In a recent blog post, Fr Michael Joncas referred to the priest “who effectively separates himself from the gathering of the faithful; he prays on behalf of them to God, not as one of their members.”
This manifestation of non-inclusive language is one that has been a concern for me for many years. Priests can unthinkingly separate themselves from the rest of the assembly because of the texts they proclaim. Worse still, they can even come across as patronising or presumptuous, once again because of the texts.
The problem has been particularly acute in texts such as the Solemn Blessing for Advent in the 1973 translation:
You believe that the Son of God once came to us;
you look for him to come again.
[…]
You rejoice that our Redeemer came to live with us as man.
[…]
May almighty God bless you,
[…]
You could almost hear the people’s minds ticking over: “Father, doesn’t any of this apply to you? Are you one of us? And how do you know what we’re thinking, anyway?”
Once you have “seen” this, you cannot unsee it. The solution would have been very easy: for “you” and “your” substitute “we”, “us” or “our” as necessary to render the texts inclusive. That general principle in fact still holds good for all the Solemn Blessings. The more recent 2010 translation is actually less objectionable in this regard, though the convoluted syntax of the Solemn Blessings makes it non-inclusive in a different way!
By contrast, the Prayers over the People in the 1973 version generally referred to “us”. In this respect, 2010 is a step backward, referring to the people of God as “you” or, rather more frequently, “they”, as if we were some separate entity not even present at the celebration.
As a general point, do we want Almighty God to bless all of us, or just those who aren’t the priest? Don’t priests deserve blessings too? Many priest acquaintances of mine always say “May Almighty God bless us [all], the Father….”, making it clear that the priest considers himself to be an integral part of the liturgical assembly and not an outsider.
_______________________
A different manifestation of non-inclusivity appeared in the former translation of the Nuptial Blessing, formulary A:
Look with love upon this woman, your daughter,
now joined to her husband in marriage.
She asks your blessing
— as if she were not capable of asking for God’s blessing herself! The text following told the husband what to do (“put his trust in her”), but no blessing for him! The 2010 version has now redressed this imbalance by giving us:
Look now with favor on these your servants,
joined together in Marriage,
who ask to be strengthened by your blessing.
One wonders why this (correct) translation of the Latin text was not used in the 1970 translation. The Latin runs:
Réspice propítius super hos fámulos tuos, qui, maritáli iuncti consórtio, tua se éxpetunt benedictióne muníri:
________________
Another form of non-inclusivity is found in the Intercessions section of Eucharistic Prayers II-IV.
EP II (1969)
Lord, remember your Church throughout the world;
make us grow in love
together with N. our Pope,
N. our Bishop, and all the clergy.
EP II (2010)
Remember, Lord, your Church,
spread throughout the world,
and bring her to the fullness of charity,
together with N. our Pope and N. our Bishop*
and all the clergy.
This tends to perpetuate the view that the Church consists of the hierarchy alone. There is no explicit mention of the People of God.
EP III (1969)
Strengthen in faith and love your pilgrim Church on earth;
your servant Pope N., our bishop N.,*
and all the bishops,
with the clergy and the entire people your Son has gained for you.
EP III (2010)
Be pleased to confirm in faith and charity
your pilgrim Church on earth,
with your servant N. our Pope and N. our Bishop,*
the Order of Bishops, all the clergy,
and the entire people you have gained for your own.
EP IV (1969)
Lord, remember those for whom we offer this sacrifice,
especially N. our Pope,
N. our bishop,* and bishops and clergy everywhere.
[Remember those who take part in this offering,
those here present and all your people,
and all who seek you with a sincere heart.]
EP IV (2010)
Therefore, Lord, remember now
all for whom we offer this sacrifice:
especially your servant N. our Pope,
N. our Bishop,* and the whole Order of Bishops,
all the clergy,
[those who take part in this offering,
those gathered here before you,
your entire people,
and all who seek you with a sincere heart.]
In both these prayers the people are mentioned in last position — all the important people come first (the same progression as in EP II). Even if this is not the intention, the impression given is that the people have been relegated to a last and lowly place. In the case of the 2010 translation of EP IV, the phrase “and the whole Order of Bishops” gives the hearer the impression that an extra stratum has been added.
In this connection we should notice that our aural perception is very different from our visual perception. Aurally, we hear what sounds like the most important people coming first, and so they do. By contrast, visually — for example in a procession — the less important people tend to come first and the most important come last.
Imagine how different it would feel if, for example, EP III ran like this:
Be pleased to confirm in faith and charity
your pilgrim Church on earth:
the entire people you have gained for your own,
with all the clergy,
N. our Bishop* and the Order of Bishops,
and your servant N. our Pope.
In my opinion, this would have a greater chance of giving the people the impression that they actually matter.
_____________
Near the beginning of this reflection I used the word “unthinking”. It seems to me that in this and many other cases not covered here we should be using much greater discernment in the way we use texts, and perhaps how we might modify them, so that everyone feels that the whole assembly is truly a single worshipping Body, not “them and us”.
Please leave a reply.