Posted on 05/17/2005 6:57:03 PM PDT by Diago
ICEL Psalter Lacks Savor
Holy See's 1996 Order to Revoke Imprimatur Revealed in August
By Helen Hull Hitchcock
On August 6, Bishop Anthony M. Pilla of Cleveland, the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a decree withdrawing the US bishops' imprimatur from the Psalms translated by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy.
Bishop Pilla was acting on instructions conveyed in April 1996 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The imprimatur is an official recognition that a work is suitable for publication.
In his letter to bishops accompanying the decree, Bishop Pilla stressed that "the revocation of the imprimatur should in no way be perceived as a revocation of the judgment of the censors' opinions concerning the fidelity or accuracy of the text", nor as a reflection on "the judgment of our bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for the Review of Scripture Translations that recommended the granting of the imprimatur.'' [Bishop Pilla's letter and decree were published in Origins, Sept. 3 , Vol. 28:12, pp. 215.]
Bishop Pilla said the decision to remove the imprimatur was due to "changing circumstances'' according to which "the conference's decision to grant the imprimatur is no longer considered appropriate or opportune.'' He did not explain the two-year delay in acting on the Vatican's instruction.
The ICEL Psalter was published in 1995 by Liturgy Training Publications of the Archdiocese of Chicago, with the imprimatur of Baltimore Cardinal William Keeler, president of the NCCB.
The imprimatur was granted after the text was approved by the bishops' Committee for the Review of Scripture Translations. Members were Bishop Richard Sklba auxiliary of Milwaukee, chairman; Bishop Emil Wcela auxiliary of Rockville Centre; and Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie. (Bishop Trautman was then chairman of the Liturgy Committee.)
Translators' Objectives
The ICEL Psalter is a version of the psalms that employs "inclusive language" and other gender neutralizing devices (called "dynamic equivalence" by its proponents) in deference to the sensibilities of the translators.The original version of the ICEL Psalter was even more radical in the excision of the language of divine fatherhood. One of its principal translators, Sister Mary Collins, OSB, conceded that some tinkering had to be done to make it acceptable to the bishops, while clearly indicating that it was intended as an incremental step in the direction of a truly feminist psalter.
In the foreward to the published Psalter, editor Gabe Huck, long-time head of Liturgy Training Publications, wrote that in 1993 "when the text was submitted to the United States Bishops' Committee on Doctrine for the imprimatur [it] was entirely free of gender-exclusive pronouns for God. Before the imprimatur was granted, however, the committee insisted that the translators use male pronouns for God in a very few places."
Third Rejected Biblical Text
The CDF's revocation of the imprimatur of the ICEL Psalter is the third occasion in recent years in which Rome has intervened to correct biblical translations that had earlier been judged doctrinally adequate by the US bishops' conference.In 1994 the Congregation for Divine Worship revoked the authorization for liturgical use of two English-language texts a revised New American Bible translation of the Psalms and a proposed Lectionary based on the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.
An NRSV-based Lectionary had already been published by the Canadian bishops without required Vatican approval. (As a concession to the Canadian bishops, the Vatican has permitted temporary use of the defective lectionary for the Church in Canada only.)
The RNAB Psalter was used for the original version of a proposed Lectionary for use in the United States, necessitating its replacement in the final version which was recently approved for publication. (The first volume of the new US Lectionary is to appear in November.)
Only "Inappropriate"?
Bishop Pilla's desire to maintain administrative good-will is understandable; but his language reveals the breach that separates the Holy See's concerns from those of some members of the episcopal bureaucracy.Although the competence of the CDF is in matters of Church doctrine, Bishop Pilla suggests that its intervention was a judgment of "inappropriateness" -- a term that can cover almost any kind of wrong, as recent news of US political leaders strikingly illustrates.
But the delayed and understated response to the CDF's intervention is not an isolated incident. The Holy See's interventions on the granting of annulments in US tribunals and on the pastoral letter on homosexuality, "Always Our Children", as well as on the translation of the Catechism and the RNAB and NRSV biblical translations met with similar reactions.
In each case the disagreement with the Vatican was not over particulars of doctrine, but over some bishops' expressed bafflement about how and why the notion of "doctrine" was pertinent to the project at all. Portraying the CDF's instruction on the ICEL Psalter as a question of "inappropriateness" suggests that Cardinal Ratzinger's objections are based on superficial matters of style, rather than on serious doctrinal problems with the text.
It is difficult to avoid suspecting that, for those who oversaw the generation of "inclusive language" liturgical texts, "heresy" is an affliction of wild-eyed fanatics of a type that did not survive the 16th century, and that to judge that a man's doctrine is defective is as shocking and grotesque as to accuse him of demonic possession. In any case, the evaluation of liturgical texts on the basis of what is appropriate and opportune suggests a lack of clarity about what a doctrinal error might be.
Doctrinal Precision
No one who has read Cardinal Ratzinger's commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem or the CDF Statement on the Pastoral Care of Homosexuals or on the German bishops' admission of divorced Catholics to Communion can remain in doubt as to his remarkable precision and clarity in distinguishing doctrinal error from theological conjecture.In the case of the rejected RNAB Psalms and NRSV Bible, the corrections were emphatically concrete. Discussions of the Psalter had begun in February 1996. Consequently, if the CDF's objections to the ICEL Psalter were stated diplomatically in the official communication to Bishop Pilla (the text of the April 1996 letter was not released), this does not indicate vague, subjective misgivings on the part of the Holy See.
Proponents of the ICEL Psalter and of other inclusive language translations have suggested that fear of women's ordination has made the Vatican overly susceptible to alarmist promptings of "conservative" pressure groups. Adoremus is confident that, when the smoke finally clears, it will be apparent that the Holy See will have read the US bishops' proposals more carefully than the some of the US bishops themselves.
The entire matter of the ICEL Psalter is a textbook illustration of the problems with national episcopal conferences. This was the subject of the recent papal letter, Apostolos Suos, and one to which Adoremus will return.
Helen Hull Hitckcock is the Editor of Adoremus Bulletin and the founder of Women for Faith and Family. Adoremus Staff contributed to this story.
Vatican's May 1997 letter to the President of National Conference of Catholic Bishops on "sex education" revealed in November
"Those responsible for sex education in Catholic schools must not surrender to the temptation to conform to the permissive mentality which is prevalent today. On the contrary, they must strive to follow faithfully the Church's teaching on sexuality, according to the school's educational project, which consists in the explicit reference to the values of Christianity and the Christian concept of man".-- From letter from Cardinal Pio Laghi to Bishop Pilla
In May 1997 Cardinal Pio Laghi, prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, wrote to several episcopal conferences to acknowledge that complaints in regard to the teaching of sex education in Catholic schools were being received "with some frequency". He referred to an earlier document published by the Congregation in 1983, Educational Guidance in Human Love, which had "drawn attention to the necessity of offering a positive and prudent sex education to children and youth" and noted that criteria which that text had set out "in order adequately to implement sex education in a school setting are not always fully assimilated and duly applied".
Cardinal Laghi stated that the ongoing need for sex education is recognized, but the problem concerns the content of such education, as well as who carries it out. He noted also that,"The law of subsidiarity which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education has been repeatedly affirmed by the Holy Father in documents such as Familiaris Consortio, in which he says that, since it is a basic right and duty of parents, such education 'must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centres chosen and controlled by them'. The school, therefore, must enter into the same spirit that animates the parents".
In addition, he referred to the document, Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, issued recently (December 8 1995) by the Pontifical Council for the Family, which further developed principles set forth in Educational Guidelines.
He called upon the bishops to ensure that sex education programs and relative materials conform to the principles that have been set forth, in " an atmosphere of peaceful understanding with families".
In the United States, the May 1997 letter from Cardinal Laghi was received by the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Anthony Pilla of Cleveland, and in November 1997 he disseminated that letter to his brother bishops at their semi-annual meeting in Washington, D.C.
Bishop Pilla noted that Cardinal Laghi's correspondence was received as "a letter and not an instruction", and that the missive was meant "just to be helpful" and had been "written as an aid to the bishops".Cardinal Laghi, in conversation with Bishop Pilla, had also told him that the "letter had originally been drafted in response to direct requests that came from episcopal conferences other than that of the United States.
He had waited until November to share Cardinal Laghi's letter, Bishop Pilla said, in order to put it in the "appropriate context" and "respond to questions" that might arise, he said.The letter is printed in full below.
Letter from the Congregation on Catholic Education to Bishop Anthony Pilla
Dated: Rome May 2, 1997
Prot N. 484/96
Signed by Cardinal LaghiYour Excellency,
In the Plenary Assembly of this Congregation for Catholic Education, in November 1995, the Member Cardinals and Bishops took note of the concern which has been evinced in various parts with regard to the teaching of sex education in Catholic schools. With some frequency, the Dicastery receives letters of complaint and protest on the subject.
The Congregation had already addressed the question of sex education in its document Educational Guidance in Human Love, published in 1983, with which it intended to make its own contribution for the application of the Conciliar Declaration Gravissimum educationis, which had drawn attention to the necessity of offering "a positive and prudent sex education to children and youth" (cf. n. 1). In the document, the Congregation set out to examine the pedagogical aspect of sex education, indicating appropriate guidelines for its implementation, particularly in Catholic schools.
Almost fifteen years have gone by since that document was published, but the information reaching this Dicastery indicates t;hat the criteria which it suggests, in order adequately to implement sex education in a school setting are not always fully assimilated and duly applied.
Sex education, like every other aspect of education, takes place in a setting which is local and specific. Because it is not possible to foresee all such specific circumstances at a national or universal level, the Code of Canon Law wisely places responsibility for the choice of the most appropriate texts and other materials on the diocesan Ordinary (cf. canons 775 §1, 803 §2, 804 §2, 806). The responsibility which Bishops have in this respect is also emphasized in nn. 55 and 72 of Educational Guiidance in Human Love.
It was therefore deemed opportune, in the above mentioned Plenary, for the Congregation to write to the Episcopal Conferences, asking them to draw the attention of the Bishops of their respective countries tot he current anxiety with regard to sex education in Catholic schools and solicit their cooperation in correcting those situations in which such anxiety might prove to be justified. With the present letter, therefore, the Congregation for Catholic Education, in fulfillment of the mandate it has received, wishes to put before the Bishops some considerations concerning the problems which relate to sex education and, at the same time, to call to mind once again the fundamental principles in this matter, as expressed in Educational Guidance in Human Love.
The situation in which the Catholic school must educate today is still fraught with serious difficulties. The climate of moral disorientation to which that same document refers is made worse today by the reduction of sexuality to something commonplace in the environment surrounding young people. Through the mass-media, above all, sexual realities and the most intimate aspects of genital experience are displayed without reserve, while information on the use and abuse of sexuality is offered to young people before they are capable of understanding and assimilating it. There is no doubt that sex education, conceived as formation in love and in the responsible use of one's own sexuality, is of increasing urgency.
The need for sex education is generally recognized. The problem concerns rather its content on the one hand and , on the other, who is to carry it out.
Educational Guidance in Human Love stresses the primary role of the family as "the best environment to accomplish the obligation of securing a gradual education in sexual life", since the family "has an affective dignity which is suited to making acceptable without trauma the most delicate realities and to integrating them harmoniously in a balanced and rich personality" (n. 48). Consequently, "with regard to the more intimate aspects, whether biological or affective, an individual education should be bestowed, preferably within the sphere of the family". (n. 58)
Many parents, however, feel that they are not sufficiently prepared to deal personally with this sensitive area of their children's education and therefore delegate their responsibility to other educators, readily accepting help from the school and considering the classroom a suitable setting. In so doing, parents do not intend to remain extraneous to the formation of their children and when they entrust them to the Catholic school, they expect from the later a positive sex education, faithful to the teaching of the Church and prudently adapted to the children's age and phase of development.
The law of subsidiarity which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education has been repeatedly affirmed by the Holy Father in documents such as Familiaris consortio, in which he says that since it is a basic right and duty of parents, such education "must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them". The school, therefore, must enter into the same spirit that animates the parents (cf. n. 37).
In many schools praiseworthy efforts have been made in this respect. Nevertheless, in some cases a suitable approach to sex education has not been adopted, nor has due attention been paid to the obligation of susidiarity where parents are concerned. From the point of view of doctrine and methodology, an examination of texts, teaching aids and questionnaires intended for the pupils, has revealed that they are not always faithful to the teaching of the Church and not always suited to the age of the pupils.
The law of subsidiarity is not observed when the necessary participation of all the teachers concerned has been overlooked or when the school has neglected to engage previously in dialogue with the parents, in order to inform and include them in the preparation of the program. The failure to involve families justifies the decision of parents to withdraw their children from the sex education program when they consider that it does not conform to the teachings of the Church.
In view of the concern thus expressed, we are more than ever convinced of the validity of the principles set forth in Educational Guidance in Human Love, principles which have been repeated and further developed in Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, the recent document of the Pontifical Council for the Family.
Those responsible for sex education in Catholic schools must not surrender to the temptation to conform to the permissive mentality which is prevalent today. On the contrary, they must strive to follow faithfully the Church's teaching on sexuality, according to the school's educational project, which consists in the explicit reference to the values of Christianity and Christian concept of man.
We are confident that the Bishops will exercise their ministry of pastoral concern for the Catholic schools in their territory, ensuring that sex education programs and relative materials conform to the principles mentioned above, and that such education be carried out in an atmosphere of peaceful understanding with families. Only in this way will Catholic schools carry out effectively the important part they are called to play, helping young people to develop an affective maturity which will permit them one day to live their own sexuality in a manner fully human and fully Christian, discovering at the same time the value of chastity.
Thanking you in anticipation for your kindness in bringing our expectations to the attention of Members of the Episcopal Conference, we gladly avail ourselves of the opportunity to assure you of our prayerful good wishes and remain.+Pio Cardinal Laghi
Prefect, Congregation for Catholic Education
**Women for Faith & Family operates solely on your generous donations! See Join Page or for Credit Card Donation see Network for Good instructions page!**
Voices copyright © 1989-2004 Women for Faith & Family. All rights reserved. May not be copied or reproduced without permission, except that permission is granted to download articles for personal use only.
And let's not forget how Pilla lied to the Vatican about banning Futurechurch from diocesan property:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1396984/posts
Given this history between Pilla and Pope Benedict, I hoping that the Pope wull be as excited as we will be when Pilla is finally removed.
PILLA OFFERS TO RESIGN, April 2, 2002:
http://www.newsnet5.com/News/1344298/detail.html
It is way past time to take out the garbage where Pilla is concerned.
Did they accept the offer????
He needs to go sooo bad!
Thanks for the ping my FRiend!
Oooops, sorry.
I just looked at the date.
I was just too excited.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.