Philip Endean SJ teaches theology at the University of Oxford.
THE TABLET
Bridget Mary's Reflection
I think this new proposed translation of the Mass is flawed on a number of fronts, including use of non-inclusive language which provides more evidence of the Vatican's sexist attitude and failure to treat women as equals in the church. Where is women's equal dignity if all we hear in worship is "man" and masculine nouns and pronouns to address or refer to God?
Women are equal images of God and our language in liturgy should be inclusive, including addressing the Holy One in feminine imagery.
It appears the Vatican is heading full speed backwards to medieval times. What's next: Latin as the preferred language, the priests with their backs to the people, the return of altar rails?
But the good news is that Roman Catholic Womenpriests use inclusive language and imagery for God in our liturgies. So, Catholics who do not like this new Vatican-imposed English translations can experience our liturgies where all are welcome and all are included.
Let me make a prediction-- one day- the Vatican will adapt or perhaps even copy our inclusive liturgie . On this day Catholics worldwide will rejoice as people-empowered communities call forth qualified women and men to preside at the altar and conduct diverse liturgies that embrace the entire church---even using Latin from time to time!
Bridget Mary Meehan
sofiabmm@aol.com
5 comments:
You are sexist, B.M. Your entire religion is built on hatred and anti-male bigotry. You feed on fanning flames and turning people against Christ's Church. I am sure he has a special place in hell for those who turn people to the devil.
Now now Mike---you are right up until you bring up Hell. Christ commanded us to love our enemies. For if we have love only for our family or friends, how does that distinguish Christians from everyone else? I do my fair share of criticism of Bridget Mary and her movement, but I don't desire her to go to Hell. I desire her salvation.
Bridget Mary, I don't see why the new translation should bother you so much. You are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and you do what you want in your own Church community anyway. Would you criticize the Lutherans if they came out with a new book of worship and you didn't like it?
As for the new translation I welcome it. The ICEL translations were awful. They were so watered down and unfaithful to the original Latin. They basically Protestanized the prayers. All reference to sacrifice, oblation, etc, were gone. The lanquage itself was too common. When we worship God, we should use lanquage which is suggestive of the enormity and dignity of the occasion.
If you were to go to the White House, are you going to greet the president with common lanquage? "Hey what's up Pres?" or are you going to speak more properly "Mister President, very nice to meet your aquaintance." It is the same with our public worship of God. The lanquage used should raise the mind to the divine, it should be suggestive of the fact that we are gathering to worship God.
Bridget Mary, I am linguist with some experience in translation. The fact is that the new translation of the liturgy is in stilted Latinesque English. If the intention of the translators were to communicate the true meaning of the texts, they would have chosen more intelligible English rather than forcing the language to fit a pseudo-Latin syntactical structure. There are many linguists who agree with this assessment. God bless you!
David
i, for one, have never gotten the sense from those in the RCWP movement that they are sexist and anti-male, and the male priests in the movement might take offense to that comment :-) however, i do detect a LOT of anger in the first post's voice and it makes me feel for the writer of that post.
if anything, these people are bringing people to Christ's Church. i know of many people around me at the Sunday Mass that replace Father with Creator or Mother/Father or simply, God. i also know that women AND men around me in the congregation are tired of saying things like "for us men" - these are not the words of the Faith or of Christ or of God, and i feel that we have to remember that; these are the words of the patriarchal times in which the prayers were written, and even that has changed over time.
language changes. things change. i, for one, don't understand the resistance to embrace the mystery of God by referring to God in a multitude of ways as Jesus did? even the most conservative male priests in the RC will admit that God is not male, so why not change the language to reflect that, and to reflect the teachings of Jesus? one can talk about it being a metaphor all one wants, but why resist using other metaphors as well? it's not confusing, but, rather, at least i feel, embraces what the Catholic Apologist is getting at in terms of using the rightful, divine language.
though on a side note, Abba, which Jesus is reported using on the cross, according to scholars, translates to "Daddy" (not Father)- sort of common language, don't you think? so, i don't think it's necessarily a matter or making the language more ornamental or such.
it'll change now, and it will change again, so i harbour no anger towards this. that's a waste of energy.
however, for me, personally, teaching a child from the get go that he or she is to refer to God as "Father" alone simply confuses things. Jesus using the word "Father" was to show the relationship and to challenge the patriarch of the times (have no Father but the Father in heaven would have been a blow). there is even some contention regarding the actual Aramaic word that Jesus may have used. but i digress.
We can't go back in time, but we can start moving forward to an inclusive language for an inclusive Church. and i think this is the message that Bridget Mary is trying to get across.
as i mentioned, i agree with the Catholic Apologist in that the language should reflect the divine, but it should also reflect the greatness of the mystery of God. God is not male or female. let's remember that Christ used both male and female imagery in describing God. both should be used.
so here i am, someone in 'communion with the Church' so to speak, and i have a problem with the language, as do many many men and women around me.
sorry...i kind of went on there a bit. but these are just some thoughts...and i thank you for contemplating them...
Post a Comment