New Missal and the Gender-neutering controversy

[MatthewBerkeley]

Hi everyone,

so the new Missal is coming in this Advent, and there seems to be a sizeable portion of discontented Catholics, particularly regarding the ‘sexist’ language used.
And then there are people actively campaigning to retain the gender-specific language.

Personally, I find it very irritating when the priest makes a point of inserting ‘sister’ after ‘brother’ during the Gospel, or ‘he or she’ instead of ‘he’ and I know he’s not technically meant to do that.

But for the new Missal, I don’t understand why a lot of the masculine pronouns, when referring to mankind, (not God obviously, because those pronouns are scriptural and should be retained) haven’t been made more neutral to include women. I have heard that the ‘masculine’ pronouns are really shared pronouns that incorporate both masculine and both masculine and feminine, but it seems that English allows for more general terms, such as ‘people’ instead of ‘man’ that would avoid unnecessary confusion.

Does anyone have any reason why the Church is making a point of retaining this often confusing language?

God bless

 

[ProVobis]

Officially the Church retains its liturgy in Latin. Translations however are subject to changing national, local, political and sociological factors. That’s the price we pay for demanding the vernacular.

 

[FrCorey]

Hi everyone,

so the new Missal is coming in this Advent, and there seems to be a sizeable portion of discontented Catholics, particularly regarding the ‘sexist’ language used.
And then there are people actively campaigning to retain the gender-specific language.

Personally, I find it very irritating when the priest makes a point of inserting ‘sister’ after ‘brother’ during the Gospel, or ‘he or she’ instead of ‘he’ and I know he’s not technically meant to do that.

But for the new Missal, I don’t understand why a lot of the masculine pronouns, when referring to mankind, (not God obviously, because those pronouns are scriptural and should be retained) haven’t been made more neutral to include women. I have heard that the ‘masculine’ pronouns are really shared pronouns that incorporate both masculine and both masculine and feminine, but it seems that English allows for more general terms, such as ‘people’ instead of ‘man’ that would avoid unnecessary confusion.

Does anyone have any reason why the Church is making a point of retaining this often confusing language?

God bless

Well, when the bible was written women were only seen as servants to man, Maybe the texts were written with a male slant on them.

 

[pnewton]

Specifically, because the last translation was too dynamic, departing from the literal meaning of the words to convey the same meaning, this translation is geared specifically at being a much more literal translation, to help preserve unity in the Roman Rite.

 

[ProVobis]

Specifically, because the last translation was too dynamic, departing from the literal meaning of the words to convey the same meaning, this translation is geared specifically at being a much more literal translation, to help preserve unity in the Roman Rite.

More literal perhaps but what’s there to stop some feminist group from requiring further changes such as they did with the 1967 English consecration? Didn’t the bishops just change “Virgin” to “young woman,” as an example?

 

[po18guy]

Officially the Church retains its liturgy in Latin. Translations however are subject to changing national, local, political and sociological factors. That’s the price we pay for demanding the vernacular.

Not at all, IMO. The vernacular preserves the male and female differentiation just fine, if it is allowed to. Have you heard Francis Cardinal Arinze, and others, speak of the liturgical abuses committed in Latin?

Just as with Vatican II, it is all in the implementation.

 

[ProVobis]

Not at all, IMO. The vernacular preserves the male and female differentiation just fine, if it is allowed to. Have you heard Francis Cardinal Arinze, and others, speak of the liturgical abuses committed in Latin?

Does Cardinal Arinze list examples of this abuse or just says this as a joke? I have heard and admire him, by the way.

And as I said, what are they going to do with the “Virgin” part in the Canon?

 

[po18guy]

Does Cardinal Arinze list examples of this abuse or just says this as a joke? I have heard and admire him, by the way.

And as I said, what are they going to do with the “Virgin” part in the Canon?

I watched and heard him on one of his webcasts explain how there were, and are, also abuses in Latin - just that the laity do not normally comprehend, and it slips by. It is much more obvious in the vernacular. Just Google “liturgical abuse” and you will be hard pressed to find a hit that does not contain Cardinal Arinze’s name.

As to “virgin”, it does not affect the canon, scripturally, of course. In its other effects, we wlll see. I know that the NAB (Is 7:14) has been revised to read “young woman” from “virgin”, but that is a matter of exactitude in ancient Hebrew grammar - a matter of linguistics and cultural usage. The two are essentially synonymous, since a young woman was single, and virgin. I would guess that a married woman, no matter her age, was no longer considered “young”. It will need to be explained from the ambo. I pray that it is.

 

[Phemie]

Personally, I find it very irritating when the priest makes a point of inserting ‘sister’ after ‘brother’ during the Gospel, or ‘he or she’ instead of ‘he’ and I know he’s not technically meant to do that.

The new Canadian Lectionary has Brother & sister or Brethren in the readings from Paul. When it comes to a sentence where they would have to either use his/her or change the sentence structure, they opted instead to violate English grammar rules and use “their”.

 

[laszlo]

Well, when the bible was written women were only seen as servants to man, Maybe the texts were written with a male slant on them.

The New Testament was written in the Roman culture, and the ‘matronas’ the maters of the houses were equally important to men.

Also the Savior could get His body only from a woman, men do not produce the body of their children. If the Savior would be female, the males would be entirely excluded from the process.

 

[dmorgan]

Well, when the bible was written women were only seen as servants to man, Maybe the texts were written with a male slant on them.

Father, how is this seen as treating women as servants?

From Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Ephesians; Chapter 5
“[21]Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. [22] Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: [23] Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. [25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:”

Quote from drbo.org/index.htm

Pax Christi

 

[pnewton]

More literal perhaps but what’s there to stop some feminist group from requiring further changes such as they did with the 1967 English consecration? Didn’t the bishops just change “Virgin” to “young woman,” as an example?

Where does the term occur? The literal translation of Hebrew is “young woman”. In the passage in Isaiah, for example, it must mean young woman, as she has a child.

I do not think feminist can “require” any changes. This new revision is an example of just how little influence they have.

Edit:
I see the Isaiah passage was already explained in post 8. Here is the context of that passage:

Isaiah 7:11 *Ask for a sign from the LORD, your God; let it be deep as the nether world, or high as the sky! *
*12 ** But Ahaz answered, “I will not ask! I will not tempt the LORD!” **13 **Then he said: Listen, O house of David! Is it not enough for you to weary men, must you also weary my God? **14 **Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. **15 **He shall be living on curds and honey by the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good. **16 **For before the child learns to reject the bad and choose the good, the land of those two kings whom you dread shall be deserted. *

 

[MatthewBerkeley]

Thank you all for your contributions. It’s all very interesting, but I have yet to read a good reason why the Church is retaining the masculine pronouns instead of changing them to something a bit more inclusive of women. After all ‘people’ is understood as ‘all men and women’ far more widely than ‘men’ is.
Does anyone have any insight into this problem, or a solid enough reason that can be put forward in a discussion on this topic?

Thanks.
God bless

 

[Joan_M]

Thank you all for your contributions. It’s all very interesting, but I have yet to read a good reason why the Church is retaining the masculine pronouns instead of changing them to something a bit more inclusive of women. After all ‘people’ is understood as ‘all men and women’ far more widely than ‘men’ is.
Does anyone have any insight into this problem, or a solid enough reason that can be put forward in a discussion on this topic?

Thanks.
God bless

Why, in Heaven’s name, should the church change the masculine pronouns to “something a bit more inclusive of women”? The word “man” and also “men” in the English language has always, besides indicating that someone was speaking about one or more male individuals, meant mankind (both male and female). It was universally recognized as such until “feminists” got into the act and wanted to be excluded from these words. Changing to “people” etc., is kowtowing to the femi-nazis, which is something to keep out of the liturgy.

People can use so-called inclusive language in their private or business lives, but it must have no place in the liturgy. Personally, I reject this PC stuff in all aspects of my life. It grates on my nerves.

Being a woman, and happy that God made me a woman, I am happy to be included in the word “man” or “men” indicating all human beings. Use of “his/hers” and he/she" is excluding, not including.

Yeah! I am passionate about this and want o part of any so-called inclusive language.

 

[InspiritCarol]

Why, in Heaven’s name, should the church change the masculine pronouns to “something a bit more inclusive of women”? The word “man” and also “men” in the English language has always, besides indicating that someone was speaking about one or more male individuals, meant mankind (both male and female). It was universally recognized as such until “feminists” got into the act and wanted to be excluded from these words. Changing to “people” etc., is kowtowing to the femi-nazis, which is something to keep out of the liturgy.

Oh dear, Joan. I have little opinion on this. I am very happy to leave these decisions to the episcopacy, but I have to speak up here because you are a victim of the “big lie”. “Men” and “mankind” have in no way shape or form always been considered gender inclusive. For evidence of this we need look no farther than the date that women earned the right to vote in the US: August 26, 1920 … That’s right. “All *men *are created equal” did not include women because the word “men” only recently came to mean both. Why should it have? (BTW - Blacks couldn’t vote because they weren’t considered “men” either - but that’s an even uglier can of worms.)

People can use so-called inclusive language in their private or business lives, but it must have no place in the liturgy. Personally, I reject this PC stuff in all aspects of my life. It grates on my nerves.

Amen, sister. It’s distracting and often silly. When I sing “Be Not Afraid”, I still sing about “wicked men”; regardless of the neutralization that occurred …what… 2o years ago. I know many in my congregation feel the same way about this.

Being a woman, and happy that God made me a woman, I am happy to be included in the word “man” or “men” indicating all human beings. Use of “his/hers” and he/she" is excluding, not including.

Yeah! I am passionate about this and want o part of any so-called inclusive language.

Really, I’m pretty well okay with the idea that “men” *now *includes “women” also. But let’s not pretend that that is how it has always been.

I do deeply resent the accusations I’m seeing from multiple sources that the Catholic Church takes its orders from feminists. This is entirely absurd. Please let’s pray for the poor people … oops… ahem … sorry … I mean: *MEN *who have to make these tough decisions and stop throwing mud and griping at them. (Not you, personally, Joan, just in general - yes?).

 

[MatthewBerkeley]

Hi Joan,

I’m glad I can ask someone who is passionate about this, because I have a better chance of getting a well thought out answer.
At the moment I can empathize more with those who want to see more neutral references to humanity, because I don’t think ‘man’ is any longer understood in common parlance to mean ‘both men and women’.
However, this is just because I have heard the most logical reasons from this side of the debate. I wouldn’t call its proponents ‘feminazis’ or anything else uncharitable, because I don’t think the vast majority of them are deliberately being dissenting.
Before I make my mind up on this issue, I would really appreciate a thorough reason as to why the Church is deciding to keep the masculine pronouns. The Church is remarkably adept at moving with the times, and adapting to different cultures and eras in world history. Now that ‘man’ is only an archaic term for ‘people’, why not change it? This would be in the interests of clarity, not kowtowing to any group of lobbyists. I would be very interested to hear the logical answer to this.

God bless

 

[smithm29]

Thank you all for your contributions. It’s all very interesting, but I have yet to read a good reason why the Church is retaining the masculine pronouns instead of changing them to something a bit more inclusive of women. After all ‘people’ is understood as ‘all men and women’ far more widely than ‘men’ is.
Does anyone have any insight into this problem, or a solid enough reason that can be put forward in a discussion on this topic?

Thanks.
God bless

The translation should not use “people” because people implies “persons” not just “mankind” or “humanity”. Since God is also a person, it’s not always appropriate to use people in place of men. There are places where that level of precision is unimportant (ie, the phrase “people of God” implies that God isn’t counted in the multitude of His people), but there are likely places where it is important.

In other words, man is not merely “an archaic term for people”. Man is a species- a rational animal. It is something very specific. A person is also something very specific- an entity with the relevant features of personhood. People, as a term, indicates a group of persons, which includes the three persons of the Trinity. Two of these three persons are not men. Therefore, when we say men, we are saying something very different than when we say people. We would be losing clarity by changing “men” to “people”.

Now, we could use humanity or mankind and achieve the same goal. Why we don’t do that is anyone’s guess, but I would assume it’s because the traditional technical English word for the concept of an animal with the specific difference of rationality is man, not humanity or mankind.

 

[centurionguard]

The new Canadian Lectionary has Brother & sister or Brethren in the readings from Paul. When it comes to a sentence where they would have to either use his/her or change the sentence structure, they opted instead to violate English grammar rules and use “their”.

Some priests depending where you go (more liberal diocese’s) you hear the Bishop or Priest addressing Sisters and Brothers In Christ as the opening prayer greeting in the liturgy.

It bothers me very little now I suppose because I so accustom to hearing this in English Masses as opposed to French Masses were the masculine pro noun is traditionally expressed first.

Feminism is the big driving force behind this whether people in the Church want to admit this or not.

Then again Feminism is also the driving force in today’s Catholic liturgy with key iconoclast theologians entrenched inside the ICEL

Nothing really new from the past since the last 1992 Canadian Sacramentary and Lectionary.

Peace
Chris

 

[neophyte]

Thank you all for your contributions. It’s all very interesting, but I have yet to read a good reason why the Church is retaining the masculine pronouns instead of changing them to something a bit more inclusive of women…

It’s proper English. There doesn’t need to be any other reason.

 

[pnewton]

At the moment I can empathize more with those who want to see more neutral references to humanity, because I don’t think ‘man’ is any longer understood in common parlance to mean ‘both men and women’.

It is here. Furthermore, it has been for almost all of history. The better question is to why things need to be mistranslated in order to be inclusive. Gender-inclusion is not used because it is poor translation.