Inclusive language and a liberal order


#1

**Hi, **
There is someone at work who says she uses inclusive language when she attends mass (which is not that often). Also, she does not use the word “Lord” during mass either. :bigyikes: So, what is inclusive language? How do I argue against it?

Also, this woman is a 3rd order, and the order she belongs to is all for women priests, homosexuals in the priesthood, inclusive language, and any other liberal idea you can think of. Do I have a responsibility to notify the order’s local diocese about their less-than-Catholic views?

**Thanks and :blessyou: **


#2

[quote=larabella79]**Hi, **
There is someone at work who says she uses inclusive language when she attends mass (which is not that often). Also, she does not use the word “Lord” during mass either. :bigyikes: So, what is inclusive language? How do I argue against it?

Also, this woman is a 3rd order, and the order she belongs to is all for women priests, homosexuals in the priesthood, inclusive language, and any other liberal idea you can think of. Do I have a responsibility to notify the order’s local diocese about their less-than-Catholic views?

**Thanks and :blessyou: **
[/quote]

I would and I’d do it in writing, using non-judgmental words (as in calling her a dissident) and not telling the Bishop things like “get back to me with what your are going to do about it”. Just state the facts of what she has said to you. You might pastorally talk about how you understand this to be contrary to Church Teaching and site your references. In this case, if you are incorrect in your interpretatin, you are free to ask the Bishop to enlighten you on your misunderstanding.

Personally, I’ve done something similar. I specifically told the Bishop that no response was necessary as I trusted his judgment and decision on what to do or not do.


#3

Inclusive language is taking the sacred words of scripture and modifying them to make the more palatible to modern society. It generally starts by adding “and sisters” everywhere the Bible says “brothers.” This is already done in the NAB, which is the version used for US readings. (You probably recognize every NT reading at Mass starting with the words “brothers and sisters,” when the original language uses just “brothers.”) From there, it moves on to replacing “disciples” and “apostles” with the word “friends.” It continues by starting to avoid words like “Lord” and “sin” because those words may make people feel inferior or guilty. Still, it progresses until the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” become the “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier.” Finally, inclusive language reaches its ultimate conclusion when God Himself is referred to as some kind of all inclusive, gender neutral, non-judgemental “force.” As bad as this is, some extreme feminists don’t let the atrocity end there, and they actually push to have God recognized as a “goddess.”

To argue against it, I would start by appealling to their sense of pride in their own intellect. Explain how everyone recognizes that when we say “brother,” we do not mean “only males.” Just as the hu***man*** race is not just men. Explain how inclusive language is an insult to the intelligence of the women in the congregation. By using it, feminists are unknowingly saying, “Of course most women are too stupid to realize the true meaning of the words, so we’re going to dumb it down real good for you so you don’t feel bad.”


#4

[quote=forthright]Inclusive language is taking the sacred words of scripture and modifying them to make the more palatible to modern society. It generally starts by adding “and sisters” everywhere the Bible says “brothers.” This is already done in the NAB, which is the version used for US readings. (You probably recognize every NT reading at Mass starting with the words “brothers and sisters,” when the original language uses just “brothers.”) From there, it moves on to replacing “disciples” and “apostles” with the word “friends.” It continues by starting to avoid words like “Lord” and “sin” because those words may make people feel inferior or guilty. Still, it progresses until the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” become the “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier.” Finally, inclusive language reaches its ultimate conclusion when God Himself is referred to as some kind of all inclusive, gender neutral, non-judgemental “force.” As bad as this is, some extreme feminists don’t let the atrocity end there, and they actually push to have God recognized as a “goddess.”

To argue against it, I would start by appealling to their sense of pride in their own intellect. Explain how everyone recognizes that when we say “brother,” we do not mean “only males.” Just as the hu***man*** race is not just men. Explain how inclusive language is an insult to the intelligence of the women in the congregation. By using it, feminists are unknowingly saying, “Of course most women are too stupid to realize the true meaning of the words, so we’re going to dumb it down real good for you so you don’t feel bad.”
[/quote]

Yes. Inclusive language is a virus that spreads and mutates. It is very disturbing and must be resisted. :mad:


#5

[quote=larabella79]**Hi, **
There is someone at work who says she uses inclusive language when she attends mass (which is not that often). Also, she does not use the word “Lord” during mass either. :bigyikes: So, what is inclusive language? How do I argue against it?

**Also, this woman is a 3rd order, and the order she belongs to is all for women priests, homosexuals in the priesthood, inclusive language, and any other liberal idea you can think of. Do I have a responsibility to notify the order’s local diocese about their less-than-Catholic views?****Thanks and :blessyou: **
[/quote]

Someone else has already explained what “inclusive” language is, and Mickey is absolutely right: it must be resisted.

It is very telling to me that she is a 3rd order but does not go to Mass that often. What is the point of being in an order, if not to bring one closer to God, and to be in service to God? If she is missing Mass for less than good reasons (which I would suspect, given that you say that she doesn’t go often), then she is committing serious sin. She adds to that sin by being a bad example to others, as some might assume that she knows something (by virtue of belonging to an order) that they don’t: she is giving credibility to not going to Mass. This is an order that is seriously screwed up. I would write to your bishop so he can know what is going on in his diocese, but I’m not sure he can do a whole lot about it: I think religious orders generally are under their own rule, not the diocesan bishop. (I could be wrong here…someone correct me if that’s incorrect.) What is the order?
I doubt that this order will prosper, as it sounds simply like an institution of dissent. Often, you’ll find that these dissenting orders tend to be older and dying out (in their 50s and older), while the orthodox orders are increasing.

Words mean things. There is a reason that Jesus used the term “Father”. To suggest that gender is meaningless is to deny the very meaning of the design of our bodies. I would suggest that this woman read some books on the “Theology of the Body”–Christopher West has CD’s and books that will help her, if she’s willing to listen. If not, become familiar with it yourself, and you’ll be better able to defend against this nonsense. And the kingdom of heaven is just that—a kingdom. It ain’t a democracy. We do indeed have a Lord, not a Fellow Person. Your friend has bought the modernist view that reduces everything to power—who has it; how do I get it; who has more than I do. How sad and pitiful this outlook is, and how stark in contrast with Jesus’ humility and teaching. How narcissistic…


#6

[quote=forthright] … Explain how inclusive language is an insult to the intelligence of the women in the congregation. By using it, feminists are unknowingly saying, “Of course most women are too stupid to realize the true meaning of the words, so we’re going to dumb it down real good for you so you don’t feel bad.”
[/quote]

That is your take on that? Hmmm
If everyone already knows that “brothers” means “brothers & sisters” how would actually using those words affect the message at all?

You may not agree that someone feels excluded but that might not change the fact that they do feel that way and telling them to simply suck it up is hardly a charitable solution.
I mean the language has already been changed from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to the vernacular to make it more useful so how is this different?


#7

[quote=steveandersen]That is your take on that? Hmmm
If everyone already knows that “brothers” means “brothers & sisters” how would actually using those words affect the message at all?

You may not agree that someone feels excluded but that might not change the fact that they do feel that way and telling them to simply suck it up is hardly a charitable solution.
I mean the language has already been changed from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to the vernacular to make it more useful so how is this different?
[/quote]

Because they do it at every instance, even those where it may not mean “brother and sister”. There are some cases in the OT where specific prophecies about Christ are obscured because instead of saying “he” it now says “they” (in that annoying third person plural in a singular spot usage). I see absolutely no point in changing the wording further from the original just so a few people can feel more “included”.

By the way…I’m a woman.

PS - I also hate that they changed the songs…it’s difficult when your singing along with words you know “He will raise…” and everyone else is looking at the book singing “the Lord will raise”


#8

[quote=Sherlock]I would write to your bishop so he can know what is going on in his diocese, but I’m not sure he can do a whole lot about it: I think religious orders generally are under their own rule, not the diocesan bishop. (I could be wrong here…someone correct me if that’s incorrect.) What is the order?
[/quote]

Peace be with you!

To my knowledge people in religious orders are under the authority of the bishop, even though they aren’t necessarily part of the diocese. Every clergy (and lay) member is under the authority of a bishop. If they were not, then there would be no reason to say that we are in communion.

In Christ,
Rand


#9

I believe what you say is true for the most part, Dragon Reborn (BTW Martin’s ASoIaF is the better read). There is at least one exception to this rule: the wacky Jesuits. I have 2 friends at Creighton U. and they told me the Bishop was mad at the university for inviting a pro-gay speaker. He couldn’t do anything, though, because the Jesuits are ONLY under the authority of the pope.


#10

[quote=steveandersen]That is your take on that? Hmmm
If everyone already knows that “brothers” means “brothers & sisters” how would actually using those words affect the message at all?

You may not agree that someone feels excluded but that might not change the fact that they do feel that way and telling them to simply suck it up is hardly a charitable solution.
I mean the language has already been changed from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to the vernacular to make it more useful so how is this different?
[/quote]

I think the issue is it is driven by agenda and not driven by greater clarity in Scripture. For instance, there are true translation issues that would justify the use of “brothers and sisters” as the original word was an inclusive brethren or that the only reason “brothers” was used was because the audience was 100% male as in conversation w/ Apostles only. These are matters that should be left to authoritive Biblical scholars to decipher.

However, there is an agenda that is motivated by politics. Scripture and Church Teaching is no place for politics as there exclusive focus should be on clarity towards Truth.

The debate about referring to God in feminine terms is folly. God is greater than gender. He is not limited by our faulty and limited conception of the masculine and feminine. These are limitations and God is without limit. In fact, He told us as much when He said that in Genesis “God created man in his image; in the divine image He created him; male and female he created them”. In this context, it took male and female together to be in His image. Without the other, we are just a partial image. However, HE chose to reveal Himself primarily in masculine attributes. Why? Who knows? But who are we to question the One of Infinite Wisdom and Knowledge?

Concurrently, look upon the Church with the Holiness that Christ calls us to look on the mystical Church. It is because of the Teachings, Hope and Promises for our Salvation of the mystical Church that we are to love the Church as Christ loves the Church. Remember that Christ and the Apostles always referred to the Church w/ feminine attributes (ala Bride of Christ). Suddenly, you see the complementarity of male and female with regard to God’s revelation of Himself. Why? Who knows? But who are we to question the One of Infinite Wisdom and Knowledge.


#11

Absolutely! And then there is Our Lady, the Mother of God. The feminine attributes of our faith are rich and meaningful. But it’s never enough for the radical feminists. They are a dangerous bunch! :mad:


#12

[quote=Mickey]Absolutely! And then there is Our Lady, the Mother of God. The feminine attributes of our faith are rich and meaningful. But it’s never enough for the radical feminists. They are a dangerous bunch! :mad:
[/quote]

Well now that’s an interesting point.

Feminists should applaud the Catholic Church for the way she honors Mary.

I guess Mary isn’t “woman” enough for them because she was not sufficiently confused about her role in society. :stuck_out_tongue:

Funny thing is the best known liberal feminist icon we have now in the US is a woman who got where she is by riding her husband’s coattails.

Meanwhile, I think the “prophecy” of Jethro Tull is coming to light… “In the beginning man created God, and in man’s image created he Him…” Instead of recognizing ourselves as being in the divine image, “he made them male and female,” and using those attributes to give Him glory, we have decided that since we have self-induced identity crises we must give God one, too.

These are the end times, for sure. We are heading for the end so we can loop around to a new beginning. :thumbsup:

Alan


#13

[quote=Sherlock]Someone else has already explained what “inclusive” language is, and Mickey is absolutely right: it must be resisted.

It is very telling to me that she is a 3rd order but does not go to Mass that often. What is the point of being in an order, if not to bring one closer to God, and to be in service to God? If she is missing Mass for less than good reasons (which I would suspect, given that you say that she doesn’t go often), then she is committing serious sin. She adds to that sin by being a bad example to others, as some might assume that she knows something (by virtue of belonging to an order) that they don’t: she is giving credibility to not going to Mass. This is an order that is seriously screwed up. I would write to your bishop so he can know what is going on in his diocese, but I’m not sure he can do a whole lot about it: I think religious orders generally are under their own rule, not the diocesan bishop. (I could be wrong here…someone correct me if that’s incorrect.) What is the order?
I doubt that this order will prosper, as it sounds simply like an institution of dissent. Often, you’ll find that these dissenting orders tend to be older and dying out (in their 50s and older), while the orthodox orders are increasing.

Words mean things. There is a reason that Jesus used the term “Father”. To suggest that gender is meaningless is to deny the very meaning of the design of our bodies. I would suggest that this woman read some books on the “Theology of the Body”–Christopher West has CD’s and books that will help her, if she’s willing to listen. If not, become familiar with it yourself, and you’ll be better able to defend against this nonsense. And the kingdom of heaven is just that—a kingdom. It ain’t a democracy. We do indeed have a Lord, not a Fellow Person. Your friend has bought the modernist view that reduces everything to power—who has it; how do I get it; who has more than I do. How sad and pitiful this outlook is, and how stark in contrast with Jesus’ humility and teaching. How narcissistic…
[/quote]

She is in the Benedictines, and her favorite person is Sister(?) Joan Chittister. I believe this woman is in the Benedictine order. And oh, you should have heard her rail against Pope B16. She said, “I hate him, I hate him. I hated him when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, and I hate him now. I was so upset when he took the name Benedict, because that is my order.” You should have heard the venom in her voice. I am not good with comebacks, but if I were I would have thought to tell her how un-Christian that sentiment is - certainly not very God-like. :tsktsk:

By the way, she is not a friend, she is a co-worker. I have absolutely nothing against her, we just don’t know each other that well. Besides, if this is her view on Catholicism and the Pope, I don’t think our friendship would last very long.

Also, I totally agree with you and everyone else on this thread who spoke about power. Changing the wording is just that - a power play. Unfortunately, they (the feminists) are up against God and His servants. My vote is for God to win every round.:thumbsup:

:blessyou:


#14

[quote=forthright]Inclusive language is taking the sacred words of scripture and modifying them to make the more palatible to modern society. It generally starts by adding “and sisters” everywhere the Bible says “brothers.” This is already done in the NAB, which is the version used for US readings.

Thanks forthright. That is a really great explanantion.

I have a NAB because someone said is the closest to the Protestant version of the bible in wording, and it would help when discussing it. I am wondering now if I should purchase another bible, perhaps St. Ignatius, because I have heard a lot of good things about it. I really don’t want inclusive language in my bible. I didn’t even realize the change.

:blessyou:
[/quote]


#15

[quote=steveandersen]That is your take on that? Hmmm
If everyone already knows that “brothers” means “brothers & sisters” how would actually using those words affect the message at all?

You may not agree that someone feels excluded but that might not change the fact that they do feel that way and telling them to simply suck it up is hardly a charitable solution.
I mean the language has already been changed from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to the vernacular to make it more useful so how is this different?
[/quote]

Luther added the word “alone” to Ephesians 2:8 in order to justify his theology. He readily admitted that the original text did not use that word, but he added it anyway because he thought it belonged. Look where that got us.

We should not be changing the text to fit our personal inclinations. Translating from one language to another is good, but we should make every effort to not tamper with the text. Just as Luther’s change snowballed into the current Protestant chaos, authorizing the addition of “and sisters” will ultimately snowball and lead many (not all, but many) into the “God is a hermaphrodite” heresy I described in my original post.


#16

As a quick check, I’ve heard you can check Psalms 1 to see if inclusive language is used in the translation. If Psalms 1 starts as “Blessed are they” or “Happy are those,” then inclusive language is used (at least to some small extent). If Psalms 1 starts as “Blessed is the man,” then you have good confidence that inclusive language has been avoided.


#17

[quote=Lady Cygnus]Because they do it at every instance, even those where it may not mean “brother and sister”. There are some cases in the OT where specific prophecies about Christ are obscured because instead of saying “he” it now says “they” (in that annoying third person plural in a singular spot usage).
[/quote]

That bugs me too

[quote=Lady Cygnus]I see absolutely no point in changing the wording further from the original just so a few people can feel more “included”.
[/quote]

As long as the meaning isn’t changed I don’t see a problem because
(1) If you’re suppose to spread the word why not use every tool you have?
(2) You catch more flies with honey

[quote=Lady Cygnus]By the way…I’m a woman.
[/quote]

and probably a very fine one at that

[quote=Lady Cygnus]PS - I also hate that they changed the songs…it’s difficult when your singing along with words you know “He will raise…” and everyone else is looking at the book singing “the Lord will raise”
[/quote]

Changing the cadence of the prayers really bugged me but then I realized that it forced me to pay more attention to the words :o

sometimes a little change is good :wink:


#18

Sometimes it’s good to resist change not for the sake of the change itself, but as a staunch resistance to the ideology that the change embodies even if that particular change in and of itself is harmless.


#19

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.