Posted on 10/15/2014 7:36:05 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Vatican City, Oct 15, 2014 / 11:17 am (CNA/EWTN News).- An incorrect translation into English of the original midterm report of the Synod on the Family may have spurred controversial interpretations of the document itself.
The document's original version was written in Italian, which Pope Francis directed to be used as the official language of the synod. In prior synods the official language had been Latin, esteemed for its precision and lack of ambiguity.
The point of controversy occurs at paragraph 50 of the relatio. The Italian original, after praising the gifts and talents homosexuals may give to the Christian community, asked: “le nostre comunità sono in grado di esserlo accettando e valutando il loro orientamento sessuale, senza compromettere la dottrina cattolica su famiglia e matrimonio?”
In the English translation provided by the Vatican, this is rendered as: “Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”
The key word “valutando,” which has sparked controversy within the Church, was translated by the Vatican as “valuing.”
Italian's “valutando” in fact means “evaluating,” and in this context would be better translated with “weighing” or “considering.”
The English translation, in contrast, suggests a valuing of the homosexual orientation, which could at least create confusion to those who are faithful to the teaching of the Church.
It must be said that the translation was not an “official” translation – the Vatican website notes at the top it is an “unofficial translation” – but it was the working translation delivered by the Holy See press office in order to help journalists who are not confident in Italian with their work.
However, until now only this “working translation” has been provided.
The document was first delivered in Italian, shortly before Cardinal Peter Erdo of Esztergom-Budapest, general rapporteur of the synod, was going to read it in front of the assembly. After about half an hour, the document was available in English, French, Spanish, and German translations, and delivered via a bulletin of the Holy See press office.
This timing suggested that the translation had been done in the very last moments. According to a Vatican source, Cardinal Erdo had to give the document to the General Secretariat for the Synod on Saturday, and the document had been polished until the very last moment, and was given back to Cardinal Erdo only late on Sunday.
That the text is not fully Cardinal Erdo’s may be suggested by the fact that “the post discussion relation is much shorter than the pre-discussion one,” as Archbishop Philip Tartaglia of Glasgow put it to CNA Oct. 15.
The excerpt on pastoral care of homosexuals has been addressed by critics during the discussion that followed the reading of the relatio on Monday.
The document raised the impression that the Church had changed her views concerning homosexuality.
Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stressed Oct. 13 that “pastoral care for homosexuals has always been part of the Church’s teaching, and the Church has never gotten rid of or dismissed homosexual from her pastoral programs.”
In fact, pastoral care for homosexuals is well described in a 1986 document, issued by Cardinal Mueller's dicastery, “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.”
Bearing the signature of the then-prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and approved by St. John Paul II, the letter was delivered to bishops worldwide, providing instructions on how the clergy should respond to the claims of the LGBT community.
Far from being a document of condemnation, the document provided a nuanced response to the issue of homosexuality.
The document stressed that "it is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs."
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
Pastoral care for homosexuals was also addressed.
“We encourage the Bishops to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses,” the document read
But – the document added – “no authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.”
Likewise, “we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.”
The document also dealt with the spiritual life.
“An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.”
The approach of the document was thus that of reaffirming the truth of the teaching of the Church, and at the same time approaching with mercy homosexual persons.
Lost in translation. Rrriiiggghhhttt.
I smell ambiguous as hell Synodal statements that can mean just about anything.
Ah, those pesky translations.
They’ve been using Google translate a lot lately.
Here are the relevant paragraphs from the full report — that gives it context. Was “welcoming” mistranslated too?
From the FULL REPORT (just below the article at the following link):
“Welcoming homosexual persons
Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?
The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.
Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.”
But this one is true. I read the report as saying “evaluating” when I was doing a google search for it this past Monday. The majority of the stories said “valuing”. It was mistranslated on purpose by Donna Wuerl and his lavendar mafia. They knew exactly what they were doing and they knew the firestorm it would cause. That was the purpose. I also read today that the very little discussion on homosexuals WAS AFTER the report was released. No one had even talked about homosexuals. It was added in at the last minute by the homo mafia, some of whom were responsible for drafting the report. This includes Donna Wuerl, who was one of the 7 liberal bishops that Francis personally chose when he didn’t like the original 7 that was selected by the committee members. Francis does like not conservatives.
Well, we don’t need to “evaluate” homosexuality. It’s been done already. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.
You’re welcome.
You’re exactly right. But none of the Cardinals had even discussed homosexuality during the first week. It was not part of the discussion. The edit was made by the heretics posing as Catholics, AND the press saw it before the committee! The reason? The Synod would have raised hell over something being in the report they had not discussed.
I am not a Catholic but I do pay attention to important events and people. That said, I have NEVER observed a leader or leadership organization that had to “revise and extend” as many statements as the Vatican has during the 18 short months since Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected Bishop of Rome. Pope Francis seems to have a new “Joe Biden” moment every other week. It is troubling enough when a leader cannot clearly express what he purports to believe, but even more troubling to think that Francis might well be saying exactly what he believes.
Already posted: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3215623/posts
I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that the policy will still be to love the sinner and hate the sin.
It is a pre emptive strike against believers and obviously was written before the conference began
The first question that arises is why the Pope directed the meetings to be conducted in Italian rather than in Latin, as is the usual practice.
...when the excrement hits the whirling blades, blame the translation....
...it’s the parishionate that has to do the evaluating...far as I’m concerned, the pew people will do whatever keeps the social club atmoshere going...gays that don’t insist on a reverent worship, fine and dandy, let them eat of the Body...
...unless that sin is requesting a reverent celebration of the timeless Mass...then it’s hate the sinner, and also hate the sin...
...il Papa is clearly befuddled by Latin...should we expect otherwise...?
“The first question that arises is why the Pope directed the meetings to be conducted in Italian rather than in Latin, as is the usual practice”.
Well my thoughts to that are simple. Pope Francis is not a linguist like most popes before him. He probably has a limited knowledge of Latin. I have met Catholic priests that do not speak it. The only Latin they know is what’s required in the Liturgy. Before Vatican II all priests were required to be fluent in Latin. Francis speaks Italian and Spanish fluent, and the Synod is being held at the Vatican, not Barcelona. And it’s kind of hard to mis-translate Latin and cause confusion, which was probably part of the plan.
It’s hard for me to buy that a pope doesn’s know Latin backwards and forwards. It’s the official language of Catholicism, for crying out loud!
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.