New Missal and the Gender-neutering controversy

[MatthewBerkeley]

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.

Thanks, smithm29, that’s the best answer I’ve heard and it’s logical as well. If I find any more questions, I’ll come back but thanks for now!

God bless

 

[po18guy]

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

I see it as simply bowing to a more secular culture, which has blurred and blended the roles of men and women. Gender neutrality requires a change in the actual words as spoken - an alteration of direct quotes, for the sake of being non-offensive to a culture which is worldly, rather than holy in nature.

The Church is called to retain, defend, present and promote the truth, not to massage it and make it palatable to an increasingly hostile culture.

 

[Timothy17]

Feminism falsely asserts and creates a disctinction in the human race that means to divide what God has bound together. Genesis is extremely explicit about the ultimate and inherent unity of the two sexes : woman was made entirely of man. We are not seperate creatures, but one creature, one creation, bound together. Traditionally, the male was always the principal of unity, and hence the headship. He was made to be the glory of God ; she, the glory of man. Marriage and familial association maintained unity even amongst large and divers communities by constantly re-establishing the bonds of consangunity. Traditional Christian understanding of Heavenly-inspired order has always been a boon and blessing to nations, establishing peace and replacing confusion with order and harmony.

Man must be changed by things holy, not holy things by man. It is incumbent for us to reconcile with the Truth. I fear this re-engineering of Sacred Scripture to fit the imaginations of men is tantamount to an attempt to make God conform to our thinking, which is vain and fallacious, rather than man be conformed to God’s. We are to worship God as He Is ; not adapt Him to fit our fancies.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[JimG]

Below are linked a few articles on the subject of “inclusive language.”

A term like “man” in English has always had a primarily generic meaning to identify any person of the human species, or sometimes the entire human species as a collective. It was really the push for “inclusive” language that actually forced people into using the term in an “exclusive” manner to refer to males only. There are no good generic substitutes, and the use of them in liturgical and biblical translations can lead to problems, as noted in the articles below.

John Donne wrote a poem titled “No Man Is An Island,” (which is also the first line.) No one, at the time of its writing or since, even today, thinks that he intended to mean “no male is an island.” No, it’s apparent that he meant, “no human person is an island.”

But that wouldn’t be good poetry, nor even good English, since a perfectly good generic term was available.

adoremus.org/98-01_bonacci.htm

adoremus.org/5-696-Whitehead.html

adoremus.org/5-696-BibleEnglish.html

And when the lector begins a reading from St. Paul with the words “Brothers and Sisters,” is that really what Paul wrote? And if Paul really began with “brethern,” I take it for granted that he did address his words to the entire congregation of both genders, and was using the term generically.

 

[PJM]

=MatthewBerkeley;7620637]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

The accomidation was made to 1. “be politically correct,” and 2. Further emphasis that “we ARE the Church”. The changes were CORRECTLY made because we are th MYSTICAL BODY OF THE CHURCH; and we are there to focus on God; not each other.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Aramis]

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?

He lists several on several occasions, and while said in a joking matter, he’s using it to be explicitly dismissive of the demands to return to “Latin only.”

It’s pretty clear he thinks that Latin Only as a defense against liturgical abuse is highly ineffectual.

 

[centurionguard]

Below are linked a few articles on the subject of “inclusive language.”

A term like “man” in English has always had a primarily generic meaning to identify any person of the human species, or sometimes the entire human species as a collective. It was really the push for “inclusive” language that actually forced people into using the term in an “exclusive” manner to refer to males only. There are no good generic substitutes, and the use of them in liturgical and biblical translations can lead to problems, as noted in the articles below.

John Donne wrote a poem titled “No Man Is An Island,” (which is also the first line.) No one, at the time of its writing or since, even today, thinks that he intended to mean “no male is an island.” No, it’s apparent that he meant, “no human person is an island.”

But that wouldn’t be good poetry, nor even good English, since a perfectly good generic term was available.

adoremus.org/98-01_bonacci.htm

adoremus.org/5-696-Whitehead.html

adoremus.org/5-696-BibleEnglish.html

And when the lector begins a reading from St. Paul with the words “Brothers and Sisters,” is that really what Paul wrote? And if Paul really began with “brethren,” I take it for granted that he did address his words to the entire congregation of both genders, and was using the term generically.

I liked everything you wrote here

Sometimes I get to thinking how the implication of the word (“Mankind”) got to be such a vulgar vernacularism.

Peace
Chris

 

[Stitchwort]

When I was growing up (pre-Vatican II), everyone understood that “man” had two meanings (“a member of the human species” or “a male”) and we had no difficulty telling from the context which meaning was meant. We have not become less intelligent in the last 50 years!

Having lived through the period in question, I see it as a totally artificial language change, originating in radical feminism; as such, I have no use for it whatever. BTW, I am female myself.

As applied to scripture and liturgy, I find it almost always introduces a subtle change in the meaning of the passage. Consider Psalm 8:4 (or verse 5 in some translations):

RSV-CE translation:

What is man that thou are mindful of him,
and the son of man that thou dost care for him?

New American Bible translation:

What are humans that you are mindful of them,
mere mortals that you care for them?

The NAB use of “humans” and “them” implies that God cares for all of us collectively, but you lose the subtle but beautiful implication of the singular “man” which implies that God cares for each one of us, separately and individually.

In the second line, the new translations erase the “son of man” phrase, which is a title Jesus eventually took unto himself, one of the many, many places where the OT looks ahead to Christ.

This change is important enough that some translations (including the NAB) insert the older translation in a footnote, so it is still there–for those who bother with footnotes.

I sometimes wonder if those who started this “issue” had ever studied another language besides English. Because when you do, you quickly learn that grammatical “gender” (which is what this man/people controversy is) has nothing whatever to do with biological gender.

 

[Timothysis]

He lists several on several occasions, and while said in a joking matter, he’s using it to be explicitly dismissive of the demands to return to “Latin only.”

It’s pretty clear he thinks that Latin Only as a defense against liturgical abuse is highly ineffectual.

Not only that, but Pope Benedict himself said that he remembers abuses with the latin Mass when he was younger. The point of view that Latin will make everything ok is sadly mistaken.

 

[Timothysis]

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

As I said in the other thread, the term “Virgin” is still there in all four Eucharistic Prayers in the forthcoming revision of the Missal. What makes you think that a literal translation of Isaiah is going to change the terminology in the Eucharistic prayers???

 

[po18guy]

Not only that, but Pope Benedict himself said that he remembers abuses with the latin Mass when he was younger. The point of view that Latin will make everything ok is sadly mistaken.

Just don’t tell that to ‘certain groups’, shall we say, on these forums! Apparently, Latin fixes all problems in the mass. Heck if it was the official language of the US, the national debt would disappear overnight - or so they make it seem.

 

[JimG]

Just don’t tell that to ‘certain groups’, shall we say, on these forums! Apparently, Latin fixes all problems in the mass. Heck if it was the official language of the US, the national debt would disappear overnight - or so they make it seem.

Well, yes. If all the regulations and proposed regulations printed in the Federal Register were printed in Latin, the whole thing would be much clearer!

 

[ProVobis]

Just don’t tell that to ‘certain groups’, shall we say, on these forums! Apparently, Latin fixes all problems in the mass.

If these kids can pick Latin up easy, why can’t all Latin Rite Catholics?

youtube.com/watch?v=HZHRCuEjpbA&feature=related

Might even learn some body parts you didn’t know you had at 9:40.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, yes. If all the regulations and proposed regulations printed in the Federal Register were printed in Latin, the whole thing would be much clearer!

And if “Annuit Coeptis” weren’t written on a US $1 bill, it would be counterfeit.

 

[DeaconsSon87]

Personally, there are certain parts where I think the New Missal has gotten TOO “gender-neutral”.

Though I LOVE the new translation of the Exsultet (the mother bees are back!), a major turn-off was seeing “humankind”…a word I hoped NEVER to see again in the Mass.

 

[po18guy]

If these kids can pick Latin up easy, why can’t all Latin Rite Catholics?

youtube.com/watch?v=HZHRCuEjpbA&feature=related

Might even learn some body parts you didn’t know you had at 9:40.

Should we force it?

 

[centurionguard]

When I was growing up (pre-Vatican II), everyone understood that “man” had two meanings (“a member of the human species” or “a male”) and we had no difficulty telling from the context which meaning was meant. We have not become less intelligent in the last 50 years!

Having lived through the period in question, I see it as a totally artificial language change, originating in radical feminism; as such, I have no use for it whatever. BTW, I am female myself.

As applied to scripture and liturgy, I find it almost always introduces a subtle change in the meaning of the passage. Consider Psalm 8:4 (or verse 5 in some translations):

RSV-CE translation:

New American Bible translation:

The NAB use of “humans” and “them” implies that God cares for all of us collectively, but you lose the subtle but beautiful implication of the singular “man” which implies that God cares for each one of us, separately and individually.

In the second line, the new translations erase the “son of man” phrase, which is a title Jesus eventually took unto himself, one of the many, many places where the OT looks ahead to Christ.

This change is important enough that some translations (including the NAB) insert the older translation in a footnote, so it is still there–for those who bother with footnotes.

I sometimes wonder if those who started this “issue” had ever studied another language besides English. Because when you do, you quickly learn that grammatical “gender” (which is what this man/people controversy is) has nothing whatever to do with biological gender.

I sometimes wonder if those who started this “issue” had ever studied another language besides English. Because when you do, you quickly learn that grammatical “gender” (which is what this man/people controversy is) has nothing whatever to do with biological gender.

Exactly!

Inclusive Language was wrought by many feminism groups within the Church who also brainwashed a number of men and theologians in the Church.

The interesting part is the majority of Catholic women in the Church that I’ve talked to (“though not all”) are (NOT) offended by the use of the word Mankind.

Why? because of what you have already stated above.

I grew up in Pre-Vatican II myself.

Are those theologians entrenched in the ICEL slap-crazy about using today’s modern colloquial slang when drafting new biblical translations.

Why should I ever be surprised today what goes on in the Church.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

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.)

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.

Not that this is that important, but…

From wiktionary, the etymology of “man”:

“From Middle English, from Old English mann (“human being, person, man”), from Proto-Germanic *mannaz (“human being, man”), from Proto-Indo-European *man- (“man”). Cognate with West Frisian and Dutch man (“man”), German Mann (“man”), Norwegian mann (“man”), Russian муж (muž, “male person”), Avestan (manuš), Sanskrit (mánuṣ, “human being”)).”

It seems that from quite a long time ago, it has had both meanings… Long enough back for a Sanskrit cognate which means “human being”…

Pax,

Sebastiano

 

[ProVobis]

Should we force it?

Pope John XXIII already did that. He made it very clear when he wrote in Veterum Sapientia, the same year he convened Vatican II:

The nature of Latin

Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its "concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity"4 makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

Preservation of Latin by the Holy See

For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws."5 She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."7

Universal

Since "every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,"8 and since the Supreme Pontiffs have "true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful"9 of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations.

Immutable

Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

Non-vernacular

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure … of incomparable worth."11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

 

[centurionguard]

Pope John XXIII already did that. He made it very clear when he wrote in Veterum Sapientia, the same year he convened Vatican II:

The nature of Latin

Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its "concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity"4 makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

Preservation of Latin by the Holy See

For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws."5 She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."7

Universal

Since "every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,"8 and since the Supreme Pontiffs have "true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful"9 of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations.

Immutable

Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

Non-vernacular

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure … of incomparable worth."11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

WOW And to think that in these last 46 years the average Catholic has been told the universal language of Latin in the Church is dead?