Wednesday, October 4, 2006

The NAB Leans Pro-Abortion?

A friend of mine sent me this email of yet another example of how the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) undermines Catholic teaching via their own officially sanctioned Bible, the New American Bible (NAB). Why would the USCCB create their own version of the English Bible when the Vatican already has an approved English version, the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition. Here it is, reason #666, on why the USCCB is a highly flawed institution filled with the (unholy) Spirit of Vatican II: This past Sunday in the Novus Ordo US Lectionary (both a USCCB invention), the Bible verse used in the Gospel was the Gospel of St. Mark 9:35 (36)... RSV (Catholic Edition) And he took a child, and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them, Douay-Rheims And taking a child, he set him in the midst of them. Whom when he had embraced, he saith to them: NAB Taking a child he placed it in their midst, and putting his arms around it he said to them, Does anyone, especially Catholics, ever refer to a baby as an "it"? The pro-abortion (ipso facto pro-choice) call unborn babies "it" in order to de-humanize them. Yet another example of the undermining of our Catholic faith by none other than the USCCB and their 'version' of the Bible, the NAB. (Hat Tip: Matt)


Dad29 said...

What sort of creature actually propounded this?

Perhaps one who/which was then and shall be forevermore a Utilitarian...

Man as Machine!

Anonymous said...

Custos, I love you to death, but I have to disagree with you.

Unknown said...


No offense taken. I know you're being charitable. If you know your koin Greek and Latin, it pretty much trumps my poor English, passable Spanish, and terrible French (after two beers I think I can speak Italian).

So I'll need to do a bit more research on that. But considering that Douay-Rheims and RSV (CE) were both based on earlier sources than the NAB, it could be the case that the USCCB just issued a poor edition of the Bible and by accident (default) they got it right. Something along the lines of a broken clock can be correct twice a day.

Matt said...

It is not customary in english to refer to a child and a rock by the same pronoun "it". The use by the NAB is an attempt to be gender neutral and avoid the use of the masculine pronoun "him" which has always been considered generic in this context. At least since the DR and KJV came out in the 1600's.

Going even further back to the Latin Vulgate (virtually the only Bible in use for 1000 years)

et accipiens puerum statuit eum in medio eorum quem cum conplexus esset ait illis

My Latin is weak, but "eum" and "eorum" are the subjective and objective pronouns for a male. So Christ "Eum" subject of the statement in a masculine context, and the child "eorom" is the object in a generic context.

In this nod to the feminists the USCCB's translation is using the language that pro-aborts use referring to the foetus (Latin for "little one")in order to dehumanize her, the USCCB. Strangely the feminists the USCCB is bowing to worship the pagan god of "womyn" by human sacrifice of unborn children.

Anonymous said...


As I mentioned, I'm just a dabbler. I'll defer to anyone with background and credible sources.


You're assuming the vulgate (vulgar) translation is accurate. :)

My pastor says that according to John Pilch, in first century Palestine, born children were treated in that society much like the unborn are treated by modern feminists.

In this particular translation, the term "it" give an accurate representation of the attitude of the time toward children.

I'm no crazy "spirit of VII" prophet or anything like that, but in this case the actual Holy Spirit may have shined through :)

Unknown said...


The Holy Spirit can do wondrous things.



Matt said...


you're having trouble understanding my point here, and for that I apologize. I never said the vulgate was any more accurate than the NAB. What I was pointing out, that it's customary in English, and in Latin to refer to a child in a generic was as "him", just like the word "man" can refer to all of humanity. I beleive in greek there is a pronoun which is gender neutral but does not refer to inanimate objects, as the word "it" does. Therefore a reasonable translation would refer to the child as him.

Respectfully, John Pilch is mistaken. Neither infanticide nor abortion was permitted by Judaism at the time (although it was among the Romans prior to the spread of Christianity, perhaps that's what confused him). Regardless of this, the evangelists would consider the child a person (especially after Christ's actions), so your connection with modern day abortionists is kind of a red herring in my opinion.

This is clearly not a matter of a corrected translation but a nod to feminists disdain for the use of the male pronouns in a generic sense.

You pointing out the glaringly obvious STILL has some doing the Vatican II-Step.

Keep up the good work!!!

Post a Comment

Get my CVSTOS FIDEI blog posts feed

Blog Archive

A highly modified template. Powered by Blogger.

Google Analytics