The Catholic Biblical
Association of
America

Watch Your Language!
Of Princes and Music Directors

Those who oppose inclusive language for liturgical texts and translations of Scripture do not seem comfortable confessing it is on grounds of purely personal preference. It is easy to understand why. After all, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops went to a great deal of care and trouble to formulate guidelines for inclusive language. A committee made up of members of the Bishops Committee on Doctrine and the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy (and therefore called the Joint Committee on Inclusive Language) went through several drafts before deciding on the final form ofCriteria for the Evaluation of Inclusive Language Translations of Scriptural Texts Proposed for Liturgical Use. The final form was then proposed to the full body of bishops and approved by them. (For the full text of the Criteria and other pertinent treatments, see Ronald D. Witherup, S.S., A Liturgist's Guide to Inclusive Language [Liturgical Press, 1996].)

In 1991 the bishops then approved the revised New American Bible psalter and lectionary, both composed in conformity with the criteria. It is therefore no small thing for a loyal Catholic to raise objections to these compositions. Even putting the best possible face on it, the objectors are criticizing the judgment of the bishops.

The objectors' constant claim is that it is a small number of "radical feminists" who are calling for inclusive language. This is simply false. Father Richard J. Clifford, S.J., has given helpful historical notes concerning the development of the issue, including a list of 18th- and 19th-centuries English authors who "resolve the problem of gender concord by singular they." "The practice," Father Clifford, "is defended by the Oxford English Dictionary (1908!) as sometimes necessary" ("The Bishops, the Bible and Liturgical Language," Am., 5/27/95). Guidelines for virtually every publication in the English language now include the requirement that their contributors employ inclusive language. Those who think the move to inclusive language is a short-term aberration are like creationists who think the theory of evolution will go away.

"All the Fathers and Unbroken Tradition"
The more one examines attacks against inclusive language, the more they appear to arise from prejudice rather than from any solid reasoning. This is apparent from the flimsiness of the arguments presented.

Joseph Fessio, S.J., for example, objects to the use of the plural in the revised N.A.B. psalter--where Psalm 1, for instance, reads as follows:

Happy those who do not follow
the counsel of the wicked,
Nor go the way of sinners,
nor sit in company with scoffers.
Rather, the law of the Lord is their joy...

Father Fessio begins his attack with the claim that Psalm 1 is messianic because "as all the Fathers and unbroken Tradition have taught, Christ is the `antitype,' the fulfillment of all the `types' of the Old Testament" ("Blessed is the man . . .," in The Catholic World Report, February 1994, p. 64). Accordingly, he wants a translation that accommodates this allegedly unanimous Christological interpretation of the text-- presumably that of the Revised Standard Version, which has it this way:

Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
but his delight is in the law of the Lord...

Father Clifford, in the America article referred to above, responded by showing that Fessio's claim is untrue and that "the Fathers are all over the lot on their interpretation" of Psalm 1. That Clifford's statement is quite correct was demonstrated in great detail by Chrysogonus Waddell, O.C.S.O. ("A Christological Interpretation of Psalm 1? The Psalter and Christian Prayer," Communio, Fall 1995, pp. 502-21). The Fathers are indeed all over the lot on this one, some holding that the subject of the psalm is Christ, others that it is the human person called to enter Christian discipleship (the ethical interpretation). The two interpretations, of course, are not mutually exclusive.

A funny thing happened on the way to showing this, though. Father Clifford had suggested in passing that the majority of the Fathers held an "ethical interpretation" of the psalm rather than the Christological one. This was a minor point, for Clifford was not interested in counting patristic noses to see which interpretation "won." But Father Waddell, never relating the opening shots fired by Fessio in the debate, concentrated on the minor point of whether the majority of the Fathers held this Christological view and presented his case so as to make it appear that Father Clifford was wrong and Father Fessio right. In point of fact, Father Waddell's survey of patristic texts demonstrates just the reverse--that the Fathers never arrived at a dominant, much less unanimous interpretation of Psalm 1.

Doctrinal Aberration?
Other attacks raise the question of doctrinal soundness more directly. An article in Inside the Vatican by "The Staff," entitled "Lex Orandi Lex Credendi" (January 1995, pp. 42-49), dealing with Rome's withdrawal of approval for the revised N.A.B. psalter and of the New Revised Standard Version (N.R.S.V.), opens with a paragraph that includes the following: "In the most simple terms . . . [what the editors perceive as a quarrel between the N.C.C.B. and the Vatican] may be seen as a disagreement with one side claiming [that] justice for women requires inclusive language, and the other holding that under the banner of inclusiveness have come rewordings of Scripture that confound truth with error" (p. 42).

The same page contains the following declaration (boxed to give it special prominence) "The real issue is not inclusive language per se. It is doctrine. It is Christology. It is the deposit of the faith." Later in the article, the authors write: "[Rome] is concerned about what doctrines come from [inclusive language], like armed warriors from the belly of a wooden horse" (p. 44) In response to their own question, "Why did the C.D.F. [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] not act sooner [regarding the N.R.S.V.]?" the editors say "[it] was difficult for the C.D.F. to enter openly until a pattern of words indicated a clear and present danger to the depositum fidei--the deposit of faith" (p. 49).

In spite of these multiple assertions, one can carefully comb this lengthy article without finding a single concrete example of the doctrinal deviation alleged. They lament the change from "ungodly" to "wicked," "blessed" to "happy," "counsel" to "advice," "serpent" to "snake." Is this doctrinal deviation? In their zeal they even lament that "St. Paul's deep and prayerful plea, `God forbid!' has become "certainly not" (pp. 45-46). Of course Paul did not say "God forbid," but mū genoito, which is more accurately rendered "certainly not."

They do assert, "Yet Rome is very anxious about translations that reflect the agendas of radical feminism and new age spirituality, agendas that seem aimed at making Jesus of Nazareth an asexual being or `cosmic Christ'" (p. 45). Not surprisingly, there is no attempt to show how such concerns relate to the N.A.B. or the N.R.S.V. There are no such new age or feminist tendencies in either the N.A.B. or the N.R.S.V. As chair of the editorial board responsible for the Revised N.A.B. psalter, I myself recently published an essay reviewing The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995), in which I severely criticized the editors for treating the post-resurrection Jesus as genderless (as though the incarnation had not effected a permanent, fully human state) and for very frequently omitting masculine pronouns for Jesus even during his earthly ministry ("The Oxford Inclusive Bible: Politically Correct or Pastorally Concerned?" The Living Light [Spring 1996], pp. 69-77. See especially p. 72). The New Testament and the Psalms published by Oxford takes the N.R.S.V. as its starting point, but the features that merit criticism come from their radical modification of the N.R.S.V., for there is nothing of that sort in the N.R.S.V. itself.

Politically Correct?
Since this Oxford New Testament and Psalms attempts to avoid language that might offend any class of people imaginable--women, blacks, the handicapped, even left-handed people--it is not surprising that it was quickly dubbed "the PC Bible." It is surprising, however, to find Catholic journalists applying the same terminology to the N.A.B., which is merely gender-inclusive where the meaning clearly calls for such inclusiveness. Usually use of the label is combined with an accusations of unorthodoxy. Thus the Inside the Vatican article referred to above includes the "politically correct" tag in addition to its other charges. Similarly, the Rev. Richard Antall titled his Our Sunday Visitor column on the revised N.A.B. psalter "Politically Correct But Theologically Challenged" (11/29/95). Claiming to be concerned about theological issues, Antall's main complaint seems to be that the old N.A.B. psalter had "man" 95 times, and the revised version uses it twice. He inveighs against "radical feminists" for this deprivation. What he neglects to mention is the role the American Catholic hierarchy has had in the diction adopted in the psalter. Are they the ones he refers to as guilty of "tin-throat treatment by ideologues who felt it their duty to rid the Psalms of the once acceptable `typical' use of `man.'"? He seems unaware of the existence of the Joint Committee's Criteria, just as he was unaware until 1992 that the N.A.B. New Testament had been revised.

The same issue of Our Sunday Visitor carries a question and answer column by the Rev. Frank Sheedy (headed "Do I Have to Hold Hands at the Our Father?") which criticizes the N.A.B. New Testament for its capitalization ("holy Spirit") and goes on, "I have written here before that I do not recommend the Revised New Testament of the N.A.B. It was done in an attempt to become politically correct through the use of inclusive language, which violates the integrity of accurate translation." Again, so much for the NCCB and their carefully wrought Criteria. In fact, the revised N.A.B. New Testament is a vast improvement over the earlier version, is only moderately inclusive, and in many ways returns to more traditional diction.

Princes and Music Directors
None of the above-named can make any special claim to Scriptural competence. More disturbing are the wild charges made by those with Scripture training--charges that one suspects arise from simple prejudice against inclusive language. In an interview incorporated into a National Catholic Register article ("New Translations are Hampered by Gender Wars," 10/30/94), Timothea Elliott, R.S.M., asserts that "what's in the singular should stay in the singular." That is perhaps a legitimate opinion, though it makes it almost impossible to carry out the N.C.C.B. mandate about inclusive language. Paragraph 18 of the Criteria lists several masculine terms and pronouns and says, in part, "these terms should not be used when the reference is meant to be generic." (On the legitimacy of the plural for the singular, see my article "Inclusive Language and the Bible," AM., 11/5/94).

Mother Elliott claims that the revised N.A.B. psalter "replaced . . . the past tense . . . by the future tense [sic], affecting the text's eschatological aspect: Instead of looking forward to the coming of the kingdom of God, for example, we find that phrase in the past tense." She gives no examples, and I suspect they would be very hard to find. Those acquainted with Hebrew know that the tenses are very slippery, but as one of the translators and editors of that psalter, I know that in every case we rendered tenses as the context required. Mother Elliott claims that "refusing to use a masculine pronoun where it only makes sense to use a masculine pronoun, causes some bizarre phraseology." Again no examples are given, and again they would be very hard to find. "Bizarre"? That term is used of apocalyptic visions, such as the description of the beast with ten horns and seven heads in the Book of Revelation 13.

But Mother Elliott is especially confused when she says "in other places, `prince' is translated as `leader.' A king is a king, a prince is a prince. Those are rich theological concepts." What are the facts? The revised N.A.B. psalter has the term "leader" 54 times. Of those, 52 occur in the inscriptions of the psalms (the Hebrew phrase is lamnasseah), a phrase that never relates to a prince but is regularly translated "for the leader," i.e., the music director or choir master. Another occurrence is in Ps. 89:20, which the N.A.B. translates "I have set a leader over the army," where the Hebrew has nezer (normally translated "helper"). The other case is Ps. 106:23; it has "Moses, the chosen leader," where the Hebrew has "chosen one." The plural "leaders" occurs in Psalm 141:6, "When their [the reference is to the wicked] leaders [literally judges] are cast over the cliff." (Perhaps she was thinking of the Grail psalter, which does have "princes" in that verse.) In none of these cases did the old N.A.B. have "prince." Where has "rich theological significance" been lost by translating "prince" as "leader"? It would appear that Mother Elliott's prejudice against inclusive language has led to irresponsibly false statements and has triumphed over the care one with a doctorate in Scripture might be expected to exercise.

Rome Versus the N.C.C.B.?
A recent article by Gerald Fogarty, S.J., ("`The English Used in Our Country': Bible Translations for U.S. Catholics," Am., 3/4/95) points to a time when Charles P. Callan, O.P., tried to use connections in Rome's highest circles to advance his own Bible translation agenda. Father Fogarty sees an analogy with the present situation. In those days the energetic efforts of Bishop Edwin V. O'Hara of Great Fall, Mont., with the assistance of Archbishop Amleto Cicognani, apostolic delegate, stymied Callan's efforts. The Inside the Vatican article asked the question "Is a new battle brewing between Rome and the U.S. bishops over the issue of inclusive language?" The tenor of the article conveys the impression that the bishops have been too accommodating to liberals and have been swayed by "radical feminists." Rome has had to intervene, it is thought, because now there is "a clear and present danger to the depositum fidei." But the signal is unmistakable: These writers are invoking Roman authority against something they don't like that has been done by the U.S. bishops.

Others cited in this article have written in a similar tenor. Father Antall prophesies that "someday we will be thanking whoever it was at the Vatican who said, `Wait a minute,' on the question of new and politically correct translations." And Father Sheedy says, "The final hope is in the Holy See." Joseph Fessio launched an intemperate attack against Cardinal William H. Keeler (with the insulting title, "Wolves in Shepherds' Clothing?") when the latter asserted that the Pope had used "moderate inclusive language" during his visit here (The Catholic World Report, Jan. 1996, pp. 34-37. For those who missed it there, Fessio reprinted the whole article also in the January 1996 issue of his Adoremus Agenda). He covers all bases with an appeal to Rome: "Even if the Pope did use `moderate horizontal inclusive' language . . . that fact would be overshadowed by the decisions taken by the Vatican."

"Battle" in the Inside the Vatican article is surely the wrong word. If there is a struggle, it consists in the efforts by forces in Rome to restore a style of authority employed before Vatican II. The U.S. bishops followed normal procedure in approving the N.A.B. lectionary for liturgical use in 1991 and sent it to Rome in early 1992 for confirmation. Yet after four years and four months (at the time of this writing), approval has not been granted, nor has any adequate explanation been given for the delay. In May 1992 the Congregation for Worship had confirmed the U.S. bishops' approval of the use of the revised N.A.B. psalter and the N.R.S.V. for liturgical use. It was the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that stepped in and withdrew that approval in July 1994. Since then the issue has been under review by the C.D.F. almost the whole time.

All that is publicly known is that in January 1995 a delegation of U.S bishops and scholars met with a committee appointed by the C.D.F. to discuss the matter. The N.C.C.B. publicly announced the names of those who went participated for their side, but the C.D.F. refused to divulge the names of its appointees. Were they people who were at least open to inclusive language or was the committee packed with people avowedly against it? Were they people expert in both Scripture and liturgy and whose first language is English (preferably American English, since this had to do with the U.S. church and the British had found the N.A.B. to have "too many American idioms")? Rome jealously guards the answers to such questions under a cloak of confidentiality. However, as Father Fogarty's article illustrates, secrecy is eventually stripped away and those who hide behind it are judged by history.

Those who claim that the N.A.B. lectionary is being held up for reasons of doctrine can point to obscure hints from Rome. A Catholic News Service news release of Oct. 25, 1994, cites "doctrinal congregation sources" as saying (with reference to the N.R.S.V.) that the problem centered "on the text's use of inclusive language" and that "these problems involve doctrinal and theological issues." Yet these have never been publicly pinpointed, and they can hardly be egregious; after the four years and four months since the N.A.B. lectionary was sent to Rome by the United States bishops, the texts continue to carry the Imprimatur and continue to be used for study. I would guess that at least 80% of U.S. seminary, university and college classes use the N.A.B. or the N.R.S.V. If there is any serious doctrinal problem, why has it not been made public?

During the four years and four months the revised N.A.B. lectionary has been held hostage in Rome, copies of the older lectionary have worn out and are falling apart; they cannot be replaced because the publishers are not printing them. Many parishes therefore turn to the Canadian lectionary based on the N.R.S.V. which, though not approved, is available. Breviaries need to be replaced and many who use them have turned to the psalter of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, which has been published in a four-week cycle patterned on the Liturgy of the Hours. It is doubtful that this is what Rome and the conservative lobbyists in Rome Rome had in mind, but it is in fact what is happening. Those "conservative lobbyists" surely include some prelates who, having been outvoted in the democratic process of the N.C.C.B., use their influence in Rome to attain their goals in other ways. Father Fogarty's description of the earlier situation still awaits the strong counter-action of other U.S. prelates, loyal to the N.C.C.B., to bring history full circle.

Joseph Jensen, O.S.B., is an associate professor of Scripture in the School of Religious Studies at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and executive secretary of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. He chaired the editorial board for the Revised New American Bible psalter and now chairs the board that is revising the rest of the N.A.B. Old Testament.