I am very disappointed with the new translation of the prayers for the Eucharist, especially the exclusive language: man, sons, brothers, he. The claim is this is a more literal translation of the Latin. But surely the most important thing is to pray in a way that resonates with the people of today. The fact that this is closer to the Latin won’t mean much to the ordinary person in the pew. The answer will probably be “So what!” The translators seem to be treating Latin as if this ancient language is some untouchable god who would be offended if not translated literally.

In any case why is homo always translated as man? My Cassell’s Latin dictionary translates homo as:

“ a human being, man; in general man as opposite to beast and gods; (vir = man as opposite to woman).”

This is elementary Latin which we learned at school.

In the Creed the new translation still says “For us men and our salvation…” as the translation of “Qui propter nos homines and propter nostram salutem …” If the word men was dropped out giving “For us and our salvation …” the translation would still be accurate and what’s very important, it would be much more acceptable to the people. In fact, I’ve noticed that is the wording given on the screen in some churches. Whether that was a decision of the parish priest or of the person who typed it, I haven’t enquired. I take it as the people having spoken.

The exclusive language is deeply offensive to many people especially women. Government forms as well as other literature now strictly avoid exclusive language even to the extent of being ungrammatical by earlier standards. A form I came across recently said something like: “When the patient signs this form, they post it to the address shown.” It has become acceptable now to use the inclusive plural “they” instead of the masculine “he” which would have been used in the past – not that I would want this used in the liturgy.

There are still some people who can tolerate “men” as meaning men and women, but I believe those numbers are shrinking rapidly. Young people growing up today find the exclusive language totally unacceptable. If we are to lead people in community celebration, we must be able to lead them in the language of the twenty first century.

The new missal is at least 30 years out of date before it’s printed. If it’s in use for another 50 years (which one would expect), it’ll be 80 years out of date by that time. The new translation is not pew-friendly and certainly not woman-friendly. We need a translation that accurately reflects what the Latin says as well as being suitable for the twenty first century. The Eucharistic Prayer for Various Needs and Occasions says, “Keep your Church alert in faith to the signs of the times …” The signs of the times clearly indicate that inclusive language is a necessity.

Frank O’Dea SSS, Box Hill, VIC