2013-01-19   John W       John W's previous articles

The new translation
 - a Humanae Vitae moment?

Andrew Hamilton's Using poor language in the liturgy (Eureka Street, Jan 16) has generated more than 70 responses, most of them expressing frustration, disappointment and unhappiness with the new translation of the Mass. Another batch of lively responses are at PrayTell where the article is linked

Andrew's article touched a raw nerve, an issue that will not go away, since people are confronted by it every time they go to Mass

Recently-deceased world liturgy expert Anscar Chupungco, after a lecture in Hong Kong in 2011, in an "off-the-record" comment said what more and more people are now feeling:
"The new translation is a disaster"

Yet most priests, with their strong sense of loyalty to the church, or their sense of "what's the use in saying anything", are using the new translation

I can't understand how priests and bishops who have read articles like this can roll over and accept the new translation

A hard core of totally loyal Catholics, mainly older people, are so used to accepting anything from the Church, that they are accepting the new translation as a fact of life. Most of this group are unaware of the political battle that gave birth to the new translation

A year or so ago, someone wrote in an email to me "I wonder which country will be the first to reject the new translation?"

In some ways the unreasonableness of the new translation is not unlike the unreasonablenes (for many people)  of Humanae Vitae. Both the translation and HV impinge on, (trample on?) very sensitive areas: liturgical life and sexual life

The lower section of this Wikipedia article on HV recalls the reaction to HV of 
- Cardinal Suenens
- theologians like Charles Curran
- the Canadian bishops

In the case of the new translation there has been one out-spoken cardinal: the late Cardinal Winning of Scotland who pulled no punches at a meeting in Rome

There have been many theologians and liturgists opposing the new translation...e.g. Fr Anthony Ruff OSB

No bishops' conference, as far as I know, has publicly questioned the translation, but Bishop Brom of San Diego
gave it a serve at the last US bishops' meeting and I know of one retired bishop who is refusing to use it.

HV was a case of the Vatican saying "Don't use", then most Catholics going ahead and using. The new translation is a case of the Vatican saying "Use", but then many people not using (lay people literally keeping their mouths shut at Mass)...or using most reluctantly (priests)

Maybe in the comment box below some readers might like to expand on this HV-new translation theme.  e.g.  both HV and the new translation involved the over-riding of consulation bodies

If you're a Latin scholar, this article at Questions from a Ewe shows what happens when HV is translated literally like the new Mass translation!

See this list of articles expressing concern about the new translation