The Vatican, learning nothing from a string of embarrassing incidents, is still intent on imposing the utterly awful new translations of the liturgy in the English speaking world. It is no exaggeration to say that these translations, which are part of the strategy for imposing the Vatican's 'new interpretation' of Vatican II, are marked by three signal qualities: ignorance of English, ignorance of Latin, and ignorance of Theology. Bishop Donald Trautman, Bishop Kevin Dowling and a host of others have predicted that these new texts will prompt yet another exodus from the Roman Catholic Church.
South African Catholics were accidentally exposed to the new translations. and their reaction was damning.
Bishop Dowling wrote:
"With reference to the letters concerning the new translation of the Order of the Mass, I feel as a pastor that I needed to express my deep concern at the distress of the people who wrote in. The critical letters only confirm what I have heard from other priests, religious and lay faithful. It was especially sad to read the comment of one correspondent, quoted in the editorial of December 24: “I hate you, hierarchy”. I share the pain and frustration felt by people who wrote to The Southern Cross. Their concerns about the new translation are similar to my own.
When the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC) received the new texts from the Vatican, my reaction to many of the proposed changes was that it was a purely arbitrary decision to demand that the English text had to faithfully represent the Latin in the first place, that many of the changes made no sense, and that some of the formulations were simply bad English. I therefore agree with the analysis provided by Fr John Converset MCCJ in his letter in the same issue.
In passing, at the moment we are discussing only the English translation. What is going to be done when it comes to our African indigenous languages, and openness to diverse cultural and linguistic expressions of faith?
I have the impression that some people, perhaps many, think that this idea about conforming to a Latin text and the new translations itself were the work of the SACBC, and therefore their opposition has to be directed at the bishops out here. Fair enough. But in view of fully conveying what actually happened, it must be understood that this new translation was imposed on us by the Vatican and the group with which it worked at that level.
True, as with every other English-speaking conference of bishops, we were requested to go through the text sent out to us, and the views expressed (opinions among bishops will differ) were sent back to the Vatican. But contrary viewpoints did not have to be incorporated at that level, so that what we now have is what was promulgated and sent out by the Vatican. Some people, including bishops, may have no problem with what we have to use now and we have to be open to the reality that people will think differently.
What this decision also means is that years and years of painstaking work on new liturgical texts by the original International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL) has been set aside in place of implementing what has now been decided by the Vatican and the group with which it consults or works.
My personal views in this article are expressed out of deep concern about the hurt and damage decisions like these can cause to the People of God. It cannot be presumed that thinking lay faithful, priests and religious are simply going to accept what is imposed on them from above when it makes no sense to them. Hence the opposition expressed in the letters.
There are important issues here which need to be discussed honestly. After all, what has been promulgated does not form part of “the deposit of the faith” and can therefore be changed or improved on.
To me there is no cogent reason why the language which the People of God in any place use to express their faith and spirituality, and to celebrate the Eucharist, the sacraments and so on has to conform to a Latin text. People ask why — and rightly so. I am concerned that this latest decision from the Vatican may be interpreted as another example of what is perceived to be a systematic and well-managed dismantling of the vision, theology and ecclesiology of Vatican II during the past years.
I believe the English-speaking conferences of bishops should have stood their ground and challenged the decisions taken at the Vatican as an expression of collegial discernment. We should have communicated to the Vatican that “it seems good to the Spirit and to us” that we proceed with our discernment together with the whole People of God about what is the best way we can express and celebrate our faith in English and every other language.
Our objective as Church should surely be that instead of making everyone conform to a dead-language text we need to allow diversity in cultural and linguistic expressions of faith communities around the world.
It seems to me that we need to take much more seriously our collegial role and mission as bishops in accordance with the vision and theology of Vatican II, and after discernment and consultation with all the People of God stand up for what we believe to be in the best interests of our people."
A Jesuit writes: "No one I meet seems to like the new English translation of the liturgy. Some have objected to its non-inclusive language. Others complain that it is grammatically odd and full of ancient words nobody uses today. It’s even been called a ‘Latinglish Funakalo’, a reference to the crude pidgin of South African languages used in the past on mines and in factories – seen by most black people as an insult to their languages and the rich cultures that underpin them."
"
It is a crisis insofar as it generates deep divisions in the Church. A simple imposition of the liturgy as it stands may have numerous unhappy consequences. At ‘best’, it may lead to an increasingly passive community, with varying degrees of disillusionment and resignation. It will not renew a sense of life to the Church, nor will it probably deepen Eucharistic faith. It may lead to disruptive ‘passive resistance’, with opponents to the new liturgy blurting out the ‘old lines’ as loudly as possible, disrupting the sense of unity that the liturgy calls us to share. At worst, it could lead to some angrily walking out of the church, declaring that ‘it’s not the church I joined’. If we note that this new translation has yet to be implemented in the major English speaking areas of the Church, we might imagine how horribly these scenarios might be magnified, particularly in countries where there is an active, vocal and well-organised laity who are already combative in the wake of the long battles over Humanae Vitae, married and women priests, and sexual abuse scandals."
(http://www.jesuitinstitute.org.za/en/node/96)
Paul Collins has some excellent comments:
“It was always envisaged that the English translation needed to be revised, and in 1981 the English-speaking bishops and ICEL began a careful revision of the whole process which aimed at improving the translation by giving it a more poetic, elevated, sacred feel. At the same time there was a realization that inclusive language also needed to be introduced. Work progressed throughout the 1980s and 1990s and by the late 1990s a Revised English Missal was ready.
“However, the political ground in Rome had already shifted radically. Up until the late-1980s the Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW), the Vatican department which deals with liturgical matters, didn’t oppose the work of ICEL and recognized that it was the responsibility of the English-speaking bishops’ conferences. But in the mid-eighties and early nineties the senior personnel at the CDW changed. A series of conservative cardinals prefect of the CDW (Paul Augustin Mayer, OSB (1984-88), Eduardo Martinez Somalo (1988-92) and Antonio Javierre Ortas, SDB (1992-96)) showed little sympathy for the Vatican II vision of the church, let alone for a vernacular liturgy under the control of local bishops’ conferences. Mayer said publicly that ICEL needed to be restructured and redirected.
“But the real crunch came when the Chilean Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, a friend and supporter of the dictator, Augusto Pinochet, who presided at the general’s funeral Mass, was appointed cardinal prefect of the CDW in 1996. He came to the CDW right at the time when ICEL was ready to submit the revised English liturgy to Rome for a recognitio, an approval for use throughout the English-speaking world. Also at this time the centralizing process that had come with John Paul II (1978-2005) was well under-way; it was intolerable to the bureaucrats of the Vatican, and particularly to people like Medina, that English-speaking bishops’ conferences were making decisions about the English used in the liturgy. Bishops were there to do what Rome wanted. It was the high-water mark of the John Paul II years and Romanità, the Roman-Vatican view of the world, was re-asserting itself with a vengeance. What is also significant is that not one of the critics of ICEL was a natural English-speaker: Mayer was a German and the other three were Spanish-speakers! …
“As soon as he (Medina) got to the CDW he set about systematically dismantling the whole liturgical renewal. Essentially he is nothing more than an old-style fascist and liturgical reactionary who had strategically decided that if he could bring the English-speaking bishops to heel, the largest linguistic group in the Catholic world, he would have no trouble bringing other linguistic groups under Roman control, including his own Spanish-speaking world. On 20 March 2001 he issued the Instruction, Liturgiam authenticam (‘Authentic Liturgy’(LA)), an Instruction on the principles of liturgical translation and celebration. (See the Vatican web page at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents). Medina claimed that John Paul II had asked the CDW to prepare LA, but these were the declining years of Pope Wojtyla and the Curia was doing pretty much what it wanted to do. LA actually reflects Medina’s views - and those of the liturgical reactionaries - rather than the views of mainstream liturgical scholars and ordinary Catholics. The former editor of The Tablet, John Wilkins, in an important and detailed article in Commonweal on the liturgy wars says that LA ‘did not recommend, it commanded. It insisted that translations follow an extreme literalism, extending even to syntax and rhythm, punctuation, and capital letters. The clear implication was that in this way it would be possible to achieve a sort of “timeless” English above the change of fashion, a claim reminiscent of that made for the Ronald Knox translation of the Bible, which today is so dated that it is not read except as a period piece’ (Commonweal, 2 December 2005).
“LA essentially set out to replace all previous post-conciliar texts from the Vatican which set out the principles of liturgical translation. A kind of ‘overview’ put out by the CDW itself describes Medina’s time at the Congregation as ‘a new era in translation of liturgical texts.’ Essentially LA shifts the emphasis in the translation process from making sense in English to a literal rendering of the Latin, in other words a shift from a focus on the congregation to a focus on the text. It says that the translation of liturgical texts ‘is not so much a work of creative inventiveness as one of fidelity and exactness in rendering the Latin texts into a vernacular language.’ …
“The English-speaking bishops involved in liturgical translation and ICEL fought very hard against the Medina putsch but this led to ICEL personnel, particularly Dr John Page, the executive secretary of ICEL, being increasingly marginalized by the CDW in the late-1980s and 1990s. The result was that Medina refused a recognitio to the revised English Missal in 2002. Page resigned that same year after 22 years as head of ICEL and thirty years as a translator of liturgical texts, as did ICEL chairman, Bishop Maurice Taylor of Galloway, Scotland. After they left, the complete subversion of ICEL began. All of the old staff were replaced and a new executive secretary was appointed, Father (now Monsignor) Bruce Harbert, a priest of Birmingham archdiocese and a convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism. Previously he had been highly critical of the work of the old ICEL. Now he had his chance.
“In 2002 a complete revision of all ICEL’s translation work began in secret. ‘ICEL was no longer to seek the advice of poets and other writers, but only of patristic scholars. The language is to be distinctively Catholic, sacral, Roman; as the mind and heart are raised to God, they should be sure to stop off in Saint Peter’s’ (Austen Ivereigh, The Tablet, 17 January 2004)…
“As the new ICEL worked their way through the ordinary of the Mass they sent out their work to bishops’ conferences for comment. Many bishops were very unhappy with the suggested changes. As they worked through the various English versions the bishops sent in many corrections, amendments, criticisms and suggestions. Clearly they could foresee what was ahead in terms of acceptance by priests and people. But no one in Rome was listening to them and much of their advice was ignored. Rome was determined to push ahead no matter what happened pastorally…
“Bishop Trautman gives voice to the kinds of questions that occur to anyone who has read the new ICEL translation: ‘In evaluating the translations we need to consider whether the texts are both understandable and proclaimable, and whether they use a word order, vocabulary and idiom of the mainstream of English-speaking people. If these texts are to be the prayers of the people, are they owned by them and expressed in their language? The texts include new words … such as "consubstantial to the Father" and "incarnate of the Virgin Mary", while words in the various new Collects include "sullied", "unfeigned", "ineffable", "gibbet", "wrought", "thwart". Do these texts communicate in the living language of the worshipping assembly?’ These are the real pastoral questions we have to ask.
“Austen Ivereigh is perhaps less measured that Bishop Trautman, but nevertheless his comments ring completely true. Having conceded that the new ICEL translation may work, he concludes ‘it is also conceivable that the new Missal will prove a disaster, stuffed with archaisms and artificiality, reeking of a restorationist putsch, reflecting a fundamentalist response to modernity … In that case history may record that at the precise moment when liturgical translation was finding its own better balance between inculturation and fidelity, a fearful Rome intervened aggressively, alienating experienced liturgists just when they needed them.’
“My own view is that this exercise will be a disaster, the last nail in the coffin of the credibility of the leadership of the Church. The history shows that this whole process has been ideologically driven by a tiny, unrepresentative minority who are insensitive to the real pastoral needs of the Catholic community and who, at heart, reject the Second Vatican Council. Worse, they don’t care about what happens, they are not interested in how many more people are driven out of the Church by the pomposity of what is essentially mid-Victorian English rather than some type of ‘sacred’ language.”
http://www.catholicsforministry.com.au/news/another-looming-roman-disaster-this-time-liturgy/
An interesting post. It certainly brings up quite a few questions.
The first, for me, is why be so dependent literally on the Latin for the text of the English litugy?
It brings to mind the old notion that the only "sacred" languages are Latin,koine Greek and Hebrew. That such a notion is considered quaint by most who do not speak such languages should make those advocating a literal translation pause and reflect.
Some interesting points in Catholics for ministry. Being Eastern Orthodox for many years I have grown used to the language used in the Orthodox liturgy. I do not see that much to be excited about with regards to some of the prayers and salutations but, then, I'm habituated to them and have not noticed their "strangeness", ( when the priest turns around from the altar and pronounces "The Lord be with you", the congregation does respond, " And with your spirit". Nothing too strange here if "spirit" reminds one of the Spirit but it is a bit esoteric. Also, the Creed is said with "I believe", not "we believe". The criticism is a good one though.
On the whole, I agree with the criticisms. The same criticisms could also be applied to the English translation of the Orthodox liturgy.
Which brings up a second point. Why should the Vatican be so micro-managing such a project? Why aren't the bishops who are directly involved with the life of their diocese and countries not allowed a say?
What does this imply for the notion of collegiality etc; so wonderfully expunded yet so badly practiced?
I think this development will also deeply affect ecumenical efforts. Why should Orthodox trust the Catholic side when such blatant papal dominance is being exercised over such a delicate and deep subject?
Posted by: evagrius | June 23, 2009 at 09:33 AM
Dear Evagrius,
This is one area where, at with respect to the Orthodox, Rome's involvement will help. The fact is is that the Orthodox have been shaking their heads at our post-conciliar rites for 40 years. In short they think that we went mad.
Joseph really ad hominems are beneath you. You seem to like to point out other's faults. What would St. Ignatius say?
Posted by: NOT | June 27, 2009 at 01:05 PM
One result of these new translations – an intentional result I think – is that Catholics will increasingly speak in a sort of insider argot, a bizarre mix of English, Latinisms, scraps of Thomistic talk, nostalgic references to Chesterton and Belloc and bits of code, e.g. ‘hermeneutic of continuity’. This is already happening amongst the traditionalistas, e.g. the loonie followers of Damian Thompson. One ‘assists’ at Mass, for example. We will advert to things rather than noticing them. Here is a typical comment from New Liturgical Movement
While the cappa magna is not a strictly liturgical vestment, it is still a part of the prelatial choir dress, and perhaps the one that most vividly typified the prelatial dignity. That its use has been taken up again by Cardinal O’Brien may be taken to show the ongoing influence of the re-assertion of a hermeneutic of continuity in the Church, which is also shown by a passage of the Cardinal's homily …
This is exactly what seems to have happened to Western Orthodoxy. My Orthodox friends communicate in a babel of Russian, Greek and English. Marriage is a podvig, not a spiritual struggle. They have Matushkas not priest’s wives. And so on.
The argot establishes a kind of tribal identity, us against the world (I almost wrote: contra mundum). Shallow commentators like the loquacious Fr Zuhlsdorf pick this up and promote “identity” as a goal in itself. The even shallower Peter Kreeft takes a step further and writes about Catholic jihad against this, that and the other aspect of modernism. Will we end up with the tribalism that has crippled the Middle East? The new translations are an unfortunate step in that direction.
Posted by: J. Henry Newman | June 27, 2009 at 10:49 PM
J. H. Newman, chilling but plausible! I think to make a noise about Catholicism or Catholic Identity is a subtle, insidious form of idolatry. American Bishops have not yet learnt this, as the Obama/Notre Dame debacle showed.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | June 28, 2009 at 01:11 AM
J. H. Newman,
Not at all plausible? Have you ever lived in the Middle East? Or in any area that has a real tribal culture? I seriously doubt it, if you had you would not make such a "shallow" comment. This is part of the excessive rhetoric of the left (perhaps I should construe your comments as equally tribal? Perhaps I should suggest then that your comments are moving society in the direction of Middle East or the former USSR?).
The reality is that both the lefties (you and Joseph O'Leary) and the right are perfect expressions of western party politics.
Spirit of Vatican II,
Idolatry? Please this is precisely the type of language about which J. H. Newman was just complaining. The argot that is being used on this website is just as peculiar.
Posted by: Not | June 28, 2009 at 02:50 AM
Analogies with the Middle East have a certain piquancy -- for in the Jewish, Islamic, Evangelical and Catholic worlds we see the same slide toward idolatry for the same reasons of insecure identity. I mean that we make a Golden Calf of our identity and of the allegedly threatened "continuity" of tradition, using scriptural and magisterial texts as bulwarks in a fundamentalistic way. I do think the christian churches are mirrors to one another and also that the monotheistic religions are mirrors to one another -- the same anxieties and defense formations are found in all. Excuse my jargon -- but I think you can rephrase the point I am trying to make in other terms.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | June 28, 2009 at 03:23 PM
I could rephrase your argument but I assume that you mean what you say. If I should be expected to rephrase your arguments, then why do you not rephrase the arguments of the right. If you did, you would have to conclude that "idolatry" and "Golden calf" are inappropriate descriptors. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Posted by: not | June 29, 2009 at 02:59 AM
Fr. Joseph,
What evidence is there of "ignorance of Latin" or English? This seems like an entirely gratuitous assertion.
The reality is that while the English chosen by ICEL to represent the Latin prayers is perhaps fine for those from most of the U.S., it was deeply insentive to the usage of southerners. So while a removal of hierarchical elements may suit the sensibilities of what my southern friends call "Yankees", it certainly does not suit their sensibilities or culture.
You cannot both argue for inculturation when it suits your culture and deny its usage when it does not suit your sensibilities.
Posted by: not | June 29, 2009 at 03:09 AM
I didn't know that "southerners" were that hiearchical. Perhaps that explains their problems.
Those in charge are, as has been pointed out, on the whole not native speakers of English. They are, therefore, unacquainted with the nuances of English.
Posted by: evagrius | June 29, 2009 at 03:40 AM
Joseph, “idolatry” may be a bit too strong, but only a bit. Rather than using tradition as a bridge from this world to God, people are building a house on the bridge. The cappa magnas and maniples and worries about ‘slavishly accurate liturgical translations’ (they are mostly inaccurate, but let that pass) may be helpful but they are means not ends. So I think “idolatry” is not wrong.
Here is Thomas Merton, writing in 1969 about the (post-Vatican II) rediscovery of monastic theology:
The Middle Ages are still regarded with understandable misgivings because in America the word “medieval” refers in fact to the pseudo-medieval mishmash of romanticism, conservatism and authoritarianism whose epiphany was the pseudo-Gothic parish church in an ethnic ghetto, giving itself the airs of a cathedral though dwarfed by the surrounding factories. (Merton’s preface to THE MONASTIC THEOLOGY OF AELRED OF RIEVAULX, by Amédée Hallier OCSO, Cistercian Studies Series).
“Not” I am based in London but have lived and worked in the Middle East since the early 1990s – in 10 countries altogether. My Arabic is very weak – it is a difficult language. But I have seen, again and again, otherwise well-meaning and intelligent leaders who want organisations filled with people of merit but end up being “forced by the culture” to prefer mediocre people who display loyalty and who utter tribal shibboleths over those of insight and diligence who don’t. This has hampered universities, governments and companies.
Something like seems to be happening in the Church; it is otherwise hard to explain how we have ended up with some surpassingly stupid bishops, including some elevated to high curial offices.
The other comparison to the Middle East that is apropos was also pointed out on this website, when Joseph summarised Aidan O'Neill's outstanding essay, ROMAN CATHOLICISM AND THE TEMPTATION OF SHARI'A. O'Neill doesn't mention the self-appointed liturgical muṭawiʿiyn (religious police) who pepper bishops' offices and dicasteries with complaints about liturgical errors at Mass.
None of this has anything to do with “leftism” or “rightism” or with the former USSR.
One thing I will give the traditionalists: they have mastered and made better use of blogs and “new media” than the Catholic mainstream. Reading some of the blogs you could get the impression that an overwhelming wave of Catholics are clamouring for Tridentine Masses and the new translations, while a few ancient “lefties” desperately cling to their clown masses and polyester vestments. But this is because the traditionalists know how to use cross-references: Fr Finigan reports that Fr Z says that Damian Thompson reports that the Rorate Caeli website indicates that Fr Finigan says that … and round and round it goes. Big noise, few people.
Luckily, we can switch off the computers and go out into the world and attend real church, not chapel-webcams or “liturgical eye candy” (they actually call it that). And there we find the traditionalists as they are: a fairly small cranky tribe, linked by codewords and by fears of outsiders. It’s all in Mary Douglas.
Most people in the pews – and where I live, the churches are still pretty full – just want to get on with their prayers and their lives in Christ. They aren’t wound up because Father faces the people or because the liturgy says that the blood of Christ was shed “for all”. And I think Bp Trautman is right: they will find the language of the new translations as foreign and odd.
Posted by: J. Henry Newman | June 29, 2009 at 06:25 AM
For arguments about the actual content of the translations, see the other entries under this rubric of Crisis in the Liturgy.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | June 29, 2009 at 08:35 AM
JHN,
You write, "But I have seen, again and again, otherwise well-meaning and intelligent leaders who want organisations filled with people of merit but end up being “forced by the culture” to prefer mediocre people who display loyalty and who utter tribal shibboleths over those of insight and diligence who don’t. This has hampered universities, governments and companies. "
But my point still stands. There is a vast difference between party politics and tribalism.
Aidan O'Neill's essay suffers from the same problem that we see here: an unhelpful analogy.
You write, "None of this has anything to do with “leftism” or “rightism” or with the former USSR."
This is correct and that was precisely my point. If I compare the left to the USSR you reject it since the analogy is not simply an analogy. There is simply to great a difference between Stalin's regime which killed over 50 million and the left in the West.
It is equally not helpful to draw an analogy between radical islamists and Benedict. Last time I checked Benedict had not threatened to kill anyone.
Posted by: not | July 01, 2009 at 10:22 PM