The Tablet Blog

New Missal makes women invisible

For Catholic women the principle of 'formal equivalence' used in the new translation of the Missal poses a problem of exclusion. Thanks to the literal translation of a 'dead' language, 'brethren' has been re-introduced as the norm, while the familiar, inclusive salutation, 'brothers and sisters', has been put as an option in brackets, leaving scope for misunderstanding and for priests so inclined, to revert to outdated, offensive, exclusive forms of address.

Again in the Nicene Creed, women who form the bulk of the praying community are expected to pray: 'For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven.'

What is particularly painful to women however, is the Eucharistic Prayer No. 4, as it has deliberately disregarded the existing gender-sensitive translation which uses 'man and woman', and replaced it with a version that venerates 'man': 'You formed man in your own likeness and set him over the whole world to serve you, his creator, and to rule over all creatures. Even when he disobeyed you and lost your friendship you did not abandon him to the power of death, but helped all men to seek and find you. Again and again you offered a covenant to man, and through the prophets taught him to hope for salvation.'

Such a translation is at complete odds with the 'Gender Policy of the Catholic Church of India' issued by the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India (CBCI) in 2009, that calls the Church to be gender-sensitive at all times. By excluding women it establishes the 'divinity' of man, reinforces the superiority of man, and emphasises man's close relationship with God in direct contravention of the opening remarks of Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil CSsR, then-President, Catholic Bishops Conference of India, which promote 'the egalitarian message of Jesus, with the vision of a collaborative Church with Gender Justice'.

Making women invisible in this way is referred to as 'symbolic annihilation'. It implies that women are insignificant and can be wholly represented by men. Yet the CBCI Gender Policy clearly recognises the 'unique experiences and insights' of women, and acknowledges the need 'to make space for a spirituality that is shaped by women's life experiences and creative expression'.

In all probability the Vox Clara Committee that was responsible for the Missal in its present form did not mean to exclude women. No doubt they used the word 'man' generically. But in today's culture where students are penalised in examinations for using gender-insensitive language, and doctoral theses in universities are rejected for the use of sexist language and ideas, the subsuming of woman in man is no longer acceptable. The world has changed since Latin held sway in ancient Rome, and there can be no going back.

Language as we all know is not just a means of communication; it holds a worldview, reflecting the way we think. Moreover, it shapes our thinking. By erasing women from language we privilege men over women and maintain a gender imbalance.

In addition to the language, the new Missal also has some theological underpinnings which women find offensive. Thus the Eucharistic Prayer No. 1 has changed 'the ever-Virgin mother of Jesus Christ' to 'the glorious ever-Virgin Mary' shifting the focus from Mary's virginity as a sign of the divine birth to the glorification of virginity, by corollary attributing a secondary status to the vocation of marriage. If this was not the intent, it is definitely the message that comes across emphasizing the inadequacy of the translation.

The Eucharistic Prayer No. 1, for Pentecost Sunday, also obliterates women. It mentions 'the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit appeared to the apostles'. Yet the Jerusalem Bible in a footnote very clearly speaks of the Holy Spirit being poured out on all present in the upper room including Mary and other women disciples who met in the upper room to pray constantly with one heart (Acts 1:13-14). Both sons and daughters were called to prophesy (Acts 2:17-18). Unfortunately we are never made aware of this and prayers like this Eucharistic Prayer perpetuate the myth of only men being given the mandate of the Holy Spirit.

Given the above, the new translation raises an important question: whose worldview is important? The speaker/author or the reader/listener?

Astrid Lobo Gajiwala is a medical scientist based in Mumbai.

The new translation is very close to the English translation of 1962 latin used in the Tridentine mass and I can't help but wonder whether this similarity is far from accidental. Perhaps it was thought that the dynamic equivalence of the 'old' translation had gone too far in many ways and a return to how things used to be was the only way for The Church to move away from the ravages of modernism? The 'exclusive' language is sometimes regrettable and oftentimes invisible as I read it but could be corrected in a later edition. I am of a generation that has no trouble with mankind signifying both, or should I say 'all' genders and would find 'humankind' grating and insincere. But I can accept many of the other faults where women feel excluded though I, myself don't. Whatever the arguments about the use of exclusive language I would wonder at the depth of faith of women who left The Church because of it.

I dont know exactly when my journey from active ministry to complete loss of faith began, but I remember being asked (as a cleric with mnown conservative leanings and permission to celebrate the Tridentine rite) what I thought of the ceremony of installation of + Cormac as Archbishop of Westminster. I remember saying that all I could see were men. The scales fell from my eyes. The rest is, as they might say my personal history but reading about the new missal fills this 'resting' celebrant with deep sadness.

Tina Beattie claims the reason most Catholic women don't go to Mass is because, she claims, they feel 'excluded' by the Liturgy's grammatically correct but politically incorrect language. Then why are 70% to80% of the adults in our congregations female? Obviously as a group men 'feel excluded' to a much greater degree than women do. Spare us your fatuous claim not to understand that 'man' like so many other words in English and other languages, has two (or more) difeffernt meanings depending on the context. You are not that stupid. Then again, you do maker the astonishing claim 'there's nothing stylistically or theologically problematic about just saying 'for us and for our salvation'.' ! For a start, it raises the obvious question - who is 'us' - only 'us' at that particular Mass? Only 'us' who join in the prayer? 'us' practsing Catholics? All Catholics? All baptised Christians? All men of goodwill? Or, as the Creed actually and quite unambiguously says, all men? Stop the nonsensical pretense that you understand this to mean that Christ did not come to save women (or children, babies, hermaphrodites, etc.)

Jim McCrea: Since the word woman does not and has never signified 'the whole of humanity'� one would have a legitimate objection, or is this incongruent with the message of the inclusive bible?

In my experience, many ordinary people in the pews are unhappy with the new translation. Furthermore, the abandonment of a sensitive handling of gendered language will not encourage women to feel that the church takes them seriously. There is a danger that women will continue to swell the ranks of the non-practising and that the young will be discouraged from remaining in the sexist language world that the Vatican has returned to in the liturgy But then are the authorities trying to keep people in the church any more, or happy to leave us with a faithful but rapidly dwindling remnant?

There is a a real dilemma here. On the one hand, some people have been so educated as to find generic 'man' offensive; on the other hand, some of us find the hermeneutic of feminism (including all the guff about inclusive language) offensive. Clearly no translation will be able to avoid offending one set of sensibilities or the other. The obvious solution, then, is to revert to Latin, the universal language of the Roman Church.

Two comments on this article say that 'outside of the Tablet readership, people have accepted the new translation and moved on'. Not true. 'Very big not true'! Go to www.v2catholic.com and put 'new missal' and 'new translation' into Google search at top of main page....to see articles from all over the world lamenting the new translation/missal. Thank you, Tablet, for continuing to cover this most important issue!

Mr. Coley. Not the U.S. I'm afraid: all the bishops are John Paul II appointees.

Thank you for excellent article. This article will be linked on June 2 menu of www.v2catholic.com which has been publishing and linking many articles on the new missal

I wonder if those who have been so quick to attack Astrid have ever really listened to what women themselves are saying - not just a small minority who refuse to acknowledge there's any problem, but the much larger majority of women who either no longer attend church at all, or who continue to attend but suffer deep feelings of exclusion and frustration? Of course there are women as well as men who insist that everything is fine just as it is - for them, maybe it is. But don't we have a responsibility to listen to and try to understand those whose experiences are different from our own? Is Christianity really about saying 'I'm alright Jack (and Jill), so stop whingeing?' I'd make three other points. First, both Latin and Greek have three terms - homo, vir and mulier or femina in Latin, anthropos, aner and gyne in Greek. The English equivalent would be human, man and woman. The word in the Latin creed is 'homines', not 'viris'. It could be argued that 'for us humans' would be a more literal translation than 'for us men'. That's clumsy of course - although stylistic considerations don't seem to be at the forefront of the new translation - but there's nothing stylistically or theologically problematic about just saying 'for us and for our salvation'. My second point is that these issues are important today because culture has changed, and we are generally more aware than we once were of the divisive power of language that excludes and controls. As women, we expect the language we use in our homes and wider society to express our equality and inclusion. Only in the liturgy do we find that we are still referred to as men and brothers. This is no trivial matter. The obstinate refusal to accommodate inclusive language, even when it would constitute a more faithful translation of the Latin than exclusive language, is a subtle way of keeping women in their place. Finally, my third point is that somewhere between the pews and the altar, a distinction creeps in. If I am 'man' in the congregation, what is it about the man on the altar that excludes me because I'm not a man? If language is not fully inclusive in all contexts, it's not inclusive at all. With all due respect, you really can't have it both ways.

Man begins menstruating at puberty and usually reaches menopause some four decades later.

As a lay person, wife, mother and now-retired professional nurse, I have a love for the Church which I was born into. Taking part in the liturgy of Mass brings me closer to God and to my community. But, especially when watching the Papal Visit or televised ceremonies, I wonder what clues are being given to the role of women in today's Church? The new translation was an opportunity which has sadly been missed.

As a woman I feel excluded by the new translation. If the powers that be wanted to just go back to the old understanding of English they would have use 'And with THY spirit' and the the use of 'men' to mean all humans would have been more acceptable. However they did not they used the more modern 'And with YOUR spirit', a more modern form. Today 'men' means 'only men'. Although in the beginning of the last centuary it still had a more inclusive meaning, it does not now. This insensitive translation and the paedophile priests and the fact that some still have not had their licence revoked, has given me a crisis of faith in authority of the catholic church.

Julie's comment says it all 'there is a growing awareness that language does not merely reflect the way we think: it also shapes our thinking.' Without knowing it, we learn things that take us years, and sometimes generations to un-learn. CS

There is a growing awareness that language does not merely reflect the way we think: it also shapes our thinking. If words and expressions that imply that women or men are inferior are constantly used, that assumption of inferiority tends to become part of our mindset. Language is a powerful tool. The generic uses of the word 'man' is often not in fact generic: If man and he were truly generic, I wonder why we do not say he has difficulties in childbirth, instead of she has difficulties in child birth.

Oh for Pete's sake, I thought we left this silly claim back in the 1970s. I don't know if English is your first language but you may not be aware that words such as man, men, he and his, frequently refer to people of either or both sexes, and 'Man' and 'mankind' refer to the entire human race, yes even youths, children, babies, castrati and people of indeterminate sex. You forgot about the last five groups didn't you who are included in 'men' and 'Man' but are actively EXCLUDED by your proposed use of 'men and women'. Not to mention those people who claim to belong to a supposed third, fourth, fifth etc. 'gender'. The approved English version of the Nicene Creed has ALWAYS said 'For us men and for our salvation', this is not a change made by the new translation. The change from 'the ever-Virgin mother of Jesus Christ' to the more accurate translation 'the glorious ever-Virgin Mary' shifts the focus from Jesus (who gets enough mentions elsewhere) to a glorious woman (it's a list of saints whom the celebrant is praying through). As a feminist I am please to see that.

DH said: 'the word man, in this context, signifies the whole of humanity.' Would you be so quick to aver that if 'woman' was substituted for 'man?' I thought not. BTW, in the US (at least?) Rowman & Littlefield has published in 2009 'The Inclusive Bible' under the sponsorship of Priests for Equality. This translation was started in 1988. It is more than a 'spot-cleaning for male pronouns,' but, rather, a dynamic translation into modern English.

As a woman religious in India and being on the women's commission of our archdiocese, I am in support of Astrid, the complete insensitivity to women. I think across the globe - words like hero, actor and director have superseded the feminine gender. Words are important as it reflects our thinking. Are we being invited to make a shift in our consciousness and be mindful. When we consciously eliminate women are we not being unjust to half of the world's population? The other consideration that we need to have is to be ecologically attentive, the number of trees cut for paper to print new missals. When women have been in the forefront speaking and acting for Care of Mother Earth are we not being unjust by plundering Mother Earth. Are we creating a safe Universe for Seven generations to come as our ancestors did for us? is there anything of more importance that we need to spend our energies on, will this bring the Reign of God?

The importance of language can never be understated in any form of worship. That the apparent universality of 'man' and 'mankind' exists today is a myth...language progresses and grows. The inclusive language of today is because of a greater awareness of human rights and gender equity. That the new translation of the Roman Missal does not reflect this progression in language reflects both an archaic mentality and a subtle regression in gender perception. We cannot merely brush this aside by presuming that inclusiveness is understood because of the Greek and Latin roots. Language shapes our perceptions and the millions across the world hearing the new prayers are getting clear perceptions on the priority of men in the apparent theology of the Missal.

Medieval English contemplative writings by both men (Cloud of Unknowing Author), and women (Julian of Norwich) carefully stressed both genders, 'men and women', equally. I was translating the writings of a modern contemplative from Italian into English whose inclusive theology was well expressed with 'uomo' as both men and women, but not by 'Man'. I found one could translate his theology correctly with 'we'. Members of the Vox Clara committee strongly objected at the same time they threw out the nuns of our double monastery, insisting that only men and masculine terms were to be permitted.

there will always be something to disagree with if 'one is looking for it' , be Blessed and gracious and walk with our God .

I am female and not too bothered about usage of the word 'man' however it is part of the predicable problem the new translation would cause. To my mind our liturgy should enhance our prayer and should not be understood only by those able to study and benefit from knowledge of language and history. Our prayer is of today and without compromising the intimacy should glorify God in our own words and so that everyone can join in easily. DH I am saddened by the tone of your comment .

Years ago, there was a sign outside a hotel which stated 'Beware - man-eating tiger'. I cannot imagine that any sensible person would read such a warning and conclude that if they were female, they would be safe from the tiger's ferocity. In thirty years as an academic, I have met just one female who felt 'excluded' and 'offended' by the use of 'gender exclusive' language, and that person was an ordained Anglican woman. The vast majority of ordinary people in the pews, whether male or female, care little for the tediously boring obsessions that many of The Tablet's readership appear to espouse; they've far better matters to attend to.

Firstly I feel that any translation is not ' a compromise' as mentioned by Addison. It is meant to be inclusive, and reach the modern generation. The response: with you also, is better that 'with your spirit'. Also cf. to words of consecration= Christs blood was not ' poured out' but 'shed' for us. This expresses the redemptive value more that pouring out ... ?

Let us for a moment consider the word man: what does it mean? Does is refer to the whole of humankind, or as the writer naively suggests from her ideological and post-modern blindness, does it refer to one half of the human species? A cursory look at the Greek and Latin will tell anyone that the same word exists in those languages and on the surface has the same problem. A modicum of intellectual thought though, removed from tired and self pitying introspection will of course alert a sensible listener to the meaning of the word as intended by the translation, that is, the word man, in this context, signifies the whole of humanity. The focus on gender inclusive language suggests that Christ came to save half the human race, so perhaps those bothered should first refresh their theology before addressing a trivial and distracting question such as this. One final comment in reply to Deacon Richard Haber: these young women whom you know that are offended by the apparent misogynistic language, you would do well to direct them to the wonderfully holy examples our Mother the Church provides us with in the persons of our saints; St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Bridget of Sweden, St. Threse of Liseux, St. Rita of Cascia, St. Lucy and many more who understood the words of Holy Mass as they are intended. These are the role models for contrarian young women who have the audacity to feel offended.

...Making women invisible in this way is referred to as 'symbolic annihilation'. It implies that women are insignificant and can be wholly represented by men... ...the subsuming of woman in man is no longer acceptable... Thank you, Astrid, for giving me a 'language' that expresses my lived experience as a woman in her 60's.

Lot of 'wild' statements here: 'Younger women in particular are offended..', 'a lot of flood water building up...', 'the gender retrogressive language alienates more than half the worshipping population...'. 'The whole community...', not so with this latter, but those listed, and restricted to, in Acts 1:13-14--not the same thing. Neil Anderson has it to rights: who seriously cares any longer; praying the meaning is the point of the exercise. One might just as well wildly say that those not yet with a 'new translation' no longer say, hear, or otherwise validly hear Mass.

It's Pentecost this weekend. In the Acts of the Apostles it is clear that the whole community was present when the Spirit descended like fire, but the Lectionary has 'the Apostles were gathered'. A long-standing mistranslation of Scripture, let alone the Latin EucharisticPrayers!

I am amazed that readers of the Tablet is still going on about the new translation. Outside of the pages of the Tablet everyone else has moved on and accepted it.. The translation is that, a translation, and all translations are essentially compromises and the new translation is no different in this respect. Bretheren is a generic phrase which incorporates both sexes and the Creed in the 'old' translation also said 'for us men and for our salvation ' so the new translation is no worse in that respect. Finally if Doctoral Theses are being rejected for using 'sexist' language that is something to be condemned not approved of. And before anyone assumes I am a zealot for the new translation I am not I was perfectly happy with the former translation just as I am happy with the new. What annoys me is not the new translation but the constant harping by the Tablet about it..

Astrid has, very clearly and incisively, outlines some of the problems in the new translation of the Roman Missal. Apart from acute verbosity and awkward phraseology, the gender retrogressive language alienates more than half the worshipping population (since, statistically, women comprise over half the regular churchgoers). In the 21st century we cannot be expected to still hold that 'man' refers to 'woman and man' and that 'mankind' refers to 'humankind'. When alternative, gender-sensitive language is available and in use, it would have made eminent sense to use it in the translation.

Outside of The Tablet's limited readership, do many people really take such an article seriously? In my parish the People of God have adapted to the new translation of the Missal very well; they do not feel 'offended' or 'excluded'. Thank you, Holy Father, for giving us a more accurate and prayerful translation.

The sad thing is that the 1998 English revision, approved by the bishops, very successfully adapted the text to inclusive language in a way nobody could reasonably object to. The Vatican, however, did, illegally subverted this version and imposed the current farrago. The problematic part of Eucharistic Prayer 4 is quite bizarre in this version: some of the language is inclusivized, but it is inconsistent, so some of the more glaring exclusivities remain!

Tthe use of 'man' in the prayers of the Liturgy do NOT offend me and I am a woman. One who has true FAITH knows that 'man' does NOT exclude anyone as it pertains to 'mankind' which includes both men & women. The over scrupulous desire to change the language is a byproduct of 'Feminists' and 'feminisim' is NOT Christianity but a by product of secularists wanting to make the Church & its teachings conform to secular thinking. Scripture makes it clear, we are NOT to conform to this worlds thinking but to transform the world by the renewing of your mind. I rejoice when the Church remains steadfast & faithful both in the words of the liturgy & its teachings.. What is important is the people accepting what 'the Will of God' is as spoken by the Catholic Church not the will of Feminists & others who seek to worship God how THEY want rather than being faithful to how the teaching Church has received it from the Apostles.

I agree totally. We need more women to speak out on the lack of a gender sensitive translation in the New Missal. Younger women in particular are offended and alienated by this lack of sensitivity. Deacon Richard Haber

I wonder if anyone else is wondering which country will be the first to stop using this new translation? There is a lot of flood water building up...