Caritas in Veritate: language in paragraph 67 [Vanity]

7/9/2009

[markomalley]

One point to make for you, though, is paragraph 67 (the controversial one).

The Latin (authoritative) version is not online yet. But there is a huge difference between both the Italian and German versions and the English version.

The Italian version says: 67. Di fronte all'inarrestabile crescita dell'interdipendenza mondiale, è fortemente sentita, anche in presenza di una recessione altrettanto mondiale, l'urgenza della riforma sia dell'Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite che dell'architettura economica e finanziaria internazionale, affinché si possa dare reale concretezza al concetto di famiglia di Nazioni.

Translation: Faced with the unstoppable growth of global interdependence, it is strongly felt, even in the presence of a global recession, the urgency of reform in the Organization of the United Nations as well as the international economic and financial architecture, so that we can give real substance to the concept of family of nations.

The German says, Gegenüber der unaufhaltsamen Zunahme weltweiter gegenseitiger Abhängigkeit wird gerade auch bei einer ebenso weltweit anzutreffenden Rezession stark die Dringlichkeit einer Reform sowohl der Organisation der Vereinten Nationen als auch der internationalen Wirtschafts- und Finanzgestaltung empfunden, damit dem Konzept einer Familie der Nationen reale und konkrete Form gegeben werden kann.

Translation: In the face of the inexorable rise of global interdependence there is an urgency felt, even with an equally strong global recession, for the reform of both the Organization of the United Nations and the international economic and financial structures, so the concept of a family of nations can be given a real and concrete form.

The English translation online says, In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.

Notice the differences in the bolded text:

• Italian: so that we can give real substance to the concept of family of nations
• German: so the concept of a family of nations can be given a real and concrete form
• English: so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth

"Give real substance to the concept of the family" means about the same thing as "concept of a family of nations can be given a real and concrete form." But "Acquire real teeth" has an utterly different meaning (at least to English speakers "real teeth" implies authority -- "muscle", while "give real substance" or "give real form" implies a structure, how something is organized)

My question is, why would they use an idiomatic expression in their English translation but not in their German or Italian translations?

Which is right? We'll have to wait until the Vatican posts the Latin version.

[Quix]

Excellent work.

Thanks tons.

[Quix]

He essentially said

". . . a dressed up version of a world empire."

That's how the document reads . . .

That's what the document warrants.

Of course, that's pretending that the document was NOT written out of the Roman Catholic/Vatican RUBBER DICTIONARY of DIPLO-SPEAK and WEASEL WORDS.

[Quix]

I think . . .

the use of force vis a vis the encyclical

is quite kosher, even desired . . .

providing the force is directed by the Vatican and

wrapped in several layers of bureaucratic controls and white hankys.

[Petronski]

The thread is a self-acknowledged “vanity” which frames an apologia for the CiV.

Pointing out a aspect of poor translation (abject mistranslation?) does not an "apologia" make.

[Quix]

Certainly we read the document differently.

However, some folks fail to notice that there are chronic addicted apologists who would likely absolve the Pope of any sin or guilt were he

[QUITE HYPOTHETICALLY FOR ILLUSTRATION ONLY]

to claim in a formal infallible document that fantasies of lewd conduct were a new religious rite.

There really is that level of disconnect from eality evident on the part of some folks on these threads.

At this point from the evidence presented, it is inescapable that the Pope is advocating some level of global oversight, governance, management etc. of at least some aspects of the world economic system . . . of course . . . as usual, in globalist terms . . .

—for love and truth
—for the children
—for the environment
—for the planet

. . .

. . .

yada
yada
yada

I’m not willing to write out of the Vatican RUBBER DICTIONARY of DIPLO-SPEAK AND WEASEL WORDS.

Folks who think it’s wonderful to do so will have to take responsibility for doing so at some point.

[Poe White Trash]

Yes, pointing out and arguing that the phrase “acquire real teeth” is a mistranslation is an apology.

This is because the “mistranslation claim” didn’t spontaneously appear. It was made in response to criticisms of the CiV that claimed it supports coercive globalization.

Which is to say, Petronski, that to understand why I called it an apologia you have to understand the whole context of the controversy that currently surrounds the CiV.

[Petronski]

Which is to say, Petronski, that to understand why I called it an apologia you have to understand the whole context of the controversy that currently surrounds the CiV.

None of which means agreement with your assertion.

Pointing out the mistranslation into English is not even an apologia for the mistranslation, let alone an apologia for CiV in general. It is an explanation why the misapprehension and distortion of CiV is false.

[Poe White Trash]

Let’s see: what is an apologia, or in less gussied-up language, an apology?

My Webster’s New World Dictionary gives the following definition first:

“a formal spoken or written defense; argument to show that some idea, religion, etc. is right.”

>>> Pointing out the mistranslation into English is not even an apologia for the mistranslation, let alone an apologia for CiV in general. <<<

Once again, to argue that markomalley posted his argument that the “acquire real teeth” passage was a mistranslation because of some disinterested desire to correct the translator — instead of as a response to criticisms of the CiV’s Section 67 like the ones found on this thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2287240/posts

is mindboggling.

>>> It is an explanation why the misapprehension and distortion of CiV is false. <<<

Why, thanks for agreeing with me after all! As for the criticisms being “misapprehension[s] and distortion[s] of CiV, time will tell.

Well, time to get off the Net and continue reading CiV. I’m starting Chapter 4, which promises to deal with the relationship between globalization and “development.”

[Petronski]

Why, thanks for agreeing with me after all!

But I did not.

[livius]

Actually, before this encyclical was published, it was announced that it would be the first one not entirely written by BXVI. This is one of the things that delayed its publication several times.

Much of it is known to have been contributed through Martino and the Peace and Justice group, and Martino is a big CL person. The parts to which people are objecting are nothing more than typical Communion and Liberation language. CL is an Italian movement popular among intellectuals that JPII very much approved of and which has been around for some time. I find CL stuff pompous and meaningless and very dated; as another commentator pointed out, the social justice parts of this encyclical are already dated, because “globalization” has essentially been halted by the US economic contraction and Obama’s steady destruction of our economy.

There are parts of this encyclical that are very good indeed (the parts about personhood) and those are the parts that our philosopher-pope wrote because, if you read his work, you will be able to identify it immediately.

CL is not heretical, it believes it is opposed to the “New World Order” (while wanting to install its own), and Martino was for a long time the Vatican representative at the UN, so this is why you have so many references to this.

But the “social justice” part will be forgotten, and the parts about personhood will probably not only be remembered but have a real impact on our future.

[livius]

Never underestimate the power of crazy ideas to take hold of people's minds.

That's true, but in the case of CL, these ideas are so incoherent only an Italian could even think he was following them. I heard through a friend that the CL's English translator (they have a magazine) has for years tried to get them to use standard English, but they always insist that she use their terminology, which is nothing but the use of "false friends," that is, an English word that sounds like the Italian word but actually means (a) something else or (b) nothing at all.

The problem with this encyclical is exactly the same as the problem with all of the documents of Vatican II: They are so vague and high-flown that they could mean anything at all, and interested parties can easily use them to argue their points.

[Diamond]

...these ideas are so incoherent only an Italian could even think he was following them.

Now THAT'S funny! Great line:^)

Cordially,