www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Inclusive language

The following is an excerpt from the "Statement on Feminism, Language and Liturgy" as set forth by the Catholic "Women for Faith and Family":

...we oppose the systematic elimination from Scripture translations, liturgical texts, hymns, homilies and general usage of 'man' as a generic. The claim that the language is "sexist", and that such changes are required as a sensitive pastoral response to women is false. We believe that the symbolic effect of mandating such changes in the language and practice of the Catholic Church is negative and confusing, effectively undermining the authority of the Church and her hierarchy.

Hmmm? Interesting isn't it? I wonder if the revisionists were aware of this perspective. This statement was published in 1995!

Any thoughts?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Bravo and carry on! Include that in the letter, which I hope that you are writing!

-Uspenije

Recluse,

As my aunt Nora would often say. There are women of faith and then there are those nuns. Most nuns today hate to even dress up looking like nuns, habits and all. The last nun I met was wearing a sheer blouse and suit. I had to look the other way or I might be led to sin. The statement you quote seems to come from a bunch of real women living real women lives. They are mamas and wives. They know work, how to raise children (and give birth), put up with men!, worship God, sing, help people, love us guys, talk up a storm, know when to put us in the dog house when we've been bad. If they can have eyes in the back of their head (ha, ha) and deal with teens and their carrying on, I am sure they can pick up on when the Bible is being twisted.

Eddie

I am a single woman and I find this statement to be extremely offensive. Taken to its logical conclusion, you would believe that all the VIRGIN martyrs were not REAL women because they were neither married nor mothers. Do you perhaps believe that sainthood for women entails remaining "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen making pirohis"?

Bravo! We need to be extremely cautious that in our efforts to combat feminism we do not go to the opposite end and bash women. Some women find fulfillment in bearing children and serving men but others are independent, resourceful, and intellectually on par with the best of male theologians. And I am NOT a radical feminist for thinking this!

Sophia,

I didn't mean to make any offense. I was comparing women (in this case married women) from nuns. If you are married woman then one should be a married woman and live up to it. if you are single you should live a sp;iritual life as a Christian woman. If you are a nun you should be a nun. Saints come from all walks of life The question I had was why do nuns want to be or act differently from what they were called to? I wasn't asking you to become a barefoot and pregnant woman stying in the kitchen making pirohi. I honor women who can multitask and still remain in their calling. But why do nuns seem like they are the only women who hate being who they are? I knew one nun who frequented the bars. I wasn't asking you to take what i said to a logical conclusion. only to wonder why a married woman (I didn't include single women who were not nuns) can live up to her mission in life but a nun who is professed to act and live other than the calling of a nun. If we can take it to a further logical conclusion we can include widows. Please consider my comparison i was trying to make. If a nun doesn't really like being a nun how would that attract women to that way of life? if being a nun means wearing a cross, any woman can do that. even single women. Please, don't knock motherhood to make a point. We can learn from all people from all walks of life. But why pretend to be something hyou are not? I don't think you are pretending to be a married woman when you are not.

Women for Faith and family has this to say from their website...Affirmation signers are Catholic women of all ages, all states in life (single, married, mothers, religious), all educational and economic levels, and represent a broad political spectrum. Signers include homemakers, students, professional women (doctors, nurses, lawyers, university professors, teachers, writers, etc.) They include women whose work is in their homes, and women with full or part-time employment outside the home. About 10% of the Affirmation signers are women religious -- many from "troubled" orders.

God loves you Sophia. Thank you for your reply. i will be careful not to give reason for offfense. What is your take on all the talk about removing the word men from the creed? My bycath women friends aer the ones up in arms. They don't like it. Several who married into the byzcath religion are thinking of going back to their Roman Catholic churches. are these changes offensvie?

Eddie

Dear Ed,

Vichnaja Pamjat!


Alexandr

Huh?

Ed,

It translates as Eternal Memory!

Welcome to the boards!

Theologos,
Do you mean to imply that marriage and motherhood and being resourceful and intellectually equal to men are mutually exclusive?

You should be a little more careful that in your efforts to combat sexism, you don't become sexist yourself.

In reply to Ed's question on where I stand on inclusive language, here are a couple quotes from my postings under the "Do you want to be healed thread":

One of the other posters said that some women find the inclusive language offensive. Presumably, he means that they, like I, have always been aware that we are included in "for us men" and "mankind," and that anyone who didn't understand this must be an idiot or not familiar with English. To be honest, it never occurred to me that this portion of the liturgy needed to be changed, and it wouldn't bother me if it was changed back. However, with all the good changes that were made, both to the text and the music, I find it odd that people are so focused inclusive language as an issue.

For instance:

• "May our MOUTHS be filled with praise." While certainly our lips could DRIP praise, they couldn't be FILLED with it. Our praise is in response to our mouths just having been filled with the Eucharist.
  
• "Grant this, O Lord" sounds a lot better when sung that "Grant it, O Lord." Cantors were always instructed NOT to prounce the T at the end of "Grant"!
  
• "One in essence" is a better translation than "One in substance." While my dictionary gives essence as a synonym for substance, it also gives as one of its definitions for substance "the physical matter of which a things consists," while one of the definitions of essence is "the inward nature of anything underlying its manifestations."
  
• As for "Theotokos" rather than "Mother of God," ... well, we have all kinds of mothers nowadays, including surrogates. The exact nature of Mary's conception remains a mystery, so it seems appropo that we use a word that we admit cannot be adequately translated into English!

I know there are other good new translations/corrections in the Revised Liturgy. These were just a few that came readily to mind. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting the Revised Liturgy on the basis of inclusive language or our fear/distrust of any change at all.

I don't see that many good changes. There are a few improvements I could recognize, but there weren't that many mistakes that warranted and wholescale revision and reorganization of the rubrics and music. Most of the changes are the pet private agenda of a few individuals, and 'misguided' is the best word I can use for them.

You said it, it is a 'baby'! It is the precious 'baby' of a few intellectual elites in that seminary, and Bishop Schott, and they have completely lost touch with the parishes, and the reality of our Church.

This 'baby' is no baby at all, but a monster, and it, along with the bath water should be thrown out, as quickly as possible.

The casualities are mounting, and people are being hurt. Parishes are being disrupted, and the clergy and people of our Church are divided in a way that is not needed.

This monster, and it, with its bath water, should be flushed as soon as possible.

Nick

Sadly, I must agree with this. The fact that this was done in secret with no input from the clergy or rank and file membership proves that this was the agenda of a few.

I mailed them today!

The language in what was quoted is a rewrite of a Vatican document that said the same thing.

In the end "inclusive language" is nothing more than an agenda. By it's nature it is inexact and therefore exclusive. It is especially harmful to women. Too bad so many have fallen for it.