In 1992, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) submitted a new translation of the English Lectionary for Mass to the Vatican for approval. It was the first such revision of the Lectionary since the original edition called for by the Second Vatican Council. Over four years later, with no Vatican approval of the new translation forthcoming, all seven active American cardinals went to the Vatican in December 1996 to press for a resolution.
“Why has there been such a delay?” wrote then president of the NCCB, Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania. “What makes the proposed Lectionary so problematic? The answer: inclusive language” (Origins 26, no. 42 [April 10, 1997], 688).
The cardinals’ visit produced two results. First, U.S. archbishops Jerome Hanus (Dubuque, Iowa), William Levada (San Francisco, California), and Justin Rigali (St. Louis, Missouri) met at the Vatican in March 1997 to correct problems identified by the Vatican in the revised Lectionary. Second, in June of the same year, the Vatican presented norms for translation to the U.S. bishops. The re-revision by the three bishops, which Archbishop Levada characterized as an “updated, inclusive language text,” was described by Bishop Trautman as “substantially and radically altered, rendering it no longer an inclusive-language text” (Catholic World Report, August/September 1997, 29).
Other bishops also expressed disappointment with the re-revision, but the desire to have a new Lectionary was strong. In a close vote in June 1997, the NCCB followed the recommendation of Archbishop Rembert Weakland (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) to approve the Lectionary, but with the intention of revisiting the issue in five years when completion of work on the Old Testament of the revised New American Bible (NAB) is anticipated. On October 6, 1997, the Apostolic See confirmed the approval of the Lectionary. Finally, in time for Advent 1998, the NCCB published the first volume of the revised Lectionary; its use will be mandatory in parishes once the volume for daily Mass is completed.
While the revised Lectionary submitted in 1992 was awaiting the approval, other “inclusive” translations that had received approbation were reconsidered. In 1994, the Vatican revoked its authorization for the liturgical use of two English-language texts: the revised New American Bible translation of the Psalms and the proposed U.S. English-language Lectionary for Mass using the New Revised Standard Version. Then in April 1996, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, asked Bishop Anthony Pilla (Cleveland, Ohio), president of the NCCB, to withdraw the imprimatur that had been granted to the Liturgical Psalter produced by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL). Bishop Pilla insisted that “the revocation of the imprimatur should in no way be perceived as a revocation of the judgment of the censors’ opinions concerning the fidelity or accuracy of the text, or the judgment of our bishops’ ad hoc committee for the review of Scripture translations that recommended the granting of the imprimatur” (Origins 28, no. 12 [September 13, 1998], 215).
Nevertheless, the Holy See appears to be calling for a careful re-examination of the NCCB’s endorsement of “horizontal” inclusive language (see “The Abolition of ‘Man,'” This Rock, April 1999). The NCCB maintained its translations were only keeping up with already established changes in English, not advocating a political ideology. Rev. John A. Gurrieri, executive director of the Liturgy Secretariat of the NCCB, explained:
“English language has developed in new ways that must be recognized in the liturgy of English-speaking Catholics. Such is the case with regard to the issue commonly called ‘exclusive language,’ . . . [that is] any manner of speaking or writing which, in referring to persons, actually excludes or is perceived to exclude certain individuals or groups. . . . In the United States we are conscious of the importance of avoiding in our liturgical texts all semblance of sexism, racial slurs, or anti-semitic words or phrases, verbal imagery unjustified by even the most narrow theology of redemption and salvation” (Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy Newsletter 21 [March 1985], 201).
Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk (Cincinnati, Ohio), the American representative to ICEL for the last decade, expressed the same commitment to inclusive language. “The National Conference of Catholic Bishops has favored the use of inclusive language in liturgical texts and has approved such language since 1978,” he said. “The bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy maintains its commitment to those plans and projects of the [ICEL] in which liturgical texts are revised or translated with inclusive language in mind. . . . [We] wish to make it known that the question of inclusive language is a matter which deserves attention in the Church because of the cultural development of the English language in the United States and in other English-speaking countries. . . . [We] do not understand the matter of inclusive language as a ‘women’s issue’ only, as is thought by some. Rather, [we] understand inclusive language to be a question of the cultural development of the English language and therefore important to all worshiping members of the Church” (Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy Newsletter 21 [April 1985], 205-206).
The bishops spelled out what they intended by the use of inclusive language when they approved the “Criteria for the Evaluation of Inclusive Language” (CEIL) in November 1990. “Some segments of the American culture have become increasingly sensitive to ‘exclusive language,’ i.e., language which seems to exclude the equality and dignity of each person regardless of race, gender, creed, age or ability,” the document said. “. . .There has been a noticeable loss of the sense of grammatical gender in American usage of the English language. . . . English vocabulary itself has changed so that words which once referred to all human beings are increasingly taken as gender-specific and, consequently, exclusive.
“Words such as ‘men,’ ‘sons,’ ‘brothers,’ ‘brethren,’ ‘forefathers,’ ‘fraternity,’ and ‘brotherhood,’ which were once understood as inclusive generic terms, today are often understood as referring only to males. In addition, although certain uses of ‘he,’ ‘his,’ and ‘him’ once were generic and included both men and women, in contemporary American usage these terms are often perceived to refer only to males. Their use has become ambiguous and is increasingly seen to exclude women. Therefore, these terms should not be used when the reference is meant to be generic. . . .
“Words such as adam, anthropos, and homo have often been translated in many English biblical and liturgical texts by the collective terms ‘man,’ and ‘family of man.’ Since in the original languages these words actually denote human beings rather than only males, English terms which are not gender-specific, such as ‘person,’ ‘people,’ ‘human family,’ and ‘humans,’ should be used in translating these words.”
The CEIL set forth nine principles for preparing Scripture passages from the New American Bible for use in the Lectionary for Mass. Four of these principles assume that English has become inclusive.
“A clause is put into the plural so as to be inclusive in language, without affecting the meaning of the clause” (principle C).
“A clause is changed from the third person singular to the second person so as to be inclusive in language, only when it does not affect the meaning of the clause” (principle D).
“The Greek word adelphoi is translated as ‘brothers and sisters’ in a context which, in the judgment of Scripture scholars, includes women as well as men” (principle F).
“In those instances where the meaning of the text would not be altered, a word which is exclusive in meaning is replaced by an inclusive word or words when the context includes women as well as men” (principle G). (All CEIL quotes taken from Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy Newsletter 26 [October/November 1990], 230.)
In response to the U.S. cardinals’ visit to Rome in December 1996, the Vatican developed six of its own norms for translation of biblical texts for the liturgy. These norms were presented to the U.S. bishops just prior to their meeting in June 1997 when the new Lectionary was voted on. Three of these norms appear to be explicit corrections of the CEIL:
“3. The translation of Scripture should faithfully reflect the Word of God in the original human languages. It must be listened to in its time-conditioned, at times even inelegant, mode of human expression without ‘correction’ or ‘improvement’ in service of modern sensitivities. . . . If explanations are deemed to be pastorally necessary or appropriate, they should be given in editorial notes, commentaries, homilies, etc. . . .
“5. Grammatical number and person of the original texts ordinarily should be maintained. . . .
“6/3. The word man in English should as a rule translate adam and anthropos, since there is no one synonym which effectively conveys the play between the individual, the collectively, and the unity of the human family so important, for example, to expression of Christian doctrine and anthropology” (quoted in CWR, August/September 1997, 30).
An examination of the revisions to the new Lectionary reveals how the attempt to be inclusive and faithful to the text is a painful balancing act, leading to unfortunate inconsistencies.
In the new Lectionary-for instance, preceding Romans 5:12-19, Romans 8:14-17, and Galatians 4:4-7-readings from Paul’s letters frequently have the salutation “Brothers and sisters” added to the beginning of the text. The original Lectionary simply started the reading with the text of the letter. The new Lectionary also generally translates adelphoi in the letters of Paul and James as “brothers and sisters,” as opposed to “brothers” in the old Lectionary.
But in the readings from the Acts of the Apostles, the new Lectionary leaves adelphoi as “brothers.” (Because in many Acts passages adelphoi clearly refers to elders and apostles, the translators seem to have felt obligated to use “brothers” universally in Acts.) This has the ironic result-since Paul’s and James’ epistles have been generally inclusivized-of making “brothers” appear to refer only to men, underscoring the word’s “exclusive” nature. Another consequence of this awkward refinement of terms is that although the adelphoi in Galatians 1:1 are “brothers and sisters” and false adelphoi teach that circumcision is necessary for salvation (Gal. 2:4), in Acts this false teaching is presented to adelphoi who are “brothers” only.
There is a similar inconsistency in the translation of the term huios, “son.” The new Lectionary translates the plural, huioi, sometimes as “children” and sometimes as “sons.”
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children [huioi] of God” (Matt. 5:9).
“Brothers and sisters: those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons [huioi] of God” (Rom. 8:14).
“As proof that you are sons [huioi], God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, ‘Abba, Father!’ So you are no longer a slave but a son [huios], and if a son [huios] then also an heir, through God” (Gal. 4:6-7).
A noticeable difference now exists between the texts of the 1998 Lectionary and those approved in 1989 for the Order of Christian Funerals, which is based on the revised New American Bible. The Order of Christian Funerals adds “and sisters” to “brothers” where adelphoi appears. The new Lectionary also follows the revised NAB, but with notable exceptions. Unlike the revised NAB, it avoids replacing anthropos with “person” or “human being” in certain key christological passages. The following passages reveal the new Lectionary’s step back from the inclusive language of the revised NAB used in the Order of Christian Funerals.
Romans 5:17-19
Order of Christian Funerals: “For if, by the transgression of one person [ho eis], death came to reign through that one [ho eis], how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person [ho eis] Jesus Christ. In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all [pantes anthropoi], so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all [pantes anthropoi]. For just as through the disobedience of one person [anthropos] the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one [ho eis] the many will be made righteous.”
New Lectionary: “For if, by the transgression of the one [ho eis], death came to reign through that one [ho eis], how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one [ho eis] Jesus Christ. In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all [pantes anthropoi], so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all [pantes anthropoi]. For just as through the disobedience of one man [anthropos] the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of the one [ho eis] the many will be made righteous.”
Romans 8:14-23
Order of Christian Funerals: “For those who are led by the Spirit of god are children [huioi] of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption, through which we cry, Abba “Father.” The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children [tekna]of God, and if children [rekna], then heirs.”
New Lectionary: “Brothers and sisters: Those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons [huioi] of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption, through whom we cry,Abba “Father.” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children[tekna] of God, and if children [tekna], then heirs.”
1 Corinthians 15:21
Order of Christian Funerals: “For since death came through a human being [anthropos], the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being [anthropos].”
New Lectionary: “For since death came through man [anthropos], the resurrection of the dead came also through man [anthropos].”
Retaining a more literal translation allows the listener or preacher to ponder Paul’s word choice rather than the translators’. For instance, in Romans 8:14-23 above, Paul uses both huioi (“sons”) and tekna (“children”), but this is not detectable in the revised NAB translation, which translates everything as “children.”
Despite the controversial nature of inclusive language, the NCCB’s official stance assumes that inclusive usage is an established reality in English. In the words of Bishop Trautman: “Let it be stated forcefully that the use of inclusive language does not mean an endorsement of feminist agenda. . . . Inclusive language is simply a recognition of contemporary culture and the changes in the English language” (Origins 26, no. 42 [April 10, 1997], 690). But as we saw last month (“The Abolition of ‘Man'”), the case for inclusive language has not been proven.
In the process of publishing the new Lectionary, the American bishops have committed themselves deeply to this project and are determined to pursue it further over the course of five years. “The decision of the NCCB at their June 1997 meeting to revisit the Lectionary texts in five years is therefore due not only to the projected completion of the revised New American Bible NAB) translations of the Old Testament but also to the effect which continued changes in the use of inclusive language may have on American English” (Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy Newsletter 33 [June/July 1997], 26).
The same issue of the Newsletter speaks of “the rapid evolution of the English usage in the United States, especially in the adaptation of ideological vocabulary.” The assumption here is that the language develops and changes to the point of affecting a five-year-old translation of the Scriptures.
“When people come to liturgical celebrations,” wrote Bishop Trautman, “they come with the everyday language of contemporary life in their ears. When people pray in their own words, they use the language with which they are conditioned daily. That language reflects the influence of television, videos, movies, newspapers, magazines, and best sellers. . . . How much longer will the Church in the United States have to pray with liturgical and biblical texts that are exclusive, unintelligible, culturally insensitive, and outmoded?” (Origins 26, no. 42, 690).
Such a line of reasoning does not appeal to a de facto change in the language but rather risks subjecting the liturgy to passing fads. The unproven case for inclusive language is suspect as a principle for translating the sacred texts of the Church. In view of their role as successors of the apostles, charged with handing on what they have received, it would seem incumbent upon the U.S. bishops to proceed with caution, examining inclusive hermeneutic principles carefully, even at the risk of being considered behind the times. Throughout this process we see how important it is to pray for our bishops, who have been given custody of the sacred liturgy of the Church.