|
The following is the text of two articles by Elizabeth Harrington recently published in the Catholic Leader, being her explanation of her earlier statement that "the process used
in producing the new English-language Missal was 'less than just and edifying'".
Part 1.
I have been asked to elaborate on my statement in last week's column that the process used in producing the new English-language Missal was "less than just and edifying".
I have made brief mention of some aspects of the process before; this week and next I will give some more details.
The translation currently being implemented in the English-speaking world is in fact the second revision of the original English translation of the Missal we have been using for
nearly 40 years.
The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), the body set up by 11 bishops' conferences to do the work of translation, laboured from 1981 to 1993 on the
complicated task of preparing the first revised translation of the Missal.
Every one of the bishops' conferences approve this version, usually by unanimous or near-unanimous vote, and then in 1998 submitted it for confirmation (recognitio) to the
Congregation for Divine Worship.
After many years of waiting, the bishops' conferences were informed on March 16, 2002, that the proposed Missal had been rejected, this despite the fact the Congregation had
been sent progress reports in 1988, 1990 and 1992 and made no comment.
It was bad enough that 17 years of painstaking work by dozens of committed, highly-qualified people was dismissed in this way, but the rejection was accompanied by severe
criticism of those involved in the project and directives that ICEL's statutes be revised immediately and that "those individuals heretofore involved in similar projects" be
excluded from the revamped ICEL.
The Second Vatican Council gave authority in the matter of vernacular translations to national conferences of bishops and ICEL had been established by the English-speaking
conferences of bishops and not by the Holy See.
These non-negotiable directives made it clear that the Congregation for Divine Worship had taken over primary responsibility for vernacular translations from national conferences.
The new rules for ICEL included a ban on original texts and on contact "with bodies pertaining to non-Catholic ecclesial communities".
From the beginning ICEL had provided some original texts, that is, prayers not translated from the Latin Missal but composed especially for the English Missal.
For example, the rejected version offered alternative opening prayers that related directly to the readings for the day and collects for contemporary circumstances such as victims
of abuse and the homeless, situations not covered by prayers from early Latin sacramentaries.
ICEL's contact with other Churches and ecclesial communities had resulted in a number of agreed common texts for prayers used across different traditions, a sign of - and an
important contribution towards - Christian unity. This was to be no more.
What really stuck in the craw of those who had given their heart and soul to this project was the fact that the Congregation was acting as if the principles of a strict literal
translation enshrined in Liturgiam Authenticam, a document issued in 2001, had always been in place.
ICEL had operated for 30 years according to "Comme le prévoit", the 1969 norms worked out collaboratively between the Vatican's Consilium and the various language groups.
The Sacramentary was being judged on norms produced after its revision was complete and after the approved texts were submitted to the Holy See.
Part 2.
Concerns about the new instructions for translating liturgical texts enshrined in Liturgiam Authenticam were not limited to the fact that it in effect changed the rules in the
middle of the game.
The genesis of this document was questionable, to say the least.
It was supposedly produced by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, but members of that Congregation had not been informed the document was
forthcoming, let alone consulted in its production.
Pope John Paul II had mandated the preparation of the document and approved and confirmed the final version.
There was, understandably, widespread negative reaction to Liturgiam Authenticam, not just from so-called "liberals".
Chant scholar and self-described liturgical conservative Peter Jeffery described it as "the most ignorant statement on liturgy ever issued by a modern Vatican congregation. (It)
should be summarily withdrawn, on the grounds that it was released prematurely, before proper consultation with a sufficient number of experts had been completed".
Liturgiam Authenticam requires every word in the Latin text to be replicated in the vernacular, the vocabulary, syntax, punctuation and capitalisation patterns found in the Latin
to be reproduced as much as possible, and translations to employ what it called a "sacral vernacular" that is different from ordinary speech.
It also gives this direction:
"Great caution is to be taken to avoid a wording or style that the Catholic faithful would confuse with the manner of speech of non-Catholic ecclesial communities or of other
religions, so that such a factor will not cause them confusion or discomfort."
There are several matters causing the Catholic faithful confusion and discomfort at present, but I seriously doubt that worshipping with words used by some other Christians is
amongst them.
The distinguished Filipino liturgical scholar Ansgar Chupungco, who is former chair of the Translations and Revisions Sub-committee of the International Commission on English in
the Liturgy (ICEL), described the principle of formal equivalence required by Liturgiam Authenticam as deficient, because texts must have beauty and aesthetic form, not just
doctrinal fidelity and linguistic accuracy, to be memorable.
He explained that, in its earlier work at revising the Missal, ICEL had been attentive to the properties of formal spoken English and as a result had produced texts that matched
the beauty and nobility of the original Latin - texts subsequently assigned to the dust bin.
But the convoluted story of the revised Missal did not end with the new ICEL's new translation which was completed in 2008 and approved by all the bishops conferences.
In January 2010 Vox Clara announced it had made undisclosed changes to the ICEL texts.
Several months later a report appeared detailing evidence of extensive alterations - allegedly as many as 10,000 - that had been made to the English Missal in violation of the
Vatican's own translation rules and six months after Pope Benedict XVI had received the approved, "final" version of the Missal.
Apart from causing great inconvenience to publishers and composers, these changes have generated much disquiet.
This one example demonstrates why - "to proclaim you yet more gloriously" has become "to laud you yet more gloriously".
The word "laud" is not part of even formal modern speech, and how will "laud" be understood aurally?
Elizabeth Harrington is the education officer with The Liturgical Commission in the Archdiocese of Brisbane.
|
