Since I'm new to all of this, I may need a primer here. I wonder if anyone can enlighten me on why it is that the Church is afraid to use the term "man". I notice that many passages of Scripture are neutered when older translations typically used the term, "man" or some other masculine term. This came to my attention again this morning as we sang, "Good Christian Friends Rejoice". What happened to "Good Christian Men Rejoice"? This is especially confusing in the light of the Church's adamant insistence on using the masculine term in the Creed when it says, "For us men and for our salvation...". Can anyone shed any light on this for me? Thanks!

Political correctness run amok, my friend. It's not in all the Catholic hymnbooks -- but in enough.

Take a look, too, at the mainline Protestant churches who have updated their hymnals over the last 30 years. You'll see the same thing. The Methodists and the Episcopalians have been some of the worst offenders.

Blessings,

It is because the femi-nazis have pretty well taken over the Church/churches because the wimpy American bishops have let them.

I would like to ask the opposite question? Why are the replies posted here so opposed to the "neutral" language? To the point of demonizing anyone who might support such a move. a la Feminazi/wimpy/PC.... :o

Thanks, friends, for your comments. It is as I suspected. I suppose I'm becoming overly naive about the Catholic Church. I used to be very anti-Catholic. Now I can believe those things about the Methodists and the Episcopalians, but not the Catholic Church :huh:

Seriously, though, it is grievous to me. Why? It is because it is exemplary of how we take our current political/theological agendas and insert them into the faith in covert ways so as to make it seem that our view is the one that has always been embraced, or is the one that should have always been embraced.

The issue of gender-neutral language in Scripture is a bit tenuous. Should anthropos be translated as "people" or "men"? I suppose that one could go either way. But the fact is that no one in the Church had any issue with translating it "men" until feminists, etc. began making such noise about it. However, having said that, there are worse examples. When the translators go out of their way to avoid using the masculine, such as when the subject is singular and one must choose either masculine or feminine, but make no such efforts when the subject is plainly feminine, then I believe there is a problem. I don't know if I'm communicating this well as it is a very complex issue and I am attempting to summarize.

On the issue of hymns, though, I take a greater offense. For there is no doubt how these songs were originally written. The removal of masculine terms is done with an agenda, and I believe it to be a militant one. It is to subtly re-write history with the intent of deceiving younger generations who do not know any better. To me, the Church that stands in the name of Truth, and historical Truth at that, should know better than to cater to such whims, no matter how seemingly wise. I'd like to see some of our bishops stand up and retake some of this ground and that right quick.

Mike,

You pose a good question.

For me, there are several issues here:

1) I have an enormous problem with the re-writing of hymns which are 100-300 years old (or more). If someone wishes to write modern hymns reflecting modern social mores -- they are free to do so -- and some of the newer hymns are quite good. But re-writing the oldies -- yeah, I'd call that being unnecessarily PC.

2) I have less of a problem with things like Bible translations (though professionally, I think that the NAB is editorially very poor) because translations are, themselves, imperfect -- and in many languages (including New Testament Greek) nouns have gender, whereas in English, this is not the case. The English language has also evolved considerably over the last 400 years, and phraseology which made sense to Shakespeare, just does not do so any more.

3) All this being said, there IS an attempt by some (and I would call this PC as well) to delete any sort of gender specific pronouns with regard to ANY Person of the Godhead -- including God the Son??? -- and I find this extremely problematic.

Blessings,

David, et al:

I think a rewrite (or translation note) is O.K. if it is clearly not going to jeopardize doctrine or dogma. On the other hand, I must admit, I have not spoken the words " fo us MEN ... in the creed for a long time. Is this still common practice? Even the creeds are translations and we must be careful to understand them in their most precise terms. Many 300 year-old hymns are also imperfect, and sometimes, really bad translations.

To change doctrine, including the gender of Jesus? Forget it! No, Never! Strictly for PC sake? Not necessary and cumbersome at times! For better understanding? Of course!

IMHO :unsure:

stlouismlb,

At the risk of sounding like a sexist, I have to admit that the whole "gender-correctness" raises my hackles because the same groups I've observed pushing for it are also pushing for women in the priesthood. If they want to do that two hundred years from now, fine. But not on my watch. I'm new to the Catholic faith, let me enjoy some good 'ol Catholic "old time religion". Maybe I should check out the Bizentines.

Mys-t-cal

I'm a woman, and I feel the same way about all this.

My 2-cents' worth.

My point, MTC and TS, is not change for the sake of change to a gender neutral language. The changes which have been made in most circles have been for clarification of translation. It is not meant to support women who feel "left out" or women in the priesthood. It is meant to be more clear and honest translation and therefore expression of the faith.

Sorry to raise your hackles.

Please give me more explanation how you see the incorrectness of the gender neutrality issue, rather than demonize those who push for it as if they are "feminazis, wimpy bishops, women ordainers"... to quote a few posters here.

Some groups pushing for gender neutrality are also pushing for causes you might support...so what? :ph43r:

Mike,

If this is a language clarification issue, yes, I agree.

This is word-for-word from the Sacramentary. Interesting -- because ECUSA does NOT use the word "men" -- but Rome still does.

Imperfect? Yes.

Bad translations? Sometimes.

Many, though, were written in English -- and the poetry of the original has been absolutely bastardized. At best. (Or worst! :angry: ) Classic example: Hark, the Herald Angels Sing.

To my thinking, re-writing the ancient classics is as offensive as the Bowlderization of Shakespeare or the painting of loincloths on Michaelangelo's nudes.

AGREED!!! AGREED!!! AGREED!!!

Blessings,

Sorry, my brother, I categorically disagree with you here! 4 years at Nashotah House and 7 at Marquette University have rather clarified my views on this subject! I do NOT believe that most of the changes have been for "clarification of translation". I DO believe that the PC crowd has infected the translation/selection commites of MANY denominations. (Even the rather liberal Protestant biblical translator Bruce Metzger has absolutely panned the New American Bible, for example, as a case where the editors -- for whatever reason -- overrode the scholarly opinions of the translators for their own purposes.)

Blessings,

David, thanks for your experienced and educated look at the PC changes. As most know, I am neither an ancient language expert, nor a theologian. What I am is a lifelong Catholic. I appreciate your criticisms and agree with you. I think that out of control PC is as bad as out of control tradition. Both can alter intent and therefore lead to misunderstanding. PCness can also bastardize beauty.

I have not had your experience at either Nashota, nor Marquette. However, I have attended two Jesuit Universities. I am in the company of faithful Catholics, daily.

My experience of people (myself included) omitting or changing texts have generally been for clarification of thought. In so doing, I personally have, on at least one occasion, been chastised directly by a bishop in attendance. However, I stand by my words as being a more clear reflection of the intent of the prayer's composer(s). In other words, what was the intent of the original writers? I hope you don't posit that it was to exclude women from the work of salvation. That assumed, then why the fear (I use this word intentionally as a reference to the original post on this subject, not that I think you or others here truly fear.) of a replacement term, when it is not for PC purposes, but to more clearly indicate intent?

As for changing original English words of hymns...I agree with you! No loincloths on the Michelangelos. No Bowlderizations of Shakespeare. As for clear and precise translations of other texts, including hymns, if the original intent can be guarded as well as the prose in English be beautiful, then by all means leave things as they are. But if the prose can't be both beautiful and theologically precise while keeping the original intent of the composer and of our doctrine...I would err on the side of precise...well, I am also not an art expert or critic.

The problem with hymns (and other artforms) used in Church celebrations, as your father once wrote, is they are included in the celebrations of the Church to help reinforce and in some cases teach doctrine. If they are not precise with regard to theological intent, but are beautiful, who loses?

I don't wish to further protract this discussion. I will try to educate myself from the responses of others. :unsure:

For a CHRIST - centered, theologically astute discussion of this topic, please go to the following: www. catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/1998-01-02/language.html :)

Thanks for the article. This is very good. In addition to dealing with the present debate before us, it also is a good primer on classic English, something we are no longer familiar with in the main.

I know no other expression for the whole gender neutral idea than to call it "dumbed-down" and "politically correct", both of which seem to go hand in hand whenever they rear their ugly heads. I am grieved and apalled on both counts as I believe the gender neutral idea leads to very bad theology. In addition this broad and unprecise language leaves itself open for a myriad of theological and other opinions. Furthermore, it has the audacity, as I reflected earlier, to intentionally misconstrue historical songs, phrases, etc.

The Church, of all institutions, should be taking the lead in blazing the trail of truth. We should be challenging people to accept nothing less than the truth and also challenging them to rise to a supreme level of language instead of lowering themselves to this base form of it.

I note that we do not tolerate such things when it comes to Beowulf or Shakespeare. Furthermore, the Church has historically been the patron of the arts and culture. For this to rise to its highest expression to the glory of God, we must insist on a reversal of this trend towards the gender neutral.

Again, just my own little thoughts. But it seems to me that gender-neutral language generally does NOT clarify anything. It tends more to blur the lines of God being "He".

And to say that using "mankind" is wrong, and should be replaced with "people", etc.? I call that more bowing to the dumbing-down of society. Like we all don't know that "mankind" means all of the human race? Please.

it is not so much that it is "wrong" but just unclear. If you use "man" at times to mean a male and other times to mean all of humanity, we are giving two meanings to the same word. Sure, many words have multiple meanings but when thre is a perfectly good alternative, why not use it?

"We had a large gathering last night with over forty men in attendence."

What does that mean? 40 males or 40 people?

My biggest beef is when old, traditional hymns are re-written for the sake of "political correctness".

If someone wants to write new hymns, using more modern English, I have no problem with that at all.

But not the old 'uns!

Yes indeed, I agree David! It smacks of "political correctness" which in itself, is an oxymoron! :D


A good chance to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and Happy Lasagne!!


Roy

It is funny, because we sang "God rest ye Merry Gentlemen" last Sunday, and I nudged Jonathan and said "at least they didn't change it to 'gentlefolk.'" However, even though they didn't change that, they "corrected" other words in the hymn. They correct "Joy to the World" and others too.

Even secular artists, who aren't even Christian, sing Christmas songs the way they were written, yet hymnal companies feel the need to "correct" the classic hymns. I agree David, write new hymns like you want, but don't be so arrogant as to feel the need to force the views of some modern folks on past hymn writers. Personally, I often use inclusive language for humans (not always though), but that doesn't mean I feel the need to change hymns that I didn't write!

Also, while we are airing our beefs with hymnals, I wish the one company that produces the missalettes for our school (maybe Oregon Catholic Press?) would put cover art on them that doesn't make Jesus and the saints look like sickly freaks.

God bless and Merry Christmastide to all,

David

Amen!

I find your reasoning a little skewed. Many of the old hymns were originally in Latin, German, French, Italian, Polish...etc. Should we have never translated them to English, forced rhymes and all? :unsure:

Let's agree to sing every song in its original language, key and setting. If it calls for full orchestra, than only sing that when you have a full orchestra. If acapella, never add instruments and so forth. If you must build an ancient instrument, no longer in current use, to sing a song in its original, then build the instrument or give up singing the song. ;)

Our battle cry: Never modernize for any reason! To modernize is to compromise!!!

Mike,

You have a point here, but it's not the point I was trying to make. During the Christmas season, I was especially reminded of the politically correct police with the butchering of certain well-loved (and well-known) Christmas carols -- carols, I might add, which were originally written in English!

Example:

"Mild he lays his glory by
Born that we no more may die.
Born to raise us from the earth
Born to give us second birth."

is NOT

"Mild he lays his glory by
Born that man no more may die.
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth."

Now, granted, when dealing with translations from other languages into English, there will be differences/changes, etc. But that's not what I'm talking about here.

And it's not just gender games. In many hymnals, editors have decided that we are all idiots, and have messed with many (but strangely enough, not all) of the pronouns. Particularly silly example:

"Thine be the glory, risen conquering Son,
Endless is the victory you o'er death has won."

You can't change the first pronoun, because it really messes with the opening line. But let's have pronoun agreement, shall we?
:rolleyes:

Or how about from the grand hymn "For All the Saints":

"You were their rock" just doesn't sound the same as "Thou wast their rock". (This one is a particular pet peeve of my pastor -- as Vatican II as any, and more so than most -- but also an excellent organist with perfect pitch.)

The other problem is that the editing and re-writing of traditional hymns is not consistent between hymnal publishers -- even among Catholic hymnal publishers. If I move from one parish to another two counties over which uses a different hymnal, chances are, I'll have to re-learn the hymns -- again.

Perhaps there are reasons "why Catholics don't sing"!

BTW -- my favorite recording of Handel's Messiah is performed on period instruments with the size of ensemble (both instrumental and vocal) which would have been available to Handel at the time. While it is fun to listen to a huge ensemble like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir belt out the choruses, it is also nice to hear the music as it was intended to be played and sung.

Blessings,

Huh, I didn't know this happened in Catholic churches. We use the St. Michael hymnal. One of its selling points: Original traditional words -- no inclusive language.

http://www.stmichaelhymnal.com/

I haven't noticed any strange verbiage, so I guess it's old school.

Personally, I am not opposed to editing the hymns because they make them more modern. Modern does not necessarily equal bad...in fact the modern Catholic trend is to ditch the *old* 60s and 70s trendy stuff in favor of something a little more timeless. One could make the case that it is the 60s and 70s trends that have become fossilized in the American Catholic church, and we young folks are not trying to avoid the modern, but rather, avoid the hopelessly out of date stuff still forced upon us by the previous generation of academics and hymnal editors! I say this partly in jest, because a)I like quite a few hymns from the 1960s and 1970s, and b ) because I am not into either the "new=better" or "old=better" philosophy, although I tend to believe that in the Church, something older and received has a better claim to being "better" because it is time-tested, although everything old was new once.

My real issue is that they are changing hymns that other people wrote/translated without a real demand on the part of laypersons. If the original hymn is in Latin, fine, translate it fresh, but I don't believe hymnal editors should take a well-known translation by someone else and change words simply because they feel it necessary.

Another issue I have with editing these old hymns is that they are taking songs that people actually know by heart (rare these days as it is), and changing words simply because the people in charge happen to agree with the philosophy behind inclusive language. Again, I have yet to see any real demand for inclusive language in the pews (and polls show this too). So, why not *include* the majority of Catholics who like the old hymns/translations, and publish it the right way?

I admit that the motives behind inclusive language bother me, not because I don't agree with the basic principles behind inclusive language (because I agree with them and often use inclusive language for humans), but because I think it is egotistical to think the recent generation has the right to "correct" the old hymns, etc, and change whatever they want, whenever they want, "for our good." Also, I was exposed to so much blind acceptance to the dogma of inclusive language in grad school, that I am more than happy to think critically on the matter (and trust me, there are those who accept "exclusive" language uncritically as well).

God bless,
David