D
drpmjhess
Guest
I quite agree! But so many of the songs composed in the last forty years are inane anyway (I’m prejudiced, as I sing in Latin Masses every week at 11:00 with our Schola Cantorum).
- Status
B
benedictgal
Guest
Then how can you have such a skewed view about the male pronoun. That does not compute? We believe as we pray. Your arguments certainly do not make sense in light of how you pray.
Furthermore, you never fully responded to my argument, which means that you do not have a real response since this new “fad” that has crept up into liturgy is based on someone’s personal idiosyncracies and not on any traditional liturgical or biblical theology.
P
Phemie
Guest
We wouldn’t have this problem if the Gloria had been translated properly in the first place.
D
drforjc
Guest
I think that vertical inclusive language is inappropriate in any song, old or new. “Rain Down,” for instance, follows the pattern of avoiding male pronouns for God. It is contrary to the tradition of the church and simply should not be done regardless of whether the song is old or new.
J
JimG
Guest
The Gloria is part of the Liturgy. It should not be changed.
M
mdgspencer
Guest
Some years ago a priest in Australia was using a formula like to one identified in the message below when baptizing. Finally, the bishop found out about it, and the bishop had to announce that all the baptisms given by this priest were invalid, and that the people “baptized” should arrange to be baptized again and validly. The news report did not say what happened to the priest, but it was great disgrace, appearing in the news.
The parish I used to go to (18 years ago now) before I moved had a priest who was very pro-feminism who would say “in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier”.
P
pprimeau1976
Guest
No, we would have another problem. Wouldn’t it be translated as “peace on Earth to men of good will” I am not fluent in Latin, but wouldn’t et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis be translated this way? Or can hominibus just just be translated as “people”?
P
pprimeau1976
Guest
I know that! But people at my parish think that the “Worship Commission” can override the USCCB and even the Vatican.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
“Hominibus” can just as well be rendered as “people,” unless the intention for using “men” is to be archaic or exclusionary.
B
benedictgal
Guest
The problem is that you seem to be very adament about inclusive language. How would you take the word “fishermen”? Are you just as adament that it should be “fisherpeople”? I am not trying to be disrespectful; however, you have made some comments in your posts that lead me to think that perhaps you may not be too inclined to look at the Church’s tradition regarding the Fatherhood of God. Pope Benedict has an excellent article on the subject. Unfortunately, because I have to rush off to an emergency animal shelter board meeting, I’ll post it tomorrow (at least the parts that are germaine to this discussion). Perhaps this will shed some light for you and give you something to seriously ponder.
I do note that the most vociferous “inclusive language” arguments come from the folks from your generation, which is interesting because you were the ones brought up before the Second Vatican Council. There are some of us who came along after seem to follow a different train of thought.
The other issue at hand is that we tend to make the “feminism” movement more important than even the texts of sacred words to the point that the movement outweighs the original wording. I am a woman and I don’t find the word “hominibus” at all offensive, and, I am much younger than you are. I do not allow myself to be tossed about by every fanciful wind of thought. I hold myself to the true standard set forth by Jesus, Himself.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
B
benedictgal
Guest
No, they cannot. They cannot be inserting their own idiosyncracies into the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. They have to stick to the approved (however faulty they may be) translations that are in current use.
Cardinal Arinze was very adamant about the matter of idiosyncracies in the Mass when he made his address to a group of liturgists. You’ll find the text at www.adoremus.org under the link to Cardinal Arinze’s speeches and documents. I have to rush to an emergency animal shelter meeting, if not, I would have posted the quote.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
I am adamant. It would be arrogant in the extreme to insist on referring to a boatload of fishing women as “fishermen” unless they insisted on being designated by that term. It would be arrogant of women to insist on referring to me as a “ballerina” were I a ballet dancer (which in fact I am not).
I don’t find “hominibus” offensive. What I find offensive is insisting on rendering this Latin word for “humans” or “humanity” as “men” if another term is available, and forcing that rendering on women, unless they themselves welcome it and ask for it. Inclusive language may seem foreign at first, but we can easily come to accept it. My theological college would in fact not award a PhD. if a dissertation were deliberately written in exclusive language.
J
JimG
Guest
That is a sad state of affairs. A PhD would be denied to a person who wrote in standard English!
Wasn’t it John Donne who wrote “No Man Is An Island”? I don’t think he intended to exclude women, in any case; but it would be a shame to have to go back and translate English literature using contemporary “inclusive” standards for a language that was never exclusive in the first place.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
No, John Donne’s English doesn’t need to be translated. And at my church we sing Latin as it is written (e.g., hominibus). It’s when an archaic text is translated into a modern language that it should be rendered inclusively, unless the reading audience collectively agrees to an exclusivist translation.
Incidentally, “Amen” does not need to be rendered “a-people,” in case you were wondering!
J
JimG
Guest
Personally, I’ve always been bothered by the term “chairperson.” To me, a chairperson is someone who works in a chair manufacturing factory, while a “chairman” is a committee leader of either gender!
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Or “chairwoman.”
D
drpmjhess
Guest
I don’t know what “fad” you are talking about. I’ll respond when you explain the fad to me.
P
pprimeau1976
Guest
It used to be you could refer to a man who dated alot as a ladies’ man. Now he’s a person’s person.
If you can name the comedian who made that comment…SHAME ON YOU!!
J
JimG
Guest
It seems to me that what is now termed “inclusive” language turns out to be in actual practice, more exclusive, and truly more divisive, than Standard English. To use a trivial example given previously, a “chairman” can be of either gender. (The word is not, after all, pronounced chairMAN, nor is it intended for use exclusively for one gender.) But a “chairwoman” can be only one gender. No woman objects to being called a human or a woman just because the offending root “-man” is part of the word.
When it comes to liturgical language and biblical translations, however, the use of artificially constructed “inclusive” language can have serious adverse theological consequences.
The Adoremus website has a few articles on the subject, including the ones linked below. I would encourage anyone seriously interested in the issue to peruse a few of these.
adoremus.org/FeminismLanguage.html
Feminism and the Language Wars of Religion
adoremus.org/0307NewsViews.html
In Pursuit of English Scripture
adoremus.org/5-696-Whitehead.html
The Inclusive Language Balancing Act
“This kind of feminist-inspired language, it has been cogently argued by more than a few observers, is nothing but a highly artificial construct dictated by a fundamentally anti-Christian modern radical ideology. It may sometimes seem to have acquired status as now acceptable English usage, at least in some quarters, but this is mostly because of the enormous, relentless, and continuing pressures of feminist ideology in our contemporary society.”
When it comes to liturgical language and biblical translations, however, the use of artificially constructed “inclusive” language can have serious adverse theological consequences.
The Adoremus website has a few articles on the subject, including the ones linked below. I would encourage anyone seriously interested in the issue to peruse a few of these.
adoremus.org/FeminismLanguage.html
Feminism and the Language Wars of Religion
adoremus.org/0307NewsViews.html
In Pursuit of English Scripture
adoremus.org/5-696-Whitehead.html
The Inclusive Language Balancing Act
“This kind of feminist-inspired language, it has been cogently argued by more than a few observers, is nothing but a highly artificial construct dictated by a fundamentally anti-Christian modern radical ideology. It may sometimes seem to have acquired status as now acceptable English usage, at least in some quarters, but this is mostly because of the enormous, relentless, and continuing pressures of feminist ideology in our contemporary society.”
- Status