www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy WHY THE SILENCE?

Paul B: The verb you are missing is "is".

The military provides a perfect example of the extremes to which gender neutrality can be taken under the goad of radical feminism. At one time, pilotless aircraft and robotic vehicles were called "unmanned air vehicles" (UAVs) and "unmanned ground vehicles" (UGVs) respectively. Today, the official terminology is "uninhabited air vehicles" and "uninhabited ground vehicles". There is a push afoot to find a way to avoid saying "manpower"; "manning" is already giving way to "staffing", and guns and aircraft are no longer manned, but "crewed".

The entire purpose of this futile exercise is, as John noted, to convince people that men and women are more than ontologically equal before God and the law, but effectively identical and interchangeable in every way.

If some people were better catechized, they would recognize this to be a massive distortion of Christian anthropology. Men and women are not identical, but complementary, otherwise why did God go through the trouble of creating them male and female? Once you accept an egalitarian anthropology, there is no way to defend the Christian definition of marriage or the family, the male exclusivity of the priesthood, or any aspect of sexual morality. In short, this sort of radical egalitarianism is acid corroding the foundations of the Church and society. And the insidious thing is most people don't recognize it for what it is, because, to them, it seems innocuous--"It means the same thing", they say. But, semiotically, they don't. And over time, the implications of such changes become embedded in people's attitude and behavior. By which time it is too late.

JohnK had asked about theological objections to changing texts to embrace politically correct language. In rereading the article I referenced addressing the issues caused by the forced gender neutral language in the NRSV I came across the following. But near the end of the article there is a whole list of examples from newspapers (etc.) with examples of the language that John says people are no longer able to understand. I am also reminded of the way we track labor "man hours" at work. No one seems to think that women workers are not tracked or paid. Further, I work with a number of people who happen to be black. The guy in the next office sometimes uses "Yo! Man!" to get the attention of someone. I have yet to hear him or anyone say "Yo! Human!" to get someone's attention. It's just not natural. ["Yo! Human! It's noon. Let's see if the Klingon wants to go to lunch." ]

In addition, the article does provide evidence that at some schools the agenda is forced, and that students are not allowed to use Standard English but much use politically correct English.

Here's the quote from the article:
Think of the theology, the multiple shades of meaning that is lost when "who for us men and our salvation He became man" is rendered either without the term "man" or with a word like "humankind" or "human".

Paul,

FWIW, my English teachers instructed me that "an adverb modifies a noun, an adjective or another adverb." As an adjectival phrase, "theologically grave" makes perfect sense, and is similar in construction to "partly cloudy" and "strongly favorable."

As for the noun of which this phrase is predicated, I believe that is the dropping of the word "men" from the Creed.

People who worry about the Church being patriarchal have a serious problem, because, well, the Church is--and always has been--explicitly patriarchal. Not to worry, though--time is on the side of us patriarchalists, because patriarchy has proven to be a remarkably effective and resilient form of social organization (perhaps because it is divinely ordained?), and generally reasserts itself in the wake of any challenge.

This is probably due to demography: people with patriarchal views tend to have more children than those who don't. Those children in turn tend to have patriarchal views, and have more children in turn. On the other hand, not only are the children of non-patriarchalists likely to reject patriarchy in turn, they themselves will have fewer children. In a couple of generations, patriarchy become normative again.

A long way of saying that the temper tantrum that began in the sixties is running out of steam at last.

Real women aren't afraid of real English.

Only neutered men do such dumb things like changing the language.

It's embarrassing to find that my church has put the politics of liberal feminism above orthodox teaching. Even to the point of neutering the Creed. Shame on them!

Such Christian charity. Who exactly are these "neutered men"?

Maybe you need to read your C.S. Lewis? You could start with "Men Without Chests". It conveys the same idea.

I am not going to discuss this anymore, as all we're doing is moving in circles. As I said, we're going to have to agree to disagree. To make things perfectly clear, I'll state my position one last time:

-I do not see a problem with replacing the words "man, men, mankind, etc" where they are referring to all human beings, male and female, with words such as "humanity, humankind, mortals, etc. It does not change meaning, and does not blurr any distinction between the sexes. If the word "man" refers to a male (and especially to Christ), obviously it should be left, I would never agree with that type of revisionism.

John, I never said that people cannot understand. I said that there is a shift away from using "man, etc." as THE term for all humans, male and female. You are being disingenuous and putting words in my mouth when I clearly spelled out what I meant.

"What do they teach them in the schools these days?"
--C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

[emphasis added]

That is the crux of the problem. That interpretation which is now reinforced in meaning in the creed when one drops "men" is NOT WHAT THE CREED IS SAYING. Although true that Jesus is a male, the creed is saying that He became Man -- Adam: a son of the old Adam so that He could provide us the opportunity to become, like Him, the new, second Adam. Fr. Robert Pipta in the catechetical DVD about the RDL takes pains to make that point, and it is well that he does since it is needed after the wrong message is sent by dropping "men." So all is well in creating a problem unnecessarily by dropping "men" based on a fabricated need that caters to a questionable feminist agenda, but then explaining the real meaning that had been obscured by the unnecessary, ill-conceived dropping of a word that is explicitly there in the Creed. There, it's all ok now -- well, no, it isn't. Did the translators not realize this? If they did and changed it anyway, they have shown poor judgment and should not be translating. If they didn't however, then they're incompetent, and shouldn't be translating.

You also fail to take into account that although the substitutions mentioned may work in specific cases, they do not in general. I've given some examples in a previous post. If the language has a word that does do the work, why not use it? There are any number examples where men, man and mankind are used, again as I noted in a previous post, in areas that appeal to children through adults, and the meaning is clear and not questioned. The problem with we don't understand it anymore the language is changing is not that language changes but that one chooses not to understand the language so that the need for change is created and then serves to foster a fabricated need for change. I call that manipulation, a required subterfuge, trying to create a justification for change that is not natural or needed.

This, to me a glaring example, is unfortunately a vignette of the RDL as a whole. How does one call it? Mediocrity? The Ruthenian faithful deserve better already. Excessive mediocrity? Not that the Anaphora be said aloud -- not necessarily a bad thing -- but that it must be only that way and a precondition that becomes the end itself, the driving principle for change, even that one professes to die for, a kind of zealotry. Is that a trusted guide? Absolute mediocrity? Not just the liturgy but an abridged liturgy with no recourse in English to the full, and mandated as an absolute. And, furthermore, you will sing only this way in English against the fullness and diversity in the oral and written traditions on which the chant is based.

Let me offer an alternative; it is called excellence. Why not the best for the Ruthenian, for the Byzantine Catholic Church?

English usage almost always progresses from longer words and phrases to shorter ones. If “humankind” had been in common use it would normally have progressed to “mankind” – not the other way around. Remember how “cellular phones” became “cell phones”? Pretty much everyone now calls them just “cell phones.” If you study the English language you can see where when there were multiple words for the same thing most often the shortest word is the one we use now.

The whole “inclusive language” thing is a political statement. Nothing more. I’m not surprised the bishops made a political statement with the Divine Liturgy. That is what they believe. Spend a few hours in the seminary at some event and you’ll see. There is no room in the church for traditional believers. Our church is gone and they are intent on keeping it dead. Best to leave and start again elsewhere.

What do you know, Melissa? You're just a . . . girl!

Stuart, did you plant your daughter on the forum? Seriously, though, I completely agree with Melissa about the natural evolution of language and the forced nature of "inclusive" language. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that we should jump ship and abandon the Church, but give me time and I might be there.

I remember when I was kid, during the 70s, and the first woman mayor was elected to our city. Her legacy, to this day, is having renamed "manhole covers" to "utility covers". This is a legacy that she is proud of. This sort of language has so obviously been forced on us by a small minority. When the Catechism of the Catholic Church came out in the 90s, I took a class as an introduction, and the (male) instructor started out by apologizing for the "sexist" language. Nobody cared, but his apology surely made somebody feel as if he or she should care.

(On another tangent, when did "they" become singular? As in "nobody cared, but his apology surely made somebody feel as if they should care". Why are we so afraid to use the masculine or feminine forms of words? Oh, that's right, the political correctness police are out there!)

As to the person who claimed that younger people don't understand standard English, I feel sorry for their lack of education. They are apparently unable to read anything written prior to the 1970's and understand its full meaning.

Elizabeth

She's been here from time to time, but is far too busy to post. Melissa is just another really smart girl who gets it, even if there are a lot of men around who don't have a clue.