Protesting inclusive language at Seminary

[jbach]

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, esp. in the case of one professor who goes so far as to proscribe masculine pronouns even for God(!). I’m only in my second week and haven’t written any papers so far, but I’d really rather not subject myself to this nonsense. What do you think is the best way of confronting the issue? I’m fairly confident that the use of inclusive language is official Seminary policy, so I don’t think I’d get much support if I tried to take it to the higher-ups. The one bright light I can think of is that the Seminary also has an official statement banning discrimination on the basis of “theological opinion,” so I’m wondering if I can’t use that mushiness to my advantage. I was thinking I could appeal to any of the various Vatican documents banning the use of inclusive language in the liturgy as the religious basis for my disagreement, and heaven forbid that they appear to be anti-Catholic (or anti-anything, for that matter.) What do you think?

 

[silicasandra]

I think you can make a theological argument against being required to use feminine pronouns for God, if that is your primary concern, based on what you’ve said about school policy.

However, regarding other situations: the trend in the English language now is to use inclusive language with respect to gender (oh, it would have been nice if we could have just kept neuter pronouns!). This is not about “being PC,” it’s just more accurate. English hasn’t always used masculine pronouns to mean everyone, anyhow. This is a linguistic change that’s bigger than your seminary and I wouldn’t put up a big fuss about it.

(at least, that’s what this former English teacher has to say about it )

 

[TrueLight]

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, esp. in the case of one professor who goes so far as to proscribe masculine pronouns even for God(!). I’m only in my second week and haven’t written any papers so far, but I’d really rather not subject myself to this nonsense. What do you think is the best way of confronting the issue? I’m fairly confident that the use of inclusive language is official Seminary policy, so I don’t think I’d get much support if I tried to take it to the higher-ups. The one bright light I can think of is that the Seminary also has an official statement banning discrimination on the basis of “theological opinion,” so I’m wondering if I can’t use that mushiness to my advantage. I was thinking I could appeal to any of the various Vatican documents banning the use of inclusive language in the liturgy as the religious basis for my disagreement, and heaven forbid that they appear to be anti-Catholic (or anti-anything, for that matter.) What do you think?

Some Protestant seminaries are liberal and those are more likely to push for “inclusive” language, while there are fundamentalist protestant seminaries, which won’t for sure.

I doubt very much that you can use Vatican language to stop a Protestant seminary for using inclusive language.

So did you apply to and get into seminary before you became interested in Catholicism? I’m a little confused as to why you are in a Protestant seminary?

 

[jbach]

Some Protestant seminaries are liberal and those are more likely to push for “inclusive” language, while there are fundamentalist protestant seminaries, which won’t for sure.

I doubt very much that you can use Vatican language to stop a Protestant seminary for using inclusive language.

So did you apply to and get into seminary before you became interested in Catholicism? I’m a little confused as to why you are in a Protestant seminary?

My hope is that, since the Seminary hierarchy is paranoid about being accomodating to everyone, if I tie my opposition to “gender-inclusive” language to my Catholicism, they’ll let me have my way for fear of being seen as insensitive to my “faith tradition.”

As to why I’m here, it basically boiled down to money—I got accepted to Franciscan and Catholic University of America as well, but neither offered me as much money as this school (which is basically paying my way.) Deep pockets are one of the few advantages that the mainline Protestant denominations have left…

 

[jbach]

I think you can make a theological argument against being required to use feminine pronouns for God, if that is your primary concern, based on what you’ve said about school policy.

However, regarding other situations: the trend in the English language now is to use inclusive language with respect to gender (oh, it would have been nice if we could have just kept neuter pronouns!). This is not about “being PC,” it’s just more accurate. English hasn’t always used masculine pronouns to mean everyone, anyhow. This is a linguistic change that’s bigger than your seminary and I wouldn’t put up a big fuss about it.

(at least, that’s what this former English teacher has to say about it )

It is a linguistic change, but I believe it’s an artificial one and far from widespread. It’s like the conversation I overheard two friends having once. They were talking about their past lives, and how they had done drugs, when one of them turns to me and says “Look at J. over there, judging us!” I was completely neutral (to the point of indifference) up to that point, but as soon as my friend said that, I instantly became uncomfortable because I started to worry about exactly that.

Before the idea was implanted in people’s heads, nobody made a fuss about “he” and “man” as generic terms, nor do people today unless someone tells them. Are girls who refer to each other as “you guys” self-loathing victims of internalized sexism?

 

[Catholic90]

I am currently a first-year (Catholic!) student at a prominent Protestant seminary (though I won’t name which),

As to why I’m here, it basically boiled down to money—I got accepted to Franciscan and Catholic University of America as well, but neither offered me as much money as this school (which is basically paying my way.) Deep pockets are one of the few advantages that the mainline Protestant denominations have left…

So are you in Protestan seminary or a protestant college? Are you hoping to become ordained through said seminary?

 

[Allegra]

They want you to refer to God as female? What sort of place is this?

 

[jbach]

So are you in Protestan seminary or a protestant college? Are you hoping to become ordained through said seminary?

It’s a Seminary. For all the schools I applied to, I was going to study Theology at the graduate level (I already have an unrelated bachelor’s from a secular state school.)

And no, I’m obv. not hoping to become ordained. If I was, I wouldn’t be at a Protestant school. I’m focused more on an academic career path (apologetics or something like that, I hope.)

They want you to refer to God as female? What sort of place is this?

Not exactly. This professor prefers that we use neutral language both horizontally (to refer to our fellow human beings) AND vertically (to refer to God). In the case of the latter, this usually involves avoiding any third-person personal pronouns whatsoever (For us humans and for our salvation, Jesus came down from heaven…etc.) The horizontally-inclusive language is fairly standard across the board here, but the demand for vertically-inclusive language is something I’ve only seen from this one professor, so far (thank goodness.)

 

[silicasandra]

It’s a Seminary. For all the schools I applied to, I was going to study Theology at the graduate level (I already have an unrelated bachelor’s from a secular state school.)

And no, I’m obv. not hoping to become ordained. If I was, I wouldn’t be at a Protestant school. I’m focused more on an academic career path (apologetics or something like that, I hope.)

Not exactly. This professor prefers that we use neutral language both horizontally (to refer to our fellow human beings) AND vertically (to refer to God). In the case of the latter, this usually involves avoiding any third-person personal pronouns whatsoever (For us humans and for our salvation, Jesus came down from heaven…etc.) The horizontally-inclusive language is fairly standard across the board here, but the demand for vertically-inclusive language is something I’ve only seen from this one professor, so far (thank goodness.)

There is an awkwardness issue depending on how the horizontal neutrality is done, but it doesn’t have to be. As I said before, English has not always used masculine pronouns as the generic - go back far enough and there are neuter pronouns that did this job, but we dropped them along the way. Eliminating pronouns altogether is silly because they serve a useful function. It feels more natural for me to say “him or her” or just “their” than it does to say “him” if I know I could be talking about a woman - this was just the way I learned English and it’s the way more and more people are learning English. If you want to ascribe it to a particular agenda, that’s fine, but consider also that if you are talking about a theoretical situation that could involve a man or woman, it would be more accurate to say “him or her” anyway.

I’m curious about your use of the Creed here. Are you just illustrating what it looks like “in practice” the way your professor wants it done, or he is actually rewording the Creed? It would be ridiculous, in my mind, to change historical documents because they’re written the way they are written and that’s that. If you quote a source in your paper, you’re going to quote it the way it was written, not substitute pronouns. So you’re really just irritated that you’re going to have to get used to a relatively new (last 50 years) convention in standard English. These conventions change over time and they’re a pain to get used to if you’re used to an older way of doing things, but that’s all that this is.

Nothing compared to living in northern England and then having the printing press render your whole spelling system “incorrect” in favor of London’s style, which reflected their pronunciation of words and no one else’s.

 

[PiousTemplar]

It’s a Seminary. For all the schools I applied to, I was going to study Theology at the graduate level (I already have an unrelated bachelor’s from a secular state school.)

And no, I’m obv. not hoping to become ordained. If I was, I wouldn’t be at a Protestant school. I’m focused more on an academic career path (apologetics or something like that, I hope.)

One question:

Why the heck would you be studying theology at a heretical seminary, which will probably be contrary to the One Holy Faith?

 

[FatHead]

One question:

Why the heck would you be studying theology at a heretical seminary, which will probably be contrary to the One Holy Faith?

it kinda defeats the purpose of studying theology…

 

[Digitonomy]

I’m only in my second week and haven’t written any papers so far, but I’d really rather not subject myself to this nonsense… the Seminary also has an official statement banning discrimination on the basis of “theological opinion,” so I’m wondering if I can’t use that mushiness to my advantage. I was thinking I could appeal to any of the various Vatican documents banning the use of inclusive language in the liturgy as the religious basis for my disagreement

You’re in your second week and you’re going to get into a showdown over word choice? To each his own, but I suspect you may have bigger battles to wage at some point down the road, and you may be establishing a reputation as an oversensitive whiner by doing this now.

Inclusive language is fairly common in the Church, even in the liturgy, e.g. the beginning of Pauline epistle readings is generally “brothers and sisters.” The key question is generally which inclusive language is appropriate.

For us humans and for our salvation, Jesus came down from heaven

There is nothing theologically wrong with this translation. It’s not as accurate word-for-word as what we use in mass, and this is why the Church opposes excessive monkeying.

If the seminary is forcing you to pray or worship in a way that is truly contrary to the faith, that would be one thing. However, it sounds like your gripe is that some instructors’ style guidelines force you to use language you find awkward. My advice is suck it up and don’t be pig-headed, you’re the student and they’re the professors, you’ll have time to use your own style in good time.

 

[m134e5]

What are you, a Catholic, doing at a Protestant seminary? There are plenty of Catholic universities that offer graduate degrees in theology. This seems very strange. Never mind the inclusive language- that’s the least of your worries. I could never put myself through a theology program that denied the authority of the Pope, denied the Eucharist, denied the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or denied the role of the Saints- and I don’t see how any Catholic who loves their faith could do so.

 

[dconklin]

If this was purely an academic issue of not wanting to write/say as the professor asks, I would say put up with it and do as you see fit when you are a professional. Just because you have to write something in a paper to pass a class does not mean you have to agree with it.

Since this is more than academic thing, what the hell are you doing in a protestant seminary? Did any one in the Church advise this? Are you doing this for a particular dioceses? I sure hope this is not standard operating procedure. I know all four of the priests at my parish studied and studied again at Catholic schools.

I cannot see how someone who has considered studying at the epicenter of Catholic education (I’m a Franciscan alum ) could make a protestant seminary a third option.

If I did not get out the original post what the poster was intending, just disregard my rant. I am easily confused.

 

[Hailz]

One question:

Why the heck would you be studying theology at a heretical seminary, which will probably be contrary to the One Holy Faith?

I studied Theology at a Protestant Bible College… and ended up converting to Catholicism!

Often places like that have people there from so many different denominations that the lectures cover a wide range of views, and the assignment topics are very broad. Sometimes anti-Catholic things were said, but sometimes Catholicism was spoken about very respectfully - the Catechism was even quoted once or twice! At that College, it was perfectly acceptable for students to discuss (in lectures, and in assignments) a view that differed to that of the majority of students - as long as they could back it up! My final assignment was write a ‘Creed’ and even though that particular lecturer disagreed with almost *everything *I wrote, I got one of the highest marks in the class (and hopefully got him thinking a bit about his views!).

 

[Jesus_123]

+Below is the definitive statement from the Vatican clearly delineated for Catholics concerning this grave disordered error/heresy of attempting to redefine the masculine gender of our Holy Triune God in which the Holy See clearly denounces this presumptious sin . . . and the **Holy See **has been very actively fighting against this virulent widespread gross heresy for many years . . .

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

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF], 1995

[In 1995 the **Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued “secret norms” to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (of the United States) to guide their revision of the Lectionary used at Mass. Prior to this time the Congregation had REJECTED two versions of Scripture (the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] and the Revised New American Bible [NAB]) for use in the Liturgy,

**owing to the unacceptable use of inclusive language. **
These norms remained “secret,” even from most bishops, until just prior to the June 1997 meeting of the bishops’ conference. This meeting approved, by subsequent mail ballot, a version of the Lectionary agreed upon by a working committee of Vatican officials and US bishops in March 1997. This Lectionary conforms to the previously issued Norms. …]

1. The Church must always seek to convey accurately in translation the texts she has inherited from the :bible1: Biblical, liturgical, and patristic tradition and instruct the faithful in their proper meaning.
2. The **first principle **with respect to :bible1: Biblical texts is that of fidelity, maximum possible fidelity to the words of the text. Biblical translations should be faithful to the original language and to the internal truth of the inspired text, in such a way as to respect the language used by the human author in order to be understood by his intended reader. Every concept in the original text should be translated in its context. Above all, translations must be faithful to the sense of Sacred :bible1: Scripture understood as a unity and totality, which finds its center in Christ, the Son of God incarnate (cf. “Dei Verbum” III and IV), as confessed in the Creeds of the Church.
3. The translation of ** Scripture** should faithfully reflect the :bible1: **Word of God **in the original human languages. It must be listened to in its time-conditioned, at times even inelegant mode of human expression

without “correction” or “improvement” in service of modern sensitivities

INDENTa) In liturgical translations or readings where the text is very uncertain or in which the meaning is very much disputed, the translation should be made with due regard to the Neo-Vulgate.

b) If explanations are deemed to be pastorally necessary or appropriate, they should be given in editorial notes, commentaries, homilies, etc.

4/l.** The natural gender of “personae” in the Bible,** including the human author of various texts where evident, must not be changed insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/2. The grammatical gender of God, pagan deities, and angels according to the original texts **must not be changed **insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/3. In fidelity to the inspired Word of God, the traditional Biblical usage for naming the persons of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to be retained.

4/4. Similarly, in keeping with the Church’s tradition, the feminine and neuter pronouns are not to be used to refer to the person of the Holy Spirit.

4/5. There shall be NO systematic substitution of the masculine pronoun or possessive adjective to refer to God in correspondence to the original text.

4/6. Kinship terms that are clearly gender specific, as indicated by the context, should be respected in translation.

To read the rest of the Holy See’s Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith’s publication please cllick on the following link:

:compcoff: Link: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFNORMS.HTM

[Adoremus Bulletin, III, No. 5, July/August 1997]

---

Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210[/INDENT][/INDENT]

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . in dedication to our Father Who Art in Heaven+​

. . . all for Jesus+

​

 

[Jesus_123]

+Jbach . . .

In all peace and charity . . . the problem you have personally is not the seminary . . . it is you . . . you have made a grave error in choosing a seminary . . . and you need to own up to your seriously faulty willful choice and leave . . . for . . . truly . . . the so-called “seminary” you have chosen is neither Christian nor Catholic . . . but a school for promulgating a heresy and a false religion trying to disguise itself as Christian . . . having long since wandered away from the truth . . .

Pack your bags and leave . . . for the school you are in contact with is not of the **Lord **. . . but rather is filled with toxic heresy . . . and utterly untrustworthy . . . and I’m sure that the gravely serious error and sin of embracing “inclusive language” isn’t by any means the only heresy and error being taught there . . .

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . Lord guide and direct this misguided soul+
. . . to Thy provision for the health and good of his soul+​

 

[jbach]

You’re in your second week and you’re going to get into a showdown over word choice? To each his own, but I suspect you may have bigger battles to wage at some point down the road, and you may be establishing a reputation as an oversensitive whiner by doing this now.

If the seminary is forcing you to pray or worship in a way that is truly contrary to the faith, that would be one thing. However, it sounds like your gripe is that some instructors’ style guidelines force you to use language you find awkward. My advice is suck it up and don’t be pig-headed, you’re the student and they’re the professors, you’ll have time to use your own style in good time.

Well, the horizontal inclusive language (expanding all references to “man” and “men” to explicitly include “men and women”) is something I can live with, even if I think it’s a case of a solution in search of a problem, not to mention being awkward. I will make a big stink, however, about refraining from using masculine pronouns to refer to God, as I think this does tinker with an article of faith; namely the idea that God’s revelation is a revelation TO man (er, humans), therefore we have no right to change the masculine pronouns which God the Father (as well as Jesus) used in doing so.

 

[Digitonomy]

I will make a big stink, however, about refraining from using masculine pronouns to refer to God, as I think this does tinker with an article of faith; namely the idea that God’s revelation is a revelation TO man (er, humans), therefore we have no right to change the masculine pronouns which God the Father (as well as Jesus) used in doing so.

You’re talking about the words Jesus actually spoke, or merely the verses of scripture? If it’s scripture verses, wouldn’t you be quoting from a particular translation (probably one of the more inclusive language versions approved by the professor), in which case the verses are what they are in that English translation? Or do you mean your own translations from the Greek & Hebrew?

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?

Don’t worry about those on this forum who think you’ve fallen into grave error by attending a Protestant seminary; you might as well just admit to them right now that you are doing so because you hate God and the Church.

I assume that at least part of why you were willing to attend a Protestant seminary is the intellectual challenge of studying outside your comfort zone, the ability to better understand those of another faith, etc. Getting back to my opinion, I think following the professors’ instructions is pretty consistent with following that path, however unpleasant you may find it for a few months. But if you’re unwilling, as you seem to be, I would speak to an adviser or an older student or someone who understands the politics of your seminary. He can tell you whether your effort is doomed to certain failure, or if not what approach has the greatest chance of success, or the least negative aftereffects. And if it’s an adviser or someone else in an official capacity (or friend of one of the professors), he may be able to intercede on your behalf.

Good luck, whatever you do!

 

[jbach]

You’re talking about the words Jesus actually spoke, or merely the verses of scripture? If it’s scripture verses, wouldn’t you be quoting from a particular translation (probably one of the more inclusive language versions approved by the professor), in which case the verses are what they are in that English translation? Or do you mean your own translations from the Greek & Hebrew?

Well, the NRSV is the preferred translation here which, while using a lot of inclusive language in general, leaves intact the traditional masculine pronouns which reference God. I noticed today, though, in class that one of my professors, while reading aloud a verse which was up on the screen for everyone to see, changed these to neuters or removed them entirely, so even there I’m not sure if I’m safe.

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. Short answer: no one is ever allowed to change Father or Son to something else. The masculine referents are part of Divine Revelation and therefore we have no right to change them. (see this part of The Ratzinger Report, starting under the headline “In defense of nature”, for the Pope’s view on the matter)

Again, I can live with inclusive language with respect to men and women, but when people start asking me to remove “The Father” and “The Son” from the Trinitarian formula, I have to draw the line. Fortunately, as the above links show, I believe this is in line with the Church’s own position.

Getting back to my opinion, I think following the professors’ instructions is pretty consistent with following that path, however unpleasant you may find it for a few months. But if you’re unwilling, as you seem to be, I would speak to an adviser or an older student or someone who understands the politics of your seminary. He can tell you whether your effort is doomed to certain failure, or if not what approach has the greatest chance of success, or the least negative aftereffects. And if it’s an adviser or someone else in an official capacity (or friend of one of the professors), he may be able to intercede on your behalf.

I know another Catholic guy here, who’s in his third year. I’ve been planning on asking him when I see him in a few days. I’m sure this issue is just as much a bee in his bonnet as it is in mine, so I’ll be interested to see what he says.

Good luck, whatever you do!

Thank you!