Vatican Cracks Down on Translation Group

Catholic News Service via The Evangelist | October 2003

[NYer]

Washinton (CNS) - The Vatican has approved new statutes for the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), giving the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments at the Vatican veto power over ICEL's staff and translators.

Marking the end of several years of conflict over how the commission should be structured and operate, the Vatican rejected the views of some English=speaking bishops who wanted less centralized control of the commission and a broader role for it.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican's divine worship congregation, urged ICEL to "proceed with urgency" on translating the latest Latin edition of the Roman Missal, "placing this project ahead of any and all others."

The new statues say that all principal collaborators of ICEL, except bishops, "require a 'nihil obstat' (nothing stands in the way) from the Vatican before beginning their work".

The commission chairman is to send the congregation the staff's academic credentials, character references, a curriculum vitae, a complete bibliography of published writing and an attestation of their suitability from their bishop (or, in cases of religious, from their religious superior).

Employees must take the Church's profession of faith and oath of fidelity. In addition, anyone consulted by the secretariat even on a voluntary basis, "should be in good standing in the Church, and assent to the Church's doctrinal and moral teachings in their faith and lifestyle, and should accept as binding the principles contained in the instruction 'Liturgiam Authenticam' - 'The Authentic Liturgy.', the 2002 Vatican instructin on liturgical translations.

Vatican officials had been increasingly uncomfortable with the freedom of translation allowed by the ICEL, and the growing use of inclusive language in words referring to women as well as men.

[NYer]

ICEL was formed by English-speaking bishops' conferences in 1963, when the Second Vatican Council authorized use of local languages in the liturgy. Its purpose is to prepare common English liturgy texts. ICEL is composed of 11 bishops, one from each of the sponsoring conferences; it also has a fulltime staff based in Washington, DC and hires translators around the world to develop draft translations.

[NYer]

Apologies for not providing a working link. The story was published in this week's edition of The Evangelist, the diocesan newspaper of the RC Diocese of Albany.

CNS is the Catholic News Service. They only offer News Briefs to non-subscribers. My guess is that this story was picked up by the diocese and reproduced in its entirety in this week's paper.

Given the importance of this story, I typed it up myself.

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[american colleen]

ICEL is composed of 11 bishops, one from each of the sponsoring conferences; it also has a fulltime staff based in Washington, DC and hires translators around the world to develop draft translations.

Grrr... this is what the USCCB wastes money on. Forty years to do a translation of the Mass? What a joke.

Sounds like the Vatican is basically saying to these JOKERS "shit or get off the pot."

Sorry for the profanity but you wouldn't believe what the MA bishops have been doing in favor of same-sex marriage this week. It is totally demoralizing and wrong. How do you bring your kids up as Catholics when even the bishops in your diocese parse and hedge on doctrine? Why bother worrying that your kids CCD and religion classes are Catholic-lite (at best) when they are teaching the same stuff as the bishops are saying?

[sinkspur]

Sorry for the profanity but you wouldn't believe what the MA bishops have been doing in favor of same-sex marriage this week.

What? I would think it would be national news if a group of bishops came out in favor of same-sex marriage.

[american colleen]

Oh, they didn't come out in favor of it per-se, but they advocated granting the same benefits to those in same sex marriages, plus any kids in/from those relationships.

After his formal testimony, the bishop was asked by a Boston Herald reporter what he thought about the current law, under which same-sex couples do not automatically qualify for partnership benefits. The Herald recorded his response:

"That's wrong, and that's too bad.'' He further said: ``We have to find a way'' to give civil benefits to gay partners."

The large link I cited here has excellent coverage of this issue.

I wonder if heterosexuals who live together should get civil benefits as well?

[sitetest]

Dear Colleen,

I'm uncomfortable with how the secular media is reporting this. In "quoting" the bishop, I notice that the quotation ends immediately prior to the words, "to give civil benefits to gay partners."

If the bishop really endorsed this, we ought to pray that he is removed from his clerical duties, reduced to the lay state, and exiled somewhere comfy and cozy. Like Siberia. But I'm distrustful of the secular media, and this isn't sufficient proof of the accusation.


sitetest

[NeoCaveman]

I always love it when the Vatican asserts some authority. I just wish they did this kind of thing more often.

[Unam Sanctam]

Good. The sooner "dynamic equivalency" is dead and buried the better.

[american colleen]

If you follow the links (and any of the Boston Catholic "bloggers"), it is difficult to come away with anything but "the Church does not endorse same sex marriage but if same sex couples are together, they should be granted the same benefits as a married couple receive."

It isn't only the secular sources that have reported on this, it is the conclusion which several respected Catholic media types have come to. Also there is the problem of some of the "big name" diocesan priests lobbying on camera in the legislature (and from their pulpits) in favor of gay marriage and no one (in the Ma chanceries) condemning their words.

Giving the bishops the benefit of the doubt as I honestly do like to do, they have to state Church teaching on this issue in a clear manner and not parse words. We are also in the middle of the "Talk about Touching" issue which is basically replacing CCD and religion classes with sex ed.

[dangus]

What are you referring to?

What did the MA bishops say?

[dangus]

O nevermind. :)
You gather the kindling, I'll get the ropes and the post.

[sitetest]

Dear Colleen,

I did follow the links, and I don't really see what was really said. I see an incomplete quote, and some paraphrasing.

Perhaps the bishop said what is said he said (ask me to do that again). If he did, it is terrible. But I don't trust the secular media, and even some non-secular media often put the worst spin on things.

I'd rather see a precise quote of what the bishop actually said.


sitetest

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Sorry for the profanity but you wouldn't believe what the MA bishops have been doing in favor of same-sex marriage this week. It is totally demoralizing and wrong.

I came to the realization last night that this is the wrong battle to make a stand on. Its too late to stop this now. It should have been stopped by preventing homosexual adoption, artificial insemination clinics and the like. Now that there are children thrown into the mix of it, it is unjust and against distributive social justice to punish them by witholding survivor benefits from them, for example, for the sins of their sodomite "parents".

Just like Scalia said - in legitimizing homosexual sex (stemming from the principal of legitimizing contraceptive sex) you automatically must buy into all the arguements that follow from it, including sodomite civil marriage and partnership benefits.

There is no gray area of tolerance.

[sitetest]

Dear Hermann,

I don't think that I agree with your analysis.

For those that violate the rights of children, there are a number of private contractual solutions to some of these difficulties. Should two homosexuals set up house and play-act at being "mommy and mommy" or "daddy and daddy", they can write their wills, durable powers of attorney, and the like, to assure that their own assets go to the support of any surviving "family" members should they die.

That doesn't mean that the rest of us must be forced to help support these evils with our money through Social Security survivors' benefits, or similar arrangements.

If someone supports his children by robbing banks, it isn't a violation of distributive social justice to make him pay restitution from his ill-gotten gains, even if it does have a severe negative financial impact on his children. Even less is it such a violation to refuse to empty the vaults further to support his children.


sitetest

[american colleen]

Here's another article by the Boston Globe - the sound bites have been on the news (actual words with Reilly saying them):

Reilly, the bishop of Worcester, testified before a legislative committee Oct. 23 at a hearing on four bills that would allow gay marriage or civil unions for gays. At the hearing, Reilly said the church opposed gay marriage, but was "willing to join the discussion if the goal is to look at individual benefits and determine who should be eligible beyond spouses."

Reilly's statement was interpreted by state lawmakers and gay rights advocates as a signal of a new openness by the church to discuss extending domestic partnership rights to gay and lesbian couples. Television, newspaper, and radio outlets across the state ran stories on the testimony.

Yesterday, the Rev. Christopher Coyne, a spokesman for the Boston Archdiocese, told the Associated Press that the archdiocese had received numerous calls on the issue from parishioners in recent days. He also said the decision to release a statement had been made by the state's four bishops and not the Vatican.

The Globe covered the bishops' testimony in a front-page story headlined, "Church open to same-sex benefits talks; Bishop says marriage laws cannot change." The story quoted Reilly, fielding reporters' questions about gay marriage, as saying: "There should be a way for the state to provide the benefits they have a right to like other citizens."

I don't trust the media either. But Bishop Reilly is really causing confusion with this issue. I don't know what is worse - hiring media consultants to do the talking or letting some of the bishops speak for themselves.

[ninenot]

Follow the MONEY: ICEL owns the copyrights to the translations, too. Part of the fistfight over the new statutes had to do with disposition of the funds.

BUT: most of it was over "dynamic equivalence," a way of translating which ignores reality, e.g.: "Credo" means "WE believe" in ICEL-speak. Pure theologoumenon, not reality.

And if you think THAT'S bad, you ought to see what they did to the Collects and Post-Communion prayers. Not even CLOSE to the Latin originals in 99% of the cases.

[american colleen]

How's this for diplomacy.

I agree with both of you -- HtheC is right when he says we started this fight too late (gay adoption is a forgone conclusion and has been allowed for at least 10 years in Massachusetts) but sitetest is right in that we should at least balk at taking the next step of having us assume the financial burden of yet another group of the "oppressed." IMO, benefits are a strawman. When we needed insurance benefits and my husband owned his own business and while I was a stay at home Mom, I ended up going to work 15 hours a week for the medical/dental benefits - anyone can do that and cover their dependants. The other partner can do the same and if neither of them can work then they have no business adopting children or being artificially inseminated (and they always seem to have the money for that!) In a legal will, you can leave your estate to your cat if you want to do that. Hospital visitation rights are extended to the list the patient writes up.

[sitetest]

Dear Colleen,

The first part of the article to which you've linked tells directly against support by the bishops for some sort of homosexual union law.

"Massachusetts Roman Catholic bishops yesterday said the news media have recently misinterpreted the bishops' position on domestic benefits for gays, and they issued a statement saying they were opposed to those benefits and to marriage rights for gays and lesbians."

The first half of the article continues on like this.

Only in the second half do they quote Bishop Reilly in seeming support for homosexual union benefits laws. Even there, though, his quotes are a bit fuzzy, referring to making sure ALL INDIVIDUALS have certain rights, not that some sort of rights accrue or ought to accrue to homosexual partnerships.

I'll agree with you that someone ought to at least muzzle Bishop Reilly, because if he is trying to support the Church's position on this issue, he has made it clear as mud.


sitetest

[american colleen]

I don't understand how it is that I own a beautiful and faithful Latin/English translation of the Tridentine Mass AND a St. Joseph's Missal with Latin/English and it has taken forty years to still not have an acceptable ICEL translation of the same thing.

Of course lots of jobs that are within the ICEL framework would no longer exist and it appears that the ICEL is like a lot of the Catholic theologians... the fun is in the chase and not the capture of Truth.

[rogator]

"How do you bring your kids up as Catholics when even the bishops in your diocese parse and hedge on doctrine? "

You go to as traditional a parish as possible as often as possible, talk to the kids and straighten out the bs that they hear from the near-apostate teachers, clergy and bishops, and pray.