Inclusive language in liturgy

My Jesuit parish uses a lot of 'inclusive' language. 'Us' instead of 'men', 'God' instead of 'Him' and so on. Personally, I really like that. Assigning a gender to God makes no sense to me. God is talking to all of us during the Liturgy - not just the men. And we are all praying to God, not just the men. I know others don't agree with my point of view, and most other parishes in the area don't use such inclusive language. That's OK, as long as my parish continues to have the option to use the inclusive language.

An article from The Tablet (found via The New Gasparian) got me thinking about this topic. Why not let a parish choose whether or not they want to use inclusive language in the liturgy? The Church could have two versions, and parishes could choose the one they want.

Some people will say that we Catholics must have uniformity in the Liturgy, the Mass is the Mass, and so on. But really, there are all sorts of variances in Liturgy from one parish to another - driven by preferences of the parish, priest or local bishop. And what is wrong with that? Why is that a bad thing?

Comments

[Steven Riddle]

Dear Sir,

This always bothers me when it comes up because it flies in the face of everything scripturally revealed. You may like inclusive language, and God is the ultimate welcome; however, to neuter God runs counter to our savior's words. "Our Father" cannot be other than male. We don't pray the "Our Mother" or the "Our Parent." If we wish to be inclusive, why don't we divest ourselves of the entire language of gender? Part of the reason we do not is that it is part of Revelation--the absolute truth God imparted to us throught he Holy Scriptures and the magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church.

I don't so much mind other more open usages; however, so long as it is not in the appropriate rubrics for Mass, I will continue to regard it as mere human pretension, offering nothing other than a feel-good sensation of inclusion.

Inclusion it was presently has the Anglican communion ripping apart at the seams. Those who wish to abandon what revelation has granted have unilaterally thrust it upon all of us. If something is to be thrust upon me, I prefer it to be the solid revelation of God and not the mere manipulations of men designed to make me feel somehow more politically correct.

Sorry to disagree so vehemently, but inclusion isn't about subtle shifts in language, it is about altering the entire patrimony of Christianity.

shalom,

Steven

[Steve Bogner]

I think that assigning a gender to God helps us understand God's relationship with us. It doesn't make sense to me we try to put human restrictions on God.

And Steven - your comments are always welcome. Vehement & strong disagreement are fine; it's the uncivil disagreements that others sometimes post that bother me. Every person deserves respect, both in actions and in words.

[Mark]

I can see and appreciate both sides of this discussion. There is a place for tradition and ritual. There are also times where language barriers need to be dropped to help bring people closer to God.

In the end, as Merton writes later in New Seeds of Contemplation, our imagination about God is limited. This is not to say that we cannot know anything about God. It just means that God is infinitely bigger than any labels, metaphors, or descriptions that we use.

[jcecil3]

Greetings!

Steve - You already know I agree with you on this one. For supporting theological arguments for Steve's position, see my articles: Did the Latin Liturgy Use Inclusive Inclusive Language? and Our Mother Who Art in Heaven...God as our Mother.

Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3

[Joe McFaul]

This can be a hot buton subjet so I tread carefully. I admire Steven Riddle's blog posts and comments very much. This subject has intrigued me me enough to consult the Catechism. Specifically sections 370 and 42. It appears, when those tow sections are read in conjuction that there is no theological reason to prevent a prayer to God our Mother. If so then our expressions of male gender to God are simply traditional with a very very little "t." I'd like to hear thoughts on the significance of these two Catechism sections.

[Steve Bogner]

Some like inclusive language; others don't (and I'm reading a lot of passion in some accounts of that).

My point is that's OK, just let the parish decide which way they want to go with it. Why restrict Liturgy to one approach vs the other? The feeling I got from the article in The Tablet is that the direction seemed to be going towards not allowing parishes the freedom to choose one or the other.

[Steven Riddle]

Dear Mr. Bogner,

And so we allow each parish to decide and there is the division you see expressed here--whoever does not get their way ends up hurt and bothered by what they are hearing. Democracy is not always the best solution to a perceived problem. I know that my parish would be likely to split at the seams over such a choice, and I suspect nearly many parishes would do the same. This enhances liturgy and solidarity how? This increases Christian love in what way?

The motives seem good, but your underestimate the enormous divisive potential of such a choice. I keep pointing to the Anglican Communion that allows individual provinces to "do their own thing." It seems an object lesson in these sorts of exercises. No, I think I prefer simply having it given to me by the Vatican itself. I don't want to have to do any more parish shopping than I am already subjected to on the basis of other more central divisions with church teaching. (One parish I went to threw out a Deacon because he preached against abortion on Roe v. Wade day, and they annually supported a Planned Parenthood/Abortion fund raiser.)

shalom,

Steven

[Steven Riddle]

Dear Joe,

There is a long history of saints praying to God, Our Mother. St. Anselm I believe actually composed some hymns and songs to Christ, Our Mother. As a private devotion, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with it. Where I see a problem is tampering with the language of scripture to force this issue.

It is one thing to pray Psalm 139 with the idea that the image of God there is extremely maternal. It is another to start praying the Lord's Prayer substituting Our Father with Our Mother.

Inclusion must be cognizant of the texts and not in defiance of them. It also should serve the beauty of the liturgy. Praying to God our Mother, I leave to those for whom it is a meaningful reality. For the most part, I'll follow that most feminist of Saints, Teresa of Avila and pray the Our Father as the Lord taught us.

shalom,

Steven

[Mary]

The Politics of Prayer by Helen Hull Hitchcock is good on this.

However, more shortly: Just because language is metaphorical doesn't mean it can mean anything. "God Our Father" is metaphorical, to be sure, just as "God Our Mother" is. So are "My heart is broken," and "I'm on top of the world." The first two terms are not interchangeable any more than the second two are. And we have received from the highest authority which one to use.

[Joe McFaul]

I'm uncomfortable with "Mater Nostra" as well. However, it appears that if there is a liturgical prayer to God our Mother, or if there is inclusive language in other than scriptural matters then we can't really object based on anything other than our own personal preferences. This is not a situation where anyone can say, "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me." I think we have to recognize that other people may hold legitimately differnt opinions and preferences in this area.

Although I'd prefere a uniform litugy, all in all.

I also read with interest the article at JCecil's Progressive Catholic Blog on inclusive language in the original Tridentine Latin liturgy, not correctly translated into English. The tradition may be more inclusive that we believe.

[alicia]

I think that 'inclusive language' is actually insulting and inaccurate. I posted on this on January 16, 2003, and I have not changed my mind since. If anything, I am imcreasingly incensed at the clumsy and inaccurate use of language in a mis-guided attempt to neuter God. Male AND Female, in the image of God - not neuter, in the image of God.

[Jeff Miller]

I also dislike inclusive language because it tries to make silly distinctions that we already know. As Fr. Fessio has mentioned if someone says there is a man eating shark in the waters, even the women know to get out. And if the bath room says mens
room, women know not to enter.

The Vatican has also not approved any inclusive language translations like the NRSV. For a parish to use one is just another form of disobedience.

We don't need cultural fads as translation guidelines but translation that are accurate to the word of God as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

[Steve Bogner]

Looks like I unknowingly stumbled on to another sensitive topic (Latin at Mass and when to talk to kids about abortion were the other two). I went downstairs to clean the basement and came back to see 12 comments on this. It's good to see discussion and different viewpoints. We may not have convinced anyone of anything, but I do believe such discussion can be enlightening to us all.

Now let's talk this much about prayer, or contemplation, or something really important ;)

[Karen Haluza]

I'm always fascinated with these esoteric liturgical discussions in the Catholic church. Coming from no denominational background whatsoever, I find them very interesting. I would have to disagree with Mr. Riddle regarding Jesus praying to "My father" as evidence that God is male, however. And I would heartily agree with your last comment Steve. Thanks for your insights on farming on my blog, as well.
Peace,
Karen

[Steven Riddle]

Dear Karen,

Thank you for your comment--it indicated the need for clarification. My point was not so much that God is male as praying to "Our Father" indicates that it would be appropriate under any circumstances to refer to God as Him. We know that God transcends these boundaries; however, in order to relate to a God we are more or less drawn to that which we know. We do not have intimate familiarity with a being that partakes of both sexes. Therefore we must choose. Our Lord told us how to relate to God, and He told us explicitly.

shalom,

Steven

[Mary]

However, it appears that if there is a liturgical prayer to God our Mother, or if there is inclusive language in other than scriptural matters then we can't really object based on anything other than our own personal preferences.

Sez who?

As we pray, so do we believe. If we are using masculine language to describe God, we are describing him differently than if we use feminine language. The question of accuracy is paramount.

One should note that the language about God is overwhelming masculine in Scripture. (See The Politics of Prayer cited above.) This raises the question of whether the description does not conform to Scripture.

The most interesting example is that Semitics had names formed of the sentence, "this-god is my father" or "this-god is my mother," (possibly to invoke a special relationship), and although all about them, various Semites would use the "this-god is my mother" where this-god was not only masculine but male, as any number of legends about sexual exploits would reveal, the Jews used only the form, "God is my father" never "God is my mother."

(I note that the Bible calls Jesus "the Wisdom of the Father," and in this context, the language has uniformly followed the Old Testement practice of feminine references, throughout Church history.)

This is not a situation where anyone can say, "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me."

Wanna watch?

[Therese]

As far as inclusive language goes, our language doesn't allow us very well come up with meaningful, personal neutral ways to refer to the divine - ironically, in the Old Testament, there is more room to move with the way God is refered to. There are many many names of God from the Hebrew Books:

El Shaddai
El Elyon
Adonai
Yahweh or Jehovah
Jehovah Nissi
Jehovah-Raah
Jehovah Rapha
Jehovah Shammah
Jehovah Tsidkenu
Jehovah Mekoddishkem
El Olam
Elohim
Qanna
Jehovah Jireh
Jehovah Shalom
Jehovah Tzabaoth

to name a few, though Greek (Septuagint) translations of these lose the meanings and nuances of the Hebrew when they are feminine. It is best to look at Hebrew sources for proper definitions. Many of these have feminine endings or roots or are titles that denote female aspects. But by and large these are translated as Lord, or Lord God, or God. What can you do? In the original Greek the Holy Spirit is neuter, and should properly be translated as 'It'. What can you do?

When referring to the congregation, however, as for the conintued use of 'men' instead of 'humans' or 'people', or just 'us', and the continued use of only 'sons' instead of 'sons and daughters' and things like that, it's distressing that anyone could have a problem with this sort of inclusiveness. Due to the continued masculine bias, I have wondered at times if Christ did actually come to save women as well, or just men, and if there are any daugthers of God, or just sons, because if so, that would explain alot.