Lost in Translation?
May 11, 2007, 9:07 am
Posted by David Gibson
The Vatican has graciously “cleaned up” the Pope’s tempest-causing remarks on abortion and excommunication from the in-flight press conference, as you can read in this AP story http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002386.html or in the CNS version http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702642.htm.
Such post-facto “editing” was also done to Benedict’s remarks at Regensburg. Needless to say, such actions are certainly in keeping with the palace mentality so often at work among the papal entourage. But that Benedict would agree to them is not a terribly inspiring example.
Re: the Regensburg example — are you referring to the supposed alteration of the sentence that included the word “brusqueness”? If so, think again:
http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2006/09/translation-of-benedicts-speech.html
David, I guess I see these two situations as very different. In the Regensburg case, the Pope had a prepared text–a speech (I believe) which he had written himself. So the reinterpretation afterward was a “cleaning up” in a stronger sense.
Now, I don’t see the remarks on the plane in the same way. First, he is 80 years old, on a long and tiring flight. He’s responding, extemporaneously to questions–he could have misunderstood the question, or the context. Second, and more importantly, there is a CODE of canon law. There are church laws about who can be excommunicated and under what circumstances. I suppose (it’s a question for the canonists) that the Pope, as supreme head of the church possessing legislative, executive, and judicial power COULD abolish canon law in one fell swoop and do it his own way–but I think it’s highly unlikely that this pope or any modern pope would do that. His initial remarks made clear that he was attempting to follow canon law, not to make it or change it.
He might have thought that the Mexican bishops had ALREADY excommunicated certain figures (and this kind of excommunication requires due process) and was backing his people, or he misunderstood the question.
So I see this situation as a real clarification, not as much of a “spin.”
But maybe that’s because I’m contemplating a fifteen hour plane trip to Australia. And I don’t know if anyone should ask me questions in the middle of it, and I’m a lot younger than Benedict.
Cathleen — read the link I provided. Is this the supposed example of “cleaning up”? If so, the “cleaned up” version was nothing more than a correct translation of the words that Benedict actually spoke. Unless you have another example in mind, the accusation of “cleaning up” is false.
Because he’s the holy Father, there aare a number who think every word he says is correct. So there’s no thought of “clean up” or that he mispoke (to use another legal phrase for saying someone made a mistake.)
Cathy raises the excellent point though of an eighty year old man being constantly in the spotlight and depended on. How does grace continue to influence nature there? And what does it say about the importance of the subordinates closest to him and how they are chosen?
Let me step back from the Regensburg example–the Pope did later “recast” his words from the original translations, as well as adding explanatory footnotes that were intended to explain (however imperfectly) his original comments. One could argue that is similar to amending any lecture for publication.
But Regensburg, and the Brazil presser, are not isolated examples. See this CNS story from earlier this year:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0700650.htm
Cathy, I am certainly sympathetic to the pope, or any public figure frankly, facing down the journo pack in “gotcha” mode. This was the first time Benedict has done so as pope, but I don’t think it was too arduous. Not were these trick questions. Just 11 questions in 25 minutes early on in the flight (I believe), from a man who is priased for his ability to speak extemporaneously.
But my point is not to rehash what he meant or whether the clarifications were proper or in fact clarified anything. It is rather to protest, as a journalist and historian, the changing of the documentary record. The “cleaned up” version of these and other statements is what goes in the archives, and what will be the basis of the Vatican’s official story ad infinitum.
Frankly, I don’t see why they need to be edited–they seem fine to me, and in fact many of the loudest critics of this Orwellian practice are “conservatives” (yes, I hate the word) who wish they’d “let Benedict be Benedict,” be it on excommunication or Islam.
I think part of the problem in the Brazil trip is we need a new word:
1. Excommunication–separated from the Catholic communion of faithful, usually by a formal juridical act.
2. In an unfit state to receive communion-by virtue of having committed a serious sin– adultery, fornication, theft, robberty, assault, murder, etc.
State 2 is not the same as State 1.
State 2 could be described –and in the prevatican II days was described, as being “in a state of unabsolved mortal sin.”
Further, the two sets of states do not completely overlap; many people are in state 2 without being in state 1; it’s conceivable that there are people in state 1 that are not in state 2. (In the 19th century, didn’t a pope excommunicate Italian politicians who voted to deprive power from the Papal States –excommunicated, yes, but maybe not in a state of mortal sin.)
By the way, Stuart–the Vatican made further edits to the text of the Regensburg speech, adding the phrase “a brusqueness that we find unacceptable.” That would seem to undermine your argument.
The “official” text as redacted by the pope, with explanatory footnotes, is at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html.
Cathy, I think your comments about excommunication are right on, though that wasn’t necessarily the issue I was concerned with. Comments by the Mexico City cardinal seem to indicate that the politicians in question had excommunicated themselves, which is pretty much how it always happens these days.
Two points I’d make: One, I think Benedict was simply trying to support the local bishops in their prudential judgements, just as he did in 2004 for the US hierarchy. And two, the issue for Catholics in America is what use will hardliners (both in politics and the hierarchy) make of Benedict’s comments as the campaign heats up.
In ordinary life, the unvarnished, off- the-cuff remarks of people we know are often enough followed by polite clarifications. We do let people revise themselves. But the original comments remain in the margins of our memory, standing in our record of what happened, and serving as evidence– at least– of what the speaker was capable of saying on a certain subject, in a moment of spontaneity.
Public figures are often surrounded by PR specialists ready to paper over impolitic remarks for them. It seems fair enough to allow anyone the editorial option of revision after second thoughts, though when the revision comes from a functionary instead of the original speaker, that sometimes complicates the situation. (Think of the gap between what Bush might actually say, and the way his press secretary might explain and amplify it.) Expunging the initial remark from the record altogether just won’t do, especially when it tells us something of the character, temper, instinctive reactions of someone in a key position, “a decider,” one might even say..
I think David Gibson’s take on this truly Orwellian situation has a lot to be said for it. Preserving the whole of the record, even when it is confused, halting, inaccurate about the facts, is important.
But ,that said, what are we to think of a Pope who would give unquestioning support to local bishops in their excommunication of parties under their jurisdiction without inquiring further into the matter?
Mr. Gibson,
I know little about you other than what I read in
Commonweal, this blog and other blogs, but in these sources there always seems to be a common theme – pointing out shortcomings in the Pope and the Vatican. What are your comments on what the Pope said, for example, to the young people in Brazil and how hard it is for the poor to live with little hope, and his many spiritual reflections since becomong Pope, etc., etc? Do you agree? If so, are these ever important enough to mention? Possibly they are vastly more important in a total sense than what concerns you, even if true.
Robert G Kribs,
Nice try. It is Benedict XVI who is trying to cheat on the issue of the poor by stating he is concerned about it while he generally condemned Catholics who advocated their liberation. It is the usual pope talk. It is right when I say it is right. Karol W was superb at that.
The pope should not have let the abortion issue dominate. On the other hand he allowed his selected bishops to center on abortion while the country languishes in poverty. To even hint that Gibson is changing the agenda is a gross mistatement of where the blame should be. On Joseph Ratzinger.
Let’s speak clearly. This is an orthodox pope who prefers doctrine over charity, doctrine over practise, governments over the peopl. Check for rerence; Oscar Romero.
In other words the onus is on the pope to show that he really cares about the poor in South America. Period.
Forget about corrections. Forget about Orwell. Why not encourage the pope to smile mysteriously when the subject of abortion comes up and encourage him to talk about the book he’s reading, the movie he saw, or the most interesting visitor he’s had in the last month. We, and the whole world knows, what he thinks. This has swamped the whole visit to Brazil–thanks, in part, to his want of media sophistication, and, in part, to the idiot journalists on the trip–assuming you’re not there David! I saw the Reuters story early on; it was the same old idiot journalist, riding the same old hobby horse. And he seems to have had some distinguished company.
“But that Benedict would agree to them is not a terribly inspiring example.”
David – I agree with you that the “palace mentality” of the Vatican Press Office et al is incredibly aggrevating and a disservice to the Church. But, what evidence do you have that Benedict agrees to them?
(One of the continuing story lines of this pontificate is that parts of the Vatican apparatus seem determined to serve “a Pope of the future” rather than Pope Benedict)
Meanwhile Rudolph Giuliani is emerging as the top presidential candidate with his latest statement on abortion. “But Giuliani left few questions about his position Friday, telling about 500 students and faculty at the small conservative school that — despite his belief that abortion was “morally wrong” — he believes the decision should ultimately be left to individuals and their decisions should be respected.”http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070511/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_abortion
Isn’t that what America is about? That individuals and their decisions should be respected?
But of course a country that was built on freedom of religion is attempting to revert to tyranny by religion.
Now, now, Peggy–I am in Washington this weekend, much as I would like to be in Brazil. But that makes me no less a journalist, or an idiot. And I am friends with the “idiots” in question, so I must come to their defense. Well, it can be hard, but pity the wire service guys. I do theink the Bigs (NYT, WaPo) have done some very good stuff. Yes, the media jumped on the abortion issue–and why not? Benedict shouldn’t just smile like a Buddha–he should say what he thinks and explain why. It’s a pretty central issue. And it’s central to the U.S., and to the coming (present?) presidential campaign. I do think you can’t shoot the messenger. Benedict could have said something different, or more nuanced, or more explanatory. Or maybe he said what he wanted to say. He’s a pretty smart guy, ya know. But the papal texts are all on-line. We should read them.
It’s an ugly biz, the media, no doubt–and the best we’ve got, like democracy. A final anecdote: I was on the papal plane back whenever it was that O.J. was acquitted. (Was it 10 years ago already? JMJ.) Just so happened the verdict–the biggest story anywhere–came down the day JP2 (and the rest of us) were flying to the U.S. As we got ready for the Pope to come back for the in-flight newser, we were all dreading the moment, knowing someone of us had to ask the OJ question. Why, you ask? Because if we didn’t, and editor (and millions of Americans) would want to know why, and we’d never work in that town again. Someone HAD to ask the question. So in an odd inversion, instead of slitting each other’s throats to see who would ask the firt question, we drew straws to see who would go first, with the understanding that that person would have to ask the OJ question. Thank God, I didn’t lose.
PS: JP2 was prepped and responded with something completely anodyne and unewsworthy. Smart move.
Where were you David when the Monica Lowinsky story broke? Many were with the pope in Cuba, and regretting it since they thought Monica was bigger. Meanwhile several Muslim men were learning how to fly and did not want to know how to land.
Meanwhile this vicious war is is killing many every day and the media relegates it to the inside pages. The Bush administration successfully lobbied to get the war off the front pages and pleaded with the media when the torture of Iraqi prisoners came out.
Fox News stopped waving the flag–perhaps waiting for a favorable poll. The media was shamelessly intimidated from the start of this war, especially television. Shock and awe and all.
And Chaney is still standing.
Bow wow, Davie. My essential point–the ij’s seem obsessed with getting popes, bishops, etc., to repeat what the ij’s and their editors know to be the Catholic teaching on abortion–we’re against! Repeating that in its myriad forms in headlines, leads, etc., is, well, obsessive. Are those ij’s looking for the pope to change that teaching–or perhaps they are looking for absolution! My suggestion was that the pope could simply change the subject and give them a new lead.
Okay, Margaret. But ip’s (I won’t translate) also keep playing into the hands of ij’s when they keep talking about these issues. Look, you’re right–editors want NEWS, they want an easily-understandable hook and lede for a story. Abortion and excommunication and politics hits the sweet spot. No theology, nothing complicated. The Vatican also knows that, and for all their laments, plays into that. The controversial money lines are highlighted in papal speeches, with helpful Vatican aides there to point them out. Perhaps the problem is in covering papal visits as news events, like the Iowa primaries. Perhaps they truly should be pastoral visits, not news.
Dear Ann Arbor–I see I did not answer your question about whether Benedict approved the changes to his statement. It’s a good question, and I do not know if he did or did not. Based on past experience, I’d be very surprised if he dd not approve such a redaction. And given his track record in doing similar things with other speeches, it seems in line with the kind of editing he would approve. But no, I have no direct knowledge.
You make an interesting point about a Vatican serving a future pope rather than the present one. I wonder if that trend would become more marked as B16 grows older.
Oh, and yes, I was in Havana, about to do my first-ever talking head gig on CNN with Christiane Amanpour, of all people. I was terrified and cotton-mouthed, awake the night before, and still with my own stories to file. Yet the cameras started to roll, and you know, I thought I was doing sort of okay. Four minutes in and they break off to go to Washington for the Lewinsky scandal. To her great credit, Amanpour argued very strongly with the network to keep the focus on this momentous visit rather than on–well, I won’t repeat the way she put it. No dice. The entire press pack bailed. Made me feel better anyway. CNN carried us on the international feed, which eased my nerves since I knew Mom wouldn’t be watching…
Are we sure there really was a “cleaning up” of the Holy Father’s words to the reporters? It seems the audio of the event supports the Holy See’s transcript.
Check out this site for more on the Pope in Brazil:
http://tinyurl.com/2nv32v
Maid