chris@mcdonnell83.freeserve.co.uk Previous articles by Chris
November 24, 2012 Chris McDonnell, UK
When
will we ever learn?*
In “Spirituality”
Copy 95 March-April 2011
published
by Dominican Publications DUBLIN
(in response to this
editorial by Tom Jordan OP)
I
am writing this article out of loyalty to our church, whose mission is
world-wide and is the place that, in faith, is my home. The comments expressed
should therefore not be seen as those of a disaffected Catholic but rather as a
statement of sincere belief and of concern for the well-being of our Christian
Community. Neither do I come to the issues discussed with a background in
theological study, detailed scriptural understanding nor liturgical expertise. I
have spent my professional years teaching in schools so maybe I have some
appreciation of the consequences of innovation and of the need to tread
carefully over new ground.
For
many months we have been tracking, through articles, letters and comment on the
web, the discussion concerning the new translation into English of the Roman
Missal.
For
some the very existence of a new translation will come as a surprise. This
should have been a matter of much greater catechesis within Parish Communities
long before now, led by parish priests informed on the detail and so able to
support examination of the text by the laity.
That position does of course presume that our priests knew what was going
on; unfortunately, in many
instances, that was not the case.
My
argument concerns both process and outcome.
Historically,
the ICEL text of 1974 was somewhat rushed as there was an urgency, with the
conclusion of the Council, to have an acceptable English translation available
and in use. Inevitably, it was not perfect, but it is that text from over forty
years ago that we have been using ever since. Within eight years, in 1982, ICEL
began a revision of that first translation, a task that was to last eleven
years. Then began the process of consideration by the Bishop’s Conferences and
by 1998 the necessary approval had been received.
It
was from this point things began to go wrong when the work of ICEL was rejected.
As a result, we find ourselves with the confusion faced by the English speaking
peoples across the globe with the text now on offer.
In his book “It’s the Eucharist Thank God” (1)
Bishop Maurice Taylor who represented
A
living language evolves. Usage and circumstance give rise to change and we adapt
to the time we live in. We are now presented with a translation that runs
counter to such natural progression. Whilst we all used Latin in the celebration
of the Eucharist, there was no problem. It was a non-current language whose tone
and metre we were familiar with and of course, in many cases, did not
understand. It was a holy comfort zone in which we felt secure.
With
the advent of the decree on the Liturgy from the Council, all changed. At last
we had the opportunity to use a living language, our own, with all the joy and
difficulty that came with that experience. It
was a decision that we welcomed, and it is a decision that is not reversible.
With
the original work of ICEL sidelined, the last few years have seen us arrive at
this point with the translation that is about to become mandatory for English
speaking communities from Advent of this year and about which many are
expressing real concern. We must seriously question whether or not those
responsible for this text have the necessary background and experience to meet
our need. For how many was English their native language? There seems to be a
Vatican-felt requirement that
It
is an attempt to revert to a literal translation of Latin texts of an earlier
time. Yet translation is about current understanding and nuance, not just
literal meaning. Seamus Heaney’s translation of Beowulf was so successful for
he translated into a language that our ear can appreciate whilst remaining true
to the original meaning. Without such sensitivity, translation becomes a sterile
exercise in word replacement. At a
time when the age profile of those attending the Sunday Mass is steadily rising,
we are effectively excluding younger generations of English speaking Catholics
who will not find archaic phrases supportive of prayer. This is not an argument
for a dumbing-down of language but it does demand that we recognise the world in
which we live, move and have our being.
And
whilst all this was going on, we heard very little. It was discussion behind
closed doors and those of us who will ultimately have to use and pray this new
text, were kept in the dark. Of
course by keeping the translation close to their chests, those responsible could
reach the point we are now at where discussion and the opportunity to reach a
sensible accommodation is all but gone.
The
launch of the website “What if we just said wait?” following Fr Michael
Ryan’s forthright article in the journal AMERICA (2)
offered us the first real opportunity to respond, not reject, but to ask for a
period of reflection and further, wider consideration.
It is in many ways a painful article to read, for here is a priest
reflecting on the excitement and joyous hope of those post Vatican Council
years, only to see a gradual erosion of the vision of the Church that we greeted
with such eager expectation. The
response to his article was strong, both laity and members of religious orders
world wide adding their names to the website. (3)
All
that was missing was a meaningful response from our Bishops, a willingness to
undertake dialogue; we waited in vain. The over-riding of the Episcopal
Conferences by
Rome
(or their quiet acquiescence in the face of a
Why
was there this overwhelming silence? Did the bishops think the critical views
would just drift away, that those who seek to celebrate the Eucharist together
each week would just quietly accept without a further word? Or were they
reluctant for variety of reasons to express their concern on behalf of the
church within their Episcopal areas?
Now
in recent weeks, Fr Anthony Ruff, a Benedictine monk of
“The
forthcoming missal is but part of a larger pattern of top-down impositions by a
central authority that does not consider itself accountable to the larger
church. When I think how secretive the translation process was, how little
consultation was done with priests or laity, how the Holy See allowed a small
group to hijack the translation at the final stage, how unsatisfactory the final
text is, how this text was imposed on national conferences of bishops in
violation of their legitimate episcopal authority, how much deception and
mischief have marked this process- and when I think of Our Lord’s teachings on
service and love and unity…I weep” (4)
But who will listen?
Back
in August of last year, the Tablet carried an article by Fr Philip Endean SJ –
Worship and Power (5)
which also dealt, at length, with the issue of the manner in which authority was
exercised after the demise of the ICEL. The final paragraph of a clear and
detailed argument, neatly summarises his position.
“This
new translation, both in its content and in the manner of imposition, represents
a retreat from the salutary, evangelical reform of church style and mood that
Those
of us who experienced pre-conciliar Catholicism as abusive received
The
great sadness in all of this furore is that the celebration of the Eucharist
where we should, in faith, be gathered in a shared belief round the table of the
Lord will become a matter of dissension.
Might
I in conclusion make a number of general comments.
Will
our priests who celebrate with us (some of whom have serious reservations about
both textual content and the procedures that have brought us to this point) be
forced to accept the new translation? And what confusion might arise if they, in
conscience, can’t?
There
is a pervading view being expressed that once the new translation is in use, we
will better appreciate its language. Quoted in the Tablet (January 22
2011) Bishop Arthur Roche says "in the new translation we find a text
that is more faithful to the Latin Text and therefore
a text which is richer in its theological content and allusions to the
Scriptures but also a translation which I believe will move people's hearts and
minds in prayer" (6).
May be I am missing something but I do not
appreciate the logic of this statement.
Our young people have difficulty enough with their Christian faith and it
is to their credit that in spite of the adversity of a secular age, so many of
them hang on and do their best to nurture their children in the church when they
too become parents. This translation and the path that has been trodden to
achieve it will do little to help. I have deliberately not argued the real
concern that many feel with individual parts of the new texts for I am sure that
will be a matter of much discussion in parish meetings in the coming months. One
could of course argue that it is all too late and that a rushed catechesis will
only serve to aggravate an already difficult position.
W H Auden, in his poem “If I could tell you” (7)
written in October 1940, begins with these three lines.
“Time will say nothing but I told you so,
time only knows the price we
have to pay;
if I could tell you I would
let you know”
That, I am afraid is a neat and poignant
summary of our present position.
NOTES
* Refrain line from the song “Where have all the flowers gone?”
Words and music Pete Seeger - 1961
(1) For a much fuller discussion of these years, see
“It’s the Eucharist, Thank God” by Bishop Maurice Taylor.
pub Decani Books ISBN 9-781900-314190
2009
(2)
Michael G.
Ryan
|
Journal AMERICA Michael
G. Ryan
pastor of St. James
Cathedral in
(3)
www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org
(4)
An open letter to the
missal,
Anthony Ruff OSB
(5) The Tablet
“Worship and Power” - Philip Endean
Philip
Endean SJ teaches theology at the University
of
(7) “If I could tell you” in Collected Poems W H Auden
pg 314
ISBN 0-571-14226-5