Inclusive language

[HannahLisa]

Again…God is masculine, and anything trying to turn God into a father/mother figure of any type is going WAY over the line. I’ve only heard of one translation which did that, and it was not completed because it was received so horribly. Also, I think it’s pretty obvious that “mankind” refers to men and women.

Instead, I am talking about places where “brothers” is used to refer to both men and women, and other similar instances. Tell me the last time you were in a group of men and women which was referred to as “men” only, or “brothers” only. It doesn’t happen in today’s everyday English. The “inclusive” translations that I know of translate such terms as “brothers and sisters” with a footnote saying that the original language says “brothers.”

The Declaration of Independence did only refer to men. I don’t see how anyone could make Shakespeare inclusive, because I don’t think he ever talks about humankind in general, really. Inclusive language should not mean trying to make everything gender-neutral, because that’s ridiculous.

Augustine - do you have a link to somewhere where the Church spoke against inclusive language? And how would more accurately translating the meaning of a passage lead to saying that the OT God is different from the NT God?

 

[estesbob]

We believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The interpretation of what this means may be a problem for us.

And the translation must be based on what the author said -not on what we wish they had said.

 

[Augustine]

Augustine - do you have a link to somewhere where the Church spoke against inclusive language?

See catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9904fea3.asp for the bishops’ instruction about it.

 

[e61iuser]

The Founding Fathers did not consider women to be human beings, though - the Apostles did. That’s the difference.

Does it matter? What the original texts say are what the original texts say. Don’t discriminate against one culture’s historical documents as against another’s. Change one set, better make sure you change them all.

 

[HannahLisa]

See catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9904fea3.asp for the bishops’ instruction about it.

The bishops’ instruction only speaks about “horizontal inclusive” language, which I’ve already said I am not talking about here.

The rest of the article, while very informative, concentrates on terms like “man” and “mankind” being used to mean everyone. I don’t think those terms are confusing when used with something like, say, “Man does not live by bread alone.” Mankind is still obviously all of humanity, I think.

However, I do not think ANYONE in present-day America would address a group of men and women as “brothers” only and expect the women to assume that they were included. If I was in a gathering where that occurred, I would be a bit offended and wonder if women were actually being included.

 

[jmcrae]

Does it matter? What the original texts say are what the original texts say. Don’t discriminate against one culture’s historical documents as against another’s. Change one set, better make sure you change them all.

What about looking at the intent of the meaning? Shouldn’t that count for something?

When the Apostles were speaking to the whole Church, they were referring to both men and women.

When the Founding Fathers were talking about who is owed liberty and justice, they were referring to men only. Women were considered property. (Rape was a crime against property, and the husband or father of the woman raped was considered the victim - not the woman.)

 

[NoelFitz]

Estesbob

And the translation must be based on what the author said -not on what we wish they had said.

I agree fully with you. The job of the translator is to give, as best as (s)he can, what the author said.

Augustine

I am not too sure that I understand what you are getting at.

You wrote:

do you pretend to know better than the Holy Scriptures authors who were inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Do you expect me to answer “Yes”?

You wrote:

We have the Holy Mother Church to give us how to interpret the Word of God, and she, who is guided by the same Holy Spirit as Jesus promised to make no doctrinal error, has spoken against gender-inclusive language.

How does the Church interpret the Word of God? She make few infallible statement. Are you referring to the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Some ot the early ones would not be accepted now (perhaps). The Church makes no doctrinal errors in her infallible statements. Do you think Pope Honorius was correct to claim Jesus had one will?

Finally where does Marcion come in?

You wrote:

I’m sorry, but insistence on this ridiculous maneuver to distort the Scriptures is heterodoxy plain and simple. We don’t need the heresy of Marcionionism yet again.

Marcion rejected the OT and most of the NT, accepting only Luke and Paul as he understood him. He denied that the God of the OT and the NT were the same. I really cannot see the relevance.

Finally let me assure you I am against inclusive language, as it does not do justice to the original text.

 

[jmcrae]

Do you believe that it is okay for women to become Christians - followers of Christ?

If so, then why not indicate so, in our most important teaching document?

I don’t see the point of retaining exclusive language in the English translation, as if the earliest English translations were the original autographs.

 

[Augustine]

Marcion rejected the OT and most of the NT, accepting only Luke and Paul as he understood him. He denied that the God of the OT and the NT were the same. I really cannot see the relevance.

And he rewrote the Gospel to fit his views, thinking that the original human authors misunderstood the Holy Spirit Who was inspiring him… If it sounds similar to this attempt at rewriting the Scriptures because of alleged bias of the human authors is no different. Of course, its proponents will argue that Marcion was wrong, but not them, much like Mao argued that Stalin got Communism wrong, then Pol-Pot that Mao got it wrong, then Castro that Pol-Pot got it wrong, then Chavez that Castro got it right, then Obama that Chavez got it right… Oops, I got taken by this line of thought, but I hope that you get my drift about recalling Marcionism here.

 

[Augustine]

Do you think Pope Honorius was correct to claim Jesus had one will?

That’s a strawman that the enemies of papal infallibility use. Honorius was not speaking clearly, neither condining, nor condemning such idea, and definitely not ex cathedra, so much so that in another opportunity he clearly taught what the Church has always taught.

 

[Christy_Beth]

Hasn’t this subject been beatened to death by now? We could go on for ages, and still get nowhere. So, maybe we can agree to disagree?

 

[NoelFitz]

Augustine,

That’s a strawman that the enemies of papal infallibility use. Honorius was not speaking clearly, neither condining, nor condemning such idea, and definitely not ex cathedra, so much so that in another opportunity he clearly taught what the Church has always taught.

I agree with you. I was making the point that the Church seldom speaks infallibly.

Thank you for explaining what you think is the relevance of Marcion in this thread.

 

[Nan_S]

Thus far this thread has advocated gender-neutrality and been focused on what femininity and women Aren’t or Weren’t or Should Be. Yes, men treated women unjustly. Women reacted with guile. Neither behavior was good or loving. But we mustn’t forget that women and men are different in critical ways.

No one has yet brought out the exalted position of women and femininity in scripture above men and masculinity:

– Wisdom (sophia), when personified, is always referred to in the feminine. Wisdom is described consistently with feminine characteristics. Try to put that in gender-neutral terms, and it just doesn’t work.

– The Church is the Bride of Christ. Describing the Bride in gender-neutral terms is even more convoluted than describing wisdom in gender-neutral terms.

– Whereas women are commanded merely to respect their husbands, men are commanded to lay down their lives for their wives as Christ did for His church.

– The soft and gentle nature of a woman brings down what no man’s sword or ammunition could prevail against. Sometimes this is used for good (Judith), sometimes is it used for evil (Delilah), but it works nontheless.

 

[NoelFitz]

Nan S

Brilliant constructive post.

Thank you.

 

[kristie_m]

Thus far this thread has advocated gender-neutrality and been focused on what femininity and women Aren’t or Weren’t or Should Be. Yes, men treated women unjustly. Women reacted with guile. Neither behavior was good or loving. But we mustn’t forget that women and men are different in critical ways.

No one has yet brought out the exalted position of women and femininity in scripture above men and masculinity:

– Wisdom (sophia), when personified, is always referred to in the feminine. Wisdom is described consistently with feminine characteristics. Try to put that in gender-neutral terms, and it just doesn’t work.

– The Church is the Bride of Christ. Describing the Bride in gender-neutral terms is even more convoluted than describing wisdom in gender-neutral terms.

– Whereas women are commanded merely to respect their husbands, men are commanded to lay down their lives for their wives as Christ did for His church.

– The soft and gentle nature of a woman brings down what no man’s sword or ammunition could prevail against. Sometimes this is used for good (Judith), sometimes is it used for evil (Delilah), but it works nontheless.

:clapping:

 

[Augustine]

Very well put.

Where are the men clamoring to "neuterize" feminine words referring to vital attributes of God from the original and in many modern languages, such as Wisdom, Word, Light, Truth, etc?

It’s time to take the feminist chip off of women’s shoulders, lest Marcionism be revived.

 

[jmcrae]

Very well put.

Where are the men clamoring to "neuterize" feminine words referring to vital attributes of God from the original and in many modern languages, such as Wisdom, Word, Light, Truth, etc?

No one is asking for that. Only that “hominis” be translated “human being” (which is what it means) instead of “man” (which would be “viri” in the original, if the original intended to mean “man”).

 

[Augustine]

No one is asking for that. Only that “hominis” be translated “human being” (which is what it means) instead of “man” (which would be “viri” in the original, if the original intended to mean “man”).

man (mhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifn)n. pl. men (mhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifn) **

1. ** An adult male human.
   **2. ** A human regardless of sex or age; a person.
   **3. ** A human or an adult male human belonging to a specific occupation, group, nationality, or other category. Often used in combination: a milkman; a congressman; a freeman.
   **4. ** The human race; mankind: man’s quest for peace.

“Man” is the proper translation. You only object because you have an agenda. Behave or I’ll recall that rib.

 

[jmcrae]

man (mhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifn)n. pl. men (mhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifn) **

1. ** An adult male human.
   **2. ** A human regardless of sex or age; a person.
   **3. ** A human or an adult male human belonging to a specific occupation, group, nationality, or other category. Often used in combination: a milkman; a congressman; a freeman.
   **4. ** The human race; mankind: man’s quest for peace.

“Man” is the proper translation. You only object because you have an agenda.

And what is my “agenda” pray tell? (If you think I am in favour of women priestesses, forget it. But I am in favour of the dignity of women, just like Pope John Paul II, in Mulieris Dignitarum.)

edited to add: Actually, if I wanted women priests, I’d be saying that “man” (viri) refers to women as well as to men, and that there is no distinction between male and female - we are all “men” (viri) and thus, all “in persona Christi”.

 

[Augustine]

But I am in favour of the dignity of women, just like Pope John Paul II, in Mulieris Dignitarum.)

I am too, but you won’t find the pope recommending an unfaithful translation of the Scriptures in this document.

Besides, I think that it’s pretty silly to consider that women are undignified by the language and thus require a poor version of the language.

Mind you, I grew up abroad where nouns have gender and I never felt undignified for the word “mankind” being feminine.

So, be a big girl and instead to demand that the language be molded according to your gender, raise up to the richness of the English language.

BTW, your agenda is the same as that of those who wish to subvert the authority in the Church. You’re nothing but buying into their ploy, willingly or not, because he who controls the bridle and the bit in the mouth of the horse, controls where its body goes.

Say, are you a woman or a “woperson”?