inclusive language

[mosher]

How about this? What would your solution be? Detail would be good.

Well of course I would start small and in the best way through the Church. I think such things like what Padre Pio required at his own masses is a good start. Requiring skirts for women and slacks for men. Not that pants designed for women cannot be feminine but rather for emphasis on the difference between the two. Of course even before that I would have to work on getting people to dress properly to mass and not coming with flip-flops and bermuda shorts. Then such things like reintroducing the wearing of the Mantilla and not just telling but explaining the reason and significance of that honored dress. It would be a long process but this is the begining.

 

[bear06]

Well of course I would start small and in the best way through the Church. I think such things like what Padre Pio required at his own masses is a good start. Requiring skirts for women and slacks for men. Not that pants designed for women cannot be feminine but rather for emphasis on the difference between the two. Of course even before that I would have to work on getting people to dress properly to mass and not coming with flip-flops and bermuda shorts. Then such things like reintroducing the wearing of the Mantilla and not just telling but explaining the reason and significance of that honored dress. It would be a long process but this is the begining.

Well, again, you and I will just simply have to disagree. I wouldn’t mind if these things were encouraged but I hope (of course I will do what the Church tells me without complaint) that skirts and mantillas are not made mandatory. I think, for some for many different reasons, this would be burden that would cause great distraction from the Mass.

 

[mosher]

Well, again, you and I will just simply have to disagree. I wouldn’t mind if these things were encouraged but I hope (of course I will do what the Church tells me without complaint) that skirts and mantillas are not made mandatory. I think, for some for many different reasons, this would be burden that would cause great distraction from the Mass.

I agree that if could if not done properly. I mean anything done quickly is bound to cause various problems and even done with prudence would still cause some. I don’t, however, think that it would be any more distracting than low necks and high skirts on women and revealing clothing on men. I would rather be distracted by something good than something not so good.

PS: I also just realized that you and I are on these forums way too much … we should apply for jobs with CA.

 

[bear06]

I agree that if could if not done properly. I mean anything done quickly is bound to cause various problems and even done with prudence would still cause some. I don’t, however, think that it would be any more distracting than low necks and high skirts on women and revealing clothing on men. I would rather be distracted by something good than something not so good.

Well, I think low necks, high skirts and saggy pant meant to show undies should be banned. On this we can agree. Done quickly or slowly, wearing a mantilla with a baby in my arms would be a bid distraction.

PS: I also just realized that you and I are on these forums way too much … we should apply for jobs with CA.

 

[dan]

At Communion, if there is no Communion rail (like we use at the church I normally go to), then I will genuflect, stand and recieve on the tongue. My friend genuflects and remains kneeling to recieve. But, when she went up, the priest told her to stand before he would give her Communion. Needless to say, all of us were quite angered by it, especially my friend.

I had the same thing happen to me a few months back. I talked to the priest after the mass and he chastised me for wanting to kneel (just minutes after “liturgical dancers” were prancing around the makeshift middle-of-the-congregation altar, btw).

I ended up writing to the diocese. I received a letter back from the Vicar General and I feel he took a very even-handed approach. They contacted the priest to let him that he was not to deny anyone communion who chooses to kneel, while at the same time politely informing me that the *norm *for receiving communion in the U.S. is standing.

 

[bear06]

I had the same thing happen to me a few months back. I talked to the priest after the mass and he chastised me for wanting to kneel (just minutes after “liturgical dancers” were prancing around the makeshift middle-of-the-congregation altar, btw).

I ended up writing to the diocese. I received a letter back from the Vicar General and I feel he took a very even-handed approach. They contacted the priest to let him that he was not to deny anyone communion who chooses to kneel, while at the same time politely informing me that the *norm *for receiving communion in the U.S. is standing.

Hey, if you want to receiving kneeling without fear of reprisal, you might want to try St. Margaret Mary’s in Oakland. It’s only about 20 minutes from Union City. We are still allowed to use the altar rail.

 

[Kendy]

My parish priest wants to use a psalter with more inclusive language during mass. Is this permissible? What can I do?

BTW, I want the calm, rational not the liturgical-heretic hunter answer.

Kendy

 

[dumspirospero]

Don’t know if it is technically permissible…but it is most definitely wrong and in my opinion an abomination

My parish priest wants to use a psalter with more inclusive language during mass. Is this permissible? What can I do?

BTW, I want the calm, rational not the liturgical-heretic hunter answer.

Kendy

 

[Melissa]

Beg him to please not do it! I hate, despise, loathe, detest, [well, you may be getting the idea by now] so-called “inclusive” language. It is so patronizing.

Unless he can provide information that it’s allowed, I’d go with the disallowed (that’s the way it is with the GIRM–if it’s not explicitly permitted, it is forbidden). I know that the psalms are printed right in the missal we have (we’ve got the one that has every reading for the various cycles + the order of Mass in Latin and English), and so far as I know, it is not allowed to change the texts.

 

[Digitonomy]

My parish priest wants to use a psalter with more inclusive language during mass. Is this permissible?Kendy

That depends on what you mean by inclusive language - it’s a pretty vague term.

 

[Kendy]

Beg him to please not do it! I hate, despise, loathe, detest, [well, you may be getting the idea by now] so-called “inclusive” language. It is so patronizing.

Well, he and I are not exactly on speaking terms so talking to him is not an option. A few of the ladies in our parish want a more inclusive. One said, she was uncomfortable reading the psalter when she was a lecturer.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

That depends on what you mean by inclusive language - it’s a pretty vague term.

Well, I don’t really know which text he plans to use, but I know, it will be more gender sensitive. Anyway, I just wanted to know if there were specifically prescribed texts.

Kendy

 

[Corki]

For each country, there are approved translations to be used at Mass for all of the reading, including the Psalms. Only those approved translations can be used. In the US, we use a variant of the New American Bible. There are some inclusive language substitutions inherant in that translation but an individual cannot make additional substitutions beyond what has been submitted and approved by the Bishops’ council (the USCCB here).

As to what you can do… you could speak to someone at the diocese but this probably goes under the heading of “chose your battles” We have a parish around here that uses completely different readings at daily Mass and I just read the “right” ones from my Magnificat and tune the reader out.

 

[Brendan]

Here are the Vatican’s instructions on the matter

adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html

III. Examples of problems related to questions of “inclusive language” and of the use of masculine and feminine terms

A. In an effort to avoid completely the use of the term “man” as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost. The term “humankind”, coined for purposes of “inclusive language”, remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo. The latter, just as the English “man”, which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.

B. In the Creed, which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural “We believe” instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term “men” has effects that are theologically grave. This text *“For us and for our salvation”-no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The “us” thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.

C. After the Orate, fratres, the people’s response Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis . . . has been distorted, apparently for purposes of “inclusive language”: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good, and the good of all the Church.” The insertion of the possessive God’s gives the impression that the Lord who accepts the sacrifice is different from God whose name is glorified by it. The Church is no longer his Church, and is no longer called holy * a flaw in the previous translation that one might have hoped would be corrected.

D. For the Church, the neuter pronoun “it” is always used, instead of “she”. So designated, the Church can appear to be a mere social aggregate, deprived of much of the mystery that has been emphasized especially in relatively recent teaching by the Magisterium. The pronoun “it” does not seem to refer properly to the reality of the Church, portrayed by Divine Revelation as our Mother and Christ’s Bride.

 

[JimG]

I’m guessing that the Psalter he intends to use is not one that has been approved for liturgical use.

If it has been approved for liturgical use, no problem. If not, he should not use it.

 

[Hesychios]

Well, he and I are not exactly on speaking terms so talking to him is not an option…

This is not a good sign.

I cannot imagine not being on speaking terms with my pastor. He would literally no longer be my pastor!

You need to find a healthier spiritual arrangement for your own good. Perhaps you should look into joining another parish if you cannot work things out with him.

In any case, if the text has been approved (as JimG has stated above) you should drop the complaint and cooperate to your fullest possible ability. If the text has not been approved a few letters should be written, with copies mailed to the pastor.

:twocents:

Michael

 

[Kendy]

This is not a good sign.

I cannot imagine not being on speaking terms with my pastor. He would literally no longer be my pastor!

You need to find a healthier spiritual arrangement for your own good. Perhaps you should look into joining another parish if you cannot work things out with him.

Yes,it’s not a good situation, but I have gone back and forth and can’t decide if it’s better to leave or stick it out. I was not going there for four months, but my spiritual director said it wasn’t about him, but being part of my community. Although I don’t really feel like I am a part of the community either.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Well, he and I are not exactly on speaking terms so talking to him is not an option. A few of the ladies in our parish want a more inclusive. One said, she was uncomfortable reading the psalter when she was a lecturer.

Kendy

I’ve met priests like this, who were so bent on their pet theological views that they despised anyone who disagreed with them. Priests are human beings like the rest of us, and some can be just as petty. With regard to the lector who is uncomfortable with the readings as they are printed, she does not have the automatic right to be a lector. It is a privelege to serve the Lord in this way, and if she cannot or will not perform the duties of a lector as the Church intends, she should find it in her own conscience to leave that ministry. In both cases, the first order of business is to pray for their conversion.

 

[CHCatholic]

I always give the example of bears. Think of bears sitting in a church and the priest says “for us bears and for our salvation” Bears aren’t going to stand up and say hey Im a grizzly, include me, or hey im a polar, include me. Man, as used in the liturgy, doesn’t refer to male species, but humankind as a whole, so really, its already inclusive.

 

[m134e5]

My parish priest wants to use a psalter with more inclusive language during mass. Is this permissible? What can I do?

BTW, I want the calm, rational not the liturgical-heretic hunter answer.

Kendy

Think of how to tell him politely that Jesus was a man, and that the Psalm translations that use inclusive language obscure references to Jesus. Also explain to him that as a woman you already know that refering to God as “He” does not make you feel excluded or discriminated against. I suspect that will fall on deaf ears. If you are the music director for the parish, you may want to begin a job search. If you are a parishioner there, then you may want to consider joining another parish.