Inclusive Language Hymnal?

[1holycatholic]

I usually take my copy of Magnificat to Mass. The Christmas issue has a traditional Christmas hymns section so I decided to refer to the lyrics in it at Mass this morning. I was surprised to find that some of the Christmas hymns in the missalettes were partially rewritten in gender neutral language.

No thanks Oregon Catholic Press.
:twocents:

At least they admit to the changes.
Why are the texts of some of your hymns and carols different from the familiar texts I grew up with?

These are the principles that we follow: Our fundamental concern for traditional hymnody/carols is to preserve the integrity of our musical heritage as it has been handed down from ancient to modern times, yet in language that is comprehensible to people today. Our music editors have done extensive research from many available sources and texts are selected using the following criteria:

1. *]faithfulness to the original version of the hymn/carol, whenever possible,
   *]adherence to the essential theological meaning of the original text, especially as it relates to Trinitarian theology,
   *]inclusive references to the people of faith, and
   *]adoption of contemporary language in place of antiquated words or phrases, unless popular usage dictates otherwise (e.g., “O Come, All Ye Faithful”)
   
   In the credit line of a hymn/carol, you may sometimes see the term “alt.” The abbreviation is for alternative—which means a section of the text has been altered. For example, the credit of the carol “Lo, How A Rose E’er Blooming” is as follows; Text: 76 76 6 76; Isaiah 11:1-10; German Carol, 15th cent.: tr. by Theodore Baker, 1851-1934, alt; Music: Alte Catholische Geistiliche Kirchengesang, Cologne, 1599. The “alt” therefore indicated that the original text has been altered or changed.
   
   Most hymnals from both Catholic and Protestant traditions published since 1985 use these adapted texts for Christmas carols and hymnody.
   
   A theme of the Second Vatican Council can be summed up in these words: “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." The slight changes in texts of carols and hymns are not part of some “political” agenda by a group of music editors or publishers of hymns and carols; rather, our common goal is find the best texts to express our praise and worship of God.
   Why would they have to write such a thing?

 

[Dirk_Skene]

Next thing you know somebody will try to get us to pray “in the name of the creator, the redemmer & the sanctifyer”

 

[Salonika]

1holycatholic:

I usually take my copy of Magnificat to Mass. The Christmas issue has a traditional Christmas hymns section so I decided to refer to the lyrics in it at Mass this morning. I was surprised to find that some of the Christmas hymns in the missalettes were partially rewritten in gender neutral language.

No thanks Oregon Catholic Press.

Good on you Oregon Press especially in regard to inclusive references to the people of faith.

As a child I could never understad why women weren’t mentioned in hymns and the old argument men incudes women never washed with me (and still doesn’t) as there were always exceptions when only men only were being referred to. It was confusing at least and offensive at most.

 

[Salonika]

Next thing you know somebody will try to get us to pray “in the name of the creator, the redemmer & the sanctifyer”

More likely “creator, redeemer and giver of life”.

Still trinitarian and more descriptive of role.

 

[LRThunder]

Good on you Oregon Press especially in regard to inclusive references to the people of faith.

As a child I could never understad why women weren’t mentioned in hymns and the old argument men incudes women never washed with me (and still doesn’t) as there were always exceptions when only men only were being referred to. It was confusing at least and offensive at most.

Have you studied other languages?

In Spanish, the pronoun for them: ellos can mean a group of men, or a group of people that includes women. Ellas means only a group of females.

The term mankind refers to women as well. With all due respect, only those looking for gender bias will find gender bias in terms like this. People in the past didn’t have trouble understanding that the term men could refer to all males or men AND women.

 

[Salonika]

Have you studied other languages?

In Spanish, the pronoun for them: ellos can mean a group of men, or a group of people that includes women. Ellas means only a group of females.

The term mankind refers to women as well. With all due respect, only those looking for gender bias will find gender bias in terms like this. People in the past didn’t have trouble understanding that the term men could refer to all males or men AND women.

Don’t think a ten year girl in the 1950’s was looking for gender bias. She wanted clarity after becoming aware that there were situations when “mankind” didn’t mean “men and women” and to assume that got you into trouble or meant some things weren’t for you. Also learnt mankind often didn’t include children.

Now boy and girl were much clearer - when both were meant people said boys and girls otherwise girls meant girls and boys meant boys.

Also as this forum is in English I don’t think bringing up other languages clarifies the situation.

I’d also have trouble with ellos meaning a group of men or a group of people that includes women and which meaning was meant. It would less confusing to have separate words for a group of men, a group of men and women and a group of women.

But then I like words to mean what they say. I’ve even been told I’m too literal.

 

[1holycatholic]

Also as this forum is in English I don’t think bringing up other languages clarifies the situation.

Your profile says:
Religion: Nil
So what’s your interest in “Liturgy and Sacraments?”

 

[ericka1701]

I thought I had left all of this inclusive language nonsense (I do think it’s very much nonsense) when I left Presbyterianism. I was thrilled to get the new Presbyterian Hymnal as a gift, until I started playing the music and noticed the changes. Some of these songs are 500 years old. Yes, language has changed since then, but a small language history lesson (maybe an hour or so) will eliminate the need for such foolishness.

Oh, and as for alternate terminology for the Trinity… About 3 years ago, it wasn’t mandated by the PC(USA) (Presbyerian Church [United States of America]), but it was suggested that Mother, Child and Womb be used!!! legacy.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/060620/holy.shtml is one of the many results that came up regarding this when I Googled the term Mother, Child and Womb. And I now really need to get off this subject before I get angry. And you won’t like me when I’m angry.

God Bless!
Ericka

 

[benedictgal]

As always, leave it to the good folks at OCP to stir the pot once more. If only the publishing house would concern itself with following the documents of the Church on sacred music rather than succumbing to the god of political correctness, they might actually be credible.

One such document that the publishing house in question routinely ignores is Liturgiam Authenticam, the authoritative document from the Holy See on translations.

1. The Latin liturgical texts of the Roman Rite, while drawing on centuries of ecclesial experience in transmitting the faith of the Church received from the Fathers, are themselves the fruit of the liturgical renewal, just recently brought forth. In order that such a rich patrimony may be preserved and passed on through the centuries, it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.20

Some of OCP’s Mass settings, bothi in English and Spanish, deviate from the approved texts. Case in point the mindless drek that they have for their kiddie songbook, most notably, what is supposed to pass for the Agnus Dei, but, in all reality, is not even a remote paraphrase of the prayer.

Another instance touches upon something that a previous poster brought about concerning the Trinitarian formula. LA makes perfectly clear that this should not be renamed:

a) In referring to almighty God or the individual persons of the Most Holy Trinity, the truth of tradition as well as the established gender usage of each respective language are to be maintained.

Regarding gender, LA makes this interesting observation:

1. The translation should not restrict the full sense of the original text within narrower limits. To be avoided on this account are expressions characteristic of commercial publicity, political or ideological programs, passing fashions, and those which are subject to regional variations or ambiguities in meaning.

While this is not a direct reference to inclusive language, it would certainlly apply under the notion of “ideological programs, passing fashions”, which I believe political correctness to be.

I am a woman born after the Council. I am not offended by the Church’s usage of gender. I am intelligent enough to know that “man” is inclusive. I am comfortable with who I am and do not need my feminity to be validated by words. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, OCP concentrates more on following the dogma of political correctness than the authoritative documents of the Holy See.

 

[eichenb2]

Catholics and Christians, generally, are being hoodwinked! The inclusive language and similar tools are being used by people with a much more diabolical scheme. The “woman’s rights” movement of American history should suffice for an example. We find out decades later that it was not about on suffrage, jobs, etc. It was about the destruction of the Christian family and worldview. If you have doubt, do some reading. In most cases, the founders of these movements made themselves clear from the beginning, but no one listened. Planned Parenthood is a good example. Read about Margaret Sanger and her views on human development, for example. The pronoun YOU can apply to singular or plural, masculine or feminine. What acceptable to the culture at-large is not always what is acceptable to God and the Church.

 

[eichenb2]

Don’t think a ten year girl in the 1950’s was looking for gender bias. She wanted clarity after becoming aware that there were situations when “mankind” didn’t mean “men and women” and to assume that got you into trouble or meant some things weren’t for you. Also learnt mankind often didn’t include children.

Now boy and girl were much clearer - when both were meant people said boys and girls otherwise girls meant girls and boys meant boys.

Also as this forum is in English I don’t think bringing up other languages clarifies the situation.

I’d also have trouble with ellos meaning a group of men or a group of people that includes women and which meaning was meant. It would less confusing to have separate words for a group of men, a group of men and women and a group of women.

But then I like words to mean what they say. I’ve even been told I’m too literal.

Language is peculiar in that it is true populism. ELLOS means a group of men or a group of people that includes women and men; as THEY in English does, because people (the vast majority) understood and understand that LA MUJER ES DEL HOMBRE (The Woman is from the Man). This is not an insult to Women as it could be said that MAN is from WOMAN, as well. Gender-neutral language is one of the worst examples of politicizing religion that I can think of.

 

[Salonika]

1holycatholic:

Your profile says: Religion: Nil
So what’s your interest in “Liturgy and Sacraments?”

My interest is in the liturgy part and comes from a love of language, a desire for people to use words that say what they mean, a desire to understand spiritual things and having experienced good liturgy in past Church involvement knowing how it help me and others people express what means most to us.

I don’t usually frequent this forum but came in because the inclusive language hymnal thread caught my eye when I logged in this morning.

I am a woman born after the Council. I am not offended by the Church’s usage of gender. I am intelligent enough to know that “man” is inclusive. I am comfortable with who I am and do not need my femininity to be validated by words.

I see it differently – I support inclusive language because I do not want individuals or groups of people to feel excluded or second rate. It’s not only about gender it’s about other characteristics like being left-handed, being seen as being less useful or valuable because you are older or young, have a disability.

eichenb2:

Catholics and Christians, generally, are being hoodwinked! The inclusive language and similar tools are being used by people with a much more diabolical scheme.

I use inclusive language so people feel included. We say “ladies and gentlemen, girls and boys” at meetings and at other places so all feel welcomed. Sometimes this sounds forced so we use inclusive language like “all are welcome here.”

I have not been hoodwinked, I wanted this years before it became popular after realising that non-inclusive language can be, and is used, to exclude something accidentally and sometimes intentionally.

There was a time when things like the abolition of slavery and votes for women were considered diabolical. This seems to be the fate of many new and inclusive ideas

 

[bpbasilphx]

**More likely “creator, redeemer and giver of life”.

Still trinitarian and more descriptive of role.**

**Of course, this is not the faith of the Church, either.

ALL THREE PERSONS are involved in creation.

ALL THREE PERSONS are involved in redemption.

ALL THREE PERSONS are involved in sanctification.

ALL THREE PERSONS give life.

The faith of the Church is as Jesus gave it in Matthew 28:20–Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.**

 

[1holycatholic]

**More likely “creator, redeemer and giver of life”.

Still trinitarian and more descriptive of role.**

**Of course, this is not the faith of the Church, either.

ALL THREE PERSONS are involved in creation.

ALL THREE PERSONS are involved in redemption.

ALL THREE PERSONS are involved in sanctification.

ALL THREE PERSONS give life.

The faith of the Church is as Jesus gave it in Matthew 28:20–Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.**

Glory be to the Father
and to the Son
and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning
is now, and ever shall be
world without end. Amen.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Original feminism was concerned with equal treatment and payment of women in the workplace, and this was certainly a just cause. Inclusive language as we are discussing it was designed not for equality, but to dismantle what radical feminism views as a patriarchal society and a patriarchal Church. It’s advocates are often the same people (both women and men) who are most frequently agitating for women’s ordination, or trying to raise their children without gender bias or stereotypes. This mentality often advocates for the acceptance of sexual deviancy as an alternative lifestyle without moral implications, since gender roles are contrivances of the patriarchy.

I will not change my use of the English language or the words of Scripture or Mass prayers because a certain, tiny minority feels “offended.” A much larger percentage of women that I’ve spoken with consider the use of inclusive language at Mass to be condescending and an insult to their intelligence.

Christianity is the only major world religion that raised women to equal dignity with men. The greatest human being ever created, Mary, was a woman. The first people to see the resurrected Christ were women. The further certain Protestant groups and elements within Catholicism stray toward occultism or radical feminism, the further they get from true female liberation in Christ.

 

[PacoG]

More likely “creator, redeemer and giver of life”.

Still trinitarian and more descriptive of role.

No. Actually, that is such an American view of things: people (and in this case persons of a triune diety) are defined by their work.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are their NAMES. The three persons of the triune God are God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

To refer to Him as Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer (or whatever the latest Protestant inclusive language claptrap is for the Holy Spirit) is like referring to people by their job titles. It is like coming home and referring to your spouse as “nurse,” your father as “high school principal,” your brother as “pharmacist” and your best friend as “lawyer.” I can’t think of anything more impersonal or despicable.

To quote Pope Benedict:

The medieval theologian William of Saint Thierry once said that God – from the time of Adam – saw that his grandeur provoked resistance in man, that we felt limited in our own being and threatened in our freedom. Therefore God chose a new way. He became a child. He made himself dependent and weak, in need of our love. Now – this God who has become a child says to us – you can no longer fear me, you can only love me.

And now in the 21st Century, Feminists such as Salonika want to make God into a job description. That way we can employ him and pay him.

But then again, this view of looking as God as an Employee is in the current translation of the Roman Missal. Instead of it being a creatures lovingly supplicating themselves in worship before their God, the Mass sounds like a boss giving instructions and a to-do list to an employee, God . Look at EP-1: “Father, accept this offering from your whole family. Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen.” Not even a please. It’s all commands. (If I gave commands like that to my mother or father when I was a kid, I would have been slapped and told to show respect. But then again, God is an employee defined by his/her work–Creating, Redeeming and Sustaining us, his employer. Right Salonika.)

How different is that from Bill Lumberg in Office Space telling Peter: “Attach TPS forms to all your reports, come into work on Sunday and don’t park in my parking space.”

Salonika and her ilk got their way for 30 years. They brought down God to the level of a subordinate. Now they want to emasculate Him and make Him into nothing but job descriptions.

What next, are we going to take God’s red stapler away?

Thank God for Pope Benedict.

 

[Salonika]

To refer to Him as Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer (or whatever the latest Protestant inclusive language claptrap is for the Holy Spirit) is like referring to people by their job titles.

I see them as descriptive of what God is, what God has done, is doing and will continue to do. What can be more awe inspiring and mysterious and to be approached in that way.

Maybe Creating, Redeeming and Sustaining catches this better than Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer.

 

[Brendan]

I see them as descriptive of what God is, what God has done, is doing and will continue to do. What can be more awe inspiring and mysterious and to be approached in that way.

Maybe Creating, Redeeming and Sustaining catches this better than Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer.

But those terms apply equally to any and all of the 3 Divine Persons.

The only meaningful distinction between the persons is their relationship to each other.

The Father Begets, the Son is Begotten. The Father and Son Spiriate, the Spirit Proceeds.

But they all operate with one Single Divine Will.

Therefore each and everyone of the Persons is the Redeemer, the Sanctifier and the Creator.

How exactly do you indicate which person you are referring to?

 

[ericka1701]

Oh, and as for alternate terminology for the Trinity… About 3 years ago, it wasn’t mandated by the PC(USA) (Presbyerian Church [United States of America]), but it was suggested that Mother, Child and Womb be used!!! legacy.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/060620/holy.shtml is one of the many results that came up regarding this when I Googled the term Mother, Child and Womb.
God Bless!
Ericka

It could be much worse. But I think that renaming the Trinity with a gender neutral term would open the door for what the PC(USA) suggested it could be termed. Reading the bible, it clearly states many times that God is a male (“As the Father send me, so send I you” come to mind right of the bat). Who are we to try to redefine God?

God Bless,
Ericka

 

[1holycatholic]

It could be much worse. But I think that renaming the Trinity with a gender neutral term would open the door for what the PC(USA) suggested it could be termed. Reading the bible, it clearly states many times that God is a male (“As the Father send me, so send I you” come to mind right of the bat). Who are we to try to redefine God?

God Bless,
Ericka

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM
239 By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. the language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.
You are correct to refer to God as “Father” etc., but God is not male. Does this help?