You will see two conflicting claims made about the continued use of Latin in the Catholic Church.\u00a0 The first is that it is difficult to understand, a source of mystery:<\/p>\n
In the Eastern tradition, the mystery of God\u2019s Otherness is expressed by a large part of the service being done behind a wall of icons and a series of veils. The people still actively participate, but they do so fully aware that the God they are worshipping is not immediately accessible to them. In the West, the function of icons and veils is taken in part by language. It emphasizes the mystery and the transcendence of a God who, despite His closeness to us, is still always beyond our reach.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(Christopher Smith, in New Liturgical Movement, <\/em>28 November 2007)<\/em><\/p>\n
The second is that Latin\u00a0is clear and precise, not subject to the ambiguities and changes of sense of modern languages, and therefore ideal for expressing Church teaching and law.<\/p>\n
It is hardly new news that strong claims of both\u00a0types have from time to time been made by people who know relatively little Latin. A priest theologian observing the Second Vatican Council later commented that \u201cIt was not uncommon that glowing panegyrics in favour of Latin were themselves delivered in laboured pidgin Latin, while the most forceful advocates of the vernacular could express themselves in classical Latin.\u201d (Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II<\/em>, as reported in the Western Catholic Reporter<\/em> 29 October 2012)<\/p>\n
In this note, I want to address the second claim: that Latin is generally clear and unambiguous. In many cases, it is not.<\/p>\n
I will use a recently-debated text as an example: section 299 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). In Latin the GIRM is titled Institutio Generalis Missale Romanum<\/em>; in French, Pr\u00e9sentation G\u00e9n\u00e9rale du Missel Roman<\/em> [sic, rather than \u201cRomain\u201d; this from the Vatican website]; and in Italian it is Ordinamento Generale del Messale Romano<\/em>.<\/p>\n
The Latin is supposed to be the definitive text. The first sentence reads:<\/p>\n
Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit.<\/em><\/p>\n
The first part of the sentence, through possit<\/em>, is relatively straightforward. On its own, it means: The main altar should be erected away from the wall, so that it is easy to walk around it and to use it for a celebration facing the people.<\/p>\n
But then there\u2019s the notorious quod<\/em> clause; on its own, this simply means: \u201cthis is desirable wherever it is possible.\u201d But what does \u201cthis\u201d (quod)<\/em> refer to? Exactly what is desirable wherever it is possible?<\/p>\n
Some have read the clause as referring to celebration facing the people \u2013 and in fact the official English translation could be interpreted this way:<\/p>\n
The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Of course this sentence is itself ambiguous. Just what does the \u201cwhich\u201d refer to?\u00a0 Most English readers would interpret it as referring strictly to celebration facing the people.<\/p>\n
But, as a number of commentators have pointed out over the years, if quod<\/em> is a relative pronoun, then\u00a0the Latin text doesn\u2019t support this reading. In Latin, the pronoun introducing a relative clause should have the same gender as the thing that the clause expands on or explains. In this case, Quod<\/em> is neuter, and celebratio<\/em> feminine.<\/p>\n
This leaves several\u00a0other possibilities. One is that the quod<\/em> expands only on the first part of the sentence. The whole thing would then mean, roughly: The main altar should be built apart from the wall (this is desirable wherever it is possible), in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people.<\/p>\n
Here, the \u201cdesirability\u201d extends only to separation from the wall. The only thing desired is that it is possible to walk around the altar whilst incensing it; this could take place in either form of the Mass. Read in this way, the rubric maintains a studied neutrality about celebration facing the people.<\/p>\n
A second possibility is that quod<\/em> expands on the things that are to be made possible (possit)<\/em>, i.e. circumiri<\/em> (walking around the altar) and celebratio \u2026 peragi <\/em>(celebration facing the people). In less ambiguous English this would read: The principal altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people. These two things are desirable whenever it is possible to provide for them. In this reading, the rubric recommends celebration facing the people, though it does not mandate it.<\/p>\n
A third reading is close to the second: here quod<\/em> is not a relative pronoun at all but a conjunction meaning, roughly, \u201cbecause\u201d. And in this case, the relative clause could<\/em> refer only to the celebration, since the conjunction doesn\u2019t change in gender. So it could read: The principal altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, because celebration facing the people is desirable whenever it is possible.<\/p>\n
And a fourth reading, again taking quod <\/em>as a conjunction: The principal altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, because these things are desirable whenever it is possible.<\/p>\n
And there may be a fifth, and a sixth.<\/p>\n
I think that the first reading is the least likely, more for logical than grammatical reasons. First, the \u201cdesirability\u201d of the separation of the altar is already established by the subjunctive exstruatur<\/em>, which means, more or less, \u201clet it be built\u201d, or \u201cit should be built\u201d. \u00a0There is no need to add that this is desirable whenever it is possible, unless the authors are using poetic repetition \u2013 \u201cit is really, really a good thing if you build the altar away from the wall.\u201d\u00a0 This seems unlikely in a rubric, though not impossible.<\/p>\n
Second, the separation is being recommended for a purpose: so that it is possible to walk around the altar and to celebrate Mass facing the people. It would seem bizarre for the purpose not to be included in the recommendation. An analogous expression in English would be: \u201cDentists recommend that you brush your teeth twice a day so as to keep them white and to avoid cavities.\u201d Would we really assert that the dentists only care about the brushing, and not about the cavities?<\/p>\n
Nonetheless the sentence is ambiguous, both in English and in Latin. The French translators hewed closer to the first reading: Il convient, partout o\u00f9 c\u2019est possible, que l\u2019autel soit \u00e9rig\u00e9 \u00e0 une distance du mur qui permette d\u00b4en faire ais\u00e9ment le tour et d\u00b4y c\u00e9l\u00e9brer face au peuple.<\/em><\/p>\n
Literally, \u201cIt is convenient wherever possible for the altar to be built at a distance from the wall; this makes it easy to walk around it and to celebrate at it facing the people.\u201d<\/p>\n