Inclusive language

[jmcrae]

Nope - you asked women if they wanted to go back to being treated as the property of a man. I was very clear that Modern Feminism is about Hating Men and Destroying the Family, especially in the Western World.

And? Nobody here is advocating abortion on demand, or hating men, or destroying the family.

The Bible itself openly acknowledges women equally with men. It is only in older English translations that women get written out of the text. It is this error that inclusive language corrects. The family will not be destroyed if we begin to acknowledge the existence of women, either that they existed in Bible times, or that they exist today.

 

[jmcrae]

So why is it only now that this bothers some women? my mom doesnt care. My wife doesnt care. My daughters dont care St Edith Stein didnt care. St Theresa didnt care, St Brigit didnt care? St Monica didnt care? Why did it take women 2,000 years to realize the language was sexist?

How do you know? I do know that St. Theresa cared a great deal about the harsh treatment of women in her era, and so did Edith Stein - they would have been considered “feminists” if that term had existed, yet. And St. Monica did wish that she had the right to speak out, and help her son.

 

[edwest2]

I make it a general practice not to answer stupid questions.

However, I would ask you to take a few minutes, close your eyes, and imagine this:

Imagine that, for your entire life (assuming you have been male and Catholic your entire life), all you have heard in prayers and during Mass: “Sisters” or “For us and for all women…” or “Take this, all of you and drink from it. This is the cup of My blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all women…”

Imagine further that if you complained about the apparent inequality of the language, people would say, “There’s no need to be upset! “Sisters,” women” mean everyone, male and female!"

I am 1000% percent positive that if this was the case, every male Catholic in the world would stage a demonstration in Vatican Square for inclusive language.

May God bless you too, Augustine.

You are stating a false scenario. You are rabble-rousing by an attempt to create a false choice among true Catholics. I urge you to stop.

God bless,
Ed

 

[jmcrae]

You are stating a false scenario. You are rabble-rousing by an attempt to create a false choice among true Catholics. I urge you to stop.

What is “false” about the scenario? It is exactly what women experience.

 

[GemmaRose]

Nope - you asked women if they wanted to go back to being treated as the property of a man. I was very clear that Modern Feminism is about Hating Men and Destroying the Family, especially in the Western World.

Peace,
Ed

I just wanted to clarify that I’m in no way supporting “bad” feminism, which, you are correct, seems to express in our Western society a hatred of men and destruction of family life as God intends it.

I do, however, support any movements or organizations (whether they are “feminist” or not) that work to eliminate any sort of prejudice, hatred or abuse of women.

 

[edwest2]

God chose His identity, not man. Christ appeared as a man and told us about our Father. This is set in stone and unchangeable. We revere Mary, His mother and a woman.

Creating a totally false sense of historical truth is rabble-rousing.

I think all Catholics need to understand that there are small groups of people who treat the Church as a human institution. It was established by God. It is not a corporation. No revolutionaries, obsessed with imposing ‘change’ which has become their god, will succeed against it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I just wanted to clarify that I’m in no way supporting “bad” feminism, which, you are correct, seems to express in our Western society a hatred of men and destruction of family life as God intends it.

I do, however, support any movements or organizations (whether they are “feminist” or not) that work to eliminate any sort of prejudice, hatred or abuse of women.

I agree with you on that. You do understand that only the most recent form of feminism is the primary issue. Just google “feminist icon” and see which names come up. Currently, Gloria Steinem is among those who are still pushing for the rights of anybody to have sex with anybody and mix and match relationships and calling that a “family.” Strangely, she married a “man.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[jmcrae]

God chose His identity, not man. Christ appeared as a man and told us about our Father. This is set in stone and unchangeable. We revere Mary, His mother and a woman.

Creating a totally false sense of historical truth is rabble-rousing.

Nobody is trying to say that Christ was a woman, or that He wasn’t a man.

Only that some of His followers are women. Not all are men - some are women. therefore, it is wrong to say that Christ came to save only the “men” - Christ also came to save women, too.

Get it?

I think all Catholics need to understand that there are small groups of people who treat the Church as a human institution. It was established by God. It is not a corporation. No revolutionaries, obsessed with imposing ‘change’ which has become their god, will succeed against it.

Well, the Latin Vulgate Bible, which is the official Bible of the Church, uses inclusive language (“homo” = human being, not “man” or “men”) - it is only in translation that people insist on translating it as “men” instead of as “people,” or “human beings” which is the plain sense of the original.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree with you on that. You do understand that only the most recent form of feminism is the primary issue.

It does not even enter into the situation, here.

Just google “feminist icon” and see which names come up. Currently, Gloria Steinem is among those who are still pushing for the rights of anybody to have sex with anybody and mix and match relationships and calling that a “family.” Strangely, she married a “man.”

And Christ died for her sins, too - not only for the sins of men. But she will never know that, if all she reads is the males-only Bible.

 

[adrift]

What is “false” about the scenario? It is exactly what women experience.

It is what some women experienced. I do not like generalizations. The only one you can speak for is yourself. You are offended by it others are not. I am offended by those who dumb down society. Mankind does not exclude women. It is women who exclude themselves by choosing to be offended.

 

[edwest2]

The “males-only Bible” is your invention. You are attempting to create a problem where none exists. All those nuns over the years - they just ‘accidentally’ figured out they were included in God’s salvation? All those women saints? How about Mother Teresa?

Please, this is not a Revolutionary Workers forum, this is Catholic Answers.

Peace,
Ed

 

[adrift]

How do you know? I do know that St. Theresa cared a great deal about the harsh treatment of women in her era, and so did Edith Stein - they would have been considered “feminists” if that term had existed, yet. And St. Monica did wish that she had the right to speak out, and help her son.

Because they cared for how people were treated does not suggest that they would be offended by the term mankind. Where do you get your information on St. Monica. It doesn’t square with what I know of her.

 

[jmcrae]

It is what some women experienced. I do not like generalizations. The only one you can speak for is yourself. You are offended by it others are not. I am offended by those who dumb down society. Mankind does not exclude women. It is women who exclude themselves by choosing to be offended.

They aren’t saying “mankind” - they are saying “men.”

If I say, “Would all the men in this thread please stand up,” would you expect the women to include themselves as men, and stand up?

I wouldn’t.

 

[NTOT]

Inclusive language is an indication (admission) of ignorance.

 

[jmcrae]

The “males-only Bible” is your invention. You are attempting to create a problem where none exists. All those nuns over the years - they just ‘accidentally’ figured out they were included in God’s salvation? All those women saints? How about Mother Teresa?

Most of these ones weren’t reading it in English, so they probably had inclusive Bibles, anyway. It’s only in English that it’s males only.

Please, this is not a Revolutionary Workers forum, this is Catholic Answers.

It’s “revolutionary” to say that Christ died for all human beings - not just the men?

 

[jmcrae]

Inclusive language is an indication (admission) of ignorance.

I think it’s pride on the part of the men - their sensitive egos can’t stand to share the stage with the women.

 

[edwest2]

I think it’s pride on the part of the men - their sensitive egos can’t stand to share the stage with the women.

The ongoing “Males Only” world conspiracy? The ‘glass ceiling’? Sexist sexism? More radical, man hating feminist claptrap?

I know husbands who love their wives and the same wives loving their husbands. If we, as Catholics, want to promote healing, reconciliation and forgiveness between men and women, perhaps we, and the rest of Western society, can crawl out of the trap laid by the Communist revolutionaries of the bra burning, men hating ‘feminist’ 1970s and back into the light of Christ. I sincerely hope so.

God bless,
Ed

 

[estesbob]

How do you know? I do know that St. Theresa cared a great deal about the harsh treatment of women in her era, and so did Edith Stein - they would have been considered “feminists” if that term had existed, yet. And St. Monica did wish that she had the right to speak out, and help her son.

In all of their estensvie writings not one ever complained about scripture not being inclusive.

 

[jmcrae]

The ongoing “Males Only” world conspiracy? The ‘glass ceiling’? Sexist sexism? More radical, man hating feminist claptrap?

I know husbands who love their wives and the same wives loving their husbands. If we, as Catholics, want to promote healing, reconciliation and forgiveness between men and women, perhaps we, and the rest of Western society, can crawl out of the trap laid by the Communist revolutionaries of the bra burning, men hating ‘feminist’ 1970s and back into the light of Christ. I sincerely hope so.

God bless,
Ed

I have no idea what any of this has to do with translating “human beings” as “human beings” in the Bible, instead of as “men.”

I also don’t see how erasing the existence of women is going to help the family.

 

[jmcrae]

In all of their estensvie writings not one ever complained about scripture not being inclusive.

I also just realized that none of them were reading the Bible in English. They were all using inclusive language Bibles (probably the Latin Vulgate, in most cases), so there was nothing for them to complain of.