Inclusive language

[estesbob]

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.

Having learned Latin in the seminary I can assure you what you are saying is not true. You are grasping at straws here. the truth is that other than for a small minority of people in the western world his is simply not an issue. I seriously doubt as Edith stein was being led into the gas chambers she was railing about Scripture being sexist.

 

[edwest2]

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.

“erasing the existence of women” May I respectfully point out that that is a hysterical remark? As in illogical? As in: a direct violation of the historical fact of all the women revered over the centuries as saints, nuns and religious? Convents? Ring a bell?

I’m starting to hear the old Communist rants: “Rise up, my revolutionary brothers and sisters! We must right this (wrongly perceived) injustice!”

Take a deep breath, please. Pick up a copy of Lives of the Saints.

God bless,
Ed

 

[jmcrae]

“erasing the existence of women” May I respectfully point out that that is a hysterical remark? As in illogical? As in: a direct violation of the historical fact of all the women revered over the centuries as saints, nuns and religious? Convents? Ring a bell?

So, why can’t we acknowledge them as sisters in the Lord? Why do they have to stand off to one side, unacknowledged, while the brothers and men are addressed?

 

[jmcrae]

Having learned Latin in the seminary I can assure you what you are saying is not true.

Yes, it is. I have read the bible in Latin, and it refers to multigendered groups with multigendered terminology. The women are not expected to imagine themselves to be men, in the Latin.

 

[St_Aloysius]

I myself have no fundamental objection to inclusive language. I actually like the New Revised Standard translation a lot.

I do have some qualms with altering an ancient and infinitely beautiful document to suit modern-day society more, I will admit. Please understand, I don’t lose any sleep over it… But I read the Odyssey or the holy Qur’an, and they are so pure and true to their original texts, and people understand that and read them in the context of their times much better as a result.

The Bible is revered as a sacred Text, yes, but it is also an invaluable piece of literature. What other piece of literature do we alter so frequently based on society’s overall attitude to its contents? The Scriptures weren’t written specifically for a 21st century audience. There’s a richness and a depth we miss by “censoring” them in such a way that we only hear what our hears are accustomed to…

 

[GemmaRose]

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?

Simply put, because language evolves.

I will give you an example:

My parents had me very late in life. Therefore, when I was still a child, I had first cousins who already had children as old, and older, that I.

One of my oldest first cousins had been born with the name Richard. However, as was quite customary at the time, everyone called him “[D]ick.” I had to type “[D]ick” in this manner because if I just type “****” <— this is what happens.
In today’s English usage, “[D]ick” is a bad word that the CAF program automatically deletes. I’m sure if you had a son today named “Richard,” you woud not call him “[D]ick” no matter how many people tried to tell you that it’s just another nickname for Richard.

Likewise, in today’s English usage especially in the U.S., using male terms to supposedly include females is offensive to some females.

That some females don’t mind non-inclusive language is as meaningless as why some people prefer red and some people prefer green, while for others, blue is the only way to go.

 

[adrift]

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.

When the creed states for us men and for our salvation
Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem
descéndit de cælis.
I understand that it means everyone.

Yes, it is. I have read the bible in Latin, and it refers to multigendered groups with multigendered terminology. The women are not expected to imagine themselves to be men, in the Latin.

I would like you to quote an example. Latin is gender driven so it does not seem likely to me that it would be as you say.

 

[GemmaRose]

I agree - the outcry from the men would be deafening. They would not sit meekly back and accept that women can control the language and make everything to be all about themselves, as if men did not exist at all.

I don’t see anything that says men were born with the right to write and speak women out of existence, either - Augustine speaks of women as “trying to control the horse” - well, show me where Augustine, as the male, was born with the right to “control the horse,” merely because he was born male.

Once again, a post deserving a standing ovation.

:clapping: … :clapping: … :clapping: … :clapping: … :clapping: … :clapping: … :clapping: … :clapping:

 

[adrift]

Simply put, because language evolves.

I will give you an example:
I see, so only those females who are offended by inclusive language matter but if I am offended by it, it is meaningless. Really that some are offended seem meaningless to me.*

 

[GemmaRose]

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

I am not “rabble-rousing” and you darn well know it.

I asked you simply to imagine how you would feel if the linguistic situation was reversed.

You obviously refuse to do so, and prefer to lash out with lies and false accusations… What’s the problem, Ed? Is it possible that deep down inside you know I’m speaking the truth??

 

[GemmaRose]

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

This post is TOTALLY non-responsive to the present discussion and to the OP.

God bless you too Ed

 

[GemmaRose]

I see, so only those females who are offended by inclusive language matter but if I am offended by it, it is meaningless. Really that some are offended seem meaningless to me.

Maybe I could have used a better term in my post than “meaningless,” but usually what I see from women who don’t agree with me is that they have no problem with non-inclusive language, which is quite different than being offended by inclusive language.

I don’t remember your posting anywhere that you are actually offended by inclusive language. If you’ve posted that somewhere, maybe you can let me know the post number.

 

[adrift]

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

 

[adrift]

Maybe I could have used a better term in my post than “meaningless,” but usually what I see from women who don’t agree with me is that they have no problem with non-inclusive language, which is quite different than being offended by inclusive language.

I don’t remember your posting anywhere that you are actually offended by inclusive language. If you’ve posted that somewhere, maybe you can let me know the post number.

Post 90

Inclusive language is dumbing down, making women look ridiculous and I am offended by it.

 

[edwest2]

So, why can’t we acknowledge them as sisters in the Lord? Why do they have to stand off to one side, unacknowledged, while the brothers and men are addressed?

Who is not acknowledging them? The Pope? Who? Ever read any encyclicals about women? They are out there.

I hope you’re not suffering from “it’s the future and there must be change” thinking. I hope you aren’t ignoring the women in their 80’s who have been going to Church since their first Communion.

And I hope this is not just your idea of kicks for a Sunday afternoon.

God bless,
Ed

 

[GemmaRose]

Post 90

Inclusive language is dumbing down, making women look ridiculous and I am offended by it.

Thank you.

At least we can agree that we disagree.

 

[Christy_Beth]

Hey!! I think the horse is dead! It has been beaten to death and then some. This will come in as post #116. Isn’t that enough? This could be pursued endlessly, but why? Just agree to disagree and leave it alone!!

 

[estesbob]

Hey!! I think the horse is dead! It has been beaten to death and then some. This will come in as post #116. Isn’t that enough? This could be pursued endlessly, but why? Just agree to disagree and leave it alone!!

Do you mean the mean the mare has beem beated to death?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread closed…
MF