Tuesday, 11 June 2013

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!

17 comments:

  1. With a false ideology to impose, one of the first steps is to change language and make it subordinate to the ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Surely they should be saying "woperson" and "wopeople" and "huperson"?

    --
    Simon "can't be bothered logging in" Platt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Enjoyed the joke - wonderfully politically incorrect!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why are we still dealing with so much crap from the '70s? Why?

    And yes, that is a rhetorical question.

    ReplyDelete
  5. OMG!! Not that I doubt you, Richard, but I tried to go to the website to see it for myself...but the link didn't work. (I'll google!). I don't know why I'm surprised though. I guess it's just that they are so "in your face" about it, and seem not to realize how foolish it all sounds.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks Jay, I've tried a fresh link, hopefully it will work.
    Brian, I love being politically incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I see from the website that the Foundation Degree in Pastoral Ministry lists ACTA's Rebekah O'Keefe as one of the tutors. She is described as a 'a freelance catechist'. Indeed, very freelance.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bob, I couldn't possibly comment :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nick D, I like your subtle approach :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Its enough to drive a MAN to drink. SORRY! have just used that naughty three letter word. No doubt the Southwark thought police persons will be on to me.I presume the bishops in this diocese are aware of whats going on and if so they must approve of this rubbish.
    Bet they dont use inclusive language in those muslim prayer rooms they have down there.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Meself, I think there's a lot to be said for Capitalizing He Him His etc when referring to the Almighty, corresponding to the tiniest but noticeble reverent pause and enunciation when so speaking.Our forefathers managed that!
    Living under another language removes the opportunity for some silliness that is only possible in English. Creates other possibilites of course.
    Are the people/humans/tribe/individuals/persons/ doing this the same as the ones who say littleboydog and little-girl-dog for dog and bitch?Morbid curiosity, just Id expect it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I see Protect The Pope has just revealed that Stonewall were brought in to the hapless PGCE students at St Marys Twickenham to teach them about homophobic bullying. Poor Archbishop Smith. Surely he can't go on ignoring this festering sore.
    (Reposted, as someone told me St Marys and Digby Stuart are different institutions in Southwark, and my post did not make this clear).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rod....I can only think of one naughty 3 letter word but then I lead a sheltered existence.
    Mike, I agree absolutely.
    Jadis, thank you. I suspect that most of the system throughout E & W is in a festering state. Time for change!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Meself, I think there's a lot to be said for Capitalizing He Him His etc when referring to the Almighty, corresponding to the tiniest but noticeble reverent pause and enunciation when so speaking.Our forefathers managed that!
    Living under another language removes the opportunity for some silliness that is only possible in English. Creates other possibilites of course.
    Are the people/humans/tribe/individuals/persons/ doing this the same as the ones who say littleboydog and little-girl-dog for dog and bitch?Morbid curiosity, just Id expect it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. adeb lafo ? gremlins or hackers ? me it's not , but my n Rod g's words.

      Delete
  15. ts enough to drive a MAN to drink. SORRY! have just used that naughty three letter word. No doubt the Southwark thought police persons will be on to me.I presume the bishops in this diocese are aware of whats going on and if so they must approve of this rubbish.
    Bet they dont use inclusive language in those muslim prayer rooms they have down there.

    ReplyDelete