www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Man, Mankind, etc. - regarding so called 'inclusive language'

???

Have you not read my previous posts on this issue? I have accused no one by name of doing anything untoward, so your desire to put words of accusation of wrongdoing against specific individuals into my mouth fall flat and destroy any argument you might have made. Your accusations of slander are themselves unjust and you obviously make them in a purposeful attempt to stifle discussion.

I have been clear in stating that I admire the good intentions of our bishops and of the men on the liturgical commission but that I disagree with their embracement of the secular feminist inclusive language. That they have done so is fact, and we have seen a few examples replacing clear phrases like �lover of mankind� with a theological muddle like �loves us all� discussed on this forum. I have never commented on the motives of the translators and will not. I remain confused as to why they did not look to the example of the Christian feminists, who do not support secular feminist inclusive language. My only guess is that have not looked close enough at the destruction such language does to theology. It is my hope that the bishops will halt the issue of the Revised Liturgy, put the rubrics back to those of the Ruthenian recension and make translation changes only to correct what was inaccurate, avoiding at all times even the appearance of embracing secular feminist language.

I guess since you could not respond to my points you decided to falsely accuse me of making specific charges of wrongdoing against individuals. That is sad.

But, to recap my earlier post, I pray that in the end good sense will prevail and our bishops will send the translations back for a rework to remove the inclusive language. That would be good because, as I have pointed out repeatedly, there is some excellent work hiding behind the offensive inclusive language.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

As someone involved in evangelization, and renewal in the Church I found some of the thoughts of Robert Horvath to be particularly significant in these discussions on inclusive language. I believe that the Eastern Catholic Churches are called to journey vertically, into their deepest and authentic selves. What we will find there is a treasure that has a perennial value to it. Our treasure is good for all times, for the Church as well as the world. I believe that our treasures once discovered and lived faithfully have a message that is vital to the modern world. Historically, as Robert points out, our tendency, due to a sense of inferiority and non-acceptance, has been to journey horizontally, always looking at what someone else is doing as though they have the answers and we could not possibly have any answers ourselves.

In regard to inclusive language to me the question seems to be into what resevoir are we dipping for any insistence on inclusive language or that which seems like inclusive language? Does it come as a result of journeying vertically or horizontally? If we have journeyed horizontally then inclusive language or anything else for that matter that comes from a horizontal journey will ultimately be problematic for our Church.

Part of the reason for any discussions on inclusive language in any sphere stems from the lack of a proper theological anthropology. Modern man lacks a mystical understanding of gender and of the Divine Order of things and instead tends to define things, especially as regards gender, in terms of function, usefullness and sameness as being "equality." While this fundamentally secular starting point has crept into the Church in recent decades it is actually very different than the authentic starting point of the Church and of Scripture which defines things in terms of sign, symbol and Mystery (Sacrament.) Sign and symbol participate in the very realities that they signify. The Spirituality of the Eastern Church has a particular genius in this regard. It is the Church's genius that provides for us, for instance, with the "why" of maleness and femalenss, of the revelatory value of gender distinctiveness.

"In his Theology of the Body," John Paul II provides for modern man an "adequate anthropology" which can be very useful in discussions such as inclusive language. For this anthropology John Paul II not only reached deep into Scripture, human reason, Church Tradition and natural law but also into the mystical tradition of the Eastern Churches. (See Paul Evdokimov.) I believe that as the Eastern Churches journey more vertically into their authentic selves and as we develop a "culture" of the Theology of the Body that the answers for things like inclusive language and other gender related concerns will become clear.

The discussions about inclusive language in the "new translation" of the Liturgy are symptomatic of what I believe to be the need to include the element of the "sensus fidelium" in our "new translation" before the translation becomes mandated in parishes. I have already respectfully expressed this to our Hierarchy. Since the Liturgy is the ONE THING that belongs to all of us yet to no one of us or any one group of us (be it scholars, bishops, laity, etc.) I believe our Church would do well to have the "new translation" sent out for the input of the "sensus fidelium" for the rank and file to weigh in on it. I am not advocating liturgy-by-vote. I just believe that this input is an essential element for something that strikes so deep at the heart of every member of the Church.
Our Church is no longer an immigrant Church. There are scholars and very competent people among the rank and file of our parishes today who could offer the unique contribution of a view that is scholarly yet at the same time "from the pew."

I am concerned that without the input of the rank and file of our Church in regard to the new translation of the liturgy, there can be a potential for serious devisiveness in our Church. The inclusive language discussions already provide us with a hint of the potential for divisiveness in a Church that is in survival mode as it is rather than truly thriving. The divisivenss could be devastating. In light of this shouldn't we ask,"Is the insistence on inclusive language or language that seems like inclusive language so important as to risk dividing our Church?" It may be important to some but is it that necessary to our Church as a whole?

There is still another issue that concerns me in this consideration which seems to have been touched upon in some of the discussions here.
My concern is a potential credibility problem.
Many might ask that if Rome does not like inclusive language for THEIR Church, why did
"Rome approve" inclusive language or language which sounds like inclusive language for an Eastern Catholic Church?" Related to this question would be did Rome actually hear from
our "Church" itself?

With all due respect,as far as I know, during the process of the "new translation" of the Liturgy for the Ruthenian Church, Rome heard from some scholars and hierarchs but did Rome hear from our "Church?" In making this point my intention is not to criticize hieararchs and scholars--quite the opposite: My intention here is to submit what I believe might have been a blindspot in the process of the new translation in hopes of sparing our hierarchs and dedicated liturgical scholars the burden that could come from an unintended division in our Church. I believe that this devisiveness could possibly be great, perhaps the greatest since the schisms of the 1930s. I firmly believe that our Hierarchs and our scholars would not want this process to be perceived as something that was done behind closed doors by a select few and now here it is and all of you now have to follow it whether you like it or not! Sending the translation out for the input of the rank and file before it is mandated in the parishes,in my estimation, could avoid the potential for negative reception.

I think that we must also consider the plight of pastors who will be asked to implement the new translation. We pastors will be on the front lines of any battle that might ensue over some of these issues. Pastors will find themselves caught in between. Some will be torn by having to embrace and implement something that they believe is wrong or for which their input was not invited. I do not believe that it is too late to bring in the sensus fidelium. Even if to do so at this point might be inconvenient or perhaps even slightly embarrassing, I think it is better than the potential for division if the new translation is mandated without the input of the rank and file of our Church.

On a whole other level for discussion: It is often suggested that all of the Byzantine Catholic Churches should have one common English translation of the Liturgy.

Again, I emphasize that my thoughts here are intended to assist our hierarchs, scholars and our Churh. My thoughts are not meant as criticisms.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB.MA.

Dear Administrator:

I have read your posts. You have made very general sweeping allegations, which I have quoted. And now what? You suggest that in reality they don't actually apply to anyone in particular? Then why write do you write such inflammatory rhetoric. That is very confusing.

But apparently I am confusing to people as well. So I will re-iterate from previous posts.

1) My personal preference: Everything in Old Slavonic. Makes the translation issue moot (Ok, pechal'...); and new music problems vanish as well.

2) I recognize that such a move will not occur and am sympathetic to the reasons for it, and amazingly, considering my shalenyrusnakality, I can somehow suppress the need to make a stand of the I-cannot-do-elsewise-so-help-me-God variety.

3) Once we decide on vernacular, then the die is cast. We are translating into a profane target and are subject to the evolution of the target. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

4) I oppose evaluations made on the basis of stereotype and poisoned wells. Instead the evaluation is properly made on the merits of each individual case. Specifically: the idea that the origin of this language is linked to feminism just doesn't cut it as a probative argument against it.

Btw, I am with Alice: I think it's great that women, so-inclined, can be doctors, or lawyers, or bankers. And that women can own property and can vote. These examples suffice to make it clear that I couldn't oppose something just because it was hatched by feminists; and, of course neither would I support something just because it was hatched by them. Good reasons must be found. And stereotype is just not a good reason.

5) Specifics:
a) I have previously written that I don't like "mankind", because it is strictly generic and misses the point of the using words that have both generic and individual tones. Thus I have supported "Lover of man" rather than "Lover of mankind". I don't like the shifting from attribute to action, and don't like "us" primarily because of a general distaste for pronouns especially in long sentences with lots of nouns that could be antecedents.
b) I don't like "for us men" because it perplexes me gramatically. Is this a formal way to use a personal pronoun? Moreover, "men" in contrast to "man" is rarely used as a generic (see Cathy's post above where it is used unambiguously in an rather ambiguous context). I like "For man, and for the salvation of man, ... He became man". I am not studied in theology but this strikes even my untrained mind as clear cut case of type, and this phrasing is the way to make the point, IMO.
c) In addressing the congregation before the epistle, "brothers and sisters" strikes me as appropriate English, like "ladies and gentlemen". To my untrained mind it seems a real stretch to see type here.

And that is about all that were talking about in the restored liturgy on gender issues. Or at least these are all of the cases that I've expressed a preference about previoulsy.

6) I realize that my views are unlikely to carry any weight with anyone on the IELC or in the synod of bishops. But the forum and its PM facility have provided an opportunity to get a hearing from Father David. And that is pretty remarkable, given my utter lack of expertise on these matters (even though I too went to college).

(7) I admit to spending too much time trying to get others to take a similarly well-informed view of their own expertise.

(8) It is worthwhile to prepare for not getting one's own way. I admit that I am scandalized by people whose commitment to their church is ultimately founded on their own private judgements. Shallow and provisional. (I honestly wonder about the marriages of such people, who are not fully immersed, and dead to all others.) How do they hang onto the ladder? I worry about those who talk about a slippery slope, and because of imagined fears just seek to jump off the ladder and start all over. Where do you think such prelest ideas come from? May God have mercy. And likewise on the souls of those who fire heavy artillery in the air above a madding crowd and say "but I wasn't pointing at anyone!"

Dear Alice:

Even after your fight for all-English is finished, there will be still lots of issues to enjoy a good fight over. And that, I think, is our tradition!

Precise language is important. Look at the whole debate in the early centuries of the Church regarding homoousia versus homoiousia. I do not like the term, "loves us all" or "lover of us all". Nor do not like the terms "lover of humankind" or "loves humankind" because these too are imprecise, not because they are affliated with some kind of radical feminist philosophical agenda. I think there are far better terms to communicate St Paul's sexual mandate of Galatians 3:28 "neither ... male nor female."

IMO shifting attribute to action does somehow demystify. There is something totally different in the worship of God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth versus the worship of God who creates the heaven and the earth.

I do prefer Brothers and Sisters to Brethren because the language of our liturgical services should somehow reflect the manner in which we do in fact speak. I would have to agree with djs regarding the use of "for us men" in the Creed. I am not aware of an instance where "men" is used to denote BOTH men and women.

At least these are my thoughts on inclusive language.

From and online dictionary:

Man \Man\, n.; pl. Men. [AS. mann, man, monn, mon; akin to
OS., D., & OHG. man, G. mann, Icel. ma[eth]r, for mannr, Dan.
Mand, Sw. man, Goth. manna, Skr. manu, manus, and perh. to
Skr. man to think, and E. mind. [root]104. Cf. Minx a pert
girl.]
1. A human being; -- opposed to beast.

These men went about wide, and man found they none,
But fair country, and wild beast many [a] one. --R.
of Glouc.

The king is but a man, as I am; the violet smells to
him as it doth to me. --Shak.

http://dict.die.net/men/

So you see that man can be a generic term for a human being.

The problem is that no one (myself included) speaks or writes proper English anymore.

For example, when one wishes to use the contraction for "you are" the proper form is you're not your. (That drives me crazy to no end! )

Also, they is not the proper generic third person singular pronoun. As in "Somebody did it but I don't know who they are."
The proper way is "Somebody did it but I don't know who he is."

So, in English as in all the Romance languages, generic pronouns and groups of people are masculine.

Dear djs,

That you desire to consider my posts to be inflammatory rhetoric does not make them so. Your custom of labeling any position that you disagree with as �inflammatory rhetoric� (i.e., �poisoned wells�) is nothing but an obvious attempt to stifle discussion. It is so obvious that no one buys it anymore.

Further, the accusation that those of us who seek an accurate translation that is free from the agenda of inclusive language of the secular feminists must also somehow be against the idea of women owning property and voting is pretty ludicrous.

Admin

It comes as no surprise whatsoever in an era in which this type of rhetoric is the staple of AM radio "debate" that people may no longer see it as fallacious, or even uncharitable.

But you are way off base again in your reading of my intentions. I am delighted to have a discussion on the merits of every point of contention in the restored liturgy. Posts like those of Fr. Loya and Fr. Petras epitomize thoughtful discussion. However, when posts are made that suggest that people in our church are engaged in "a carefully designed trick to make truth appear false", or are "try[ing] to cater to the demands of the secular feminists regarding language", I will, as a participant of that discussion, respond and query posters about what they mean by such remarks - they presumably mean something.

I will hazzard a guess that no one on the IELC and none of our bishops is trying either "to make truth appear false" or "to cater to the demands of secular feminists". I may be the only one here who finds such suggestions to be disrespectful and uncharitable; does anyone find them charitable or respectful? Or is that merely being on the "correct side" absolves all?

In a volatile situation in which 30% of poll-takers here have expressed an intention to bolt, and now there is talk of clergy quitting, I consider such suggestions to be highly inflammatory. Just my opinion, but one that I feel needs to be expressed.

No accusation. Just reductio ad absurdum.

Conjecture: Feminists have evil ideas; any idea originating with them - of which inclusive language is one example - should be opposed. Indeed, the very fact that the idea originates with them might be sufficient grounds to oppose it.

Test case: the right for women to own property and vote - things that we presumably all agree with - originated with feminists.

Conclusion: The fact that some idea originated with feminists is not sufficient grounds to reject the idea.

The point is not to suggest - let alone make an accusation - that voting and property rights are opposed, but, in fact, the very opposite. The idea is to select examples for which opposition would be absurd, or as you have termed it, ludicrous.

Given the insufficiency of this line of argument, why are the feminists always dredged up in these discussions of what our IELC and bishops are doing? What do they have to do with us ?

djs,

Thank you for your post. I agree very much with you that your attempt to stifle discussion with accusations of �inflammatory rhetoric� and �poisoned wells� is a staple tool of many in our society. It�s right up there with the �because you disagree with me you hate me� vehicle.

Am I misreading your intentions? I would be delighted to be convinced of this. Your history on this forum, however, is more one of opposing people and attacking them just to start an argument. Your claims of wanting a discussion based upon merit are lost in your accusations against those who disagree with your opinions.

As I have noted earlier, I have read everything Father Petras has posted here on the Forum, as well as everything that he has written that has been published in our eparchial newspapers. [And I have recommended his book on this topic to others because I know that he could not possibly condense that amount of information into a few Forum posts.] I find his historical analyses to be very interesting and insightful. If I lived in Pittsburgh I would certainly enroll in his classes so that I may learn from him. Yet, in reading almost everything he has written on this topic, I simply do not find that his argument supporting the revision of the Divine Liturgy to be compelling. As I pray and study the Liturgy I become more and more convinced that the future of our Ruthenian Church lies in faithfulness to the fullness of the Ruthenian recension (as given in the typical Roman editions of our liturgical books). Certainly the Liturgical Instruction tells us to renew and restore, not to revise.

Is the liturgical commission (and the bishops) catering to the demands of secular feminism with an embracement of inclusive language? Yes. The several examples that have been discussed here on the Forum are quite in line with the demands of the secular feminists. As I have repeated stated, I do not know or understand why anyone in our Church would embrace this style of language. As I have also stated, I assume their good intentions. As I have also stated repeatedly, I can only conclude that they believe that this type of language is now normative in America. If that is their conclusion (and, again, I do not know) I don�t understand it, given that anyone can see the great debate on this topic in our larger society as well as the great debate within the Roman Catholic Church (with the Vatican weighing in with Liturgiam Authenticam). I would think that the wisest course is to continue with traditional language until well after that discussion is settled with some finality. As it is now, it appears that the secular feminists will die out eventually and those who have embraced the type of language they demand will wind up returning to traditional language. Certainly we do see the rise of the Christian feminists, who oppose inclusive language.

Again, your tactic of labeling positions you disagree with as uncharitable and disrespectful just doesn�t work to stifle discussion.

Finally, you made reference to 30% of poll takers and even some clergy stating that they might �bolt� from our Church. I can assure you with confidence that should some choose that path it will not be because of the discussions on this Forum. The Forum certainly serves as a town hall for the Eastern Churches. But it is hardly so influential that it will cause people to seriously consider leaving our Church. From what I have seen and experienced in our Church (and in most Churches) such decisions are made based upon people�s experience of the Divine Liturgy in their own parish.

Admin

djs,

Your conjectures and test cases are not accurate:

Your Conjecture: Feminists have evil ideas; any idea originating with them - of which inclusive language is one example - should be opposed. Indeed, the very fact that the idea originates with them might be sufficient grounds to oppose it.

Corrected Conjecture: Some secular feminists have evil ideas, such as the support for abortion. Other secular feminists do not have evil ideas. Ideas originating from these secular groups should be given a hearing, but must be first tested against the Gospel. Christian feminists (especially the Catholic ones who are often referred to as �John Paul Feminists�) have better ideas, ideas that flow from the Gospel. The Christian feminists understand that the equality of men and women does not mean sameness of men and women, as the Lord has given men and women different roles in society. I stand with Pope John Paul II in defining myself as a Christian feminist.

Your Test Case: the right for women to own property and vote - things that we presumably all agree with - originated with feminists.

Corrected Test Case: The right for women to own property and vote � things we all agree with � flows from the Gospel and Church Teaching. Those feminists who initially and rightly pushed for inclusion of these rights into our society were Christians, along with well intentioned feminists from other religions and secular feminists.

Your Conclusion: The fact that some idea originated with feminists is not sufficient grounds to reject the idea.

Corrected Conclusion: No conclusion is possible from the way you have presented your case as it was presented incorrectly. If one were to form a conclusion it should be that ideas originally with feminists � as those that come from any group - are deserving of a reasoned hearing, to see if they merit action based upon Gospel principles. On the topic of inclusive language we can see that many within the Church have documented the link between the secular feminist demands not just for equality of men and women (which is correct and just) but for sameness of men and women (which is impossible), and that their insistence on ridding the language of terms such as �man� and �mankind� flows from this demand for sameness.

What do the secular feminists have to do with us? I don�t know. I am at a loss to understand why our liturgical commission and bishops would embrace the demands of secular feminists regarding language instead of looking towards the examples from the Christian feminists. We see that there is an ongoing debate in the larger society as well as within the Roman Catholic Church. We see that Rome has issued instructions on the matter. Why would anyone seek to bring this debate into our Church? I can only conclude that some well meaning people have either not thought the matter through or are incorrect in their conclusions.

Admin

Canon 707 �l from the norms of the particular law for the Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh states:

Perhaps the question of inclusive language hinges upon the meaning of �modern times� and/or �legitimate organic development.�

Is addressing the congregation as "Brothers and Sisters" instead of "Brethren" a sign that secular feminist ideology has crept into our Liturgy?

You are wrong in these assertions. I have had numerous discussions and even disagreements with other posters that had remained respectful and had entailed no issues of charity or lack thereof. On other occasions, however, I have criticized what I perceived as a lack of charity in posts. Inasmuch as you have banned posters on numerous occasions for a lack of charity, I think you will agree that some posts, sometimes, do show a lack of charity. Maybe I am wrong in my perceptions, but I am still wondering how suggestions of trying "to make truth appear false" or "to cater to the demands of secular feminists" is charitable.

I do not call attention to a lack of charity in a post as a tactic against a position that I disagree with. If I did I would indeed be guilty of making a grossly fallacious argument. I tend to be pretty rigouous in spotting such arguments and, admittedly to a lesser degree, in avoiding them. More importantly, in this thread, I am largely in agreement with those who don't want "inclusive language in the new text (with the possible exception of those who extend this opposition to "brothers and sisters" at the epistle). So here, it is strictly the argument, and not opposition to the conclusion that motivates my post.

You may think me peculiar to post a criticism of an argument whose overall conclusion I agree with. Maybe you are right. But I think the opposite is peculiar - that people appear to countenance posts that violate forum rules if they agree with the position advocated. Are my objections pointless? Probably. People seem pretty resolute in their ways.

Can we agree that there is an enormous difference between "catering to", which implies a purposeful link, and "are quite in line with" which allows a coincidental rather than purposeful link. The latter I think is not in any way unreasonable, disrespectful, or uncharitable; I have no criticism of it, whatsoever. I have no criticism of it, whatsoever. I have no criticism of it, whatsoever. The former attaches a motive that I think is unreasonable inasmuch as there is no foundation for it in anything disclosed here. And, in light of the things that you have included in previous threads under the rubric of the agenda of secular feminism, is, IMO, disrespectful and uncharitable.

Perhaps, you see the two remarks as essentially same, but I see a universe of difference between the two. One is consistent with all of your other remarks in which you allow that IECL and bishops have good intentions motivating their actions; the other is not. Perhaps I am reading your words too closely.

Which is what I have been requesting - argument of merit, not association.