Rebuttals

This page has been set aside for specific comments and feedback from those who essentially do not support the DFV project. Since we welcome all feedback and responses, we want critics to have an opportunity to express their concerns as well. Please note that inappropriate comments may be deleted at our discretion. For constructive, positive feedback, please comment on our Positive (Constructive) Feedback page.

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Rebuttals”

  1. Sheila Casey-Houston Says:

    Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I have only read as far as Chapter 4 and intend to continue to read but I have noted a change I would lik to see. It is my opinion that to change the masculine reference to the feminine is still exclusive and puts a gender on the Creator. I would prefer a neutral reference such as : The Holy One: The Creator: or The Divine One. I will continue to read and send any other comments I have. Thanks again.

  2. Mark Says:

    Thanks so much for taking time to comment on our project, Sheila! It is greatly appreciated.

    Our intent is to provide a counter-balance to all the divine masculine Bible versions already on offer. There are already two gender-neutral versions currently available, both of which are highly recommended. The first is “The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version.” This is a modified version of the NRSV. The second is a Catholic version, “The Inclusive Bible: The First Egalitarian Translation.” Both versions are worth checking out.

    Thanks again for taking time to provide feedback. Any further comments are certainly welcome!

  3. Theophrastus Says:

    Don’t you feel the need to do even the most basic research?

    It is not the case that the Inclusive Bible is a Catholic translation. In fact, the translation was done by Craig Smith, who describes himself as “Postmodern shaman; religious syncretist (Christian, Jewish, Pagan, Buddhist, Hindu)”

    • Craig (Maito Sewa Yoleme) Says:

      Theophrastus, I truly appreciate the credit, but I did want to clarify something: When I worked on the Inclusive Bible project, it was very much a project of Priests for Equality, a Catholic organization that worked for the full inclusion of women at all levels of church life, including the priesthood. The Inclusive Bible sprang out of their Inclusive Lectionary series (on which I also worked), and while I was their translator, the Inclusive Bible started life as their brainchild. How much of the perspective of the translation was a Catholic one, and how much was my own (and I didn’t find myself becoming a religious syncretist until the project was at least 3/4 completed), I leave up to the reader to decide.

  4. “Aristotle,” “Abraham,” “an apple,” and a “female” “Godde”- News Robot Says:

    […] has been conversing with several of us about some of the terms used by the “Christian Godde Project” and particularly about the new English proper nouns, Godde and Christa.  He has said […]

  5. FrMichael Says:

    Priests for Equality is not a Catholic organization. It has no affiliation with a diocese or national Catholic hierarchy. In my experience it is simply a few priests, more ex-priests, and a bunch of non-priests (some non-Catholic) who like to make up illicit ritual books and lectionaries.

    Stop lying.

  6. Craig R. Smith Says:

    Michael, I think you are using an incredibly limited definition of “Catholic.” True, PFE (and the organization of which it was a project, The Quixote Center) were not sponsored or officially recognized by any diocese or member of the church hierarchy. But the QC was founded by Catholics who wanted to work within the church for reform, though non-Catholics were welcome to work with them.

    “Illicit” lectionaries? PFE lectionaries are used in parishes all over the country. There is nothing “illicit” in using inclusive language to describe the story of God’s love and redemption. I don’t know what you mean by “ritual books,” since the lectionary project was PFE’s only significant work outside of the Inclusive Bible.

    • FrankHiller Says:

      “Illicit” used in this context means “against the norms established in canon law.” Only an episcopal conference (in the US that is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops) can approve a lectionary for use at a Catholic mass. If these lectionaries aren’t approved by 2/3 of the bishops in the USCCB then their use is indeed “illicit.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: