Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
I had a question from a woman who feared that her confessions were
"incomplete" because the priest may have misunderstood what she said or
even may not have heard her mention some of her sins. She wanted to know if
her "incomplete" confessions were themselves sinful.
Hers was a classic case of scrupulosity, which is a spiritual failing that
sees sin where there is no sin. I recommended that she find a good
spiritual director because she needs regular counsel from someone who knows
scrupulosity when he sees it.
In addition I advised her to get a free subscription to "Scrupulous
Anonymous" monthly newsletter, which is available upon request by writing
to:
"Scrupulous Anonymous"
Liguori, MO 63057-9999
The newsletter is edited by Fr. Thomas R. Santa, C.Ss.R., the author of
"Understanding Scrupulosity," a book available from Catholic Answers at:
Book: Understanding Scrupulosity
Shop: http://shop.catholic.com
INCLUSIVITY, AGAIN
Last week I noted that intruding what is commonly called "inclusive
language" in place of a traditional rendering (or just in place of standard
English) can change the meaning of a sentence.
Many people want to change "men" (as in "Christ died for all men") to "men
and women." The problem is that "men" means different things in the two
examples. This is easy to see when you realize that if we say "Christ died
for all men and women" we imply that he did not die for children.
You may have noticed that nowadays at Mass the readings from the Pauline
epistles almost always begin with "brothers and sisters." A listener might
get the impression that Paul used that phrase every few paragraphs in his
writings.
In fact, he didn't. The phrase is the inclusive language substitute for
"brothers," a word that Paul used but not remotely as often as our current
lectionary might lead one to think.
In some places he and other sacred writers wrote to groups that included
men and women, but in many cases their works were addressed to audiences
that would have been exclusively male. This is something that drops out of
the picture when inclusive language is used.
In many traditional cultures, men and women worshiped separately. Even
today the most conservative Jews do not seat men and women together in the
synagogue. Things would have been no less strict in the first century.
It is probable that the writers of certain books of the Bible expected
their words to be read aloud in front of exclusively male congregations or
groups, in which case "brothers" really meant "brothers" and not "brothers
and sisters." These nuances are lost when inclusive language is imposed on
a text.
In some instances the writer (Paul, for example) might write to a group of
men and women. He will let the inclusive sense of "brothers" take its
natural course. (The group will know whether it consists of men only or of
men and women.) In other instances the writer will write to men only, in
which case "brothers" will be understood by the recipients to refer to
males only. Either way, "brothers" covers the situation as it really was.
If we substitute "brothers and sisters," we exclude the second possibility,
which means at times we may end up falsifying history.
MY APPROACH
I try never to use inclusive language. (It really should be called
"feminist language," since standard English already is inclusive when it
uses "he" or "man" in the generic sense.)
Why should I? To please those to whom such usage is important? I don't see
how pandering to them is doing them any favor.
Granted, when I use proper English, someone may notice and "take offense."
I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but I am even more solicitous of
other people's minds. Maybe, when I speak English As She Is Writ, a
listener will start to think, "Uh, like, could my diction be wrong?"
As I see it, the problem isn't with those who use the generic "he" or
"man." The problem is with those who, because of their ignorance of their
own language, take offense where not only is no offense intended but where
no offense is present.
Should we modify our language to mollify such people? I don't think so,
since there always will be people who can't comprehend elements of their
native tongue. The answer isn't to dumb down the language but to "smart up"
the people. If for some reason that can't be done, the best thing is benign
neglect.
LITURGICAL GRAMMAR
The English of the Mass has never been accused of elegance. I am neither a
professional translator nor a poet, but I suspect that, like many others, I
could work up a more accurate and euphonious translation than the one we
have been using. I also could produce one that is more correct
grammatically.
Since Day One of the English translation we have been subjected to the
priest saying "All honor and glory is yours, Almighty Father." This isn't
English. At least it's not the English that would have merited a passing
grade in Miss McGillicuddy's English class.
Plural subjects require plural verbs. The line should read: "All honor and
glory are yours, Almighty Father." Why hasn't this simple correction been
made in three decades?
WELL, AT LEAST OUR VOTER'S GUIDE WAS MENTIONED
In its June 18 issue the "National Catholic Reporter" ran a half-page
article on "Election Guides for Serious Catholics." If the headline sounds
vaguely familiar, it's because our "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics"
was one of five publications or groups mentioned.
Our guide received six column inches and was introduced anecdotally: Reader
Thomas Litsch said it was being distributed at Blessed Sacrament Church in
Thomas, Oklahoma, and he didn't seem to like that. Of those six column
inches, three were devoted to Litsch's complaints about the guide:
"There is no mention of an issue such as a lie that leads us into an unjust
war, which in effect makes him [George W. Bush] a murderer of multiple
thousands. They do not speak about a candidate who wants to relax the rules
about pollution of the environment and call it a Clean Air Act. No mention
of those who favor moving jobs to a foreign country. Of those who take
millions as a CEO as their company cheats their employees and drives up the
energy prices of whole states and the nation. No mention of candidates who
waste money on war and have no money for universal health care."
The "Reporter" ends the mention of our guide this way: "Litsch asks: What
should a truly serious Catholic do when faced by such voter's guides?"
My answer: He should read our "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" and
learn why some issues are non-negotiable and belong in such a guide and why
other issues, such as environmental and employment legislation, are not and
should not.
p.s., The Catholic Answers discussion forums have been open for only five weeks
but already have 6,500 registered members, making them the largest forums
for Catholics. Already there are more than 45,000 messages covering 3,300
topics. Membership is free, and using the forums is easy. Lots of our
members are first-timers. If you want to discuss your faith or learn more
about it, or if you just want to engage in a little fellowship with
similarly-minded Catholics, try our forums:
http://forums.catholic.com
p.p.s., Catholic Answers' third annual apologetics cruise will take you from
Montreal to Boston by way of the Canadian maritime provinces. Our voyage is
from October 2-9. Speakers include Jimmy Akin, Rosalind Moss, Thomas
Howard, Tim Staples, Bishop Colin Campbell, and Karl Keating. Find out more at:
www.catholicanswerscruise.com
|
Discuss
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up
