Inclusive language

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Likewise, it would be reasonable to suggest (although nearly impossible to prove) that similar more recent examples of inclusive language in the Church may not come from this agenda, but simply be holdovers in usage, etc.
Click to expand...
Um, nice try!:rolleyes: If you have any doubt as to how the insidious push for “inclusive” language gained momentum, read
amazon.com/Ungodly-Rage-Hidden-Catholic-Feminism/dp/0898703484/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4342166-0872050?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174539378&sr=8-1
I highly recommend this book to anyone who really wants to understand where feminism has taken our beloved Church.
 
blessedtoo said:
Um, nice try!:rolleyes: If you have any doubt as to how the insidious push for “inclusive” language gained momentum
Click to expand...
I make no claim about momentum or insidious pushes - I merely suspect that some inclusive language would be occurring now even if there had been no “radical feminist agenda”, and that such occurred prior to the start of that agenda.
 
Digitonomy said:
I make no claim about momentum or insidious pushes - I merely suspect that some inclusive language would be occurring now even if there had been no “radical feminist agenda”, and that such occurred prior to the start of that agenda.
Click to expand...
Okay, I’ll bite. Can you cite examples of inclusive language that predates the feminist movement?
 
Mickey said:
Okay, I’ll bite. Can you cite examples of inclusive language that predates the feminist movement?
Click to expand...
This is why I asked back in #12 when the agenda you mention began. Obviously, the older it is, the harder I’ll have to look. If it started in 1980, that’s one thing, if it started in 1650, the task may be considerably more difficult.

And, I’m still curious about whether the division of inclusive language into vertical and horizontal components is supposed to be comprehensive, or if there is inclusive language which does not fall into these categories.
 
Mickey said:
P.S.–I should clarify that there is a distinction between horizontal inclusive language and vertical inclusive language. Horizontal deals with humanity. Words such as “mankind” are changed to “humankind” and phrases such as “for us men and for our salvation” are changed to “for us and for our salvation”.

I personally have no trouble with this.

Vertical deals with the incarnation or things of God. “Our Father” would be translated as “Our Father/Mother” or instead of Jesus becoming “man” He would become “human”.
I do have trouble with this.

I think that both types come from the radical feminist agenda.

I’m not a radical feminist.

Bad, bad, bad! :mad:
Click to expand...
 
Digitonomy said:
This is why I asked back in #12 when the agenda you mention began. Obviously, the older it is, the harder I’ll have to look. If it started in 1980, that’s one thing, if it started in 1650, the task may be considerably more difficult.

And, I’m still curious about whether the division of inclusive language into vertical and horizontal components is supposed to be comprehensive, or if there is inclusive language which does not fall into these categories.
Click to expand...
I am referring to the movement of the 1960’s in the Church which began even before Humane Vitae was even published. Clamoring from the underbelly of the Church was dissent on the issue of birth control from feminists and the male clergy who, for some unholy reason, were swept up in their frenzy. From this grew a louder cry for all manner of “women’s equality” issues, among them “reproductive” rights (aka abortion), women’s ordination, homosexual rights, and inclusive language. This language was meant to permeate all aspects of the Church language (just check modern Catholic Bibles), including the elimination of all references to God as male.
 
Actually, feminism is about women being allowed to vote, attend school, and be paid a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work when working outside the home.

The other stuff (abortion, birth control, etc.) is pure secularism, and has nothing to do with women’s rights whatsoever. The truly liberated woman has no need to kill her children, or to prevent them from being conceived.

As to inclusive language, I see absolutely no harm in including women as being among the human race. Children, either. 😉
 
Actually, feminism is about women being allowed to vote, attend school, and be paid a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work when working outside the home.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Suffrage was for the above mentioned issues. NOT feminism.
The other stuff (abortion, birth control, etc.) is pure secularism, and has nothing to do with women’s rights whatsoever. The truly liberated woman has no need to kill her children, or to prevent them from being conceived.
Click to expand...
Sorry. These issues constitute the Holy Grail of feminism. And a woman who understands her God given purpose should recoil from referring to herself as “liberated” or “feminist”.
As to inclusive language, I see absolutely no harm in including women as being among the human race. Children, either.
Click to expand...
Do you see the harm in this:
The efforts of these people to subvert standard traditional texts which they find offensive have become increasingly daring. Thus, the following inclusive and gender-neutral version of the sign of the cross has been proposed: “In the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier. So may it be”
Some priests have attempted to solve the matter of names by praying to “God who is Father and Mother of us all” in ‘progressive’ liturgies.
Click to expand...
ad2000.com.au/articles/1998/jul1998p8_549.html
 
blessedtoo said:
Do you see the harm in this:
Quote:
The efforts of these people to subvert standard traditional texts which they find offensive have become increasingly daring. Thus, the following inclusive and gender-neutral version of the sign of the cross has been proposed: “In the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier. So may it be”
Some priests have attempted to solve the matter of names by praying to “God who is Father and Mother of us all” in ‘progressive’ liturgies.
Click to expand...
This is wrong. The image of God as Father is meant to signify that He generates us from nothing. Of course, Scripture does describe God using feminine imagery, as well, and God is described in at least one place as having a womb, but our primary relationship with God is as Father, not Mother.

This, however, does not mean that women were not also created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27) and it does not mean that women (or children) should be referred to as “men” in a culture that understands the word “men” to refer to adult males - regardless of whatever “demonic” etc. agenda caused that transition in meaning to take place.
 
jmcrae said:
This, however, does not mean that women were not also created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27) and it does not mean that women (or children) should be referred to as “men” in a culture that understands the word “men” to refer to adult males - regardless of whatever “demonic” etc. agenda caused that transition in meaning to take place.
Click to expand...
The use of the word “men” or “man” in the context of Scripture and Liturgy refers to “mankind”, which includes all human beings. It was always understood that way up until the overly sensitive and ridiculous radical feminists decided they wanted equal time. Do you honestly believe that the Word of God, written as it was by Christ’s disciples, needs to be altered to appease female sensibilities?
 
I chose door #3, some inclusive language is okay. Why anyone would have a problem with “humanity” instead of “mankind” or “brothers and sisters” instead of “brethren” (when there are both men and women present) is beyond me.

Lose the knee-jerk reactions and save your ire for the folks who really do want to change the Our Father to the Our Mother.
 
Why anyone would have a problem with “humanity” instead of “mankind” or “brothers and sisters” instead of “brethren” (when there are both men and women present) is beyond me.
Click to expand...
I would have no problem with it if that is what the author said. If a modern writer penned a paper using certain terminology, how would it be acceptable to “edit” the words to avoid slighting a group of people? Wouldn’t that author scream that his rights were being trampled? And yet we don’t hesitate to “edit” the inspired Words of God because certain radicals have to be noticed in order to feel included?
Lose the knee-jerk reactions and save your ire for the folks who really do want to change the Our Father to the Our Mother.
Click to expand...
The same folks who brought you the elimination of the word men from the Creed (“for us men and for our salvation”) are the same ones who want God to be our mother. Don’t fool yourself.
 
didymus said:
I chose door #3, some inclusive language is okay. Why anyone would have a problem with “humanity” instead of “mankind” or “brothers and sisters” instead of “brethren” (when there are both men and women present) is beyond me.
Click to expand...
My Father and his father and his father and the Church fathers and saints prayed the Liturgy and read the Bible using words such as man, men, mankind, brethren, etc. When we pray the Liturgy and read the Bible we are praying with our brethren in Christ throughout all time. Everyone understands the meaning of these words. I do not need a secular humanistic radical agenda to be pushed down my throat when I am in Church to escape the fleshly agendas of the world. Horizontal inclusive language has been added to the revised Liturgy of the Ruthenian Catholic Church and there is at least one instance of vertical inclusive language in the office book of the Lenten Triodion. The revised Liturgy has been approved by Rome!

Roman Catholic priests take it upon themselves to feminize the Mass (even though Rome has not approved it for them, yet).
I have a friend who recently dropped out of seminary because they are teaching “Our Father/Mother…” for the Lord’s prayer.

Do not be deceived people. Be watchful. The prince of this world never rests.
 
blessedtoo said:
I am referring to the movement of the 1960’s in the Church which began even before Humane Vitae was even published. Clamoring from the underbelly of the Church was dissent on the issue of birth control from feminists and the male clergy who, for some unholy reason, were swept up in their frenzy. From this grew a louder cry for all manner of “women’s equality” issues, among them “reproductive” rights (aka abortion), women’s ordination, homosexual rights, and inclusive language. This language was meant to permeate all aspects of the Church language (just check modern Catholic Bibles), including the elimination of all references to God as male.
Click to expand...
This is a wonderful summary of the dangers of inclusive language. May I plagiarize this? :o
 
I think changing the readings is bad. But when the priest says something like “my brothers and sisters” or similar in a homily I think it’s ok. But don’t ever tell me my Father is a momma!!:mad:
 
Teakafrog said:
But when the priest says something like “my brothers and sisters” or similar in a homily I think it’s ok.
Click to expand...
I do not know if this would be considered inclusive language. However, brethren is good–and if that’s the way it was written, that’s what I would prefer.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top