dotCommonweal

A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors

.

New Missal Survey Shows Most Priests Dissatisfied

The closer you get, the worse it looks.That seems to be the takeaway from a collection of surveys over the past year intended to gauge the response of Catholics to the new English translation of the Roman Missal. The controversial new English translation of the Roman Missal had its debut at the end of 2011, amid doubts of its ability to gain wide appeal. Give it a chance its advocates advised, youll get used to it.

A year later, when a CARA survey reported that 70% of lay Catholics in America agreed with the statement that The new translation is a good thing, it seemed these predictions were justified. To say that the translation is a good thing might seem to be a rather lukewarm endorsement, but these results were positive enough to be encouraging. Online polls conducted around the same time however revealed a more troubling picture, showing considerably more negative opinion, especially among priests, who arguably have the greatest investment in the new translation because of their role in the daily celebration of the liturgy. They use the Missal every day, and know its pluses and minuses better than anyone.

  • The Tablet found that clergy gave the new translation very negative marks. Of the 1189 clergy who participated, 70% were unhappy with the translation and wished to see it revised. In a strange twist, considerable numbers of respondents who preferred the Extraordinary Form (which is in Latin) took the survey. 94% of them approved of the new translation. But 57% of those who preferred the Ordinary Form disliked it.
  • US Catholic polled more than 1200 priests in a reader survey, and found that 58% agreed with the statement: I dislike the new translations and still cant believe Ill have to use them for the foreseeable future. 49% of Catholics in the pews also registered unhappiness with the translation whereas only 17% said they enjoy them as much as or more than the old translation.

Observers have taken the more critical Tablet and US Catholic results with a grain of salt. Yes, they indicate dissatisfaction, and especially strong dissatisfaction among clergy, but how reliable are these polls?

The results of a new study, released today, sets our knowledge of the opinions of priests on a firmer footing.

The survey is narrowly focused on the opinion of priests in the United States. It shows that priests are sharply divided, with a clear majority disliking the new translation and calling for its revision.

The specific findings are striking. 59% of priests do not like the new translation, compared with 39% who do. An overwhelming 80% agree that some of the language is awkward and distracting. 61% think the translation needs urgently to be revised. In what is perhaps the most timely element, 61% of priests do not want the rest of the liturgical books to be translated in the same manner. The process of retranslating the Liturgy of the Hours and the rites of the Sacraments is currently underway.

Jeffrey Tucker of Chant Caf, who likes the new texts and was initially surprised by the results, speculated that a generational split might account for the negative opinions: "They came to terms with one way, received vast amounts of catechesis along these lines, and developed a more casual liturgical style to go along with it, and now they are told to do it another way. This creates a real tension: am I supposed to speak in the language of the people or not?"

Other commenters, however, felt that the negative evaluation was not so much fueled by resistance to change as by resistance to making the prayers of the Mass more awkward. Fr. Michael Ryan of Seattle, founder of the website What if we just said wait? noted that the proportion of discontent revealed in the Diekmann survey contrasts sharply with reactions to the introduction of English into the Mass following Vatican II. "These results are a far cry from the way priests and people reacted when the Mass in English was first introduced in the late 1960s," Ryan said, A survey taken at that time indicated that 85-87% of Catholics (and especially parish priests) preferred the new Mass to the old (Mark Massa, SJ, Worship 81 (2007), p. 122).

A preconceived bias against the texts also would not account for another interesting finding: 15% of those who had looked forward to the new Missal ended up disliking it. By comparison, only 10% grew to like it through the process of using it.All 178 Latin Rite dioceses in the US were invited to participate in the survey and, of these, 32 from all geographical regions of the country chose to take part. A total of 1,536 priests (diocesan and religious) responded, a response rate of 42.5%.

The survey was conducted under the auspices of the Godfrey Diekmann, OSB, Center for Patristics and Liturgical Studies at St. Johns University School of Theology-Seminary, in Collegeville MN. The project manager was Chase Becker, assisted by Audrey Seah and Christine Condyles, and advised by Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, with the aid of Dr. Pamela Bacon, a professional consultant.

More than half of the respondents submitted written comments, a total of 799 comments. These covered a wide variety of subjects, including aesthetics, grammar and syntax, reception by their people, translation principles, ecclesiastical process, vocabulary, theological content, book format, and music. In these comments, critique of the Missal outweighed affirmation by a four to one margin. The full text of the comments can be found here.

Two questions about process, unique to this survey, also showed sobering results. More than half (55%) of the respondents are not confident that priests views of the translation will be taken seriously. Nearly half (49%) do not approve of the role of the Holy See in bringing the new translation about, compared with 39% who do.

Fr. Edward Foley, Capuchin, professor at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, said, "The most disappointing result of this survey for me is that most priests doubt that their views about the translation will be seriously addressed; on the other hand, this too is not surprising since they were never consulted in the first place." Peter Jeffery, professor of medieval studies and theology at Notre Dame, asked: "Why did 82.1% of dioceses decide not to forward this survey to their priests? Do they think it is better not to know what priests think?" Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth, executive director of ICEL questioned the representative value of the responses, pointing out that the respondents constitute less than 3.7% of priests in the US. Without some indication of selection bias, however, the sample size would not seem to indicate that the survey is weak. The CARA survey concerning the Missal, for example, had 1,239 participants, a much smaller fraction of the total Catholic population which the survey is presumed to represent.

For those priests who are well satisfied with the new translation, its daily use has been rewarding. For the majority, however, it has been a burden and a source of discouragement. On an even deeper level, the conflict they experience has serious ramifications. As Fr. Anthony Cutcher, president of the National Federation of Priests Councils observed: "The Eucharistic liturgy and the ability to celebrate it well is at the core of a priest's identity. With the promulgation of the Third Roman Missal, we priests have been placed in an untenable position, forced to choose between fidelity to the magisterium and feeding our people."

When a majority of priests are unhappy about something as important as the Missal, the situation calls for creative leadership and constructive responses. It is not clear, however, whether those in positions of authority are either ready or willing to respond. Msgr. Rick Hilgartner, director of the office of the BCDW at the USCCB, declined to comment for this story, as did Bishop Gregory Aymond, chair of the BCDW, and Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, incoming chair of the BCDW. Not replying to a request for comment were: Bishop Arthur Seratelli, former chair of the BCDW and current chair of ICEL; Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the USCCB; Cardinal Francis George, former USCCB president under whom the implementation date was set; Cardinal George Pell, chair of Vox Clara; Msgr. Jim Moroney, executive secretary of Vox Clara; and Fr. Dennis McManus, advisor to Vox Clara. Reactions to the survey were provided by Bishop Robert Brom of San Diego, Father Anthony Cutcher of the National Federation of Priests' Councils, Fr. Edward Foley, Capuchin of Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, Peter Jeffery of Notre Dame, Fr. Michael Ryan of Seattle, Jeffery Tucker of Chant Cafe, Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth of ICEL, Fr. Mark Wedig OP of Barry University, And Bishop Donald Trautman, retired bishop of Erie. The full text of their comments is available here.

About the Author

Rita Ferrone is the author of several books about liturgy, including Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium (Paulist Press).

94 comments
Close

94 comments

Commenting Guidelines

  • All

I am also surprised that such a large minority is satisfied with the new missal.Every English-speaking Catholic who has a chance to approach pope Francis should think it their duty to mention the problems with the new missal. Imagine that he decides to give more power to conferences of bishops. Can that be applied retroactively, say, back to 1998?

Speaking as a layman, I like the new translation. And there is a scientific poll showing that most other Catholic laymen like it, too: http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2012/11/tracking-changes-accepted... parish is fortunate enough to have a Benedictine come to say Mass on the weekends. Not only does Father say the new translation with aplomb, he sings much of it. And he regularly prays the First Eucharistic Prayer, beautifully. (Our pastor also does a fine job with the new translation, but he does not sing it).

Off topic, with apologies.On the Whispers in the Loggia blog site Rocco has posted the audio feed of the talk that Pope Francis gave on the vigil of Pentecost. It's 38+ minutes long, but worth every second of your time. Don't miss it if at all possible.

Fr. Imbelli, Your last paragraph captures my point. Using whatever resources available, including Latin liturgical texts, why should the USCCB, or some other appropriate agency, appoint a committee of competent liturgical scholars to produce, in English, a set of liturgical texts for the American Catholic use? The committee would have much to learn from relevant predecessor texts, but would not be charged with confining itself to making translations.

I'm surprised that so many priests are happy with the new translation.

Rita,thanks for the post and the links.One clarification: you speak of those who "declined to comment for this story."Does that refer to this post, and did you seek comments from the people in question?

On the other hand half of those who are satisfied believe it needs revision. Clearly, the bishops have a crisis of confidence among their clergy. Just as clearly, it hasn't been a good decade for them at all. They have Bill Donohue in their court. Maybe that's enough.

The fundamental split seems to be between priests (the Diekmann/St. John's survey) and the laity, i.e. the vast preponderance of the church (the CARA study).Naturally, the priests are much more intensively immersed in the missal than the people are. But is the Roman Missal the priests' book, or the entire church's book? Suppose, for the sake of conversation, the people's parts were left intact, and the parts that belong to the priest - the collects and other propers, the Eucharistic Prayers, and so on, were re-translated (yet again). Would the people care? I expect the answer, by and large, would be, No.

Joe -- ha! I'm with you, that's the real surprise here.Bob -- You are welcome. Hmm, I guess "this story" is a bit ambiguous. I didn't mean this particular blog post but rather the whole event of publication of the data. The results of the survey were sent (pre-publication) to all the people listed, with a request for comment. Those who sent responses (some of which I have quoted here in part) are all posted at the Diekmann website in full. Some declined. Some did not respond. I did not personally contact these people. My source, however, is reliable. :)Claire -- Pope Francis seems to evince a strong appreciation for the vernacular; what his thoughts are on translation, however, is anybody's guess.

Was the question asked whether the priests "edited" the prayers in some way -- even as simple as putting a period in place of "and" and starting a new sentence?Perhaps the greater satisfaction among the laity is also the fruit of discreet editing of what in some cases is decidedly awkward syntax.

"But is the Roman Missal the priests book, or the entire churchs book?"I am not sure what that question means. When I go to Mass, the Missal is the book with which I am praying, whether I am actually speaking the prayer or the presider is speaking it for us. But at home, before I

Sorry, computer jump back there. What I was saying is:But at home, before I go to Mass, I have stopped saying the Collect out loud because I usually can't do it on a first reading. Do priests practice it before Mass? At home, then, the priest's part is still "the entire church's book" or would be if I could make it work. Finally, I still have some doctrinal problems with the "people's" parts that could be cleared up simply by a return to English.

Rita--Were any of those involved in conducting the survey sympathetic to the new missal? I see Fr. Anthony Ruff was an advisor. Based on his comments in here, I imagine he was decidedly not sympathetic.

Tell them to stand in line!

I find I have to read the collects over before Mass, which isn't a bad thing in any case. Some of them, if read properly, can be effective; but most of them are poorly done. Years ago I started making and using my own translations of the collects and the prefaces--thought I owed it to the Church not to use the banalities produced by the first ICEL.

It has been my experience that the coming of this new missal has once again occasioned the law of unintended consequences. Because of the awkward translations (and some of the over the top imagery and vocabulary), I have found some priests who never would have changed the words in the old translation now do it all the time. So an effort to tighten things up has actually led to opposite results

Rita, is it true that this project was headed by a liturgy student at Collegeville?

With a 42.5% response rate, it seems very possible that the priests who responded were those who felt most strongly about the issue. It is therefore irresponsible to make statements such as this:

59% of priests do not like the new translation, compared with 39% who do.

That sort of statement should be amended to read:

59% of priests who were motivated to respond to a well-known malcontent's survey disliked the new translation.

Oh wait, I forgot: only 32 out of the 178 dioceses in the United States even participated in the first place, and it is also likely that this is not just happening at random (such that you can assume the 32 represent the rest of the 178).So the statement above should really read:

Out of the 18% of dioceses who were willing to participate in a well-known malcontent's survey, and out of the 42.5% of priests in those dioceses who were motivated enough to respond, 59% of them disliked the new translation. In other words, about 906 priests out of 39,000 nationwide, or a mere 2.3%, said they disliked the new translation.

The collect for next sunday contains a glaring heresy. But it's in the priest's part so the people need not worry. After all, "Suppose, for the sake of conversation, the peoples parts were left intact, and the parts that belong to the priest the collects and other propers, the Eucharistic Prayers, and so on, were re-translated (yet again). Would the people care? I expect the answer, by and large, would be, No."

I heard a conservative priest alter the ungrammatical "acclaim" at the end of the preface. Yes, it's the law of unintended consequences.

"Perhaps the greater satisfaction among the laity is also the fruit of discreet editing of what in some cases is decidedly awkward syntax." Surely.

"Wasting Time," like Msgr. Wadsworth, betrays poor knowledge of polling techniques. We confidently assert what "Americans" think about intervention in Syria, abortion or gun regulation on the basis of smaller samples than the Diekmann Center's. And those assertions seem to play out in the real world.I am intrigued, though, by Wasting Time's implication that some dioceses are so different than others that vastly different results may be obtained there. What are the criteria? Are some Catholic and some not? Who appointed their bishops?

Here are the credentials of the Project Manager, according to the PrayTell website:Chase M. Becker is a Nebraska native and current editorial assistant for Pray Tell. Chase holds a B.A. in Philosophy from Saint Gregory the Great Seminary in Seward, Nebraska and is currently pursuing an M.A. in Liturgical Studies from Saint John's School of TheologySeminary in Collegeville, Minnesota. Chase currently serves as a Liturgical Designer and Consultant and has earned awards in historic preservation from Heritage Nebraska and Preservation North Dakota.The sympathetic-leaning PrayTell commentariat have already weighed in on the likelihood of sampling errors, particularly considering the enormous amount of self-selection that occurred. Self-selecting dioceses participated. Self-selecting clergy from these dioceses participated. And as Jeffrey mentions below, we are given very little of the data.Before we take this survey with any seriousness, why don't we stop and ask for a little transparency.What did the surveys look like? Did they indicate Collegeville as their source or destination, thus influencing participation? Which dioceses were involved and why? Where there any outside scientists involved in the process? Was any outside social scientist consulted for independent evaluation of the procedures?What degree of professionally credible skill was involved in producing this survey? How involved was the in-house scientific consultant? Did she design the survey? Did she evaluate the results or train the liturgy students to a high level of analytical skill before they processed the results? What corrections were made to the raw data?

I would just like the Creed to say that Jesus came down from heaven for us men "and women".

In a better world, 178 of our Dioceses would seriously ask their clergy and laity for their reactions to the new translation and ask for advice about how to go forward from here. The real question to be pondered is why they haven't done exactly that.

"The collect for next sunday contains a glaring heresy. But its in the priests part so the people need not worry. After all, Suppose, for the sake of conversation, the peoples parts were left intact, and the parts that belong to the priest the collects and other propers, the Eucharistic Prayers, and so on, were re-translated (yet again). Would the people care? I expect the answer, by and large, would be, No."So, to follow your logic here, the Collect contains a glaring heresy, but you *don't* want it to be re-translated, unless the people care?

But is the Roman Missal the priests book, or the entire churchs book?"I am not sure what that question means."I think it's pretty straightforward: CARA, whose survey methodology is pretty impeccable, has published survey results indicating that the church, by a strong majority, is happy with the new translation. And now the Diekmann Center has published the results of a survey (whose methodology may be open to question, but let's set that aside; personally, I haven't met a priest yet who has expressed enthusiasm for the translation) indicating that priests, a rather tiny sliver of the church, and by a lesser majority, are dissatisfied. I take the entire thrust of Rita's post to be, 'This is powerful evidence that the translation was poorly done; after all, what could be more damning than that the primary audience for the Missal - priests - are unhappy with it? Therefore, the obvious thing to do is to go back and do it again.'Rita didn't explicitly say that the primary audience for the missal is priests, but it's a reasonable inference from her post. And that assumption is what I'm questioning. And I'm questioning it in a spirit of open inquiry. It seems clear, as I stated in the comment to which you responded, that priests are more intensively immersed in the missal than the average Catholic in the pews (to say nothing of the average Catholic, period, who may not even be in the pews at all). Perhaps priests' opinions should be decisive in this matter.But as Fr. O'Leary pointed out, just because the people don't actually recite the collect aloud during mass, doesn't mean that the collect isn't "for them", too. But the people - the church - according to the best evidence we have (the CARA survey), don't seem particularly dissatisfied with the translation of the collects. What do we make of that? The CARA survey is a big problem for the tear-up-the-translation-and-try-again movement.

Fr. O'Leary: What is the glaring heresy? I presume you're talking about the collect for Trinity Sunday?The translation was intended to be as literal as possible, but they turned "the glory of the eternal Trinity" into "the Trinity of eternal glory."

The collect for next sunday contains a glaring heresy"I'll bite: what is the glaring heresy?Here is the collect for Trinity Sunday, in the new translation:God our Father, who by sending into the worldthe Word of truth and the Spirit of sanctificationmade known to the human race your wondrous mystery,grant us, we pray, that in professing the true faith,we may acknowledge the Trinity of eternal gloryand adore your Unity, powerful in majesty.Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the HOly Spirit,one God, for ever and ever.Here is the same prayer according to the previous translation:Father,you sent your Word to bring us truthand your Spirit to make us holy.Through them we come to know the mystery of your life.Help us to worship you, one God in three Persons,by proclaiming and living our faith in you.Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,one God, for ever and ever.Regarding the content, they both seem to cover more or less the same territory.

Father O'Leary will of course speak for himself. But I think the stumbling block may be the introduction of "your": "your Unity, powerful in majesty" which is not to be found in the Latin and may imply that the unity belongs to the Father alone.

A charitable though unlikely reading of the addition of Your: it might have been motivated by ecumenical sensitivity for Orthodox monarchism.

Reading the accounts above, in my mind the methodology seems sound. You can quibble about generalizability given the return sample size however all of that information was included and all of us can make a determination around the reliability of the results.I think a good way to judge the reliability is just by way of publication and whether it "rings true". Based on the comments posted here, it sounds like the results are, indeed, indicative of the majority of clergy's view of the missal translation.

I think a good way to judge the reliability is just by way of publication and whether it rings true. I don't understand. Are you saying that a survey is true, or scientific, when it "rings true"? That is, is a survey reliable when it confirms what we've already thought, and unreliable when it sheds light on aspects of reality that we hadn't yet considered?

Isn't it true that Francis did not accept the new translation in his diocese?

Re: the collect for Trinity Sunday, I popped over to the Pray Tell blog, where this analysis by Anscar Chapungco is posted:http://www.praytellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Chupungco_Trinity... mistakes are made, they should be corrected. I recall reading once that in the early days of the 1970s translation, there was an error in Eucharistic Prayer IV that was theologically problematic, and it was corrected. Sounds like a good precedent for this collect.

For those who are interested, here is what I was recalling regarding the problem in the old translation of EPIV - it is somewhat similar to that of the Trinity collect under discussion. This is Rev. Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University. as quoted by Felix Just, SJ:"A more delicate problem arose from an English reader who asks: "The difficulty that I, as a mere layman, have with this Preface [of Eucharistic Prayer IV] is that it clearly and most obviously, in English, denies the divinity of Our Blessed Lord and of the Holy Spirit. It starts: 'Father in heaven, it is right that we should give you thanks and glory: you alone are God, living and true.' Is not this heresy? I know good priests here in England who never use this Eucharistic prayer now. It has to be said, by the way, that all this kind of thing simply causes confusion among the poor laity. Priests and, indeed, bishops should remember the laity when they consider the liturgy. We do not all have degrees in theology; mine is in English and I can, therefore, understand the meaning of words in that language." "Far be it from me to accuse the liturgy of heresy. But our reader certainly has a point that we are before a less-than-adequate translation. "Indeed, if I am not mistaken, this translation was corrected in the missals used in the United States and now reads "you are the one God, living and true." "http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur107.htm

As a priest I was never consulted to give my input, but over all I would say, "it is a bad translation" - collects are extremely difficult to read and the meaning of many of them is obscure and not elusive. Form the survey and from talking to other priests in my diocese, the new translation, putting all other issues aside, needs further improvement - and there is nothing wrong with that. And it is interesting that both those who like it and those who do not like it agree on awkwardness of the sacred texts of the mass.

Wasting Time, like Msgr. Wadsworth, betrays poor knowledge of polling techniques. We confidently assert what Americans think about intervention in Syria, abortion or gun regulation on the basis of smaller samples than the Diekmann Centers.Tom, the issue isn't the size of the sample. You're right about that. The issue, however, is something that you ignore: the sample is decidedly non-random. Only a few dioceses even participated, and then only some of the priests in those dioceses. That means it is simply not credible to maintain that these priests are really representative of all priests. Which in turn means that conclusions such as those stated in the post are irresponsible.

I mean "is elusive"

Jim,thanks for the link to the "Pray Tell" site.Father Anscar confirms my impression and spells out the issue in more detail:Somewhat more disturbing from a theological standpoint is the second petition and adore your Unity, powerful in majesty. How is the Latin text formulated? To begin with, it has no possessive pronoun (your). The inser-tion of your is what causes the problem in the English translation. The Latin text simply states adore the Unity in the power of majesty.It is useful to remember that the one addressed in this prayer is God the Father, not the holy Trinity. In the new English translation the phrase your Unity would seem to refer to the Father, unless by the application of some elliptical device we complete the statement so that it would read as follows: Father, we adore your Unity with the Word of truth and the Spirit of sanctification. As the English version stands, we are given the wrong impression that we adore the Unity of God the Father. This is certainly not an insignificant theological issue. The passage is inaccurate and should be rectified by deleting the possessive pronoun your. What the Latin text says is We adore the Unity [of the three Divine Persons] in the power of majesty.

"Wasting Time," you seem to be saying that a) the dioceses that participated are different than the ones that didn't, and b) the priests that participated are different than the ones who didn't. As for the first point, do you mean that the Church is so different in different dioceses that her priests think differently about things as basic as the missal? I find that to be a stretch.On the second point, non-respondents are always a bit of a problem because we know, for openers, that they are different in one way from the ones who responded. But the participation rates in this study look to be reasonable for sampling purposes. It would be problematic if all the priests in one participating diocese responded and none of the priests in another did. That would make the investigators take a second look. But that's not what happened here.

I'm not surprised at these findings. The wording is awkward and stilted, difficult to follow in many instances. It reminds me a the "literal translations" I used to do in Spanish I or one of those translations you hear sometimes from the UN or elsewhere, where you know the translator is doing it on the spot, but it is very stilted and when you read the transcript it will be cleaned up. In the case of the Missal, my impression has been that they tried to be so literal in the Latin to English that they missed the actual meaning in some instances, and used awkward phasing in others. In our parish we have a joke that we know that Fr. Jim, a somewhat cantankerous, (but very good guy), retired priest uses the old version when nobody is around to complain...When I asked Fr. Jim, he just smiled and changed the subject...I have a suspicion that a few of the priest who post here might do the same...

Here's Lossky on monarchism, in an article arguing against the Filioque found here http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDsQ...If the Father is the personal cause of the hypostases, He is also, for that very reason,the principle of their common possession of one and the same nature; and in that sense,He is the "source" of the common divinity of the Three. The revelation of this nature, theexternalization of the unknowable essence of the Three, is not a reality foreign to theThree hypostases. Every energy, every manifestation, comes from the Father, isexpressed in the Son, and goes forth in the Holy Spirit. This procession natural,"energetic," manifesting must be clearly distinguished from hypostatic procession,which is personal, internal, from the Father alone. The same monarchy of the Fatherconditions both the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit His personal existence ekmonou tou Patros and the manifesting, natural procession of the commonGodhead ad extra in the Holy Spirit, through the Son dia Huiou.I don't agree with all of this (I think the doctrine of the Filioque is beautiful and true) but what seems germane is Lossky's continued invocation of the Fathers as authorities on monarchism.

Tom -- yes, different priests in different dioceses may think differently. Do you think all of the priests in Lincoln Nebraska are identical in every way to the priests in San Francisco, for example? A commenter at the Pray Tell blog put it so well that I'll take the liberty of copying it here:

Let us say that an entity known for Reform of the Reform proclivities let us say Adoremus, or, more analogously, Kenrick-Glennon (at least under Archbp. Burke) had commissioned a research group to conduct a similar, voluntary survey of priests on their attitudes about the new Missal. Let us say that a limited number of dioceses chose to participate. Let us say that it included little to no background data on respondents. And let us say that its findings suggest that a large majority of priests very much approved of the new Missal.If that happened, I think you, and Fr. Ruff, would be quite skeptical and youd have a right to be. Youd wonder if a disproportionate number of participating dioceses might be ones like (say) Lincoln, perhaps because theyd be more at ease cooperating with the likes of Adoremus or Kenrick-Glennon because theyre liturgically sympatico. Youd want to see a lot more background on respondents. And youd be right to want that.

Medical statistical tests also rely on self-selected volunteers. To try to prevent self-selection bias, they ask them general questions and try to make sure that they have a representative sample in terms of what they think might be relevant. For example, here the person designing the test would eliminate some of the volunteers to make sure that, for example, the age distribution fits the age distribution of priests in general. They would similarly make sure that their sample has the right proportion of pastors of rich or of poor parishes, of associate pastors, etc. By restricting attention to such a "representative" sample, even though they have fewer data to work with, yet, they make it much more likely that the statistics they gather are meaningful.

Wasting Time, Lincoln, I hope, is sui generis. Including it might possibly be like including the New York chapter of the ACLU in a survey of tea party attitudes. But I've lived in such disparate places as Chicago, Kansas City, Trenton (NJ) and West Palm Beach (FL), and the priests (adjusted for age) have been pretty much the same the whole world over.

The new translation is not good. What does it mean that lay Catholics mostly find that the new translation is good? It reveals that they're not listening. That may be the takeaway message. Of course, at some level we knew that: it is when the priest speaks alone that people whisper to their neighbor, cough, take a kleenex from their purse, shift in their seat, check their kids's attitude and chide them if needed, look for change, pick up something fallen on the floor, discretely pick their nose or ear, rush straighten their clothes, tie their shoelace, etc. But this new translation reveals that the lack of attention is not occasional but systematic. In an assembly of 100 people one might be able to count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who are actively participating in the prayer of the presider.

When I saw NCROnline's report yesterday, I opined the Missal should be burned. However, since I don't like the idea of book-burning, I'm going to edit my comment and suggest the new missal should be tossed into a recycling bin: No need to waste the paper, after all!I've also forwarded this thread to "Joseph Kurtz", our AB in Louisville known for sucking up to the pope.

If, as reported, 70% of the laity thought the new missal "is a good thing", this may suggest as much about possibly new demographics of Catholic worshipers as about anything else. Or, as Claire suggests, perhaps worshipers are not listening. Maybe, too, they have "tuned out"???

dont understand. Are you saying that a survey is true, or scientific, when it rings true?

No, I meant that claims of generalizability are frought with difficulty. We can be embroiled in a lot of methodological issues as a result. I am not saying that this is not important. Very few studies claim generalizability for this reason. You select your representative sample. However, getting results, for a variety of reasons is not always possible. And even if you do, there is often criticism of the way questions are asked, etc.I think, in this instance, what occurred is appropriate. Publish your results, the sample, respondents and results and let other make inferences around the reliability of the survey in terms of how accurate it is.One way to do that, is to hold a focus group (even a virtual one) like is being held here on this site and maybe even on conservative sites. If you don't hear people saying, gee that seems counter-intuitive to what I experience, then there may indeed be a problem. If you hear people, like Fr. K, surprised that so many like the translation and other priests criticizing specific selections, then you can conclude, I think, that the results are fairly reliable and accurate.I am not saying true or accurate or valid in a social science sense but accurate, true and reliable in terms of assessing clergy's general view of the missal.The point is that the leadership of whoever is responsible for the translation and promulgation is going to have to do some re(thinking) or at least respond in some fashion. Maybe it is just an issue of people getting used to it, maybe it is an issue of difficulty with change, maybe it is an issue with the translation itself or all of the above.At any rate, I don't think that attacking the methodology of the survey or calling it into question is really and honest response. I think, instead, acknowledging that, not withstanding whatever methodological issues you may have, it is more or less an accurate reflection.It is a judgement of the data as presented.

"The new translation is not good. What does it mean that lay Catholics mostly find that the new translation is good? It reveals that theyre not listening. That may be the takeaway message. Of course, at some level we knew that"Right. It may also reveal that the laity view the text of the mass differently than liturgical or linguistics specialists. It may also reveal that some of the objections to the new missal are overblown. That collect for this coming Sunday that I typed into a comment above - it may not be Shakespeare, and it may not be 100% theologically sound, but really, for someone with a reasonable command of English* it's not insurmountably difficult to read or understand - or speak. To be sure, it requires more effort and concentration than the previous version, which was broken up into shorter, simpler sentences. So the new translation is harder. Still, my observation is that it almost always comes off without a hitch.* Quite a few priests in the US have a fairly tenuous grasp of English, and the long and complex sentences in the new translation do them no favors. We have a guy whose first language is Spanish; and I've noticed that there are some texts that pair "inheritance" and "heirs". What to do with the "h" in that pair of words gives him trouble.

George D,I still don't understand. Why bother making the survey? Wouldn't focus groups be easier? And if they are the criterion by which you judge surveys, more accurate?

I realize that we are moving on two tracks here: the survey itself and the collect for Trinity Sunday.The thread on the "Pray Tell" site (linked by Jim) has an interesting discussion. In the course of which the translation that was made in 1998 and did not receive Roman approval is given:"God our Father,you revealed the wonderful mystery of the Godheadby sending into the worldthe Word who speaks all truthand the Spirit who makes us holy.Grant that we may proclaim the fullness of faithby acknowledging and worshippingthree Persons, eternal in glory,one God of majesty and power."

Fr. Imbelli, now after living with the new translation for some time, I certainly find the full stop in the middle of the prayer jarring.

Its not accurate to say that the laity who approve of the translation of the new Roman Missal are simply not listening. I heard Anthony Esolen, a professor of English at Providence College, deliver a talk on the new translation in December of 2011 just before the changes were to take effect in parishes. Dr. Esolen, who has translated Dantes "Divine Comedy", Lucretius "De rerum natura", and Torquato Tassos "Gerusalemme liberata", vigorously endorsed the textual changes in the liturgy. Here is Esolen speaking about the new Missal in First Things:http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/11/restoring-the-words

"The real question to be pondered is why they havent done exactly that."Susan: one could offer any number of answers to your question but most likely no bishops want to appear to be unhappy with or even questioning the translations imposed on them and us by Their Ecclesiastical Betters.As far as dealing with the US bishops specifically: when's the last time you have seen or heard any of them speaking up (before retirement, that is) and challenging ANYTHING that emenates from the Vatican? In that respect, the European bishops are light-years ahead of their US brethren.

"As for the first point, do you mean that the Church is so different in different dioceses that her priests think differently about things as basic as the missal? I find that to be a stretch."Tom: I suspect in dioceses such as Rockford, Lincoln and Arlington, the priests may be VERY different in this respect than their counterparts in the rest of the US.But I still agree with you in principle regarding your comments to Wasting Time.

" ... perhaps worshipers are not listening. Maybe, too, they have tuned outReminds me of when I was a kid in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Btw, I see that Rita's post has made the Real Clear Religion list today - congratulations to Rita and dotCom. And Luke has a piece on the Boston Archdiocese that was listed yesterday - congrats, Luke and Commonweal.

Bernard,thank you for the recommendation. I had read the talk, but seeing him gives it an added dimension. As you say, a 38 minutes well spent.

The new translation is going fine in our parish; California San Joaquin valley. The priests do well with it and I have not heard anyone comment that they dislike it.

I concur with Jim's kudos to Luke Hill for his piece on the Boston archdiocese.

Kathy:The survey can capture information from a wider range of participants than focus groups. Additionally, responses can be quantified and correlations drawn between degree of satisfaction with the translation and age, region, religious order affiliation, etc.Due to the return rate some of these may not be available or it may have been an issue with distribution. A survey can quantify and capture a larger sample. Ethically, all one should do is report the findings accurately and completely.The value of focus groups is that they can add a useful qualitative component to the quantitative findings. So, for example, we read this survey and Rita reported that "59% of priests do not like the new translation, compared with 39% who do. An overwhelming 80% agree that some of the language is awkward and distracting. 61% think the translation needs urgently to be revised. In what is perhaps the most timely element, 61% of priests do not want the rest of the liturgical books to be translated in the same manner".This prompted the discussion on this post and people (clergy) forwarded specific examples of awkward and distracting translations. This is not possible in a survey format but is in a smaller open ended focus group format.

George D,Do you think participants on the Commonweal blog are representative of American Catholics as a whole?

Kathy:No, it is obviously a more informed and educated (in the sense of actively engaged) than most North American Catholics.As was said one time in one thread some time ago, liturgy is probably the only thing that is more controversial than sex in Catholic circles. I think most American Catholics would agree. A common experience of most Catholics leaving mass is commenting on the drive home on quality of the mass, whether that is the homily, the music, whatever. Everyone is a critic!!!But I think that the clergy and religious representation is probably accurate. The survey revealed that 70% were unhappy with the translation. But, who knows, that would probably still be the case if the angel Gabriel whispered the translation to the committee!!!

Leaving doctrine aside, I think some of the prayer's linguistic perplexities originate in the Latin and are only carried forward, perhaps slightly worsened, in translation.Look at this line: et Unitatem adorare in potentia maiestatis. From the perspective of a person in a pew, or even of the celebrant, what does "to adore Unity" mean? It sounds more Pythagorean than Christian. No doubt the author wanted to balance Unity and Trinity in a prayer on Trinity Sunday, but the object of adoration is the One God, not a numerical abstraction, and it would be easier on everyone if the prayer said so. That would also automatically fix the "your" problem in English.When the Latin was first written, earthly monarchs wielded real power and inspired awe. The "power of majesty" meant something then that it no longer means. Anyway, the Trinity is being celebrated on this day, not divine omnipotence. The phrase looks like something tacked on just to fill out the line.Lastly, in admirabile mysterium tuum hominibus declarasti, the verb declarasti, which means to make clear or manifest, seems an odd word to use in connection with a doctrine that the wisest heads in Christendom have always told us cannot be made clear or manifest. In this case, the English is actually a slight improvement, being less assertive.

John Prior, Thank you. My incoherent mutterings have been rendered into intelligent words by someone who knows whereof he speaks. Especially, thank you for "something tacked on just to fill out the line." I have suspected Latin of having a lot of that sort of thing ever since my decades-ago bouts with the ever "pius Aeneas." Thanks for it all.

Some readers might be interested to know that a major study of the composition of the orations after the Council is coming out this summer, Dr. Lauren Pristas' Collects of the Roman Missals: A Comparative Study of the Sundays in Proper Seasons before and after the Second Vatican Council.

Kathy,Am I correct?: this has nothing to do with vernacular translations but with the composition of the Latin collects for the Missal of Paul VI and the changes from the previous Missal (I believe issued under John XXIII).

One more time. Why should the English-language liturgical texts be translations from some other language (Latin, Greek, Urdu)? There is no "sacred" language. Yes, there is a Latin Rite tradition that provides guidance. But the guidance it provides is in HOW it expresses what it says, not in the fact that it is Latin. As there is some stylistically good English and some stylistically poor English, so too is there some stylistically good Latin and some stylistically poor Latin.But the main point is that there is no sacred language. Just some "sacred cows."

"But the guidance it provides is in HOW it expresses what it says"Bernard, does not the guidance include WHAT it says: the content of the mystery of the faith?

Here is the collect as it appeared in the Roman Missal before the Council:

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus,qui dedisti famulis tuis, in confessione verae fidei,aeternae Trinitatis gloriam agnoscere,et in potentia maiestatis adorare Unitatem:quaesumus; ut, eiusdem fidei firmitate, ab omnibus semper muniamur adversis.Almighty and everlasting God,who have given your servants graceby the confession of the true faithto acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinityand to worship the Unity in all its power and majesty,grant that by steadfastness in the same faithwe may be kept safe from all adversities.

And here is the translation from the Book of Common Prayer:

ALMIGHTYE and everlastyng God, whiche haste geven unto us thy servauntes grace by the confession of a true fayth to acknowlege the glorye of the eternall trinitie, and in the power of the divyne majestie to wurshippe the unitie: we beseche thee, that through the stedfastnes of thys fayth, me may evermore be defended from all adversitie, whiche liveste and reignest, one God, worlde without end.

Fr. Imbelli, yes, that is correct. Dr. Pristas' research along these lines has been published in the Thomist, Communio, et al.

Fr. K. has shown, I believe, that "Worship the unity" is in fact the liturgical prayer. Since that's challenging, to me anyways, what do I do with the challenge? Am I right? Is the prayer right? Who should be learning from whom?

Fr. Imbelli,Two comments.First, please look at both the English and the Latin of the Collect Fr. Komonchak has cited above. Then look at the English version of the Collect and Prayer after Communion for Pentecost. I don't have the Latin for these. Note the clarity and simplicity of the former and the fussiness and wordiness of the latter. I grant that not all the orations are as bad as these Pentecost ones are, but many, many of them, are anything but elegant.Second, and more to the point. You ask: "Does not the guidance [to be gotten from the tradition of Latin Rite liturgical texts] include WHAT it says: the content of the mystery of faith?"Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: But that guidance is not tied to the Latin language as a language. I'm confident that when you and other competent people teach and preach here in the U. S. you do not feel the need to produce a Latin text which you proceed to translate into English before delivering it. There is no loss of the content of the faith because you don't start with a Latin text. Why then insist that liturgical texts have to start with a Latin version? Frankly, I can conjure up some lousy reasons for the treatment of Latin as a sacred language. I can't come up with any good ones for doing so. Sacred cows are expensive to maintain.

Mr. D.,we may be communicating past one another.I'm not sure of your first point. I agree that the English translation of the pre-conciliar collect for Trinity Sunday reads much more clearly than the present collect for Pentecost. But what does that say other than that the first translation, as translation, is superior in style to the second -- a point with which I agree. Am I missing something?With regard point two: I am not maintaining that Latin is "sacred" (whether language or cow), only that the Latin prayers are the carriers of the West's liturgical tradition. Must they not then be the starting point of our translation of the liturgy? -- not because they are in Latin and Latin is sacred, but because the Latin collects etc. bear the heritage of the faith passed down from our ancestors. If your point here is that we ought to create new collects, prayers after communion etc., not dependent on previous models in a literal sense, then that opens (at least to my mind) a different field of discussion.

Mr. D.,I think we are understanding one another. But I presume you meant to write "shouldn't" in the second sentence above.

As an aside: it appears that several comments have disappeared in what I assume was the cut-over from the old blog software to the new blog software.

To our collection of alternative translations, this one is the one that was composed by the current ICEL and approved by the English-speaking bishops in 2008, who sent it to Rome for the recognitio, apparently with the impression that this is the text that would actually end up in the missal we're using today (but Rome reworked it):  

 

God our Father,
by sending into the world the Word of truth
and the Spirit of sanctification
you made known to humankind your awesome mystery;
grant us, in professing the true faith,
to acknowledge the Trinity of eternal glory,
and adore the Unity, powerful in majesty.

 

(Thanks to Jonathan Day on the Pray Tell blog for providing this text.)

 

Speaking of individual revisions, I am so grateful for the priest who says, "For us... and for our salvation..." There is no discernible sound for "men" that I can hear from him, though the congregation says it. 

One appreciative experience when visiting my daughter for Easter: I joined her at her Episcopal church where grandson is in the choir. They used the prior text we Catholics have lost. I failed to appreciate how much I miss "one in being with the Father" etc. until I heard all those responses again.

And a woman was even on the altar. No wonder there is a coterie of former Catholics there. Sniff.

Caroyln--

The "men" in the creed refers to mankind (emphasizing the sacrifice of a divine being for mere man), not to the male sex, right?

How about using "women" to refer to humankind?  If not, why not?

The ECUSA may have lost the few, the proud and the grumpy to the Orneryariate, but the RCC in the US has lost scads of people to the ECUSA, particularly women and now married priests.

Methinks that the exchange has been heavily in favor of the ECUSA.

Style.    Do we fault Jesus for saying man does not live by bread alone?   Do we think he implied that women can?

The word in Greek is "ho anthropos", which like "homines" in the Creed, refers to humanity not to man or men (which would be "ho andros" and "viri" respectively). Hence the NRSV translates it as follows: "One does not live by bread alone."

The word in Greek is "ho anthropos", which like "homines" in the Creed, refers to humanity not to man or men (which would be "ho andros" and "viri" respectively). Hence the NRSV translates it as follows: "One does not live by bread alone."

The word in Greek is "ho anthropos", which like "homines" in the Creed, refers to humanity not to man or men (which would be "ho andros" and "viri" respectively). Hence the NRSV translates it as follows: "One does not live by bread alone."

Msgr Bruce Harbert has picked up Kathy's defense of the mistranslated collect:

"Since very early times, there has been a strong contrast between the trinitarian theology of East and West, the East focussing more on the threeness of Persons and the West on the oneness of God. The western insertion of the ‘filioque’ in the Creed is a symptom of this, and a major cause of division. The western emphasis has led theologians to stress abstract speculation about the immanent Trinity at the expense of reflection on the Trinity’s revelation in history. At its best – in Augustine and Aquinas – this is magnificent. But it can degenerate into excessive abstraction.
The liturgical texts of the Roman Rite exemplify this western tendency – just look at the quantity of abstract nouns that they contain.
Many theologians have felt that the West needs to learn from the East in order to develop a more balanced presentation of trinitarian theology so that, as John Paul II said, the Church can breathe with both her lungs.
These are the considerations that, I would suggest, led to the revision of the Trinity Sunday Collect."

 

This sheds interesting light on the theological incompetence of the new translators. http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2013/05/20/collect-for-the-most-holy-trinity/

Joseph--   I do not take issue with your Greek, I take issue with your English, and the meaing of man/men.   "One does not live by bread alone" is no different than "Man does not live by bread alone."   "For us men and for our salvation" is no different than "For us men and women (and children?) and for our salvation,"  except that it's infinitely less clunky, hence closer to God.

Yes, you may dislike inclusive language, and I certainly dislike the distortions it has created in the NSRV; but you should not invoke Jesus as an authority, because we have his sayings only in Greek and the problem does not arise, at least in the text you quoted. Masculine pronouns attached to anthropos might be argued to be non-inclusive, but that would be to forget the difference between grammatical and biological gender; in any case feminine gender often attaches to male persons in languages with grammatical genders, as when Christ as "la victime du Calvaire" is called "Elle". Christ calls himself the Truth and the Life in John 14:6, both nouns are feminine.

Off topic, this story confirms what I have said a million times: beware of antipedophile witchhunts: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324482504578453363318730182.html

When you say that "feminine gender often attaches to male persons in languages with grammatical genders," you are making my point.  If I've made anything clear it's that I love inclusive language expressed elegantly, such as "man" or when the Church is referred to as the "bride" of Christ.   

What I dislike are childish responses to such inclusive language.

" it may not be Shakespeare, and it may not be 100% theologically sound "

 Shakespeare I can live with or without.  But theological soundness ....?

Is "OK theology" a gift of slavishness to the original Latin?

 

 

And if the arbiters of style were women rather than men .....

Add new comment

You may login with your assigned e-mail address.
The password field is case sensitive.

Or log in with...

Add new comment