Inclusive Language

[VietCatholic83]

Hi everyone. I was wondering how I could convince people that the usage of the masculine nouns of “father”, “Lord”, and the fact that Jesus came to earth as a man was actually no coincidence and that it directly relates to sacred scripture and tradition. many people I converse with simply want to reject and dismiss these facts by saying that Jesus came as a man and taught the Lord’s Prayer using the phrase “Our Father” because he grew up in a male dominated society. how or what can I say to help people understand that is not the case? Thanks, this issue is always so frustrating to me! Also because it is used to justify the usage of inclusive language.

JT

 

[JimG]

You might start by having them read this article by a non-Catholic university professor.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Is it more important to tell them about Jesus or to use masculine language?

Think about Paul at the Aereopagus, reaching out to people where they were and bringing them to something new. Do you think he would be stressing masculine language or simply finding a way to converse with people and bring them to God?

 

[i_have_no_names]

Is it more important to tell them about Jesus or to use masculine language?

Think about Paul at the Aereopagus, reaching out to people where they were and bringing them to something new. Do you think he would be stressing masculine language or simply finding a way to converse with people and bring them to God?

You make a good point, but it seems the OP was asking about people who have already learned about Jesus → how can he convince them that Jesus being a man was no coincidence, and calling God “father” was for a reason other than just the male-dominated society of the time?

To the OP: I don’t know if this helps, but I was told that God is neither male nor female, but that He’s a spirit, and has both male and female qualities. I don’t know if it’s completely true or not, but it was a nun that said it (to my confirmation class and the RCIA class).
Of course, I am not advocating the use of inclusive language… I can’t stand it when people change the word “He” to “You” or “God” or whatever.

 

[flyersfan1088]

To the OP: I don’t know if this helps, but I was told that God is neither male nor female, but that He’s a spirit, and has both male and female qualities. I don’t know if it’s completely true or not, but it was a nun that said it (to my confirmation class and the RCIA class).

This is true. However, he chose to reveal himself to us in the male form.

 

[i_have_no_names]

This is true. However, he chose to reveal himself to us in the male form.

Ah, that makes sense Thanks

 

[FCEGM]

Hi everyone. I was wondering how I could convince people that the usage of the masculine nouns of “father”, “Lord”, and the fact that Jesus came to earth as a man was actually no coincidence and that it directly relates to sacred scripture and tradition. many people I converse with simply want to reject and dismiss these facts by saying that Jesus came as a man and taught the Lord’s Prayer using the phrase “Our Father” because he grew up in a male dominated society. how or what can I say to help people understand that is not the case? Thanks, this issue is always so frustrating to me! Also because it is used to justify the usage of inclusive language.

JT

Another article that may be of help:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a49.htm

This offers some insight, too:

Jesus not only became a human being, but also a man, a person of the male sex. That is not something either accidental or arbitrary. The possibility that God could become a human being was latent only in the male sex. The man, after all, is a symbol of God’s mighty Love, the Love that redeems and saves. Whereas woman represents the humanity that God has chosen for redemption and bliss [the Church]. That is why Jesus was bound to become a man. In the male sex the profound mystery of His being was prefigured: Jesus is the very image of the Father, His Love, faithful and strong, for human beings," Andre Louf in Teach Us to Pray.

 

[Nita]

Is it more important to tell them about Jesus or to use masculine language?

Think about Paul at the Aereopagus, reaching out to people where they were and bringing them to something new. Do you think he would be stressing masculine language or simply finding a way to converse with people and bring them to God?

He was reaching out to non-believers, pagans. I don’t think Paul would have had much tolerance for people trying to change the words of Scripture because they didn’t like the way the Holy Spirit inspired it. Paul’s personality comes across loud and clear in the epistles that he writes to the baptized Christians.

 

[VietCatholic83]

I guess the title I gave this thread was a little misleading. I should have thought of a different title rather than “inclusive language”. Thanks for your replies, they certainly help.

I just believe that often times, the widespread usage of unnecessary inclusive language can actually misrepresent authentic Catholic doctrine. It irritates me when I hear my Priest says at Mass"Let us pray together the prayer that Jesus taught us: Our Mother, Our Father who art in heaven…" You get my drift? Jesus did not teach us to say "Our Mother who art in heaven! In my opinion, this is more than so called progressively minded people making an attempt to make God “more human”. The scriptures clearly record that Christ chose to reveal to humanity the nature of God as Father, not of mother. I do not believe that God does anything arbitrarily. Every action, every word of Christ has meaning, divine meaning. Therefore, there is meaning in the masculinity of Christ. To those who say he became a man to “fit better” into a male dominated society at the time. Is God not beyond the whims and traditions of men? Would culture and societal norms dictate the actions of Almighty God? Christ certainly broke the norms during his lifetime to spread the Gospel. Befriending women, loving the sinner, healing the sick, etc! sorry about the rant, I just had to get it out. Please, any more helpful comments would be appreciated!

JT

 

[jcrichton]

I guess the title I gave this thread was a little misleading. I should have thought of a different title rather than “inclusive language”. Thanks for your replies, they certainly help.

I just believe that often times, the widespread usage of unnecessary inclusive language can actually misrepresent authentic Catholic doctrine. It irritates me when I hear my Priest says at Mass"Let us pray together the prayer that Jesus taught us: Our Mother, Our Father who art in heaven…" You get my drift? Jesus did not teach us to say "Our Mother who art in heaven! In my opinion, this is more than so called progressively minded people making an attempt to make God “more human”. The scriptures clearly record that Christ chose to reveal to humanity the nature of God as Father, not of mother. I do not believe that God does anything arbitrarily. Every action, every word of Christ has meaning, divine meaning. Therefore, there is meaning in the masculinity of Christ. To those who say he became a man to “fit better” into a male dominated society at the time. Is God not beyond the whims and traditions of men? Would culture and societal norms dictate the actions of Almighty God? Christ certainly broke the norms during his lifetime to spread the Gospel. Befriending women, loving the sinner, healing the sick, etc! sorry about the rant, I just had to get it out. Please, any more helpful comments would be appreciated!

JT

Hi, JT!

…I believe this is a residual effect from the feminist movement… you can catch those idiosyncracies in the old movies where very seemingly intelligent people would, out of the blue, call on the goddess, etc.–from time to time it comes back in some of the tv shows which, coincidentally, support everything but moral values and the family.

What I find interesting is how the Church just seems to have fallen for such practices that are based on non-Christian values.

…and you think you get irritated… I find it puzzling that the Church goes into this hypnotic trance “be inclusive, be inclusive…” while society continues to deny equal rights to women:

*SciFi - Star Trek (NG; V; DS9): Female officers must be called “Sir” in order to demonstrate that they have the same authority as their male counterparts… :bigyikes:
…you mean, that unless a woman goes by a male title she cannot be seen and respected for her personal achievements, only when she acquiesces and claims a male title can she be respected?

*Hollo-wood - Actors: Yeap, by relinquishing that obsolete title of “actress” a woman can get full power and respect!
…well… not really… ever noticed how guys are always the focal point of the screen (Zoom view) while the girls (yes, even when they are the ones speaking) are not the focal point (telescopic view)? …and, have you noticed that, if you go according to the screen credits when a new movie will come out, there are no females in the movies?

*Latino Church - culture: “please, be respectful of females so use inclusive language: do not just read Scriptures and say brother or men, say brothers and sisters and men and women… that is goood.”
…well, no not at all… not if a female has to use the male gender as her own–Spanish, unlike English, is gender specific: a sinner is both “pecador” and “pecadora,” and a friend “amigo” and “amiga…” Somehow it is extremely important for the Bible to be restructured to demonstrate that when God speaks to man He is speaking to both man and woman (a fact that cannot be simply stated by saying “God spoke to man…”) but when singing or praying a woman must become male in order to not upset the original composition… :bigyikes: :banghead:

…It irritates me when I hear my Priest says at Mass"Let us pray together the prayer that Jesus taught us: Our Mother

, Our Father who art in heaven…"

Is this just an inference or is your Priest pronouncing such confusion?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[VietCatholic83]

Is this just an inference or is your Priest pronouncing such confusion?

Maran atha!

Angel
The priest at my former parish used to always say this! He would say “Our Mother” and the congregation would continue saying, “Our Father, who art in heaven…”

This was from the same parish that omitted both the Gloria and the Creed on Sundays and Solemnities. Correction, we did hear the Gloria…once a year on Holy Thursday. So it wasn’t totally thrown out, but changed to “Glory to God in the Highest, and peace to GOD’s people on earth.” Like somehow that sounds better or clarifies things. Lord forbid someone mistook the “His” to be some other guy!

 

[zagjames]

Any one interested in the inclusive nature issue, or why the pews have more women then men should read “The Church Impotent” by leon podles.

We are all brothers in Christ (yes even the women).
We are called to have a quoteenquote masculine spirituality. One that is soldiering. The bond between soldiers is said to be closer then that of man and wife. So if we all are brothers, soldiers along side of Christ then we are incredible close to him.

The Church as a whole is feminine.The bride of Christ.

Individual level, we are to be masculine in our spirituality.
Communal level, we are to be feminine in our spirituality.
Look at the early church, look at how the eastern christians still do it, they follow this model, and there are as many if not more men then women in the pews.

 

[jcrichton]

The priest at my former parish used to always say this! He would say “Our Mother” and the congregation would continue saying, “Our Father, who art in heaven…”

This was from the same parish that omitted both the Gloria and the Creed on Sundays and Solemnities. Correction, we did hear the Gloria…once a year on Holy Thursday. So it wasn’t totally thrown out, but changed to “Glory to God in the Highest, and peace to GOD’s people on earth.” Like somehow that sounds better or clarifies things. Lord forbid someone mistook the “His” to be some other guy!

***Hi, VietCatholic!

…and is that priest still celebrating Mass in your old parish or has the parish been closed by the Vatican?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

…The Church as a whole is feminine.The bride of Christ.

Individual level, we are to be masculine in our spirituality.
Communal level, we are to be feminine in our spirituality.
Look at the early church, look at how the eastern christians still do it, they follow this model, and there are as many if not more men then women in the pews.

Hi, zagjames!

…I am ignorant of many things… and I am a natural procrastinator… and I am lazy to boot–so I am always looking for short cuts… can you expand on this “feminine spirituality?”

…also, have you considered “culture” as an element in the difference between the Western and Eastern Christians?

As a child I saw a great number of males in my local parish… once in the US I noticed, through the years, that there were less and less males around… but not only that… I also noticed that as the demographics changed so did the male population in the Church… eventually, I found that, mostly, young married Latinos, with or without children, would frequent the Mass service as a family–or the old husband and wife (mostly without their young adult/adult children). Sadly, this trend is being embraced by more and more Latinos–as they become “Americanized,” I believe.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Is it more important to tell them about Jesus or to use masculine language?

Think about Paul at the Aereopagus, reaching out to people where they were and bringing them to something new. Do you think he would be stressing masculine language or simply finding a way to converse with people and bring them to God?

But God IS Father, Son and Holy Spirit… If the God you are bringing to someone isn’t Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are you still preaching God?

 

[Cara_Serrano]

You might start by having them read this article by a non-Catholic university professor.

Thank you for including this excellent article in your response!

The same people who want us to make the Bible “inclusive” would be horrified if we butchered the works of Shakespeare, Dante, or Milton in the same way. Doesn’t God’s Word deserve at least the same respect?

 

[jcrichton]

The same people who want us to make the Bible “inclusive” would be horrified if we butchered the works of Shakespeare, Dante, or Milton in the same way. Doesn’t God’s Word deserve at least the same respect?

Hi, Cara Serrano!

…precisely my point! How can a female sing or pray in Castellano (Spanish: the nation, the culture, and the nationals–Castellano is the language spoken in that region of Spain from where it was introduced into the “new world”), which is a gender specific language, while applying male terms to herself… yet, it is insufferable for her to read “man” in Scriptures without requiring that it should read “man and woman?”

It seems to me that these modernists have somehow managed to keep God in their pockets so changing not just an iota but whole Biblical passages is not just their privilege but their personal obligation as they need to correct the errors of the Holy Spirit!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Inclusive language is just plain old the lies of Satan.

The bottom line is that it doesn’t matter what anyone Wants the bible to say or how language has changed today.

The only real thing that matters is what did the Holy Spirit inspire the scriptural writers to say?

If that question is ever answered in a way that is at odds with the Vulgate in respect to Doctrine or Faith and Morals then it is by definition WRONG!

And it doesn’t matter if people with theological agendas don’t like it or not!

 

[Ron_Conte]

Inclusive language is not an all or nothing proposition. It really is not possible to translate the Bible without some use of language that is inclusive, such as: children, person, people, human, as well as pronouns that are in some sense inclusive, such as: one, someone, one or another, they, etc.

The question is when to use such terms, and how often. Also, there are various pronouns and terms in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin that don’t map word for word to the same exact term in English.

Inclusive language is misused in some modern translations, such that the underlying text does not justify it, and even to the extent that its use undermines Catholic teaching. But inclusive language is not immoral or evil, and it is not absent from the Latin Vulgate.

In fact, Latin has many more pronouns than English, and many of these are not specific as to gender, or even number (depending on the case).

 

[jcrichton]

Inclusive language is not an all or nothing proposition. It really is not possible to translate the Bible without some use of language that is inclusive, such as: children, person, people, human, as well as pronouns that are in some sense inclusive, such as: one, someone, one or another, they, etc.

The question is when to use such terms, and how often. Also, there are various pronouns and terms in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin that don’t map word for word to the same exact term in English.

Inclusive language is misused in some modern translations, such that the underlying text does not justify it, and even to the extent that its use undermines Catholic teaching. But inclusive language is not immoral or evil, and it is not absent from the Latin Vulgate.

In fact, Latin has many more pronouns than English, and many of these are not specific as to gender, or even number (depending on the case).

Hi, Ron Conte!

How do you explain the text being changed such as “Yahweh” and “Amen?”

When Jehovah Witnesses ring the bell (knock) on fringe Catholics’ doors their first few visits are introductory and one issue they promote adamantly is the Name of God… If their Catholic Bibles do not use Yahweh but “Lord” this simple replacement of words could prove to be an excellent argument for those who claim that theirs is the “visible church” of God since they know Him by name!

There’s an Old Testament passage that speaks of the God of the Amen–which can be traced to a passage in Apocalypse that tells us that Jesus is the Amen… remove “Amen” from Scriptures and you deny Jesus’ Divinity, at least in that particular passage; this actually seems inconsequential… till you meet someone who asks “isn’t Jesus just a prophet?”

“Full of Grace…” I’ve already have had several comments about where did such translation come from… the tone was not “hey, that’s just like ‘highly favoured’!” The tone is one of superiority because in their minds “Catholic” translations are way below mediocrity.

Simple changes in language can cause irreparable damages… I remember having a lengthy exchange with a non-Catholic who insinuated that Jehovah is the correct name of God while Yahweh is an error introduced by Catholics… even when I told him that a Bible printed by the American Bibly Society (non-Catholic org.) states that Jehovah is a derivative of Yahweh, he would not reconsider his opinion.

Maran atha!

Angel