Wow. I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever seen, through the whole missal translation saga, the truth stretched this far. I can\u2019t let this one pass without comment.<\/p>\n
The speaker is Msgr. James Moroney, Executive Secretary of Vox Clara, <\/em>widely suspected of being the ringleader\u00a0for the 10,000 changes made to the missal text after the English-speaking bishops\u2019 conferences approved it and send it to Rome for final approval.<\/p>\n The topic is changes in translation theory in academia.<\/p>\n The claim (get ready to support your lower jaw) is that Liturgiam authenticam<\/em> was issued in 2001 in response to calls from the academy for a better translation theory, after consultation with academicians. Liturgiam authenticam<\/em> and the forthcoming missal translation, then, reflect changed views in the academy about translation.<\/p>\n The occasion is a talk Msgr. Moroney gave in Providence, RI on May 2nd. An audio recording of the Q & A got to me by a circuitous route. Here is a transcript of the relevant part, naturally in the style of spontaneous response:<\/p>\n This whole shebang, what happened? What triggered it was the change in the academy of translation theory\u2026 One of the things that occurred to translators in the late eighties and the early nineties is, \u201cOh my God, a lot of these dynamic equivalent translations are just way off the mark,\u201d and we never, we\u2019re not really in contact with what the original text is. And if we really mean (inaudible) that the identity of the Church is what\u2019s at stake, and real good theology is what\u2019s at stake when translating these texts, then one translates them the best way that one possibly can.\u00a0 But we didn\u2019t want to go off and do it in such a way that we\u2019d have to redo it every ten years\u2026<\/p>\n The consultation on these translations in the last ten years (inaudible) involved over seven thousand people who reviewed it\u2026 We\u2019ve never consulted 7000 people on anything before! Now you\u2019ll hear people say, \u201cWell, we need more consultation,\u201d [and] that usually means, \u201cYou haven\u2019t consulted me yet.\u201d\u00a0 [laughter] But the reality is that this has been the most intensive thing I\u2019ve ever witnessed in my day (inaudible)\u00a0 \u2026 Because translation theory all across the board is changing, and when the academy was changing it, pressure began to be brought the area and maybe we should take another look at the translations here.<\/p>\n I\u2019ll give you concrete details\u2026 ICEL had redone the 1970 translation in 1991, and presented it to the conference, because even they said, looking back at the \u201970 translation, this needs to be improved. But there was grave discomfort over the revised translations and the original translations, and there were very strong and heated feelings that were seeking after light, and what happened after those mid-1990s meetings is there were a series of initiatives in all of the English-speaking world, including the report on the vernacular, and all kinds of consultations, trying to bring together scholars and saying \u201cLook, we\u2019re killing each other over this translation stuff, what\u2019s really going on?\u201d\u00a0 And when they were able to say, \u201cIn the larger scope of things, there is a move by secular translators from dynamic to formal equivalency\u00a0 for this, this, and this, we\u2019re able to identify,\u201d and after about six years of consultation, that\u2019s when the Holy See came out with Liturgiam Authenticam<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u201cGrave discomfort over the revised translations\u201d? I don\u2019t think so. ICEL worked with the eleven English-speaking bishops\u2019 conferences from 1982 to 1997 creating a very fine translation of the sacramentary (= missal), and all of it was approved by wide margins, unanimously in some cases, by every conference of English-speaking bishops<\/em>. The one possible exception is one section of the missal in one conference \u2013 but even in this case, and it concerns the U.S. conferences, the section of the missal was approved by over 2\/3 of the bishops.<\/p>\n Liturgical scholars were highly supportive of the 1997 ICEL sacramentary and enthusiastic about its implementation. The critics were mostly a small group of U.S. bishops, inspired by a small but very loud group of clergy and laity, and both of these small groups found receptive ears in the Vatican.<\/p>\n \u201cAfter about six years of consultation, the Holy See came out with Liturgiam Authenticam<\/em>\u201d ? I don\u2019t think so. If there was a consultation with, say, members of the North American Academy of Liturgy, or Societas Liturgica, or the Society for Catholic Liturgy, or the Catholic Theological Society of America, or the faculty at Sant\u2019 Anselmo or any other theological faculty, I missed it. No one was more surprised than Cardinal George the day Liturgiam authenticam<\/em> appeared on the Vatican website \u2013 though the Cardinal was then a member of the Congregation for Divine Worship, no one had even told him the document was forthcoming, much less consulted him in its production.<\/p>\n Widespread consultation, wider than ever before, in the production of the new translation? Perhaps in terms of numbers of people involved \u2013 but it would be interesting to tally up how many were involved in the sixteen years of work on the 1997 sacramentary. Consultation with mainstream scholars?\u00a0No. If there had been consultation with the academy, and if their input had been taken seriously, neither Liturgiam authenticam<\/em> nor the 2011 English missal would have happened.<\/p>\n The fact is that both Liturgiam authenticam<\/em> and the forthcoming translation have met with widespread rejection in the academy. Consider:<\/p>\n Having studied this document in detail and having discussed our reactions to it, we conclude that although it contains much that is positive and beneficial to true liturgy, some of its provisions are sufficiently ill-advised as to be the likely occasion of embarrassment to the Church. And it is our considered opinion that the document can have a seriously detrimental impact on the reverence and love for as well as study and knowledge of the Bible in the Church.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n If implemented, it would have serious impact in at least three areas: ecclesiology, inculturation and biblical scholarship. Gravest would be the ecclesial impact. What does such an arbitrary exercise of authority by a Roman office over conferences of bishops implies for collegiality? The earlier move of the Congregation for Divine Worship to impose its authority over the International Commission for English in the Liturgy would reduce conferences’ control over their own liturgies; thin new document lays the foundation for Vatican micromanagement of almost every aspect of liturgical texts.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n [LA]<\/em> suggests a kind of cultural hierarchicalism, that the \u201cgenius of the Roman Rite\u201d is smarter or better than indigenous cultures or languages. Is God adequately revealed only in a liturgy that conforms to Latin thought patterns, syntax and language? \u2026 What happens to collegiality \u2026 when the text the U.S. bishops approve and send to Rome for recognition comes back non-recognitio? The U.S. bishops\u2019 process has been superseded by Vox Clara in this retranslation process and the bishops have received back a text they never approved. \u2026 [H]ow hospitable are these texts to young adults, to longsuffering women worshippers who admittedly constitute well over 65% not only of worshippers, but of church volunteers and lay ecclesial ministers? How hospitable are these texts that do not accept inclusivity as a prevailing or determinative standard?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n [W]hat it lacks in factuality it makes up with naked aggression. It speaks words of power and control rather than cooperation and consultation, much less charity. \u2026 It is particularly embarrassing that all this muscular Christianity comes to us vested and mitred in the most ignorant statement on liturgy ever issued by a modern Vatican congregation. But in a millennium when a Pope can apologize to the Jews, it is not too much to hope that the Dicastery, too, will find the courage to lead by example, and practice what it preaches on the matter of accepting correction. \u2026 Liturgiam authenticam<\/em> should be summarily withdrawn, on the grounds that it was released prematurely, before proper consultation with a sufficient number of experts had been completed. Then only the hard part will remain: what to do about the issues and tensions that produced it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n