Inclusive/Exclusive language

[Cavaille-Coll]

It has been said that the most virulent feminists are men. I’d suggest that certain male members of the clergy, Catholic and non-Catholic, rank high on this list.

My pet peeve, as an organist, is that “vertical” inclusive language continues to be used by hymnal publishers. The worst offender has the name of a west coast state in their title, and continues to chip away at the few traditional hymns they still have, while holding on to dated, quasi-heretical songs that many parishes haven’t sung since Ford was president.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

My pet peeve, as an organist, is that “vertical” inclusive language continues to be used by hymnal publishers. The worst offender has the name of a west coast state in their title, and continues to chip away at the few traditional hymns they still have, while holding on to dated, quasi-heretical songs that many parishes haven’t sung since Ford was president.

If I get ordained, I hope to have a big bonfire of “Worship” or “Glory and Praise” hymnals in whatever parish I am put at.

The Adoremus and St. Micheal Hymnals (my favorites) cost a little bit more but are well worth it. The others are sold at dime a dozen prices, but you definately get what you pay for.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Gee, I’m sorry, but some of the posters on this thread make me wonder. Why are you so upset about this?..Our culture has changed and women sometimes feel left out …

Here are a few things that bother me about it.

This may sound trivial, but one thing that annoys me most is when songleaders and publishers take it upon themselves to change the lyrics to inclusive language, they loose the poetic nature of the original lyrics. The newer lyrics sound awkward. To achieve rhyme and rhythm, they frequently alter additional lyrics. If someone wants to compose new songs using words of their choosing, fine. But I wish they’d stop changing classic old lyrics.

It also bothers me when people tell me that the word “men” (as in “for us men and our salvation”) doesn’t include me. The push for “gender neutral inclusive” language changed the meaning of words in our culture. If some didn’t constantly try to make the point that the word “man” excludes females, many women *wouldn’t *feel excluded. In other words, “*inclusive” *language makes women feel *excluded *from other language.

Encouraging people to see sexism it may not exist bothers me the most. J.R.R. Tolkien, (mentioned above in this thread) used the word “men” rather than “humans”, so some might jump to the conclusion that he was a sexist. I don’t know if he was or wasn’t; we can’t judge that based only on his use of pronouns and a few other words. “Inclusive” language promotes the passing of judgement on others for the words they use, assuming sexism where sexism may not exist.

That was a rather long winded explanation of what I wrote earlier. 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.

 

[joe5046]

I just started college and today was my first mass in the college chapel. Many things went wrong, (including the lack of a profession of faith), but what shocked me the most was that the priest said “In the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Santifier” rather than the traditional “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

If I get ordained, I hope to have a big bonfire of “Worship” or “Glory and Praise” hymnals in whatever parish I am put at.

The Adoremus and St. Micheal Hymnals (my favorites) cost a little bit more but are well worth it. The others are sold at dime a dozen prices, but you definately get what you pay for.

Are you a seminarian? Me too! In my diocese are several parishes that use Adoremus, and God willing, that’s all my future parish will use. I try to promote Adoremus among other musicians I meet, since many of them don’t know of anything except OCP, GIA (a.k.a. “Worship”, now owned by OCP, I believe), Glory & Praise (bought by OCP), or Paluch (NOT owned by OCP but acting as if they were). If I were forced to allow a folk Mass, I’d do what one of my former pastors did – buy the Maranatha Hymnal. They don’t have any Eucharistic hymns, but at least the songs praise God instead of glorifying mankind. I’d rather hear praise to Christ during the reception of Holy Communion than hear another song about how great it is that we are all here together, eating bread and drinking wine. Heck, if I want to eat bread and drink wine with other people, I’ll go to the Olive Garden on a Friday night! If bread and wine are all we have, I’ll return to the Anglican Church – the music is better.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

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.

The horse isn’t quite dead yet, but let’s see if I can fix that [winding up]:

Fact is, an early Englishman wishing to translate Latin homo wouldn’t hesitate to use “man” or the more archaic Anglo-Saxon “mann.” This is not because he thought that women and children weren’t human beings, but because “man” referred to no particular sex. Now, grammatically speaking, the word had masculine gender in Old English, but so did the words for “turnip” and “stone,” as well as the ancestor of Modern English “woman”!

Any mediaeval Englishman who wanted to exclude women with his language would have used the now-obsolete word “wer” or “were,” cognate to Latin vir and surviving only in the compound word “werewolf.” Ergo, so far from having anything misogynistic in its structure, modern English could be considered male-unfriendly in its lack of a common, non-clinical word to denote, without ambiguity, the packers of a Y chromosome.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

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

An interesting article, but the author missed one important point about the use of “thou”. Before it fell out of use in common speech, “thou” was considered the informal “you”, such as “du” in German or “tu” in Spanish. This was mostlikely a carryover from the widespread use of French in England at that time. In most languages with this type of differentiation, God is always addressed in the informal sense, as one would speak to their earthly father. Since “thou” was informal, it was sometimes used as an insult and began to fall out of favour as being too crass. It was increasingly reserved for theological use, and now has come to mean the exact opposite – an archaic and seemingly-formal “you”. I find the retention of this form to be more intimate and familiar, and no, I’m not an old Quaker.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If I get ordained, I hope to have a big bonfire of “Worship” or “Glory and Praise” hymnals in whatever parish I am put at.

The Adoremus and St. Micheal Hymnals (my favorites) cost a little bit more but are well worth it. The others are sold at dime a dozen prices, but you definately get what you pay for.

That is a good idea but be prepared for obstacles. You will not be able to do this until you are made pastor, unless you can convince the pastor to do this. Also, the bishop may have something to say on this, after all, he is the ultimate pastor of the diocese.

 

[jmcrae]

Any mediaeval Englishman who wanted to exclude women with his language would have used the now-obsolete word “wer” or “were,” cognate to Latin vir and surviving only in the compound word “werewolf.” Ergo, so far from having anything misogynistic in its structure, modern English could be considered male-unfriendly in its lack of a common, non-clinical word to denote, without ambiguity, the packers of a Y chromosome.

And now that it’s the 21st century, and the language has continued to evolve, we now do have such a word - “Man.”

Let me ask you this: Would it be a heretical mistranslation (never mind for the time being whether it sounds poetic) to translate it as “us human beings” (or even simply leave it as “us”) rather than as “us men?” Because I suspect that what most people are objecting to is that “inclusive language” isn’t poetic enough - I really don’t think it’s that they think women can’t be saved, or ought not to think that women can become Christians.

I find it astounding that women want to be called “men” - to my way of thinking, that seems very butch-feminist, or at least coming from a very “there’s no real difference between men and women, so let’s just all be men” attitude.

I could understand people getting upset if someone were coming along and saying, "Let’s change it to say, “for us women and for our salvation …” but nobody’s proposing anything like that.

And I really don’t think that the Church is going to lose its resolve about not ordaining women to the priesthood if we use clear, communicative language in the liturgy. (In fact, it may be the years of being called “men” in the Liturgy and being told, “Yes, you’re a man, too!” that has certain women confused into thinking that they can become priests. Maybe by clarifying the language and keeping women as women, men and men, and human beings as human beings, we would have fewer people who think they can do the other gender’s job.)

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Are you a seminarian? Me too! In my diocese are several parishes that use Adoremus, and God willing, that’s all my future parish will use. I try to promote Adoremus among other musicians I meet, since many of them don’t know of anything except OCP, GIA (a.k.a. “Worship”, now owned by OCP, I believe), Glory & Praise (bought by OCP), or Paluch (NOT owned by OCP but acting as if they were).

Yes, I’m a seminarian. In my home archdiocese, many (if not most) parishes use OCP and GIA hymnals-probably because most of them don’t even bother to look at the other books out there or the beancounters would rather spend the extra $100 saved by buying the “Gather” hymnal on leaving all the lights on all day, or because it is a waste to just throw them all away if you just bought them or someone bought them for you. I’m hoping they’re getting good and worn out…

If I were forced to allow a folk Mass, I’d do what one of my former pastors did – buy the Maranatha Hymnal. They don’t have any Eucharistic hymns, but at least the songs praise God instead of glorifying mankind. I’d rather hear praise to Christ during the reception of Holy Communion than hear another song about how great it is that we are all here together, eating bread and drinking wine. Heck, if I want to eat bread and drink wine with other people, I’ll go to the Olive Garden on a Friday night! If bread and wine are all we have, I’ll return to the Anglican Church – the music is better.

If it was true that all that the Holy Communion is is bread n’ wine then I’d rather be Anglican too!

That is a good idea but be prepared for obstacles. You will not be able to do this until you are made pastor, unless you can convince the pastor to do this. Also, the bishop may have something to say on this, after all, he is the ultimate pastor of the diocese.

We have a good archbishop and I think that more parishes would be willing to get better hymnals if they actually knew what was out there. Also, patience is a virtue.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

And now that it’s the 21st century, and the language has continued to evolve, we now do have such a word - “Man.”

The language hasn’t “evolved” so much as to make the meaning of “man” exclusively a male of the human species. In proper English, the usage of “man” as a general term for all people is still the prefered and proper usage. The English language is a beautiful language, no need to butcher it to placate feminists.

Let me ask you this: Would it be a heretical mistranslation (never mind for the time being whether it sounds poetic) to translate it as “us human beings” (or even simply leave it as “us”) rather than as “us men?” Because I suspect that what most people are objecting to is that “inclusive language” isn’t poetic enough - I really don’t think it’s that they think women can’t be saved, or ought not to think that women can become Christians.

Heretical? Possibly, depending upon what later context people might decide to further twist it. This phrase “for us men and our salvation, He came down from heaven…and became man” is a Christological phrase. Just because something isn’t overtly heretical is not a good reason to change things.

Christ became a Man-not an androgenous “human person”. He became Man (in the mankind sense and as a male of the species) so to save us men (in the mankind sense).

I find it astounding that women want to be called “men” - to my way of thinking, that seems very butch-feminist, or at least coming from a very “there’s no real difference between men and women, so let’s just all be men” attitude.

Probably because they realize that the word “man” in the English language has more than one meaning and have the intellectual prowess to be comfortable with how the language has been sense it was a language.

I could understand people getting upset if someone were coming along and saying, "Let’s change it to say, “for us women and for our salvation …” but nobody’s proposing anything like that.

That would be totally heretical because the English language doesn’t use “women” to mean all of mankind.

And I really don’t think that the Church is going to lose its resolve about not ordaining women to the priesthood if we use clear, communicative language in the liturgy. (In fact, it may be the years of being called “men” in the Liturgy and being told, “Yes, you’re a man, too!” that has certain women confused into thinking that they can become priests. Maybe by clarifying the language and keeping women as women, men and men, and human beings as human beings, we would have fewer people who think they can do the other gender’s job.)

How about this-we aren’t kindergarteners who can’t figure out what the word “man” means in a certain context. We don’t need to translate the Liturgy into “inclusive language” to placate feminists. Kowtowing to some liberal faction of the Church is not the way to handle such things. Is there any actual good reason for inclusive language other than placating feminists? No, I certainly can’t think of one.

Furthermore, the older way does sound more poetic and is much more beautiful than the ponderous and pointless “inclusive” versions.

 

[jmcrae]

Is there any actual good reason for inclusive language other than placating feminists? No, I certainly can’t think of one.

Clear communication, for the purpose of evangelization.

And by the way, I’m not a feminist.

I teach children and teens, and one thing that makes teaching them a whole lot easier is clear, communicative language - not the sort of “inclusive language” that makes Jesus into a girl or an androgynous figure, but of the sort that makes it clear who and what we are talking about, without having to go into a sidebar about “‘man’ is human kind, except when it isn’t.” I used to do that - and the kids would say, “Why not just say what you mean?” and when I finally took their advice, I noticed that the message was getting through to them a whole lot more easily.

If we want to evangelize, we have to speak in a way that can be easily understood. Elizabethan language is great for communicating with Elizabethans, but some of us have to communicate with the real world.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Let me ask you this: Would it be a heretical mistranslation (never mind for the time being whether it sounds poetic) to translate it as “us human beings” (or even simply leave it as “us”) rather than as “us men?”

The word “us” alone leaves an opening for heretical interpretation of the word “us”. Some might misinterpret the word “us” to include cats, dogs, horses, fish, plants, etc.

I find it astounding that women want to be called “men” - to my way of thinking, that seems very butch-feminist, or at least coming from a very “there’s no real difference between men and women, so let’s just all be men” attitude.

Okay, I gotta admit it sounds funny when you put it that way. But I’m not just saying “let’s just all be men because there’s no difference between men and women”. I’m saying that the word “men” has two different meanings, as do many words in our English language.

On another point about our confusing English language, I learned to use masculine third person pronouns (i.e. he, him, his) when the sex of the individual wasn’t known, Now when the sex of a person isn’t known, we commonly see the use of “gender neutral” third person plural pronouns (i.e. they, them, their, theirs), even if writing about an individual rather than a group. Now instead of occasionally addressing a woman with the pronoun “he”, instead we call her a “they”.

 

[gardenswithkids]

If we want to evangelize, we have to speak in a way that can be easily understood.

I agree with you there, which is another reason why the push for inclusive language bothers me. There is a fight for words in this culture. When we cave in to those who wish to dramatically change how words have been traditionally understood, we end up making communication more difficult. (Case in point, the word “gay” used in older literature means something entirely different from the way it’s used today.) I understand that language evolves and changes, but sometimes those changes happen due to external political forces with agendas.

Now as you confessed you aren’t a feminist, I’ll confess that I try to use “gender neutral” words so as not to offend those who take offense at such things. But when they start to change my favorite Christmas carols and songs that I’ve long known by heart, then I take offense. By the way, someone earlier made a knock about the Glory and Praise songbook; original lyrics of those songs have also been changed.

 

[mlchance]

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.

Oh, those crafty bafflers at Merriam-Webster (with various emphases added):

Main Entry: 1man
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English man, mon human being, male human; akin to Old High German man human being, Sanskrit manu
**1 a **(1) : an individual human; especially : an adult male human (2) : a man belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) – usually used in combination <councilman> (3) : HUSBAND (4) : LOVER b : the human race : HUMANKIND c : a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, is usually considered to form a variable number of freely interbreeding races, and is the sole living representative of the hominid family; broadly : any living or extinct hominid **d **(1) : one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (2) obsolete : the quality or state of being manly : MANLINESS e : FELLOW, CHAP – used as mode of familiar address f – used interjectionally to express intensity of feeling <man, what a game>
2 a : INDIVIDUAL, PERSON <a man could get killed there> b : the individual who can fulfill or who has been chosen to fulfill one’s requirements <she’s your man>

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ChemicalBean]

What always gets me is that when I go back home to a Mass said by our old retired priest-in-residence, he says during the offertory:

Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice…

Yes, it may be a more literal translation of “orate fratres” but, last time I checked, I wasn’t anybody’s brother. For that matter, I hope I never will be. I rather like being a woman and I intend to remain that way!

For those proponents of the exclusive, “literal” language as translated into archaic English, I would suggest you say to yourself during the offertory,

Pray, sistren…

and see how hard it is to choke back that laugh and stay solemn. It sounds absolutely ridiculous, particularly if you’re a guy, doesn’t it? That’s how about how silly “brethren” sounds (and a lot of other gender-exclusive terms) sound to my ears and to most of the women (and some of the men) that I know.

Likewise, it would sound silly to say

Pray, siblings…

because in this day’s usage of English you would not address your brother or sister as “Sibling.”

It’s two extra words to say (oh boy), but I think the meaning of that phrase is communcated best with

Pray, brothers and sisters…

or, to shake it up a bit,

Pray, sisters and brothers…

 

[puzzleannie]

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 (

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

This.

not only are children excluded in this usage, but I am waiting for the transgendered lobby to protest the use of inclusive language unless it acknowledges what some of them persist in labelling a third gender.

anyone in music ministry (choir leader for those of us old folks) should know that no performer has the right to change the lyrics or arrangement of the author. that is simply offensive in and of itself. noticed somebody has added a verse to Faith of our Fathers that acknowledges the suffering of our mothers who have been oppressed (presumably by the all-male patriarchal hierarchy).

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

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

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

That isn’t inclusive, it’s just exclusive in the opposite direction.

puzzleannie:

anyone in music ministry (choir leader for those of us old folks) should know that no performer has the right to change the lyrics or arrangement of the author.

That bugs me, too. Just yesterday, I was at Mass in another parish, and there was something familiar about the hymn we were singing – why, it was “Pange Lingua Gloriosi”! But with completely different lyrics. :bigyikes: (And I don’t just mean English instead of Latin. )

Somebody upthread had asked where the vomit smilies were when you needed them – here you go!

http://usera.imagecave.com/TaiChiPanther2/puke.gif http://usera.imagecave.com/TaiChiPanther2/puke2.gif

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I teach children and teens, and one thing that makes teaching them a whole lot easier is clear, communicative language - not the sort of “inclusive language” that makes Jesus into a girl or an androgynous figure, but of the sort that makes it clear who and what we are talking about, without having to go into a sidebar about “‘man’ is human kind, except when it isn’t.” I used to do that - and the kids would say, “Why not just say what you mean?” and when I finally took their advice, I noticed that the message was getting through to them a whole lot more easily.

If someone is of halfway average intelligence, they should be able to figure out what “man” means depending upon the context of the sentence. If they can’t, then I think they need some major help with their language skills.

If we want to evangelize, we have to speak in a way that can be easily understood. Elizabethan language is great for communicating with Elizabethans, but some of us have to communicate with the real world.

Why is it that some backwoods folks can figure out what the 1611 KJV says-talk about Elizabethan language.

When I was in grade school, I knew what “hath”, “thou”, “shalt”, “ye” etc. all meant. It really isn’t that hard. Those are actually archaic.

The use of “man” to stand for “mankind” is not “Elizabethan”-it is just part of a vocabulary that wasn’t fostered in a mall.

and see how hard it is to choke back that laugh and stay solemn. It sounds absolutely ridiculous, particularly if you’re a guy, doesn’t it? That’s how about how silly “brethren” sounds (and a lot of other gender-exclusive terms) sound to my ears and to most of the women (and some of the men) that I know.

Let’s see, hmm…“sistren” isn’t a word. “Brethren” is a word. Your point is moot. In practically all Romance languages (and many Western languages in general), a word such as “brethren” (or fratres in Latin) means all the people you are addressing-men and women.

In Spanish, if you address a group of male friends, they are “amigos”. A group of female friends are addressed as “amigas”. However, if there is even one man in the group, they are addressed as “amigos”.

Likewise, at the Orate, fratres, brethren means everybody addressed by the priest as a member of the Church Universal and the local parish church.

There is no need to use “brothers and sisters” because people should be smart enough to know that “brethren” includes them both. “Brethren” is the truly “inclusive” term.

BTW, whether you folks are feminists or not, realize that the push to use “inclusive language” is the work of feminists. It is definately a political issue.

 

[Digitonomy]

Let’s see, hmm…“sistren” isn’t a word.

It may be archaic, but it is indeed a word. A little-known author named Chaucer used it.

ComradeAndrei:

BTW, whether you folks are feminists or not, realize that the push to use “inclusive language” is the work of feminists.

It’s not very logical to disparage all inclusive language just because you don’t like a group that supports it. That’s like saying "Whether you folks are Mormons or not, realize that the push to eliminate abortion is the work of the Mormon church. And as I pointed out earlier, such an attitude calls into question the motives of our Holy Father when he uses inclusive language.