Oh no! An insight into Catholic Education in Southwark

Health warning: Please do not read this if you suffer from hypertension,heart problems or, if you are prone to hysteria.....or bouts of violent rage....

"Parish Liturgist approaching....."

We are back in the Archdiocese of Southwark, in their little set up that facilitates education for permanent deacons, parish administrators, ex nuns, catechists, feminists and so on.

The organisation is the Education Parish Service and, if you recall, I made passing reference to them in a post last week.

The EPS has a policy with regard to inclusive language (wouldn't you know it?) and it makes stirring reading.

You see, what I had not realised is that it's just not right that we exclude nice people when we pray or discuss matters theological.

It's quite wrong, bordering on a mortal sin (except we don't do mortal sin any longer), to talk of God as our Father because that excludes the 'Mother' side of God.

Our Lord was not quite on the right track when He said: "When you pray, say Abba (Father)" - the EPS regulations don't specify precisely what He meant by that but we can surmise that Our Lord was talking about a Swedish pop group that would revitalise the Faith in the wake of Vatican 2 ('By the Rivers of Babylon').

So HERE is their website page that tells us how we should phrase things - scroll down to 'EPS Policy on inclusive language' (it's a little lengthy but please stick with it until the thin red mist descends, and then go and lie down in a darkened room (I have not fisked it, I would not know where to begin):

 EPS POLICY ON INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE

In line with many theological publishing houses and universities in

this country, it is the policy of Education for Parish Service to

require inclusive language.

1. The terms ‘man’ and ‘men’ are to be used only for males.

Where both women and men are intended then other terms must

be found.

thus we may say:

the human person

the human being

each person

humanity

humankind

the human race

turns to God in faith

2. The use of the possessive:

rather than: the hearts of men

use: people’s hearts

or perhaps better: human hearts

3. The persistent use of ‘he’ and ‘his’ to refer to a person of either

sex is NOT acceptable. For example:

Man is saved through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

He is conscious of his past sins and he experiences God’s

forgiveness.

The use of the plural can often be used to avoid exclusivity. Thus:

Human beings are saved through the death and resurrection of

Jesus Christ. They are conscious of their past sins and they

experience God’s forgiveness.

Education for Parish Service Version 2

Policy on inclusive language 2 November 2009

4. It may not always be possible to avoid using ‘he’ ‘him’ and

‘himself’ in relation to God, without sounding stilted or losing some

of the intended meaning. Nonetheless it is NOT acceptable to use

these pronouns unnecessarily, or where an acceptable alternative

is available. Whether the following alternatives are acceptable or

not will be a matter of individual judgement.

Let us consider the following two sentences, which are overloaded

with male pronouns:

God himself, in his goodness, sent his only Son into the world. In

doing so he gave himself for the salvation of the world he had

created.

And now let us consider some possible alternatives:

‘God himself’. The reflexive pronoun in this phrase is often used

automatically, out of habit and piety. If all that is meant is ‘God’,

then only ‘God’ should be used. If the point is that this is the very

God, then ‘The very God’ should be used. If what is meant is that

this was truly God, then ‘It truly was God’ should be used.

in his goodness. ‘out of goodness’ loses very little of the sense of

‘in his goodness’ apart from the false implication that God is male.

sent his only son into the world It may be that the ‘his’ in this

instance is the best option we have to date. However ‘sent God’s

only son into the world’ would be an acceptable alternative.

he gave himself This could be replaced by ‘God gave of God’s

own self’.

the world he had created This could be replaced by ‘the world that

God had created.’

What might we end up with?

God, out of goodness, sent his only Son into the world. In doing

so God gave of God’s own self for the world that God had created.

It is clear that work on inclusive language has a long way to go.

As a minimum requirement students should avoid the routine use

of ‘God himself...’

Education for Parish Service Version 2

Policy on inclusive language 3 November 2009

WHY INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE?

1. When referring to the human being

The reason for inclusive language when referring to the human

being is to guard against exclusion. In the 1970s and 1980s the

International Commission on English in the Liturgy recognized the

need to stop using male-only nouns and pronouns in theology and

liturgy when both male and female were intended.

‘The failure of much of liturgical and theological language

adequately to recognize the presence of women seems effectively

to exclude them from full and integral participation in the life of the

Church, and this exclusion can prevent the whole Church from

experiencing the fullness of the Christian community’. (Eucharistic

Prayers ICEL October 1980)

It is for this reason (to prevent the exclusion of women) that the

words of consecration, which refer to the blood of the new and

everlasting covenant that ‘will be shed for you and for all men’

have been changed by our bishops, so that the word ‘men’ is

deleted.

The historical background to the prevalence of exclusive language

makes its use all the more unacceptable. It was not simply that it

was more convenient to use ‘men’ to refer to people generally.

Men were seen to be the norm for humanity, and women a lesser

or deficient version. This teaching is now officially rejected by the

Catholic Church.

Education for Parish Service Version 2

Policy on inclusive language 4 November 2009

2. When referring to God

The reason for inclusive language when referring to God is to

guard against idolatry: the worship of a false male ‘god’. The

Christian tradition has tended to exclude from its liturgical practice

and prayer life the female images for God used in Scripture. The

persistent use of male pronouns reinforces the maleness of the

images that are consistently used, and has led many to believe

that God IS male. God, who is above and beyond sexuality, who

indeed brought the distinction between maleness and femaleness

into being, is reduced in the mind of the believer to the level of the

created world.

To compound the distortion, when God is viewed as male, the

male human being is seen to have a closer identification with God.

The status of woman as creature made in the image and likeness

of God is then called into question.

Now please tell me that this is all a nasty dream and that I should stop drinking that excellent Algerian red wine after 8 o'clock at night.

I have never read such unadulterated twaddle in my short life.

Small wonder that we have Muslim Prayer Rooms in ten (yes, ten) of Southwark's Catholic Schools.

No surprise that Catholic parishes have been taken over by Uriah Heep doppelgangers to greet you as you enter church for Mass or that catechesis is handed over to George who has a rather unsavoury personal odour, or that the liturgy is in the hands of a bossy harridan who crushes all who have the temerity to question why Year 4 has been commissioned to perform their interpretation of the 'Offertory Dance' during Holy Mass.

I know this is an oft repeated mantra but, for heaven's sake, what are our Bishops thinking of?

I cannot help but recall that old joke about getting into a lift (elevator) with a gun that has only two rounds. 

In the lift is the Parish Liturgist and two terrorists..... 

...what do you do?

Answer: Put two rounds into the Parish Liturgist on the grounds that you can always reason with terrorists!