Inclusive/Exclusive language

[jmcrae]

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.

The English word “men” refers to the adult male. It is “understood” as meaning “human beings” in certain contexts, but the literal meaning of the word “men” is “adult males.” Women and children should not refer to themselves as “men” since this is very sloppy English. Just because it’s old sloppy English doesn’t excuse it.

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?)

I agree with you when it comes to the manhood of Christ. He was not a woman, nor a genderless figure. He was (and still is) an adult male - a man.

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”.

Yes, it would - especially since the literal translation of “nos homines” is “us humans”, and “homo” is “human being.” The word for “man” in Latin is “viri.”

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax vobiscum!

“Men” defined as “humans” is simply older English. It was common usage and was not “sloppy”; that is the modern view of it. Like you admitted, it is understood to mean humans and you know that’s what we are saying when we say “us men”. Why is this such a problem?

In Christ,
Rand

 

[jmcrae]

Pax vobiscum!

“Men” defined as “humans” is simply older English. It was common usage and was not “sloppy”; that is the modern view of it. Like you admitted, it is understood to mean humans and you know that’s what we are saying when we say “us men”. Why is this such a problem?

In Christ,
Rand

They used “men” interchangeably with “humans” because women and children were not legally considered to be human - they were property, like pets and farm animals.

Women didn’t become legally considered to be human until the late 1800s to early 1900s, and children still aren’t, in many places.

Today, now that we recognize the humanity of women and children (at least in the Church) it makes sense to update the language.

And by the way, I don’t have a “problem” with it. I’m just pointing out the realities, here. If you are a woman or a child, then you are not a “man” and it’s absurd to weasel around and try to make “man” to refer to women and children. It doesn’t. It never did.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

They used “men” interchangeably with “humans” because women and children were not legally considered to be human - they were property, like pets and farm animals.

Women didn’t become legally considered to be human until the late 1800s to early 1900s, and children still aren’t, in many places.

Today, now that we recognize the humanity of women and children (at least in the Church) it makes sense to update the language.

And by the way, I don’t have a “problem” with it. I’m just pointing out the realities, here. If you are a woman or a child, then you are not a “man” and it’s absurd to weasel around and try to make “man” to refer to women and children. It doesn’t. It never did.

Pax tecum!

No, not true. I have studied English history in my work towards a degree in history. Women had many more rights than you might think, especially in the years following the Plague. As far back as Anglo-Saxon England women had rights. It’s just not historically true that they were not viewed as humans until the late 19th century. “Men” DID refer to both women and men as the human race.

J.R.R. Tolkien, a linguist and scholar especially of the English language, used the word “men” to refer to the race of humans.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[jmcrae]

J.R.R. Tolkien, a linguist and scholar especially of the English language, used the word “men” to refer to the race of humans.

J. R. R. Tolkien lived and wrote in the early 20th century, after women had received recognition as human beings.

 

[Pacbox]

Wow at the responses. I was worried last night that I was being an idiot for posting this here.

Almost any language that I have studied has gendered words. English and there might be a few others have no such structure. So why do we judge every other language by English? And try to make it fit into English? Why are people trying to create God in their own image and language when HE revealed HIMSELF as a MAN, as FATHER, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT?

It’s interesting to note but not really relevant though it tends to go across that age group is that the gentlemen I mentioned in my OP is in his mid 40s and is teaching this mentality to his children. He also mentioned that nowhere in the Bible does is say that women couldn’t be priests :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: . The other group that sings on Saturdays is full of people that change words to songs and omit any reference to God as HE in any of the music used at Mass. The “sister” who leads this group doesn’t wear a habit so I have no idea what order she belongs to but shows up to Mass in jeans and a T-shirt. Thankfully a percentage of the congregation doesn’t go along with the changes.

 

[Pacbox]

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.

This was what I was trying to say in my OP. Thanks.

 

[Pacbox]

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

Again, what I was trying and failing to say in my OP. Thanks.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

J. R. R. Tolkien lived and wrote in the early 20th century, after women had received recognition as human beings.

Pax tecum!

You didn’t address the rest of my post. I know when Tolkien lived, and you are pretty much proving my point with your post. After women had “recieved recognition as human beings” (which, as I pointed out in my post occurred CENTURIES earlier than you stated), he still used the term “men” to refer to both. So he could hardly have been using it to mean that women were not human, because as you pointed out, he wrote it when women were considered human.

As an aside, I have also studied medieval liturature in addition to history and have read the English language from Anglo-Saxon up to modern English. I know the development of the language quite well.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Sailboat]

Gee, I’m sorry, but some of the posters on this thread make me wonder. Why are you so upset about this? So what if someone used ‘God’s’’ instead of ‘His’ in the Creed. So what if his voice was a little louder. Maybe he has a loud voice, or maybe he just thinks of God more mystically and not as an old man with a beard.

Our culture has changed and women sometimes feel left out by the Patriarchal influence in the Bible that excluded women. Why not try to understand where they’re coming from. Different people have different needs, and the Church is graciously trying to reach them too. They are precious in God’s sight too.

 

[Jennifer_J]

As a 34 year old women this DOES make me angry because this “inclusive” language **** comes from extreme feminist ideals. It has nothing to do with community and has everything to do with wanting women to be allowed to be priests. When and if the Vatican decrees that the Creed reads “for us people and for our salvation” (I won’t hold my breath)I will say it as proscribed, until then I will say it as the Vatican has said it should be translated at this time “for us MEN and for our salvation” I’m not so stupid as to think in English that ‘men’ only refers to men–in the English language it often refers to all mankind. Those that want a change aren’t stupid either, they want the change, not for some pastorally sensitive reason, but to make a change in the structure of the church.

Patriarchal influences in the Bible? Really? Jesus taught that women were equal to men, he bucked the trend of the times. A WOMAN is the first to see the risen Jesus and give everyone the news! He was born of a woman! There are tons of women in the bible doing important things. There are TONS of women saints. To say that the Church excludes women is to be blind to the obvious!!!

God bless,
Jennifer

 

[jmcrae]

Patriarchal influences in the Bible? Really? Jesus taught that women were equal to men, he bucked the trend of the times. A WOMAN is the first to see the risen Jesus and give everyone the news! He was born of a woman! There are tons of women in the bible doing important things. There are TONS of women saints. To say that the Church excludes women is to be blind to the obvious!!!

God bless,
Jennifer

The Church doesn’t exclude women, you are right. It’s the patriarchal use of the English language (which does not come from the Church - the Church speaks Latin; not English) that excludes women.

You are not a “man” and you never will be; not even in Heaven, thank God - but you are one of “nos homines” (us humans) and this is the word that is used in the official version of the Creed, which is in Latin.

The English version of the Creed didn’t come from the Vatican; it is a local translation. The version used by the Vatican, in Latin, is in fact gender inclusive.

 

[Sailboat]

Hi Jennifer,
Before you take my above post out of context, maybe scan the whole thread and you’ll find out that I made a post mentioning Jesus’ pro-woman stance. So, don’t get angry at me. And don’t bother to get angry with other people in church, okay?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1479210&postcount=18

~John

As a 34 year old women this DOES make me angry because this “inclusive” language **** comes from extreme feminist ideals. It has nothing to do with community and has everything to do with wanting women to be allowed to be priests. When and if the Vatican decrees that the Creed reads “for us people and for our salvation” (I won’t hold my breath)I will say it as proscribed, until then I will say it as the Vatican has said it should be translated at this time “for us MEN and for our salvation” I’m not so stupid as to think in English that ‘men’ only refers to men–in the English language it often refers to all mankind. Those that want a change aren’t stupid either, they want the change, not for some pastorally sensitive reason, but to make a change in the structure of the church.

Patriarchal influences in the Bible? Really? Jesus taught that women were equal to men, he bucked the trend of the times. A WOMAN is the first to see the risen Jesus and give everyone the news! He was born of a woman! There are tons of women in the bible doing important things. There are TONS of women saints. To say that the Church excludes women is to be blind to the obvious!!!

God bless,
Jennifer

 

[ComradeAndrei]

The version used by the Vatican, in Latin, is in fact gender inclusive.

Yes, just like “mankind” and “man” are “gender inclusive”. In Latin, “homines” doesn’t just translate into “humans”-it is properly translated into “men” in the “mankind” sense of the word. The Latin text is not written to be “gender inclusive”.

Note this line-“Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem descéndit de cælis et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex María Vírgine: Et homo factus est.”

Since this is speaking of the Incarnation, does that even sound right to say “For us humans 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 human.”

Jesus didn’t become an androgenous human person-He became Man.

As far as I’m concerned, “inclusive language” is a joke. I just got a copy of the Vatican II documents, and lo and behold it was an “inclusive language” translation. It is annoying to read. As if we are that stupid to think that the Church was saying that only the males of the species were being brought to Salvation because Church documents use the more proper “mankind” form of “man” to describe mankind. It is just a bunch of feminist coughmodernistcough whining and crying.

The new Mass translation will absolutely NOT have that nonsense in it, neither should any other official Church translation of any official ecclesiastical document.

 

[JCPhoenix]

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?

I have not read all the posts yet but this is one of my pet peeves and I had to respond.

I am a woman, too, and I’m 32. May I ask the general age of this “gentleman”?

I have NEVER liked inclusive language, and I’m with you…it ruins the songs, and even completely ruins key passages in the Bible.

I also am of the opinion that it undermines the very dignity of every human person in that it disregards the blessed differences in our very being. Inclusive language is a tool of the devil put into the hands of misguided feminazis to wreak havoc upon the sacred texts, which lead to further confusion on all parts.

I’ll likely have more to say on this topic as we go.

 

[JCPhoenix]

The English word “men” refers to the adult male. It is “understood” as meaning “human beings” in certain contexts, but the literal meaning of the word “men” is “adult males.” Women and children should not refer to themselves as “men” since this is very sloppy English. Just because it’s old sloppy English doesn’t excuse it.

I agree with you when it comes to the manhood of Christ. He was not a woman, nor a genderless figure. He was (and still is) an adult male - a man.

Yes, it would - especially since the literal translation of “nos homines” is “us humans”, and “homo” is “human being.” The word for “man” in Latin is “viri.”

Let’s go back to your first post.

Firstly, a 5 year old would certainly understand “man” or “men” to mean the male gender, and not girls and other females. But if we break this down, we realize that most 5 year olds to not have the ability to understand via abstract thinking. They are very concrete and literal.

Jesus was not. To understand him was to have a grasp of context and understanding both of concrete and abstract thought.

In order for a 5 year old to understand that “us men and our salvation” means that we as abstract and context thinking adults will CATECHIZE our children and explain that in this CONTEXT, “men” means “humankind” to include women and children. So it’s ok to say “men” because we’re not saying that only Daddy and brother and their male buddies are saved.

“nos homines” would be the male form of the Latin word, to my understanding. It is plural of “men”, not “humankind” or similar words.

The use of “inclusive language” actually implies that we women do not have the intelligence to deal with abstract intellectual concepts or contextual language.

And if there’s a few people who DON’T have this ability, then I can probably steer them towards a few educators, both secular and religious, who would be happy to provide the needed tutelage.

 

[Jennifer_J]

The Church doesn’t exclude women, you are right. It’s the patriarchal use of the English language (which does not come from the Church - the Church speaks Latin; not English) that excludes women.

You are not a “man” and you never will be; not even in Heaven, thank God - but you are one of “nos homines” (us humans) and this is the word that is used in the official version of the Creed, which is in Latin.

The English version of the Creed didn’t come from the Vatican; it is a local translation. The version used by the Vatican, in Latin, is in fact gender inclusive.

Really? I thought that was currently what the Bishops in communion with Rome were recently hashing out–translations into English of the Latin text. The Vatican gets the final say on what’s in and what’s out. adoremus.org/Transtoc.html
See here for an indepth coverage of the translation saga.

Jennifer

 

[Jennifer_J]

Hi Jennifer,
Before you take my above post out of context, maybe scan the whole thread and you’ll find out that I made a post mentioning Jesus’ pro-woman stance. So, don’t get angry at me. And don’t bother to get angry with other people in church, okay?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1479210&postcount=18

~John

sheesh I wasn’t angry at you, but at this inclusive language junk at those who think it’s just peachy to neuter our language.

Jennifer

 

[Jennifer_J]

Here’s a fun article looking as some rediculous hymn changes
adoremus.org/0603Hymn.html

“Femonics”: Legitimate Dialect or Linguistic Dictatorship?
adoremus.org/0603Hymn.html
This one’s great, too…

ahh, one more for good measure
adoremus.org/98-01_bonacci.htm

Jennifer

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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).

You are wrong on this count. It is grammatically correct for you to use the pharse “us men” even if you are not a man because one of the definitions of the word men is;

noun ( pl. men |men|)
2 a human being of either sex; a person : God cares for all races and all men. • (also Man) [in sing. ] human beings in general; the human race : places untouched by the ravages of man.