stand all the additions to the Sacred text that are supposed to make a few persons who have a problem with feelings of exclusion that would be better addressed in a therapist’s office feel better about themselves and the Sacred LIturgy!

Karl stated: “In some places Paul and other sacred writers were writing to groups that included men and women, but in many cases their works were addressed to an audience that would have been exclusively male. This is something that drops out of the picture when inclusive language is used.” For me I can almost feel the smuggness of certain members of my local congregation growing each time a Reading from the Lectionary begins with “Brothers and sisters…” It makes me cringe! It does distort the meaning of the text and implies that by this innovation we are correcting those early Fathers who should’ve included women in their plans for the Church. I also think that those who allowed this “little” compromise sold-out to a feminist agenda. It is obvious. I was saddened when I did my first Reading from the new Lectionary and saw before my eyes something I couldn’t find in my own Bible. Do folks seriously believe the the Bible is in need of improvement? Hello!!!

Peace and all good,

Thomas2
 
First of all, the “old” language was never EXclusive. At one time, *children actually learned things * in schools; among the things they learned was that nouns like “man” or pronouns like “he”, “his”, or “him” were not necessarily gender-specific, depending on usage. The use of supposedly “inclusive” language is just another example of the generalized “dumbing-down” of our culture. I’d always thought the purpose of education was to *lift up * the ignorant, rather than catering to error.

If those obsessed with “political correctness” get upset over such trivial matters in the English language, what would they do when faced with other tongues, in which even inanimate objects are assigned “gender”?
 
Where the original text has “brothers” (“brethren”), it ought to be left untouched. It should not be recast as “brothers and sisters” because that might intrude a false implication.

In some instances the writer (Paul, for example) might write to a group of men and women. He will let the inclusive sense of “brothers” take its natural course. (The group will know whether it consists of men only or of men and women.)

In other instances the writer will write to men only, in which case “brothers” will be understood by the recipients to refer to males only. Either way, “brothers” covers the situation as it really was.

If we substitute “brothers and sisters,” we exclude the second possibility, which means at times we may end up falsifying history.
 
Karl Keating:
The answer isn’t to dumb down the language but to “smart up” the people.
Click to expand...
In your opinion, should we be allowed to use physical force (e.g. hammers, mallets, hymn books) as training devices? Have you faced this temptation?
 
May I ask what these “training devices” are to be used for? Hee hee hee… 😃

Peace and all good,

Thomas2
 
What really drives me over the wall is when they try to force gender neutral language into a song that takes out any poetic value it may have. I can’t remember a specific example but a line would go something like “Let us praise God for God has done great things.”
Drives me bananas!!! :mad:
 
What really drives me over the wall is when they try to force gender neutral language into a song that takes out any poetic value it may have. I can’t remember a specific example but a line would go something like “Let us praise God for God has done great things.”
Drives me bananas!!! :mad:

That is my pet peeve. As a cantor, I sing lots of hymns and psalms. So much as been ruined with all these attempts at “gender-inclusive” lyrics. When possible, I just sing them as I learned them in the good old days!
 
I am against changing anything in the liturgy or scripture to please “feminist” (political correctness). Political correctness is reuining our schools, society, and families. Its misplaced compassion!
 
I’m so tired of “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at OUR hands, for the praise and glory of GOD’s name, for our good and the good of all GOD’s Church” (emphasis theirs, not mine.)

And along with the hymns, this was a classic:
“Come then, all you nations
Sing of the Lord’s goodness
Melodies of praise and thanks to God
Ring out the Lord’s glory
Praise God with your music
Worship the Lord, bless God’s name.”

Or for the Gloria-
“Give glory to God in the highest
And peace to God’s people on Earth.”

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

ps, I’m a woman, and one of the Pope’s ‘new feminists’, and I think ‘inclusive language’ is basically bull.
 
catholiclady,

It is my humble opinion that inclusive language is nothing more than the spawn of Satan.

God Bless!
 
I am an unreconstructed user of correct English rather than the “inclusive language” variant. I personally find “inclusive language” to be demeaning, inaccurate, and patronizing (not to mention, excessively awkward and unwieldy).

I refuse to sing bowdlerized versions of hymns and other songs, and if I’m in a place where the bowdlerized version is being sung, I will sing the correct version loudly (and speak clearly in the Creed when it comes to “for us men and for our salvation … and became Man” (not “a man”).
 
Karl Keating:
Where the original text has “brothers” (“brethren”), it ought to be left untouched. It should not be recast as “brothers and sisters” because that might intrude a false implication.

In some instances the writer (Paul, for example) might write to a group of men and women. He will let the inclusive sense of “brothers” take its natural course. (The group will know whether it consists of men only or of men and women.)

In other instances the writer will write to men only, in which case “brothers” will be understood by the recipients to refer to males only. Either way, “brothers” covers the situation as it really was.

If we substitute “brothers and sisters,” we exclude the second possibility, which means at times we may end up falsifying history.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. In my preaching (I was ordained to the Permanent Diaconate two years ago), I make it a point to find the original wording (as far as I can get with the resources available), and use that wording as appropriate when there is any question whatsoever. That has led to a few questions from both conservative and liberal parishioners. Occasionally, I will get someone who still objects, but for the most part, an explanation of the original text suffices.

What gets to me, though is when someone insists on eithe inclusionary or specifically masculine or feminine language without knowing the circumstances behind the original author’s choices. I explain to our lectors at our weekly practice (which I find we are one of the few parishes actually doing) that we are proclaiming the scripture as it is written. It is not up to us to change the scripture as we ‘would like to hear it’. The homilist will bring the scripture to bear on current events and our lives. If that means applying a particular passage to men and women, then trust them to do that. It is not, however, up to us as homilists, even, to change the words or to say that ‘This really should say…’!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top