Inclusive language


Please cast your vote.


Where’s the poll?:confused:


Priests should not be changing words in the lectionary when they are reading the Gospel.


Inclusive language cannot help the faithful. God gave us His word just as it is written in the Bible. Why should we be so presumptuous as to think that He didn’t mean what He said?


P.S.–I should clarify that there is a distinction between horizontal inclusive language and vertical inclusive language. Horizontal deals with humanity. Words such as “mankind” are changed to “humankind” and phrases such as “for us men and for our salvation” are changed to “for us and for our salvation”.

Vertical deals with the incarnation or things of God. “Our Father” would be translated as “Our Father/Mother” or instead of Jesus becoming “man” He would become “human”.

I think that both types come from the radical feminist agenda.

Bad, bad, bad! :mad:


Amen! We do not bow down to the secular humanism and political correctness of the world. The Church is here to evangelize the world.


Why should we be so presumptuous…

…as to change ANYTHING…

[SIGN]What he said![/SIGN]




I think inclusive language is not good, simply for the fact that the Bible is essentially a historical document.

People would most certainly balk at the idea of changing something like the Declaration of Independence to have inclusive language (“all men are created equal”). Something like that would be stupid and fidgeting with the authenticity of something historically significant, negating the context just for the sake of modernity.

This should go the same for the Bible. These individual books were written in specific times in history with specific contexts. Changing their language would not just be disrespecting the writer, but disrespecting and denigrating the whole era the book was based on.


How about the option - inclusive language is just plain stupid and insulting to everyone involved?




How old is this radical feminist agenda? If I could cite examples of inclusive language that predate this movement, would that refute your argument?


How old is this radical feminist agenda? If I could cite examples of inclusive language that predate this movement, would that refute your argument?

Probably not. Why? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Just because examples might predate a RFA movement does not mean that the movement did not ‘coopt’ these examples. Further, it doesn’t mean that somehow the ones responsible for pushing for ‘inclusion’ somehow completely bypassed or ignored the RFA movement by ‘leaping backward’ into these’ predated’ examples, so that the RFA movement had ‘nothing to do’ with inclusion.

And nothing ‘just growed like Topsy’. Not even radical feminists. Things do not spring up out of nowhere (well, except the recipe for 1970s spinach dip). So having examples of inclusive language that predate the start of a movement would be a logical extension.


I’m not sure that I put forth an argument to refute. My heart tells me that it is the Church bending to a secular agenda.

Tantum ergo has responded aptly. :slight_smile:


It sounded like you were arguing that both types of inclusive language come from the radical feminist agenda. If that is not your claim, please clarify. And while we’re at it, the vertical and horizontal categories that I have recently encountered still confuse me a bit - are they meant to be comprehensive, or are there other categories of inclusive language which are neither vertical nor horizontal?

[quote=Tantum ergo]Just because examples might predate a RFA movement does not mean that the movement did not ‘coopt’ these examples…

I think if examples of inclusive language can be found in the Church well before the start of the “radical feminist agenda” then we can reasonably conclude that these examples did not “come from” this agenda. Likewise, it would be reasonable to suggest (although nearly impossible to prove) that similar more recent examples of inclusive language in the Church may not come from this agenda, but simply be holdovers in usage, etc.


All the responses seem to be implying the question had to do with scriptures.

I took it to mean “Is inclusive language good for the Church?”

So I said some is good. For example: “Brothers and sisters, let us pray together in the words our saviour gave us: Our Father…”


Changing the male aspect of Jesus Christ in 1000 years could be taken as if HE never came.


It could be argued that language shapes thought. In fact, I’m pretty sure it HAS been argued.

So, if this “gender specific” language, like saying “mankind” and “us men” shapes us, and so obviously excludes women from God’s plan and His Grace, then WHY the observations that there are far more women than men attending Mass and participating in lay ministries? Seems to me you can’t have your cake and eat it to. If you’re going to change the language, then there needs to be a reason. The reason (generally) is that the language excludes women. If women are so harmed by this exclusion, then why do they outnumber men at Mass?

Is it because we’re trying super hard to get God to notice us?
Is it because most people are sensible enough to know that “mankind” includes women, too? Sheesh!

God used the word “mankind”. Either he meant “all humans” OR we women are really going to be ticked off when we die- and in both cases, no amount of word tinkering is going to change God’s plan. (Personally, I’m betting on option one :thumbsup: )



Yeah. But I don’t feel bad when I hear the feminine of “worthy” in, “Lord, I am not worthy.” It just comes intuitively to people and I don’t think Jesus minds, or the centurion who originally said that. :wink: It’s just that not a word should be changed because there’s no authority.


Bravo, you smart and wise woman! But don’t you know the radical feminists are such sensitive women that if they don’t hear their own pronoun constantly recited, they feel left out? Poor things…

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