Inclusive language

[mfundis]

patg:

No, things should change because it is ridiculous to assume that half the church membership is unsuited to leading us to God.

As someone mentioned before, just because a person can’t be ordained doesn’t mean one can’t lead. The Virgin would be the best example, but there have been many women throughout church history who have lead, even chastised a pope back from avignon…

I see you are resorting to radical tactics also – assuming that any increased involvement of women in the church is “radical feminism” and anyone who points out the inequity is a “feminist” rather than just saying women should be recognized as having equal access to God. I guess equal pay for equal work was “radical feminism” also? Funny you should use the Holy Spirit in your example of the guide for the church – you do realize that the Holy Spirit was the feminine embodiment of God in the early church (you know, father, mother, son – a real trinity)? This concept was quietly discarded, of course, as the worldly hierarchy of the Church was built into the power structure it has today.

I’m sorry, I fail to see how my statement is a “radical tactic”. I don’t think that increased female involvement in the church is a bad thing, provided that the involvement is proper. I happen to be a woman, and I am involved in music ministry, I teach PSR, and I’m on the parish council. I do have a problem when people try to undermind the churchm, either in glaring obvious- or subtle ways.

Equal work for equal pay is a red herring in regard to this argument, but I’ll address it anyway. As a working woman, I think I should get paid the wage the market will bare- not because I’m a woman but because I’m a good employee. That fight was fought and won b4 I was of age, but now it’s a red herring.

As for the Holy Spirit as the female embodiment (and I use the body part loosely ), yes I am aware of it…and answer so?
God the Father, technically, is genderless - and relates to His church as a father. God the Son isn’t genderless- and relates to His church as a bridegroom. The Holy Spirit is genderless also, but did overshadow the virgin. To me, that translates into maleness- or, if nothing else, into genderlessness at best. Scott Hahn has written about the more female attributes of the Holy Spirit- but God still relates to His church as a bridegroom to a bride, or a father to a child- by His own adminission.

Believe me, if Jesus had been a women- I would be fighting for women priest and blocking the male ones. The point is, a priest stands in persona Christi. Any attempts to alter language is an attempt to downplay who Christ is (in a very gnostic "body is bad/body doesn’t matter fashion)- with the ultimate goal (in my opinion) of “ordaining” women. ’

Wow, you are really into end-of-the-world, gloom and doom scare tactics! That is very powerful language! Sure, there are radical feminists who should be ignored just as there are radical adherents to every cause. Accepting that women have something to offer and that their (name removed by moderator)ut can be valuable at even the highest levels is really very natural (you know, like “natural” family planning…)

As a woman, I don’t have to accept that women have something to offer- I KNOW as I are one … However, I do think that these thing are very much like the boiling of a frog…Just look around at the greater society and realize how much things have changes for the worse only because the little changes didn’t seem like such a big deal at the time…

 

[rayne89]

777:

I say the inclusive, whatever it is SHOULD be included–it avoids confusion when it comes to gender desinations and such The church is changing a lot, we should change with the times. i mean, it would sound stupid for a woman to say in her prayers, “For us men and for our salvation…” Get the picture?

I truly don’t think any of us are confused. I don’t think I sound stupid when I say “For us men and for our salvation…” Never even gave it a second thought.

 

[rayne89]

patg:

No, things should change because it is ridiculous to assume that half the church membership is unsuited to leading us to God.

Funny you should use the Holy Spirit in your example of the guide for the church – you do realize that the Holy Spirit was the feminine embodiment of God in the early church (you know, father, mother, son – a real trinity)? This concept was quietly discarded, of course, as the worldly hierarchy of the Church was built into the power structure it has today.

It doesn’t mean they couldn’t be better either. Finding an example of how excluding women produced something that has worked out pretty well may be only pointing out the exception, you know.

Accepting that women have something to offer and that their (name removed by moderator)ut can be valuable at even the highest levels is really very natural (you know, like “natural” family planning…)

I am a woman and know very well God gave women very special gifts that he did not give to men. Women do contribute to the church. Why does a women have to be in charge in order to be validated? Why do we have to compete with men to have value?

Women are the heart of the church, and that is what we are created to be. Look at the women in the Bible, they were the some of the best examples of holiness. They never deserted Jesus when the men did. Yet they were not chosen as apostles. Why? Because women and men have a different calling. And one is not better than the other. We have been brain washed by society that in order to have value one must be in seats of power and control.

Do you think more souls have been won by sitting thru meetings, deciding liturgical issues, financial issues ect or by deep prayer and fasting, by kindness and serving the poor and those in need -which both religious and lay women have been doing since the beginning of the church. What is more important to God?

 

[patg]

rayne89:

We have been brain washed…

I totally agree that there is brainwashing involved. It has been strongly practiced in prayers, liturgy, and doctrine for about 2000 years!

Think about it - what makes a good spiritual leader? Qualities such as nurturing, emotional understanding, personal counseling, inner growth, and so on… Now, which of the genders is more associated with all these aspects of humanity? Sure, there are nurturing men, but which gender is most naturally a nurturer - certainly the female. So why should the female qualities be denied in all religious activities - preaching, administration of the sacraments, presiding over the liturgy, etc.? Since I see no logical reason, I am forced to conclude that the church is based on the two philosophies of “that’s the way it’s always been done so it’s still ok” and “the group in power never willingly shares or abdicates the power”.

 

[buffalo]

Does the “truth” brainwash? Does Divine Revelation brainwash? Does the Holy Spirit brainwash? Does God brainwash? How does free will fit into these questions?

 

[Lisa_N]

patg:

I totally agree that there is brainwashing involved. It has been strongly practiced in prayers, liturgy, and doctrine for about 2000 years!

Think about it - what makes a good spiritual leader? Qualities such as nurturing, emotional understanding, personal counseling, inner growth, and so on… Now, which of the genders is more associated with all these aspects of humanity? Sure, there are nurturing men, but which gender is most naturally a nurturer - certainly the female. So why should the female qualities be denied in all religious activities - preaching, administration of the sacraments, presiding over the liturgy, etc.? Since I see no logical reason, I am forced to conclude that the church is based on the two philosophies of “that’s the way it’s always been done so it’s still ok” and “the group in power never willingly shares or abdicates the power”.

Patg you overstate your argument by saying female qualities denied in all religious activities. I see very few areas where women are totally prohibited. OK they aren’t priests. I am from a religious tradition that allows women priests and ministers. Yet this same religious tradition dismisses a quality women have that men do not have, the ability to be a mother. They call it a ‘choice’ not an honor. So which tradition truly honors women and their intrisic gifts and qualities?

In my journey to becoming a Catholic I have heard more about the incredible impact of women in the Church in six months than in years of Protestantism. If ANY faith belittles women’s contributions to the faith, it’s Protestantism…we won’t EVEN get into Islam. Between the reverence shown for Mary, the saints, and women martyrs I have far more women to admire and to follow in Catholicism than I was even remotely aware of as a Protestant. Frankly when I hear “How can you become a Catholic with the way they treat women?” I start laughing.

But I guess because they can’t be priests we can negate all the rest of it?

Lisa N

 

[buffalo]

Since our attendance at Mass assists in the Holy Sacrifice, women and men have been participating for 2,000 years. No exclusions here.

 

[patg]

buffalo:

Does the “truth” brainwash?

Depends on who is spreading the “truth”.

Does Divine Revelation brainwash?

Depends on who is allowed to officially interpret the revelation.

Does the Holy Spirit brainwash?

Depends on who is listened to when the spirit speaks to them.

Does God brainwash?

Depends on who is listened to when the God speaks to them.

How does free will fit into these questions?

I’m free to push for equality.

 

[buffalo]

patg:

I’m free to push for equality.

By whose authority can you change Christ’s teachings and example? You are free to push. But when does this push cross over into disobedience and dissent?

 

[Stu]

patg:

I totally agree that there is brainwashing involved. It has been strongly practiced in prayers, liturgy, and doctrine for about 2000 years!

Think about it - what makes a good spiritual leader? Qualities such as nurturing, emotional understanding, personal counseling, inner growth, and so on… Now, which of the genders is more associated with all these aspects of humanity? Sure, there are nurturing men, but which gender is most naturally a nurturer - certainly the female. So why should the female qualities be denied in all religious activities - preaching, administration of the sacraments, presiding over the liturgy, etc.? Since I see no logical reason, I am forced to conclude that the church is based on the two philosophies of “that’s the way it’s always been done so it’s still ok” and “the group in power never willingly shares or abdicates the power”.

So now we have come from having women as priests to women would make better priests because they are, in your opinion, better at “nurturing, emotional understanding, personal counseling, inner growth, and so on…” I can assure that a prototype “Alpha Male” USMC Gunnery Sergeant has ALL of those qualities in forming a young Marine without the “candy coated shell” that you are probably championing with that statement. My point being is that man and woman can push both of those things but using different tools. And because we have different tools (one might call them gifts) the Lord has chosen to employ us differently. Doesn’t make one better than the other or inequal rather you don’t use a hammer to screw in a screw. Equal in spirit and dignity but not abilities.

God calls each of us to different roles. We should accept those roles willingly rather than worrying about what roles others have been called too. The priesthood was set aside for men alone to mirror up with both their strengths and to challenge them to be better than they might be (This is a whole other discussion on the Fall of Man and how men continue to perpetuate the sin of Adam.). Women however were set aside for motherhood which is a leadership role not like any other and perhaps even more important. And this is just one set of examples. As others have mentioned women have had ample leadership roles and set many an example in our faith without being priests. As one very imporant woman in our faith said "“Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Let’s be thankful that she wasn’t caught up in being “John the Baptist” or Peter.

To be blunt however, what makes a good spiritual leader in your opinion is or because you can see “no logical reason” on why the priesthood is open only to males is irrelevant. What matters is the teaching of our Church as given to her through the Holy Spirit. To apply a quote from Saint Augustine to this matter: “Rome has spoken; the case is closed.”

Unfortunately the move for “inclusive language” is an attempt to slowly change scripture to come to an alternate conclusion. A conclusion that fits a human “logical reason” vice that of our Lord. In my opinion, that is the Devil’s work and is not a far throw from something like the DaVinci Code.

 

[Stu]

rayne89:

I am a woman and know very well God gave women very special gifts that he did not give to men. Women do contribute to the church. Why does a women have to be in charge in order to be validated? Why do we have to compete with men to have value?

Women are the heart of the church, and that is what we are created to be. Look at the women in the Bible, they were the some of the best examples of holiness. They never deserted Jesus when the men did. Yet they were not chosen as apostles. Why? Because women and men have a different calling. And one is not better than the other. We have been brain washed by society that in order to have value one must be in seats of power and control.

Do you think more souls have been won by sitting thru meetings, deciding liturgical issues, financial issues ect or by deep prayer and fasting, by kindness and serving the poor and those in need -which both religious and lay women have been doing since the beginning of the church. What is more important to God?

Amen. I applaud you and your sentiments. No need sitting around worrying about what the other guy (oops, person) has when there is plenty of work to do.

 

[patg]

buffalo:

By whose authority can you change Christ’s teachings and example? You are free to push. But when does this push cross over into disobedience and dissent?

Show me where this is a challenge or change to Christ’s teachings???

And his example - he freely associated with women at a time when women generally had no rights and no value.

 

[buffalo]

patg:

Show me where this is a challenge or change to Christ’s teachings???

And his example - he freely associated with women at a time when women generally had no rights and no value.

It is a challenge because of Christ’s example as well as his words.

Since he did include and embrace woman, why didn’t He make one one of the twelve? Surely this would have set the necessary precedent. So we have to ask if He had a certain reason.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Inclusive language really makes me angry. The other night I went to a meeting at church and the woman leading it called God “he” and immediately apologized to anyone who might call God “she”. I almost fell off my chair.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[patg]

buffalo:

So we have to ask if He had a certain reason.

And we certainly have no answer.

 

[josephgfountain]

Hey guys,

I was just reading through this thread and wanted to put in a note that as brothers and sisters in Christ we should be a little less sarcastic and a lot more loving in our posts. I do like to have a good discussion, but hate to see Christians giving in to sinful words to each other and risking their souls. Peace be with you!

My perspective is that as a Catholic I am entitled to a rich inheritance in the Church and tradition. On a purely selfish level, I think the inheritance could be lessoned or destroyed if it is changed at each whim of each generation. I have a great deal of sadness in my heart for my Christian brothers and sisters who have made changes as they have seen fit and now many denominations are lacking several of the sacraments and have lost sight of many of the truths of the faith which were handed down through tradition in the church. I do believe that the Holy Spirit guides the church and protects her from loosing the truth that Jesus brought us.

To sum up my opinion about inclusive language changes to the liturgy and word in the Mass, I would be offended and feel cheated out of my inheritance as a Catholic if these kinds of changes were made. I think the real problem lies within the hearts of the people who would change the words of the Mass rather than learning what the existing, traditional, Holy and rich wordings really mean. I think if this avenue were to be explored more, there would be a lot less desire to make these kinds of changes to the Mass.

In Christ,

 

[dalcent]

It’s absurd that opponents of gender-inclusive language are saying that that if we argue say ‘anthropology’ means the study of “humankind” and not necessarily “mankind” then we want to say God is a woman or some nonsense.

Is there something about the character of humanity that is inherently or essentially male? Is MAN the correct way to address males and females.

Is there something essentially ‘Christian’ about male-biased language? Isn’t it found in all the world’s cultures simply because societies have always been male dominated? Cultures which developed without knowing the Judeo-Christian God.

The poll questions are ridiculous. Are they a joke? What answer do I give if I think ‘Inclusive Language (as now used across the English Speaking world) is fine, but God remains male.’

Inclusive language is not a FAD! Does anyone seriously think that modern English usage is going to return to using masculine generics for both sexes? Are there ‘men’ here who get angry when the Daily Newspapers write ‘People everywhere…’

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

dalcent:

It’s absurd that opponents of gender-inclusive language are saying that that if we argue say ‘anthropology’ means the study of “humankind” and not necessarily “mankind” then we want to say God is a woman or some nonsense.

Is there something about the character of humanity that is inherently or essentially male? Is MAN the correct way to address males and females.

Is there something essentially ‘Christian’ about male-biased language? Isn’t it found in all the world’s cultures simply because societies have always been male dominated? Cultures which developed without knowing the Judeo-Christian God.

The poll questions are ridiculous. Are they a joke? What answer do I give if I think ‘Inclusive Language (as now used across the English Speaking world) is fine, but God remains male.’

Inclusive language is not a FAD! Does anyone seriously think that modern English usage is going to return to using masculine generics for both sexes? Are there ‘men’ here who get angry when the Daily Newspapers write ‘People everywhere…’

I certainly do hope that we return to the masculine generics for both genders. The “him/her, his/hers, he/she” thing is gettng ridiculous! Feminists are far too sensitive. Scripture says that “God created man in his image… male and female he created them (Gen. 1:27)”. “Man” means everyone not just males. It’s so silly for women to feel slighted by the use of the word “man” when used in a general sense.

There are a few people at my parish who say “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 God’s church”, refusing to use the word “his”. Unbelievable.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[katherine2]

I certainly do hope that we return to the masculine generics for both genders

Yes, but you’ve conceeded that the language also already changed. I’m willing to give it a little more time on theory that this is a fad. But once this has become standard English, the arguement against it is lost.

We should use whatever is standard English and that determintion is one of lingustics not theology.

 

[Prometheum_x]

digitonomy:

Poor choice. Apples, and indeed most fruits, are botanically considered ovaries.

All fruits are derived from plant ovaries. That being said, the ovary of a plant is not genetically “female”, even though it is often labeled as such. It gives rise to the female reproductive structure. It has the same genetic material as the stamens, which give rise to the male reproductive structures.