Remember that lady who tried to "restore" a piece of religious art and made it look like a cubist monkey?

That pretty much sums up my thoughts.

This is an important enough question that it deserves some theological input. For example, in the concept of divine filiation, is there a difference in how Scripture uses the terms "sons of God" and "children of God"?

Sound doctrine and the Church's use of language should be decisive, and not just trends originating outside the Church. Much of the campaigning for so-called "inclusive language" had open socio-political motivations.

As for old hymns, I think changing the old texts for reasons of social acceptability is (a) insulting to the faithful, implying that we do not know what they mean; and (b) a creepy, Orwelliian attempt to deceive people's memories. I don't want to go so far as to say that all editing of texts is bad: sometimes editors change a text to make it more singable or avoid awkward constructions in an earlier version.

We should take the Church's use of language as a model, whatever it --
Hey: new texts? We don't need no steenking new --

Is Outrage!
:-)

CharlesW writes:

"They [old flower children] have to be grownups at some point."

Well, I wouldn't be too sure about this; the P.C. thought-police seem to have been pretty good at avoiding adulthood thus far ...

Years ago I remember reading about some mainline American Protestant parish where the hymn Stand Up, Stand Up For Jesus was banned on the grounds of its alleged offensiveness toward the occupants of wheelchairs. Mercifully, I haven't heard about any other prohibitions of this hymn since.

The issue in English as opposed to some other languages such as German, Polish, or Russian, is that we have no neutral, animate gender. Therefore, like Spansh and French, we have to use some gender-specific default, or be more specific to begin with. This is where using his/he/him to refer to mankind in general and in that sense, everyone/all people (including women) makes grammatical sense. Due to inclusive language, we are now breaking rules of our own so-beloved vernacular, such as using the animate plural possessive as a pronoun to refer to a singular person, whose gender may or may not be known.

This drive me nuts. It was not done because people don't understand what it means.

If you say "mankind", a liberal looney might get mad at you, but everyone will know that you are talking about all of humanity, not half. There's no need to neuter these old hymn, especially since it often destroys the poetry.

Echoing Chonak, IMO sons/daughters doesn't actually mean the same thing as children in contemporary usage. Son can connote responsible adult, even heir, whereas children almost never does, having instead the connotations immaturity, helplessness and dependance. Often Sons is a more accurate translation than children despite the apparent lack of gender neutrality.

For the Year of Faith, we realized the "official" hymn was too rotten to bother with. We chose "Faith of Our Fathers," original text, since we felt the same as you, ghmus7, about the GIA text

JQ, I am in full sympathy with your pessimism. But you're assessment of "Mrs." is totally wrongheaded. Mrs. Clinton? Mrs. Obama? It would be jarring to hear "Ms." as a title for either of these women. You would have a much stronger argument for the demise of "Miss" since is is used rarely for any woman over the age of 12.

Since "modern" is often an antonym of "beautiful", and that which is used for the worship of God must represents our best efforts, most texts which attempt to use contemporary use have to be avoided. Not everything written in the modern era is ugly, but I can't think of something self-consciously written in the modern idiom (or worse yet, the post-modern idiom) which would pass muster as suitable for the worship of Almighty God.

I wouldn't attempt to rescue the texts, but to reject them.

When I suggested getting some theological input, I already had a source in mind: I asked Fr. Mark Kirby, prior of Silverstream Priory in Ireland, about hartleymartin's question. Fr. Kirby studied liturgical theology at Catholic U. and has lectured at the CMAA colloquium, and he offered this comment:

I would tend not to replace "sons" with "children" given the theological and, especially, Christological, weight of the word "son" in the whole biblical, patristic, and liturgical tradition. The use of the word "sons" is a reference to The Son; we are "sons in the Son" — filii in Filio — and the grace of Baptism, given to men and women alike, is one of divine filiation. The danger with using "children" in place of "sons" is that it obscures the Christological reference without which nothing makes sense.

Arthur, it's interesting to me that the two counterexamples you gave were of women who, regardless of how competent they may be on their own, are public figures because of their husbands.

Oh, well, Arthur Connick, I can assure you that in Australia, "Ms." is utterly inescapable. (I've seen "Ms. Obama" in Melbourne newspapers, for instance, to refer to Michelle.) Very, very occasionally the term will be used sarcastically about some femocrat or other here, but in practice this means no more than "very, very occasionally I myself, or some other equally aged male, will use it sarcastically about some femocrat or other."

Good luck with the coursework, Mr. Hartley; will you be undertaking it in Sydney?

" Does anyone doubt that "Ms." in contemporary usage signifies a low-status female?"

I most assuredly doubt that.

I've been contemplating offering my opinions and thoughts on the matter of this thread, and have so far decided against it.

Those of you who have frequented this forum for some time know that I am, generally speaking, a proponent of some implementations of gender-inclusive language.

Specifically: I am opposed to the use of the word "Man," or other male-specific terminology, in reference to non-gender-specific persons, people, or humanity generally.

I have weighed in on many other threads that covered precisely the same issue, and the result tends to be an increase in hostility and nastiness, and very little found common ground.

So, other than to mention my own opinion matter (so that, at least, you know that there are otherwise reasonable people who disagree with what's been said above), I don't intend here to get into an argument or discussion about it. If any of you are actually curious about my thoughts on the matter, a search through the Forum archives will likely turn up several previous threads where I have, at least partially, expressed my thoughts on the matter.

One of the moderators suggested to me privately that I should take the time to write out my complete thoughts on the matter at my own blog, where I can develop my thinking and argument on the issue more fully.

I intend to do so.

But in the mean time, I would like to offer a couple small points about this issue which have occurred to me recently, and have relevance in other areas even if you disagree with my thinking on the gendered language issue.

A) If the purpose of having liturgy in the vernacular is so that the content of the prayers is made explicitly known to the people so that it can be understood, then does it make sense to use language which, because of the evolution of language, now communicates something which was not originally intended by the text?

II) If vernacular hymns and songs are not really a part of the liturgy, but something added to it for the primary purpose of assisting the congregation in their devotional practices, does it make sense to use language which places barriers to that devotion among some of the faithful? Moreover, if vernacular hymns and songs are not part of the liturgy, does it really matter if they are altered to reflect a change in the vernacular?

Generic. Like "Mr."

Yes, like "Mr." But there are no commonly used alternative honorifics for men, so "Mr." doesn't convey relative status in the same way as "Ms.", "Mrs." and "Miss".

Mr., as opposed to Sir or Your Excellency or Your Majesty.

Just plain old no-count Mr.

Yes, like "Mr." But there are no commonly used alternative honorifics for men, so "Mr." doesn't convey relative status in the same way as "Ms.", "Mrs." and "Miss"

The thrust of your argument is that marital status is the defining characteristic of a woman. That language has shifted towards a non-specific honorific suggests that society, in general, disagrees with that.

While I am opposed to that type of gender inequality, I am firmly in support of marriage, and wish that the trend had gone in the opposite direction: special designators for men based on whether they are married or not.

Since "Mr." (Mister) is short for "Master" (as in "Master of the house") I propose we reserve that title for married men, who have an house to be a master of.

Unmarried men, who have not otherwise taken on the responsibility of a religious calling, should be prefixed with "Dm." which is to be pronounced "dim," and which is short for "Dudemeister," or "Master of Dudes."

Kathy

Don't forget the archaic (one hopes) usage of "Boy" (as a term formerly specificcally addressed to men of a specific race).

(On the light side:

I can't get Moliere's Bourgeois Gentilhomme out of my head when we discuss the generic "Mr.")


On the serious side:


I want to commend Adam for his restraint -- self described -- in waiting before posting. Thank you, sir, for choosing the path of restraint.

If I can follow in the newly-esteemed Adam's footprints, not in waiting, but in proposing very calmly a disagreement with him, here it is:

1) In regard to changing already composed texts, it seems to me that published texts (copyright and all) should be treated with respect. Those in the public domain should be treated as venerable in direct connection to their age.

2) In regard to newly composed texts, so-called "inclusive" language is like so-called tolerance, and should be treated with a healthy skepticism. If an individual worsdsmith wishes to write by using so-called Inclusive language, surely one can not prevent him, but at the same time, since so-called inclusive language is only one trend in the development of the language, it can't claim primacy merely because it has the loudest microphone.

"Boy" and "girl" and their equivalents have been used in many languages and cultures to denote servants of any age, regardless of race/ethnicity. (See "puer" in Latin, which means a boy, but also a slave.)

Language is tricky. Much trickier than most people give it any credit for.

Arthur,

Point taken on that score. I had thought of wording it that way, but the usage did vary in that regard. In any event, to openly call someone Mr who was not customarily permitted to be called Mr could be a risky gambit.

Language evolves, but religion is a conservative sector of culture and need make no apology for being so.

... especially when the demand for change is an attempt to gain power by manipulating language.
... especially when ideologues demand to reduce the multiple meanings of the word "man" to a single meaning (male), thereby reducing the freedom of English speakers. (Orwell knew this too!)
... especially when the hurt feelings are not based on real offenses but on the skewed interpretation of language which is propagandized.