Inclusive/Exclusive language

[Jennifer_J]

And as I pointed out earlier, such an attitude calls into question the motives of our Holy Father when he uses inclusive language.

Could you give me an example of the Holy Father using “inclusive” language? I did a search and didn’t come up with anything…
Jennifer

 

[Digitonomy]

Could you give me an example of the Holy Father using “inclusive” language? I did a search and didn’t come up with anything Jennifer

Earlier this month…

Before entering the Shrine of Manoppello, the Holy Father greeted the faithful gathered outside it:

Dear Brothers and Sisters

I don’t see anything wrong with using inclusive language like this, and I suspect most of us don’t. Which suggests that the mere use of inclusive language need not be spurned, nor is necessarily associated with pressure by the feminist movement.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

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.

Perhaps you should consider why you allow something to annoy you that is as trivial as a term you and a small minority of others find offensive. I doubt very much that this priest, or the Church who translated those words, has any intention of oppressing women. “Brethren” bears an etymological relation to “brother”, but as we all know, is inclusive of both. In German, the term “Geschwister”, the equivalent of your “sistren”, refers to “brothers and sisters”. However, I have never heard of a German male who was offended by this. I have no intention of changing the words of the Mass or Scripture to accommodate someone’s abnormal sensitivities or political ideologies. Perhaps you could be a little more accommodating.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

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

Does it mean all people or was it used like the Spanish “amigo/amiga” example I gave?

I don’t see anything wrong with using inclusive language like this, and I suspect most of us don’t. Which suggests that the mere use of inclusive language need not be spurned, nor is necessarily associated with pressure by the feminist movement.

What the Holy Father says and how he chooses his words are his own business, but that is not to say that he wants inclusive language in everything.

My point is that there is really no good reason to make the language more cumbersome when there is really no good reason to do so.

 

[davy39]

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”.

 

[davy39]

In the readings, especially from St Paul, they start out “brothers and sisters”. I don’t believe they ever did until just recently. Also, when the priest gets to the phrase, “for us men and for our salvation” he leaves out the word “men”. Why are these things happening? And what can we do about it? Probably not much of anything. But I don’t like it.

 

[Digitonomy]

Does it mean all people or was it used like the Spanish “amigo/amiga” example I gave?

I believe it is used in a similar manner to the word “sisters.”

ComradeAndrei:

My point is that there is really no good reason to make the language more cumbersome when there is really no good reason to do so.

Now that sounds like a good argument. (although a bit of a tautology)

 

[THutch04]

Clear communication, for the purpose of evangelization.

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.

I’ll agree with that, because I do know that a lot of people have problems with the older English (although I’m 20 and can understand it, it’s not TOO bad).

It always drives me crazy when we’re singing during daily Mass and the music minister DELIBERATELY changes all references to the male nature (“him” is changed to “God” ect.). Sometimes if it’s with an old hymn, I’ll just sing the version I learned (which is only partly deliberate, sometimes I just have a complete mental slip and forget that the words aren’t the same). I actually have a theology class where we were DIRECTED to write our papers in inclusive language. This is a class with a professor who was a nun and then ordained as an Episcopal priest.

 

[ChemicalBean]

Perhaps you should consider why you allow something to annoy you that is as trivial as a term you and a small minority of others find offensive.

This isn’t trivial. In this part of the Mass, the presider calls the assembly, in familial terms, to excercise their baptismal right and duty: Pray that this sacrifice become acceptable to God. If the priest doesn’t effectively call upon everybody because a gender-exclusive translation is used, then the assembly hasn’t fully and actively participated. The Mass still goes on and it is still valid, but the collective effects of situations such as these are quite damaging. * Lex orandi, lex credendi.* Now that is something to be offended about.

I doubt very much that this priest, or the Church who translated those words, has any intention of oppressing women. “Brethren” bears an etymological relation to “brother”, but as we all know, is inclusive of both.

But you see, we don’t all know that. That’s the idea here: say simply what is meant. By the very nature of the word and its etymological relation to a male noun, the meaning you give it is not obvious. The word is not used in everyday speech.

In German, the term “Geschwister”, the equivalent of your “sistren”, refers to “brothers and sisters”. However, I have never heard of a German male who was offended by this.

This isn’t about German translation of the Missal. It seems that our differences come from our ideas of the proper use of English to communicate something.

I have no intention of changing the words of the Mass or Scripture to accommodate someone’s abnormal sensitivities or political ideologies. Perhaps you could be a little more accommodating.

I think you are accusing me of having abnormal sensitivities, and I don’t appreciate that. From the various responses to this thread, I don’t think it’s abnormal at all to want a Mass translation to be universally understood.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

This isn’t trivial. In this part of the Mass, the presider calls the assembly, in familial terms, to excercise their baptismal right and duty: Pray that this sacrifice become acceptable to God. If the priest doesn’t effectively call upon everybody because a gender-exclusive translation is used, then the assembly hasn’t fully and actively participated. The Mass still goes on and it is still valid, but the collective effects of situations such as these are quite damaging. * Lex orandi, lex credendi.*

My apologies if you were offended by my writing style. I was just using the shilleleigh as mentioned in your post (I love that quote!).
I believe in saying something directly, and this runs contrary to our modern society that prefers to endlessly beat around the bush. One can become so “pastoral” that nothing ever gets said.

You are obviously well educated in the faith and Church documents, so forgive me if I’m preaching to the choir. The need for “full and active” participation doesn’t mean that every part of every prayer must be instantly understandable to everyone present. After all, the Eucharist itself is a mystery that we can only begin to grasp in this life. If I attend a Mass in Portuguese, I can still fully participate in the Holy Sacrifice as a layman even though my knowledge and pronunciation of that language is very poor. One can fully participate in a Tridentine Mass, for example, even though there are little or no responsorial parts for the congregation, and neither must they be fluent in Latin. People did this for hundreds of years and I would not question their relationship with God.

Full and active participation requires a dedication of all one’s thoughts and attention to the prayer of the Mass, not just the ability to sing along. Every female friend of mine (and I have many of them from all theological perspectives) who was born or educated in the United States understands that “brethren” is an inclusive term, even if they would ordinarily use a different term in their own speech. Unless one is not sufficiently schooled in the English language to comprehend the historical and current uses of words that were not considered “gender-exclusive” until about 30 years ago, it would seem that this contemporary motivation for textual change is driven by another agenda.

Also, the “orate fratres” prayer we have been discussing is one place where a priest may opt for another phrase like “brothers and sisters”, but unless this option is present elsewhere, no priest has the authority to alter the words of the Mass prayers or Scriptures.