Protesting inclusive language at Seminary

[TrueLight]

CDF NORMS FOR THE TRANSLATION OF BIBLICAL TEXTS FOR USE IN THE LITURGY

**Congregation for the Doctrine **
Good find! I have never seen this.

However, these norms are for use in the liturgy. I’m not so sure it applies here.
​

​

 

[SanAgustin]

I find it very interesting that you’re studying at a Catholic seminary, and are interested in apologetic. Sounds like if you make it through as a Catholic you’ll be great at defending the faith.

Reminds me of my teenage years, when I joined my youth group I would meet with a group that consisted 2 Catholics (a friend and me) and 2 Evangelicals (brothers sons of a pastor). I learned a lot from it, and learned a lot about all the different evangelical and fundamentalist sects while strengthening my Catholic faith!

 

[Digitonomy]

"Digitonomy:

By the way, are there any rules against referring to Father & Son as the two persons of the Trinity? If so, what euphemisms are used to distinguish the two?

Rules against? See the above post from Jesus_123 quoting the CDF on the matter.

I was actually referring to whether your institution or any of its professors had any rules against the use of “Father” or “Son,” and what was done in those cases.

jbach:

the Short answer: no one is ever allowed to change Father or Son to something else.

As I read your two links, the CDF is providing specific guidance on liturgical translations, not on extraliturgical translation or your own writing or speech, while Cardinal Ratzinger seems to be focused on the replacement of male words with female. If a professor wanted me to write a paper without any pronouns, and only referring to the first two persons of the Trinity as Creator and Redeemer, I would find it pretty silly, but I don’t see it as contrary to the Faith. You don’t have to convince me otherwise, but if I’m skeptical of your position, your Protestant prof will probably be even more so.

 

[Hokomai]

My favourite challenge to those opposed to inclusive language is to ask them if they are happy with the sentence: “Man, like other animals, suckles his young”.

I am also always confused by people who believe that God does not have a sex wishing to constantly assign one to ‘him’.

Oh, and I wish both sides of the argument would stop saying ‘gender’ when they mean ‘sex’.

 

[Jesus_123]

Good find! I have never seen this.

However, these norms are for use in the liturgy. I’m not so sure it applies here.

Hi TrueLight . . .

+In relationship to Sacred Scripture . . . heresy . . . is the . . . deliberate arbitrary changing . . . of known established written . . . Truths of God . . . which are confirmed and taught by the Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church’s Magesterium as infallible fact and infallible truth . . . (infallible = without error) . . . into . . . lies . . . **to suit oneself ** . . . to lie is a sin and a breaking of the law of God - specifically the Eighth Commandment of the Ten Commandments . . . given by God to Moses . . .

**Using an example: **If a pharmicist “changes” the complex formula for a specific medication to suit himself/herself . . . and sells it under the name of the original medication . . . he/she perpetrates a gravely sinful dangerous fraudulent . . . lie . . . and breaks both the Law of God and the law of man here in the United States . . . such behavior is considered both sinful and criminal . . . below is the definition of heresy from the Merriam Webster On-Line Dictionary . . .​

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
her·e·sy noun \her-ə-sē, he-rə-\plural her·e·sies

Definition of HERESY

**1a : **adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma

b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church

c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma

**2a : **dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice

**b : **an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

Examples of HERESY

They were accused of heresy.

He was preaching dangerous heresies.
**
Origin of HERESY**

First Known Use: 13th century

Related to HERESY

Synonyms: dissent, dissidence, heterodoxy, nonconformity

**​

The idea that Sacred :bible1: Scripture can be arbitrarily radically changed as to meaning . . . such as . . . **redefining the gender of God ** . . . which since the beginning of time in Judeo/Christian religion has been known as masculine . . . and redefining God as being also a goddess . . . a Him and her combined . . . essentially dissolving God into a neutered “it” . . . clearly falls into the category of heresy . . . and that one version of the Holy Bible can be held as truth inside liturgy within the church walls . . . and that people can personally believe . . . whatever they like . . . and . . . **radically capriciously and arbitrarily change **. . . Sacred :bible1: Scripture to suit themselves outside the walls of the church . . . is NOT Apostolic Holy Roman Church Catholicism . . .

The Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church holds **Sacred :bible1: Scripture **as the holy and infallible Word of God. The incredibly . . . STRANGE. . . idea that **Sacred Scripture **is just a bunch of words that can be . . . thrown out . . . **capriciously and arbitrarily changed at the will of man **. . . **paid no attention to **. . . believed or not believed. . . and NOT believing that Sacred Scripture is absolutely necessary spiritual food for a healthy spiritual life to be lived close to . . . Jesus . . . our Wonderful Beloved Saviour and Lord . . . and for living a righteous holy life walking with . . . God the Son as our Lord . . . in accordance with our . . . Gracious Heavenly Father’s . . . Holy Will . . . **is grave error **. . . and is an utterly non-Christian/non-Catholic point of view . . .

:bible1:
“For there shall be a time,
when they will not endure sound doctrine;
but,
according to their own desires,
they will heap to themselves teachers,
having itching ears:”
- 2 Timothy 4:3

:bible1:
“Woe unto them
that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
***- Isaiah 5:20 ***

"To be ignorant of Scripture :bible1:
is to be ignorant of
Christ."
- St. Jerome

Peace . . .

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . Blessed Virgin Mary our Mother+
. . . please pray for us+
. . . St. Michael, Holy Archangel of God+
. . . please protect us from all heresy+
:knight1:
​

 

[Jesus_123]

:coffeeread:
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

Article 2 - THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

81
Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.

Article 3 - SACRED :bible1: SCRIPTURE

104
In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it ** NOT** as human word, "but as what it really is, the Word of God."

**In the sacred books,
the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly
to meet his children, and talks with them. **

:bible1: “How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand …” Psalms 139:17-18b​

:bible1: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” Isaiah 55:8​

:bible1: “So shall **my word **be that goeth forth out of **my **mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which **I **please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto **I **sent it.” Isaiah 55:11​

:bible1: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but **my words **shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35​

:bible1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1​

"And the
Word
was made flesh,
and dwelt among us,
and we saw his glory;
the glory as it were of the
only begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth."
John 1:14
:bible1:

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+
. . . our
"Father Who Art in Heaven"
we love Thee+
. . . thank You Dear Father+​

 

[puzzleannie]

Hello all,

I am currently a first-year (Catholic!) student at a prominent Protestant seminary (though I won’t name which), and have noticed that nearly every one of my professors has a statement in his syllabus demanding the use of inclusive language (or “non-sexist language”, as they put it.) I have a real problem with this,
…
What do you think?

this is the only theological problem you have as a Catholic student in a Protestant seminary?

 

[Jesus_123]

My favourite challenge to those opposed to inclusive language is to ask them if they are happy with the sentence: “Man, like other animals, suckles his young”.

+The historical generic use of the term “man” . . . as in the above sentence . . . which term has been utilized for centuries upon centuries upon centuries of time in Judeo/Christian history . . . is well taught and more fully revealed below by Colin Donovan . . . Vice President of Theology at EWTN . . .

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
Inclusive Language

The common practice of English historically has been to use male nouns and pronouns (man, mankind, he) when referring collectively to human beings, regardless of sex.

In recent decades some feminists have claimed that this is offensive to them, as it represents a “patriarchal worldview” in which men are superior to women. Through their media influence they have effectively ended such use in publishing, academia, television and movies, as well as in common speech. Within the Church, through the well-oiled machinery of dissent, the rejection of such “non-inclusive” language has been applied to the use of male terms in connection with God.

Whether in the secular arena or in the Church, almost no resistance has been offered to this FORCED DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE, and few are even aware of what is at stake, seeing it only as a matter of fairness to women. Thankfully, the **Holy See **has resisted the tide and clearly drawn the lines between what is an acceptable use of inclusive language and what is unacceptable. Acceptable use would include those collective expressions for human beings which today a speaker or author would be expected to use, such as “ladies and gentleman” or “brothers and sisters”. It is unlikely that any one would use “brothers” or “brethren” for a mixed audience today. Thus, there is nothing wrong in principle to this kind of horizontal inclusive language.

**What is unacceptable to the Magisterium, however, is the use of inclusive language in collective terms for human beings which have an anthropological significance, or, in terms for God or Christ (vertical inclusive language). **The collective term man, for example, is both a philosophically and theologically appropriate term for the human race. Just as there is a certain precedence within the Trinity, by which the Father is God, the Son is God by generation and the Holy Spirit is God by spiration, **Sacred :bible1:Scripture **reveals that an image of this Trinity of equal Persons in God is reflected in the creation of woman from man. Adam (which means man) is a man, Eve is a man (since she shares his nature), and each of their descendants is a man. This expresses equality, NOT inequality, as feminists claim. Whatever injustices men have perpetrated on women through the millennia, Adam’s sin is the cause, not God and His wise created design.

So, human nature is called man or mankind, and each human person is a man, just as the divine nature is called God and all Three Persons are God. (The sexual distinction is expressed as male and female, though man and woman also does so. Even these contain implicitly the evidence of the origins of woman from man in the economy of creation.)***

- EWTN Online Library​

***

:compcoff: Link: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM​

 

[Roy5]

A couple of thoughts

 **Gender-neutral language**.I was somewhat annoyed by this until I became accustomed to it. Now it seems natural, and likely the intention of the scriptures in most cases. When we used to read 'men' in many contexts the meaning clearly was men and women.

  **God as a man?** Hm! This is a tougher question. The point that some would make is that God is beyond and above gender, and a strong argument can be made for that. We really don't know that much about God - really. I think ot was Harry Enerson Fosdick who said years ago: "I can only believe in a God that I cannot understand." To me, that is part of the very definition of God - a person/power beyond our understanding. Some that will not call God a man will, ironically, speak of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. They may substitute the Lord for Him. which is interesting, too.

 **Protestant seminaries**.Mainline Protestant seminaries are often very liberal, part of their tradition, but also pushed on the gender issue by large female enrollment. Some major seminaries have as many (or more) women students as men. The Methodists, as one example, now have more than 10,000 ordained women clergy. Other denominations have as high a percentage (c. 20%) or even higher. 

 **Seminaries and Catholicism**.Many top-rated mainline Protestant seminaries deal very fairly with Catholicismm, generally speaking. Students read the Church Fathers etc. They may even take issue with some sides of, say, Luther and Calvin. Their main difference would be that there is no enforced 'party line' but considerable freedom and variation when it comes to doctrine. This results from two main factors: (a) most of mainline Protestantism is by nature non-dogmatic when it comes to theology; (b) they are apt to be ecumenical in that they attract students from many different Christians traditions. Today this may include significant number of Catholic students. Consider Yale and Harvard, two seminaries going back 300 or so years, established by the Puritans. It amazed me to find out how many Catholics attend and even teach at such seminaries.

**Conservative seminaries.** Most conservative seminaries, affiliated, say, with the Southern Baptists, or independent Bible churches, would not use gender-neutral language. Some of them - like the Southern Baptists - do not yet ordain women. Often they still use the King James Version or the New KJV. Many such seminaries are known as Bible colleges or institutes. They produce thousands of conservative (often fundamentalist) clergy. Some, such as Gordon-Conwell, are conservative but maintain high standards and avoid rigid fundamentalism. Fundamentalist seminaries are most likely to either assail Catholicism or avoid dealing with it altogether, although they would share with Catholics the same views on such issues as abortion and gays/lesbians. 

 **Denominational seminaries**vary. The Methodists, for example, have 13-14 of them, at such Methodist-founded universities as Duke, Boston U, Emory, SMU, etc. Many Methodists attend non-Methodist seminaries, too, and their seminaries have non-Methodist students. One should take into account that mainline Protestants generally have a sense of 'unity'. In some parts of the world, like Canada, Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists merged years ago (to become the United Church of Canada). Ditto in India, and this is happening in Australia and elsewhere.

  God bless people of every creed, color, culture and country. Let us work together to make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.

 

[John_Lilburne]

From the 2001 Instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, (about translating the Roman Rite’s liturgical books from Latin) at vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html :

"30. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the “inclusive” sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word ’adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission.

1. In particular: to be avoided is the systematic resort to imprudent solutions such as a mechanical substitution of words, the transition from the singular to the plural, the splitting of a unitary collective term into masculine and feminine parts, or the introduction of impersonal or abstract words, all of which may impede the communication of the true and integral sense of a word or an expression in the original text. Such measures introduce theological and anthropological problems into the translation. Some particular norms are the following:

a) In referring to almighty God or the individual persons of the Most Holy Trinity, the truth of tradition as well as the established gender usage of each respective language are to be maintained.

b) Particular care is to be taken to ensure that the fixed expression “Son of Man” be rendered faithfully and exactly. The great Christological and typological significance of this expression requires that there should also be employed throughout the translation a rule of language that will ensure that the fixed expression remain comprehensible in the context of the whole translation.

c) The term “fathers”, found in many biblical passages and liturgical texts of ecclesiastical composition, is to be rendered by the corresponding masculine word into vernacular languages insofar as it may be seen to refer to the Patriarchs or the kings of the chosen people in the Old Testament, or to the Fathers of the Church.

d) Insofar as possible in a given vernacular language, the use of the feminine pronoun, rather than the neuter, is to be maintained in referring to the Church.

e) Words which express consanguinity or other important types of relationship, such as “brother”, “sister”, etc., which are clearly masculine or feminine by virtue of the context, are to be maintained as such in the translation.

f) The grammatical gender of angels, demons, and pagan gods or goddesses, according to the original texts, is to be maintained in the vernacular language insofar as possible.

g) In all these matters it will be necessary to remain attentive to the principles set forth above, in nn. 27 and 29."

 

[ndalum]

I have to say that if something small (yet important) like gender pronouns upsets you, what happens in a religion class when something contrary to Catholic faith is taught. I do not believe that a Protestant school could even teach theology. It would just be “religious studies.”

I know it is hard to hear and money is an issue, but if you truly believe in Catholicism there are going to be much larger battles at that school for you to fight.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Holy Spirit didn’t inspire inclusive language–it is an invention of the devil!

 

[Leon_Bloy]

Dear Johannes (OP),

I mean this with complete respect and sincerity, but - why on earth go to a Protestant seminary? You will just continue to encounter more and more nonsense that is very likely harmful to your faith. I would just drop out. Let these kinds of places just wither away.

 

[centurionguard]

The Holy Spirit didn’t inspire inclusive language–it is an invention of the devil!

Perhaps. I never liked Inclusive Language either. It was another bumbling crowning achievement by the ICEL as far as seeing the inaccuracies of this language in Church Liturgy. Here’s a good article catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2623&CFID=120348487&CFTOKEN=60327878

Note as the article states therein:

In particular, the U.S. bishops’ Criteria for inclusive language translations urgently need to be revisited. So patently do these Criteria seem to have been taken from secular culture that they actually speak of not “excluding” people on account of creed, as well as race, sex, etc. — as if the Catholic Church did not have her own obligatory creed! But now, it seems, the Catholic Church is not supposed to “discriminate” on the basis of “creed.” The principle of nondiscrimination suddenly seems to have trumped the articles of faith.

More particularly, the bishops’ Criteria claim to preserve the often-mentioned distinction between using inclusive language to apply “horizontally” to human beings, while retaining traditional language which applies “vertically” to God revealed as “Father.” In practice, however, the Criteria give away the keys to the store when they concede that “it may sometimes be useful…to repeat the name of God… rather than use the masculine pronoun in every case.” Even though the Criteria go on to specify that “care must be taken that repetition not become tiresome,” dropping the masculine pronouns in accordance with feminist ideology nevertheless quickly becomes the new norm, once it is allowed at all, as we can readily see in the case of some of the new translations of the Psalms.

For example, a company called Liturgy Training Publications, which I understand is connected with the Archdiocese of Chicago, is currently advertising the ICEL Psalter for sale, proudly highlighting the fact that it “uses inclusive language for human beings and for God” (emphasis added).

In other words, the scriptural-liturgical establishment — the ICEL itself no less — is evidently not required to follow the bishops’ Criteria’, inclusive language referring to God is now openly being used contrary to those Criteria. But the Criteria are invoked against anyone who criticizes inclusive language. The ICEL translators are thus apparently free to publish and advertise translations manifestly not in conformity with these same bishops’ guidelines, but critics of inclusive language are supposed to sit down and shut up.

Finally, the current argument that inclusive language is “necessary” in the Church in justice to women is the same argument that is regularly employed to justify the ordination of women. This basic argument holds that “injustice enters when the denial [of ordination] rests upon a category: womanhood,” in the words of Sr. Elizabeth Carroll. “Womanhood” is precisely what is thought to be excluded unjustly by generic language, which employs masculine words and grammatical forms. Indeed, many proponents of inclusive language in the liturgy have expressly linked their cause with that of female ordination.

However, in his 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II definitively declared the disputed question of women’s ordination to be settled and closed — and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith informed us that the Pope judged it to be an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium when he taught that “the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church.”

Therefore, the exclusion of women from the priesthood is not unjust. By a reasonable extension of the same line of thought, it would surely seem that the Church is not being unjust to women in using traditional generic language. Moreover, generic language is inclusive and was intended to be. That’s why it’s called “generic.” And no woman, whether or not a feminist, felt “excluded” by generic language before, say, A.D. 1970.

These two issues, the push for priestesses and the supposed exclusion of women by standard English usage, cannot help but be linked in people’s minds. So if dissenting Catholics want to keep the priestess issue alive and stirred up, in spite of the Pope’s infallible judgment — and at a time when what is really needed is greater understanding of the Magisterium’s judgment in the matter, along with reconciliation and healing — then by all means the U.S. scriptural-liturgical establishment should be allowed to go on agitating for inclusive language in English Scripture translations and in the liturgy.

I might add for some uncanny reason the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted Inclusive language in 1992 in all liturgical and religious resource books.
Its only since Advent 2011 that Canadian Catholics have seen a revision somewhat for the better though the main thrust of the NRSV is still in effect.

 

[ProVobis]

The Holy Spirit didn’t inspire inclusive language–it is an invention of the devil!

I say stick with the Latin unless you want political language.