U.S. bishops give new translation thumbs-down
Apropos (somewhat, I spose) of Bob Imbelli’s post below, as well as several other recent posts on the translations issue, the USCCB announced today that the mail-in results of the inconclusive June vote on the new translation of the Proper of Seasons prayers did not reach the required two-thirds for passage. This is one stage in this drawn out process, but significant, perhaps, as an indicator. Secret ballots offer bishops much greater latitude to vote as they’d like. No word (at least in the official communique) of the vote tally. Intel will be welcome in comments section. The translations apparently will be resubmitted at the November meeting, as the bishops try to catch up, or not fall too far behind, the other English-speaking conferences that have already approved elements of the revisions.
Three cheers! Does anyone know whether there is any possibility of a secret ballot at the November meting? For an organization so enamored of secrecy, there should be a way.
Secret balloting is the only way to go.
Even the Holy Spirit likes it.
This proves that the Holy Spirit CAN exercise good judgement when pressed to the point of obvious and ultimate annoyance. If (s)he would just get a bit more attendant to the election of certain folk to the See of Peter …..
OK. So what happens next?
What we know right now is that (a) presumably the American bishops would like the currently-in-use Proper of Seasons translation to be updated, both to have an improved translation and to match stylistically the rest of the Missal, important sections of which (like the Order of Mass) *have* already been approved by the US bishops; but (b) they’ve rejected the proferred translation of the international commission of which the Americans are a full member – one would think – to avail themselves of said commission’s services, which btw is housed on American soil; and (c) the bishops have also decided as a group not to send the rejected Propers back to said commission for further revision; but (d) AFAIK the bishops have no alternative standing commission of translators to fix whatever ails the ICEL Propers; and (e) whatever the Americans come up with requires the recognitio of a Roman Congregation that watches all American translation activity with the sharp and skeptical eye of the hawk, has exerted itself considerably to reconstitute the ICEL staff to its taste, and has its own tame committee called Vox Clara to do whatever it is that Vox Clara does.
I’m sure none of this presents an insurmountable problem. The Americans have been translating for many years (e.g. the NAB), and have ample expertise and resources at their disposal. It seems that the conference’s relationship with the CDW has been amicable and productive in recent years.
Most likely this will all work itself out just fine. Still, how’s this for a worst-case scenario: the Americans get slapped down by Rome, the wings of national conferences get trimmed further, Rome appropriates to itself the task of liturgical translation, and subsidiarity – and collegiality – suffer a body blow.
But all I know is what I read in the papers.
“Most likely this will all work itself out just fine. Still, how’s this for a worst-case scenario: the Americans get slapped down by Rome, the wings of national conferences get trimmed further, Rome appropriates to itself the task of liturgical translation, and subsidiarity – and collegiality – suffer a body blow.”
Sounds great to me. Hopefully it will also bring into the light some of the more more problematic liberal bishops who are overdue for a Benedictine continuity adjustment.
David,
I’m not sure which votes you’re calling secret ballots. As you probably know, at the meetings themselves the tallies are taken electronically. Hmm. I would think these are anonymous–yet I wonder how that could be, since different ballots are taken of different cohorts: only local ordinaries, for example, or only Latin-rite bishops.
I guess each bishop’s voting gizmo must be designated for him, and only allows him to vote on appropriate ballots.
Vatican restorationism has produced nothing of any value for our Church in recent years. The impact of John Paul II covered over the destitution of the restorationist policy. But recently we have had the disruptive and divisive Motu Proprio, the ill-judged liturgical translations, the nonsensical archaism of liturgical costumery, all of which leave the multitude of the faithful in the lurch. There should be no problem about composing a meaningful liturgy and encouraging creativity, style, imagination and literary, musical and artistic talent to play their due roles. Fear and power-lust is what keeps us frozen, under the Vatican’s obstructionist rule. The trashing of episcopal authority is only the latest phase of a movement that has disempowered all Catholics, leaving a hapless Vatican bureaucracy in sole charge of the Church’s life and worship — and, as it increasingly appears, they are incompetent to deliver the goods,
I fail to see how “restorationists”–Fr. O’Leary’s new term, apparently, for those he used to call “neoCaths”–can be pejorative, given the biblical evidence. To restore was always a work of benefit to Israel. Restoration was foretold by the prophets, resisted by the powerful, cheered by the poor.
Kathy, I believe Fr. O’Leary was using restorationist in the common parlance, the political, Old World monarchical sense. In any case, biblical restoration was not used in regards to liturgy either, as far as I know.
In answer to Jim’s query, I think the situation is this: in order to amend the translations offered by ICEL, the bishops needed to submit proposed revisions within a few weeks prior to their meeting. No one did this; why, I do not know. Maybe, as so often with these things, they didn’t read the distributed documents until they were on the plane to the meeting. In any case, by voting the Grey Book down they have bought themselves a second chance to make some revisions before it is voted on again in November.
I think these revisions will be few and minor (my money is on “gibbet” geting the axe, but “ineffable” staying). Way to much is being made of this is the spittle-flecked crazy wing of the Catholic blogosphere. But it does restore my faith in the balance of the universe to see Catholic progressives using this as yet another stick with which to flog Papa Benedetto.
Dear Posters,
Contact your Arch/Bishops and let him know how you feel about the translations (and voting them all down). If you can, nicely e-mail him, write him a letter, call him, or contact your local Dean–let your Bishop that you do care about this–that archaic translations belong to the “badde olde days of yesteryear”.
As most pollsters will tell you–1 person responding = 50 persons. Get others who do not want Latinized English in the Liturgy to express their views on this as well. Remember, Canon Law gives you the right to express your ideas to the Arch/Bishop as chief pastor of your arch/diocese—so you are not doing anything wrong or out of place.
David,
Check out the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, as well as 3rd Isaiah (Is. 56-66). Restoration is liturgical in Israel, and prosperity is given for the sake of right worship.
Since right worship is, after all, what we’re after here, maybe the nay vote is a good thing at this time. Liturgical changes are a tough sell in any climate, but if this many bishops and diocesan liturgy directors are unconvinced, it would be nearly impossible to have a smooth transition.
Plus, Joe Gannon has a lot of Latin, and if he’s not convinced on linguistic grounds, they probably ought to have another go.
Thanks for the references, Kathy, I’ll check them out. It’s an interesting point, framing the restoration of the church (through the liturgy, in this case) as the restoration of a monarchy, and one that no doubt resonates with many Catholics. It does seem to put the restorationist agenda in rather bald terms.
A few things:
My understanding is that some of the bishops’ input to ICEL in advance of the Gray Book was rejected or ignored. Maybe there were enough prelates feeling affronted to sink the approval. Pride can be a powerful emotion. But maybe the rejection was more than that.
These words of section 2 will be said by priests, not the laity. The bishops have already given their thumbs up to what we pewfolk will be saying. I think some bishops know the key players in the implementation of Roman Missal III are the parish clergy. If the clergy resist in any significant way, it doesn’t matter if twelve-hundred sections are approved from the pope to the internet Latinists to the Vatican housekeeper. The thing’s gonna sink. And that will be ugly, divisive, and unfortunate.
Only four of the eleven bishops’ conferences have approved the Gray Book, by the way. The jury’s still out on six of them. If more disapprovals come in, it will be a bigger embarassment to ICEL.
I think “restorationism” in this context is a perjorative not quite like the Ezra-Nehemiah restoration. Some of us see present conservative liturgy efforts, not untainted by schismatics, as something more akin to the restoration of Palestine to the Canaanites and turning tail to go back to Egypt. I’m thinking Exodus 32.
Hah! Got me.
No, I don’t mean the restoration of the monarchy, but of the priesthood.
(My comment above was responding to David.
Todd,
(It’s spelled pejorative. Better check your Latin roots.)
One of the problems with the Bugnini reform was the way it was foisted wholesale on everyone. So to my mind it is better to take a little more time consensus building.
In 5 years the conference’s membership profile will be a lot different, anyway.
Without this piece, the whole project goes into neutral, it seems to me. You will recall that part 1 was not passed without a lot of arm-twisting, and close to 200 amendments were made before the bishops would pass it, and even then they did so reluctantly. In fact, I don’t have the reference for this, but I believe a query was sent to Rome asking if they could keep the old texts. They were told no. But the point is this: they will never publish part 1 without part 2. This is quite neat as a form of resistence to coercion, actually. Delay in this instance is victory.
Victory for…?
Opponents of the Gray Book. Obviously.
Without this piece, the whole project goes into neutral, it seems to me.
But only until November. I think, whether you think it wonderful or terrible, that it is easy to overestimate the importance of this “no” vote.
Grant,
I usually reserve the word “victory” for more significant accomplishments than just the non-acceptance of something. So I was assuming there was more weight to Rita’s statement than that.
“One of the problems with the Bugnini reform was the way it was foisted wholesale on everyone. So to my mind it is better to take a little more time consensus building.”
I’m not going to quibble over the point. “Vatican II done in a Vatican I way” as my wife likes to say.
What would have been better would have been to adopt the ICEL procedures of the 80′s: wide consultation with lay experts they don’t seem to be able to find in great numbers among the episcopacy or even the clergy. The real “dumbing down” has taken place on the other side of the ordination divide, at least when speaking of committee competence.
The translations coming out of the 80′s and from Roman Missal II were generally superior with lay input and wide consultation. I vote we chuck the whole Vox Clara and go back to the laity.
At least these bishops can justifiably quote Sidney Carton in this case: “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done …….”
Todd,
It’s not at all clear to me that laity have a monopoly on excellence, taste or judgment. In other words, I’m pretty sure that the problem is not that the clerics are clerics.
I think that there are a few things we ought to take stock of before taking the next steps in the ongoing reception of Vatican II. 1. Why have we basically lost one of the sacraments through disuse? 2. Why is the failure rate of RCIA so low, as Jean Raber has repeatedly mentioned? 3. Where are all the nuns? 4. Where are the signs of life, and what can we learn from their appearance?
Kathy, thanks for the corrective on the “r.” It’s one of those words I had always misread, like “enmity.”
I think you can do better than caricature my argument in favor of lay experts being consulted on matters in addition to the clergy. We are in far greater danger of lay people being excluded in important discussions, notably the absence of them on the Vox Clara commission.
To briefly answer your questions, each of which deserves a substantial study:
1. Because of the failure to really renew form I and the discontinuation of form III.
2. I think you mean a lower success rate. Anyway the reasons would include the inclusion of non-Catholic engaged people, the failure to sort fish, i.e. separating candidates and catechumens, the lack of serious discernment for the non-baptized, the reticence about saying, “Let’s wait and see” to some people. In other words, we’re not demanding enough.
3. In the working world. Women realized they could lead a religious life without being in a religious order. In addition, the fact that clergy numbers peaked in 1947 might suggest that something other than Vatican II can be factored in the ebb and flow of clergy and religious.
4. Lay commitment in the church and the world, reconciliation form III, sacred music, architecture, the permanent diaconate, the Lectionary and recovery of Bible reading, study, and interest, young people involved in things like LifeTeen, WTD, and mission work, ecumenism, and lay interestin the spiritual life. To name a few.
Todd,
I had to look up pejorative, to be honest. Dilemma’s another one for me. Sorry, I was rude.
Alternative theories:
1. A loss of a sense of personal sin, a failure to preach on sin, widespread habits of watching tv for hours every evening leading to an acceptance of the moral frameworks provided in its narratives, lack of encouragement from pastors, a decline in the use of this sacrament by pastors, parish schedules of 4:15-4:45 every other Saturday, or by appointment. By appointment meaning call the parish secretary and tell her you want to come to see Fr. for confession!
2. The major RCIA leader training organization’s discouragement of teaching.
3. In the conservative communities.
http://www.sistersofmary.org/article.php?id=143
http://www.nashvilledominican.org/Community/Community_Life/Index.htm
http://www.apostlesofil.org/our_sisters.htm
4. The new ecclesial movements, WYD, the young religious communities.
Kathy, no problem on it, really. If a person can’t take correction, why do we bother to write so much in the net?
The loss of a sense of sin is pervasive, and certainly includes the hierarchy. Prior to the council, perhaps people saw the priests as saints-already-made, and confession to the holy men was jolted by society’s general distrust of authority after a century of catastrophe in Europe.
I agree that pragmatic policies in parishes work against a renewal of sacramental reconciliation, but I think addiction awareness in society shows there’s a willingness in a lot of people to do step 4 and 5. In some ways, we’ve ceded a lot of real reconciliation to the 12-step groups.
Not sure what you mean by #2. Catechesis is a lifelong experience for all the baptized and those seeking baptism. Joining oneself to Christ is more than a pass-the-test experience.
While the new conservative communities are indeed thriving, I would say the well-rooted ones going back centuries are also holding their own. Who’s to say that 1930 was less of an aberration than 2008? I’d also say vocation offices seem rather short on creativity and vision–except when it comes to poster design. In my own diocese, campus ministry has been totally ceded and while Bishop Finn seems happy with his small clutch of seminarians, there are pretty large public universities with no outreach whatsoever.
I find the comment that in 5 years the Bishop’s conference makeup wil be different to be ominous – I take it to mean that (to use Greeley’s expression) the “young fogeys” will be more in control of things.
I guess that means (as someone recently put it here) Roma loquitor causa finita est is enough for me, we can go back to the 50′s and its infantilism with all of the problems the Church had then and why JXXIII said to open the now shutting windows.
There is little to suggest that both deep division and drift will not continue to flourish and that (as Bshop Robinson suggested) we all need to sing together the song of Jesus is becoming more of a faint hope under the conservative solutions offered here.
What’s worse is the either/or depictions offered (just like politics) – God help the poor centrists who struggle along while retrenchment (not restoration) is the call from the wise of the right.
Todd,
I think it’s okay to write on the net, even in agreement. But I needn’t have been snotty about it.
The North American Forum on the Catechumenate’s stated mission, purpose, etc. can be found on page 3 of their latest newsletter: .http://www.naforum.org/new_site/files/news_14_Spring%202008.pdf
In their statements I don’t see any expressed goal of teaching doctrine. People usually point to paragraph 75 of the Rite as the justification for this, but if the failure rate is so high, I think this policy deserves to be questioned.
Having been a Forum member and presenter from ’89 through the mid-90′s, I would say that in practice teaching doctrine is not the only goal of the catechumenate. The Forum is leery of instructional models favored by catechists for other sacraments. And rightly so.
It would be instructive to find out if RCIA Catholics leave because they didn’t get or didn’t have enough doctrine. I suspect it would be partly a lack of a more demanding process, and the non-involvement of parishioners to integrate new members. If I had to worry about any particular category, I’d be concerned more with sponsors than catechists.
Rightly so? Why?
“It would be instructive to find out if RCIA Catholics leave because they didn’t get or didn’t have enough doctrine. I suspect it would be partly a lack of a more demanding process, and the non-involvement of parishioners to integrate new members. If I had to worry about any particular category, I’d be concerned more with sponsors than catechists.”
Hi, Todd, it’s always seemed to me the latter of your two suggestions. I think it can be difficult in general to go from a highly structured and supportive environment to one where one is invited to swim in the deep waters (and stay clear of the sharks) on her own. This is why so many college freshmen have difficulties.
Are our RCIA programs planting seeds in shallow ground that sprout quickly but then burn up in the heat of the day?
“Rightly so? Why?”
It gives the impression that catechesis is a hoop to be jumped through rather than a constant in the Christian way of life.
The Forum recognizes the challenges of confirmation as a particular large-scale failure when conducted by DRE’s who are more concerned with imparting information rather than forming young adults for the Christian life. Check out how many post-confirmation youth attend catechetical events or even have any provided for them.
It rather flies in the face of the great Mystagogues of the Patristic Era whose approach was to treat the catechumenate as a time of moral formation, devoting the post-baptismal period to sacramental formation.
“Are our RCIA programs planting seeds in shallow ground that sprout quickly but then burn up in the heat of the day?
An apt metaphor perhaps, and not just because of the timing of the Lectionary cycle.
This is definitely worth blogging about once I get settled in Iowa next week.
Nobody asked me, but I would like to offer some answers: (or more questions?)
> 1. Why have we basically lost one of the sacraments through disuse? 2. Why is the failure rate of RCIA so low, as Jean Raber has repeatedly mentioned? 3. Where are all the nuns? 4. Where are the signs of life, and what can we learn from their appearance?<
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
“neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who causes the growth.” 1 Cor 3: 7
That is rather subtle, Jim McK. Could you say more?
There seems to be an assumption here that RCIA retention rates are abnormally low. They are actually exceptionally high. Consult the US bishops’ excellent study Journey to the Fullness of Life (2000) to see that the RCIA is much higher in its retention rate than any other form of sacramental preparation in the Church today.
But this is a red herring, and not the subject of this thread.
My apologies, Kathy. I thought I wrote more, but only the answer to the last question made it through cyberspace. When God, or some daemon of the internet, intercepts something I have written, I do not usually try to repeat it.
What survived says it better than the rest anyway. Neither bishops nor bloggers are anything; God gives the growth.
I’m assuming that you mean the sacraments of initiation, not ordination and matrimony.
The subject of this thread is the nay vote. It seems to me that a fair and relevant question, given this subject, is whether the refrain of the leading opposing bishop, “We do not need a reform of the reform!” is reasonable.
Jim,
Isn’t your ecclesiology incomplete? True, bloggers can do little good, but Paul planted and Apollos watered.
“But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach? And how can people preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring (the) good news!”
Kathy,
It was meant to evoke St Paul’s ecclesiology, since I was paraphrasing what I had quoted earlier: “neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who causes the growth.” 1 Cor 3: 7
The point is not that the efforts to tend the flock are “nothing”, but that they are subordinate to God’s purpose. All the questions of style and means should be subordinate to the question of how God grow us. The number of confessions, nuns, or converts are not the measures, but the faith, hope, and love among us.
I believe that is what should guide the bishops, and does guide them. This past decision is part of that.
Jim,
I suppose you might be right about the increase in faith, hope and charity. If so, that would be an excellent argument. But, how can you tell?
How much impact in the long range the secret ballot rejection will have is something we’ll have to wait and see.
I am concerned though about the four questions raised by Kathy as if they were the only or critical or both ones at this point and the implication that Vatican II has caused these problems.
I thought it sounded like a bit of debate sophistry in talking about current Church difficulties.
As to those questions, both Todd’s comments and more pointedly, Fr. malloy’s article in the current America on the cultural impacts on the Church are germane.
Clearly we have had changes in sacramental practice and will continue to have them as we ourselves change.
Priestly ordinations here have declined tremendously -so we ordain deacons, but parishes close/merge and many think, despite Rome, that women are called to the priesthood.
We did a lousy job of implementing adult Faith Formation after Our Hearts Were Burning.
Push for identity has not solved major problems in drift and division.
You can never go back again to the purported good old days, something new is coming.
How good it will be will depend on brining our Church together.
Well, everyone’s being admirably polite with each other, and Rita is good keeping the thread on task, but it is simply slanderous for someone to aver that the North American Forum on the Catechumenate is involved in the “discouragement of teaching.” As others have said, Forum simply practices a more holistic approach, a non-Platonic approach, to conversion, that it is a whole-person experience, INCLUDING knowledge and doctrine. Every Forum institute deals with catechetical sessions, and in the arsenal of the catechist is always the entire tradition of the church, including the Fathers, encyclicals, CCC, and so on. It is irresponsible and I assert slanderous to say otherwise. I’ve been on Forum teams for twenty years, and have never heard anyone EVER discourage teaching. Context is everything. It’s part of the process, but knowledge is not the same as living in the reign of God. Discipleship is closer to apprenticeship than being a student.
Forgive, Rita, the digression!
I wonder if you are Rory Cooney, the composer of many influential contemporary church songs such as I Myself Am the Bread of Life?
I would be interested in hearing more about the expression “non-Platonic.” I’ve studied Aristotle quite a bit and am always interested in knowing more about how Plato and Aristotle are being characterized.
My experience is admittedly more limited than yours. I’ve heard an official involved in the Forum speak, decrying the catechetical model. I’ve worked on an RCIA team with a person who had been trained by the Forum, who directed parish RCIA for decades and who criticized every attempt at imparting doctrine in favor of “formative experiences.” I’ve discussed RCIA with a national liturgical leader who focused entirely on paragraph 75.
The context is: people come to the Church to find out what it is about and to join it. The message we have to offer is: we don’t know very much about God.