Inclusive/Exclusive language

[Pacbox]

I know this topic has probably been hashed to death here (but has also probably disappeared here due to the crash) but the topic of inclusive language came up last Saturday with regards to a song (thankfully we didn’t) sing. It was “Let There Be Peace on Earth” by the way. I sing in a two person group on some Saturdays and the gentlemen I sing with is huge into using inclusive language. I personally can’t stand the concept because it ends up destroying, In My Opinion, the relationships and beauty of gender and relationship to God. Okay, not a good way to explain it.

This gentlemen wants to do away with pronouns, any words that refer to gender in any way, shape, or form in any text that is used in the Mass. I told him that “inclusive language” is actually a worthless and uselss concept. It’s an agenda that came about with radical feminism, that for everyone to be “equal” than the language used cannot be sexist. (Okay, this is an opinion and you are free to disagre with it.) Inclusive language is not inclusive at all but rather exclusive because it destroys the unique and precious differences that exist in language and in reference to people. Plus, who wants to be a part of something that anyone can be a part of? People want to be in an “exclusive” group where there are rules and such to belong. People want to be special. Inclusive is the exact opposite.

This gentlemen told me that I was "too young’ to understand the effect of gendered language and all the damage it has done. I’m 24, so a bit young yes, but I’m also an anthropologist (and a woman) that understands that radical feminism (those elements that don’t have to deal with fair pay and fair treatment and fair rights for all) have actually hurt people. He said that inclusive language is necessary to keeping the church alive and that it was better than using the language we have now. I pointed out that the congregation doesn’t use the inclusive language and he said they had to learn because this was the future and no other way. He treated the congregation as pretty stupid which is so not true.

I’m sick of having to deal with this and other problems with my parish. I thought it had become better but no, it keep slipping down that slope. I’ve pretty much decided to quit choir because this opinion is the prevailing opinion plus I’ve been practically pushed out of choir. I’ve also considered heavily leaving the parish.

Why is it that people persist in this mindset? Why do people like this persist in telling me that I need to ignore or treat the wonderful fact that I am a woman as a horrible and worthless thing and that I won’t be a real person until I’m a man? Especially in the Catholic Church which has never had a problem with women and has the most wonderful woman as her Mother?

 

[Caesar]

Why is it that people persist in this mindset? Why do people like this persist in telling me that I need to ignore or treat the wonderful fact that I am a woman as a horrible and worthless thing and that I won’t be a real person until I’m a man? Especially in the Catholic Church which has never had a problem with women and has the most wonderful woman as her Mother?

I dont understand it either. Equality is one thing; ignoring the fact that two genders exist is another.

We are differant. A man (like me) is differant from a woman (like you). We were created differant. And there is no shame in that. Men and women serve God in differant ways- serve Him equaly, but still in differant ways.

 

[demerzel85]

Why is it that people persist in this mindset? Why do people like this persist in telling me that I need to ignore or treat the wonderful fact that I am a woman as a horrible and worthless thing and that I won’t be a real person until I’m a man? Especially in the Catholic Church which has never had a problem with women and has the most wonderful woman as her Mother?

Personally, I’d rather have it that the Holy Father himself declare formaly ex cathedra that Inclusive Language is a heresy to make it so much easier to shut all these people up. Inclusive Language is one of the signs of a very serious lack of improper catechesis. Many times as a Cardinal, Pope Benedict condemned it. How true the prophesy remains. “They have eyes but they do not see. They have ears but they do not hear.”

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei. Ora Pro Nobis.

 

[marytk]

I was wondering if they had this issue in other languages. I remember in my seventh grade French that there wasn’t a neutral “they” there was a feminie one and a masculine. BUT if there was one male in the group you used the masculine they.

I don’t like inclusive language and I am a fifty plus female. Not young! I detest it when it is used about GOD. He is my FATHER ! Jesus is my LORD and Brother.

 

[Digitonomy]

demerzel85:

Personally, I’d rather have it that the Holy Father himself declare formaly ex cathedra that Inclusive Language is a heresy

There is nothing evil about inclusive language, and the pope is not going to declare all inclusive language a heresy, because he uses it every day.

The key question is when is it appropriate to use such language. I don’t really see any harm in talking about our men and women in Iraq. However, trying to retrofit inclusive language to a song like Let There Be Peace on Earth is really silly.

 

[CatholicNick]

There is nothing evil about inclusive language, and the pope is not going to declare all inclusive language a heresy, because he uses it every day.

The key question is when is it appropriate to use such language. I don’t really see any harm in talking about our men and women in Iraq. However, trying to retrofit inclusive language to a song like Let There Be Peace on Earth is really silly.

Inclusive language, when ‘incorporated’ into the Litrugy is Heresy.

i.e. ‘God our mother’ ‘Our mother, who art in heaven’, ‘Jesus our mother’

 

[mercygate]

My generation created inclusive language. God help us. What a mess.

Keep up the good fight.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Horizontal inclusive language, that is using mankind or adding sisters to the word brothers is not “Heresy” nor is it a really bad thing, I just do not like the sound of it and I think it is a bit condescending to women (its like telling them that they are to stupid to realize that the use of the word man in a sentence is really for mankind rather than for the gender man).

But I have noticed something. Now that we have this inclusive language we have now created a new suppressed class.

This week at the daily Mass the priest changed Matthew 4:19 from;

And He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

And He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men and women.”

So what about children? If we are going to get specific like this then should not children be included? or didn’t Christ come to save children to?

This is how ridiculous this will become. Everyone must be spelt out explicitly and no generic terms will be acceptable.

Veritical inclusive language is what is heretical. That is calling God mother and such nonsense.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ah, that’s a new one. I’ve been in parishes where that little gem has become, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of people.” (BLEAH).

It’s the confrontational, divisive aspect of ‘inclusive’ language which I most deprecate. Far from ‘creating’ an equality, it has contributed to the tired chestnut that religion is ‘male dominated’ and women have been victims of that for eons with its self-conscious “brothers and sisters”, ‘men and women’, and all the changes in songs from “He and His” in reference to God to “God”. Women don’t feel equal even after 40 years of this dreck, they still feel victimized, because the so-called ‘solution’ is DISHONEST and CONTRIVED WORDS. Christianity doesn’t believe in the modern idea that men and women are equal meaning completely interchangeable; Christianity believes in the TRUTH that men and women are equal in soul/spirit but are created with differences in body, heart and mind, differences which are NECESSARY, differences which are COMPLEMENTARY, differences ordained by God for our GOOD and the good of ALL.

So all this modern ‘inclusive’ language is antithetical to Christian teaching, IMO, because Christian teaching itself is not a product of any given ‘era’, but is eternal, unchanging, everlasting, and truel

And for the record, I’m female, 50 (I still can’t believe that, luckily 50 is the new 40 now, LOL), cradle Catholic, attend the N.O. (Vermont does not have an induit. . .yet!), and from the East Coast too.

 

[demerzel85]

Hmm…
Horizontal Inclusive Language - Nonsensical.
Vertical Inclusive Language - Heretical.

Looks like we have a sound byte

 

[Digitonomy]

Veritical inclusive language is what is heretical. That is calling God mother and such nonsense.

I have not heard the term vertical used in relation to inclusive language, so I’m not sure what all that would include. It seems to me that any person or thing that occupies a higher or lower position in the order of the universe would be described with vertical language. So vertical inclusive language could include “boys and girls”, “cows and bulls”, “saints and saintesses” (in a language where there was a distinction). Using such vertical inclusive language would often be nonsense as you say, but I don’t think that such would often be heretical.

I’m not even convinced that calling God “mother and father of us all” would be heretical - just bizarre and uncalled for, and usage at odds with tradition.

 

[demerzel85]

I think what is meant is that horizontal is how we relate to fellow human beings, and vertical is how we relate to God.

And well “female priest” seriously is an oxymoron. The Press needs to get the terms right and use “Priestess”.

 

[gardenswithkids]

There is nothing evil about inclusive language, and the pope is not going to declare all inclusive language a heresy, because he uses it every day.

The key question is when is it appropriate to use such language. I don’t really see any harm in talking about our men and women in Iraq. However, trying to retrofit inclusive language to a song like Let There Be Peace on Earth is really silly.

One bad thing about “inclusive language” is the notion that other language must therefore be “exclusive”. This promotes the mis-assumption that the words “men” or “mankind” always exclude women. “Man”, “men” and “mankind” formerly were understood they could be either gender neutral *or *gender specific. But thanks to the push for so-called “inclusive” language, many now only understand those words as gender specific for humans with the XY chromosome pattern.

Pushing for the retro-fitting of our English language, many of our great lyrics and writings end up either sounding: a) stupid or b}sexist or c) stupid and sexist.

I wish to be excluded from the “men’s” restroom, but not from mankind. Oddly enough, since the advent of the notion of “inclusive” language, some now want gender neutral restrooms too.:bigyikes:

 

[Jennifer_J]

That “fisher of people” thing gets me every time. GAG You totally loose the imagery!!! That’s what happens with anykind of inclusive language, you kill the beauty and imagery of the writing–whether it’s biblical passages or song lyrics. I detest it with all my being.

Jennifer

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I don’t know that much about linguistics. Apperantly, neither do those who promote inclusive language.

 

[jmcrae]

Inclusive language, when ‘incorporated’ into the Litrugy is Heresy.

i.e. ‘God our mother’ ‘Our mother, who art in heaven’, ‘Jesus our mother’

That would certainly be a heresy.

But it would be grammatically incorrect for me to use the phrase “us men” because I am not a man (and nor could I ever be mistaken for one, even from a distance, I’m proud to say).

There are folks who will try to baffle you into thinking that “men” is a catch-all for “all people” - it’s not, as any five year old could tell you. If you want to mean “human beings” or “all people” then that’s what you should say.

Christ was a man - not a generic or genderless human being. He died for us human beings, but he himself was a man.

 

[Lrning]

We sang Let There Be Peace On Earth at mass a few weeks back. It’s one of my favorite songs because I can still hear my mom singing it from when I was little. (She passed away 15 years ago.) But GAG, they changed “brothers” to “family”!!! I sang “brothers” anyway. I’m a woman in my 40’s. It’s not too hard to understand that I’m included in that usage of “brothers”. Sheesh.

 

[Sailboat]

I like inclusive language sometimes. I don’t see what’s wrong with it. I don’t like it when it affects the poetry of Biblical passages, but when it clarifies that what Jesus was saying applies to women too, I’m all for it. Jesus loved women and was much more open to them than your average Jewish man of the day. He spoke to women, respected women, and was pro-women. He went against the social norms by speaking with the Samaratin woman.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax vobiscum!

I was at Mass a couple weeks ago and a guy behind me said,

“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.”

I am sure some of you have heard this before. I can’t stand it. It also seemed like this young man (who my girlfriend said had gone to her Catholic high school) purposely made his voice louder on that response so as to be heard.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Melissa]

That would certainly be a heresy.

But it would be grammatically incorrect for me to use the phrase “us men” because I am not a man (and nor could I ever be mistaken for one, even from a distance, I’m proud to say).

There are folks who will try to baffle you into thinking that “men” is a catch-all for “all people” - it’s not, as any five year old could tell you. If you want to mean “human beings” or “all people” then that’s what you should say.

Christ was a man - not a generic or genderless human being. He died for us human beings, but he himself was a man.

100% WRONG!

It is true, without “bafflement” being involved, that the phrase “us men” in the Creed is inclusive of every man, woman and child.

I cannot begin to express my loathing for the dreck known as “inclusive language”. It is, at best, nonsensical; at worst, heretical. (Have you ever seen an “inclusive language Bible” that renders Christ’s own title for Himself “Son of Man” as “Child of Humanity”? I have. Where’s that barfing icon when you need it?)

Perhaps we could go back to the Creed in Latin … then it would be much more clear that “nos homines” is not only alreadyinclusive, but also a direct parallel to the subsequent phrase “et homo factus est”.