I'm not a man of God.

IS MANKIND A BETTER WORD THAN humanity? For those who maintain that words such as mankind, man, and men are excluding and divisive and that words such as people, human being, and humanity are inclusive and embracing, the study of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church is a battering experience. Though the catechism was written to speak to all Catholics, the English version violently contradicts its own teaching.

The language of the catechism was deliberately chosen to be exclusive and political--though the language of official church documents for the last 15 years has been inclusive. The first sentence of Part One, Section One of the new catechism says: "We begin our profession of faith by saying: 'I believe' or 'We believe.' Before expounding the Church's faith... we must first ask what 'to believe' means."

But it isn't the what of belief that first needs explication; it is the who. According to the new catechism, "we" and "I" are men. "Men" can claim God's creation, communion, and love: the intimate relationship of creator and created, it says, is one of God and "men."

Those involved in drafting and translating the English edition of the catechism--those who might be expected to feel elated at its publication--are unhappy and frustrated. They are pleased with the teaching but distressed by the way it is taught. The rewriting of the catechism by Rome from inclusive to exclusive language was surprising and unwelcome.

It was a conservative few who convinced Rome to recast the catechism in exclusive language. Those few are elated by their victory and are hoping that this victory establishes a new precedent: to make exclusive language the only acceptable style in all future English-language liturgical and pastoral translations.

The English translation of the catechism was the last of the major languages to be published, though the inclusive English-language draft was sent to Rome for approval 15 months before the present edition was released. Each of the published catechisms were translated from one standard: the French working draft. The English-speaking bishops assigned to oversee the English translation--Cardinal Bernard F. Law of Boston, Cardinal William Baum, and Bishop David Konstant of Leeds, England--chose Father Douglas Kent Clark of Georgia as translator. Two editorial committees, one in Britain and the other in the U.S., assisted Clark.

The working draft that Clark was assigned to translate was composed in French "because the cardinals and bishops working on it were more comfortable in French than they were in Latin," said Clark. "It was purely practical."

That practical decision was eventually politically manipulated.

THE FRENCH L'HOMME OR LES HOMMES, when referring to individuals of both sexes or to humanity as a whole, can--as in English--be translated inclusively with the words or phrases "humanity," "human beings," "people," "the human race," "men and women," "the world," or "the human person." They can also be translated exclusively as "man" or "mankind." Unlike French or English, the languages of Latin, German, and Spanish, for instance, distinguish sharply between a male person and collective humanity. There is much less ambiguity of gender terms in those languages than in English or French.

Rome's official excuse for rejection of the English-speaking bishops' translation was based primarily on "faithfulness to the French." The rejected translation was not literally faithful when the French word homme was translated inclusively, the Vatican informed the commission. A secondary reason given was that inclusive language is not widely accepted in all English-speaking nations.

But according to Clark, the English-speaking bishops on the catechism commission, and members of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), inclusive language had been, in fact, the policy of the Holy See.

To assert that homme, when its meaning is "everyone," can be translated only as mankind is not just an assertion of literal faithfulness. It is also an assertion that ideas and concepts are always transferred wholly and meaningfully without recognition of cultural or idiomatic differences.

"It goes without saying that any translation must be faithful to the original text," says the English bishop Konstant. "This of course begs the question as to what such faithfulness requires. Some seem to think that there exists in the mind a disembodied meaning that can be transferred from one set of external symbols to another like a person changing clothes. But translation is a much richer process than that. Saint Thomas Aquinas in his prologue to 'Against the Errors of the Greeks' remarks: 'A good translator, while guarding the sense of the truths he is translating, must adapt his style of the genius of his own tongue.'"

NO SPOKEN LANGUAGE IS STATIC. WORDS that once captured a particular meaning may alter, shrink, and fade. Other new and more meaningful words may be coined. Language changes over time, says renowned linguist Steven Pinker. Inclusive language is not a willy-nilly change in language style. In fact, says Pinker, exclusive language is already becoming archaic, soon it may even sound barbaric. Using inclusive language may not change attitudes, but, he says, "it would give a sense of whether the church has an allegiance to women's interests, whether it is on their side. If you use inclusive language, you are conveying the message that you mean to be inclusive. It counteracts the tendency of sexism. Mankind is not a better word than humanity. There is nothing lost in using the word humanity and a great deal gained."

Dominican Sister Cecily Boulding, theologian and member of the United Kingdom editorial committee of the new catechism, teaches at Ushwa College in northern England. "At the college seminary where I teach, all the students are, of course, male. Three years ago they insisted that we offer the study of inclusive language." Their perception of exclusive language is that it obstructs pastoral ministry, she says. "There is a cultural shift going on, and in due course exclusive language will seem indicative of an old culture."

Language is a living art. It adapts, expands, and changes with the culture and sensitivity of its speakers. Saint Jerome translated the classical Latin of the Bible into the "vulgar" Latin of his time and place. The Vulgate Bible is now considered a masterpiece of inculturation. Carefully crafted inclusive language is not obtrusive, it does not draw attention to itself and it goes unnoticed by most readers and listeners. Exclusive language, on the other hand, often offends the eye and ear.

The inclusive "All people are called to the same end: God himself" was changed, for instance, to the exclusive "All men are called to the same end: God himself" in the revised English catechism. (Note: in liturgical, scriptural, and pastoral translations, inclusive language is done "horizontally"--that is, only terms that refer to people are made gender neutral. "Vertical" language, language that refers to God, remains traditionally masculine.) Part Three, Section One of the catechism was previously titled "Our Human Vocation." It now reads, "Man's Vocation." Chapter titles that could have referred to "we," "all," "our," or "human beings" are consistently exclusive: "The Life of Man--To Know and Love God," "Man's Capacity for God," "God Comes to Meet Man," and "Man's Response to God."

The English edition of the catechism was translated for use in more than 20 English-speaking countries. The catechism is expected to be locally translated into the primary language of each conference so that the people will be able to use it in their everyday language in terms expressive of their cultural norms.

The exclusive language of the catechism is an insult to women; it is also an insult to English-speaking bishops who labored to bring the catechism to publication. Father Geoffrey Steel, a member of ICEL's advisory committee and a lecturer of liturgy at Ushwa College, says the catechism "has been hi-jacked by a financed and vocal minority of the far American right." Father Bernard Marthaler, expert on liturgy and a member of Clark's U.S. advisory committee, says the "issue is not the catechism but the broader use of the vernacular in liturgy--it is power politics pure and simple."

Konstant adds that pressure groups who try to associate the use of inclusive language with the feminist movement--or who make its use a matter of political correctness--should not be allowed to politicize what is basically a matter of the ordinary development of language. "The basic difficulty people may experience," he says, "will be in breaking through the language--which for them is a distraction--to the truth it is conveying. I do not see that it will make it more difficult for them to accept this truth, but to see what the truth is. Quite simply, insofar as the language is a barrier, it will make it more difficult for some people to read the text."

It was very difficult for me. I have read the catechism. The use of man and mankind--when we, people, or humanity is more natural and descriptive--felt deliberately offensive. The language itself is a message: women are not fully human, not completely children of God.

Yet, I speak for the church publicly every time I make the sign of the cross, display the ashes on my forehead on Ash Wednesday, or wear a crucifix. I also speak for the church privately from the moment I wake in the morning until I return to bed at night. I am speaking for the church as a woman, wife, mother, employee, volunteer, friend, neighbor, and citizen.

I am Catholic. I profess my faith each time I cup my hands to receive the Eucharist, lector, attend Mass, or participate in any of the sacraments. What I do, what I say, how I live, is--I am taught--rooted in what I believe--that I live, move, and have my being in Christ. To encounter any Christian is to encounter someone speaking--however imperfectly--for Christ. It is called membership in the Body of Christ. A membership that Saint Paul proclaimed was neither male nor female.

The new catechism was to express as a universal teaching--from the one to the many--that living reflection of Christ. It doesn't.

I am offended by those who politicized the catechism. Cardinal Law, who defended the well-accepted and appropriate use of the modern English in the first English translation, is now obligated to make the best of a bad translation. He, and the other English-speaking bishops, plead for women to separate the message from the manner, the teaching from the style. But reading the catechism from cover to cover is a battering experience, the language is abusive in its gleeful and unnecessary use of man and mankind.

Like Job covered with boils, the catechism is a sincere statement of faith painfully clad. It is a hurtful and disfiguring message that is unlikely to be healed soon. Though the French draft will eventually be translated into Latin and the Latin edition will become the standard, a new and inclusive translation is, for publishers, financially unlikely. In the meantime, several bishops and catechists will use their teaching offices to verbally amend the language as they teach from it.

I am grateful to those bishops and priests who admit this language hurts and who argue for a pastoral sensitivity to those they shepherd. I hope that Catholic journalists and editors will choose, too, to paraphrase rather than directly quote from the catechism whenever it is possible. When the catechism is quoted, from the pulpit or the page, I hope men and women will respectfully but persistently ask for amendment.

THERE ARE THOSE WHO HAVE TOLD ME THAT the "for men only" catechism is the final straw--even more heartbreaking than the pope's apostolic letter demanding an end to the discussion of the ordination of women. After excusing, explaining, defending, and remaining faithful to a church that puts claims on the time, talent, and treasure of women for the work they do in their parishes, many women read the catechism and find themselves dehumanized, marginalized, and exiled. It is no longer possible, some say, to forgive yet again.

It is possible, however, to remain faithful to the professed teaching of the church without consenting to the humiliation of the church's practices. It is appropriate--and necessary--for men and women to remind the curia and the church's members--clergy and lay--of the faith we profess. All of us are members of the Body of Christ and each of us was created in the image of God. We were called by name. We are not the men of God; we are God's people.