| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__ Special Report_____________________________
ICEL’s Failed Legacy
The new Vatican Instruction echoes arguments that will be familiar to readers of CWR
By Father Jerry J. Pokorsky
In 1992, disturbed by the prospect of a new generation of poor liturgical translations by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), a group of priests from the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, founded CREDO: “a society of priests dedicated to the faithful translation of the liturgy.” CREDO’s newsletters observed that the translation problems which many priests had found in the 1973 ICEL Sacramentary were not likely to be corrected, while new translation difficulties would be introduced, until new principles were developed to guide liturgical translations.
CREDO was born in reaction to new revisions that were then under consideration for liturgical texts. The revisions being suggested by ICEL, in the pursuit of “inclusive language,” actually included a change in the Nicene Creed; the draft change proposed that Homo factus est (“He became man”) be translated to say that Jesus “became truly human.” Other proposed changes in the English translation of the Mass included a “contemporary” rewording of the Our Father.
With these proposed revisions—introduced at a time when many concerned priests were still grumbling about the previous round of changes—ICEL touched off a new burst of protests. Advocates of more faithful translations were looking for a way to make their voices heard in the process; the time was right for the formation of CREDO. The organization quickly grew to include over 2,000 English-speaking priests.
In 1994, acting on its own initiative, CREDO commissioned a group of scholars to study the principles that had guided ICEL’s translation of the liturgical texts. In the July 1994 issue, Catholic World Report reproduced two documents prepared by CREDO. The first was a scholarly critique of Comme le prévoit, the 1969 Vatican committee document governing ICEL’s method of translation, which emphasized the principle of “dynamic equivalence.” The second document introduced CREDO’s own proposals: an alternative set of principles to guide liturgical translation. The CREDO principles were motivated by the desire for accurate and faithful translation. At the time, the editor of Catholic World Report observed that the story of CREDO “could have the most profound impact on everyday life of the Church in the English-speaking world.”
Nearly seven years after the publication of those CREDO documents, the Holy See has now issued the highly authoritative Liturgiam Authenticam, the “Fifth Instruction For the Right Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council.” Most of CREDO’s common-sense principles regarding liturgical translation are echoed in Liturgiam Authenticam.
In light of the remarkable similarity between the Vatican document and the CREDO principles, it is certainly neither fair nor accurate to suggest—as some public critics of Liturgiam Authenticam have already suggested—that the Holy See is ignoring the opinions of the American clergy, or of native English speakers. Hundreds of English-speaking priests have already given their endorsement to these principles of translation.
For years, ICEL supporters insisted that they understood the feelings of most ordinary Catholics, while their critics were “out of touch” with the people. To test that proposition, Catholic World Report commissioned a poll of American Catholics, which was carried out by the Roper Center in 1997. The results were devastating to ICEL’s argument. By lopsided majorities (ranging from 69 to 73 percent in response to a series of similar questions), respondents rejected the notion that liturgical texts should be rendered into more “inclusive” language. By similar majorities, Catholic Americans indicated their preference for more direct, accurate translations of the Latin texts. The rejection of ICEL’s principles was evident in every sub-group studied by the Roper Center; for example, women were no more likely than men to want “inclusive” translations. And the preference for faithful translation was most overwhelming among the Catholics who attended Mass most frequently.
Since the recent meetings of the US bishops have also become marked by increasingly sharp disagreements about the work of ICEL, it is also disingenuous to imply that the American bishops have formed a united front on the issue of translation. Insofar as English-language translations are concerned, Liturgiam Authenticam answers a real and pressing need for the Holy See to resolve important differences of opinions among the bishops and among Catholics in general.
Emerging conflict
Representatives of CREDO, along with other critics of the ICEL translations, were often scorned by the liturgical establishment in ad hominem attacks. A familiar pattern of argumentation emerged: ICEL’s defenders questioned the motivations of their critics, without seriously addressing the critics’ substantive concerns. Thus for example in a June 1994 interview in the US Catholic, ICEL staff member James Schellman assured readers that the concerns expressed by groups such as CREDO were unfounded, because the new revisions of the ICEL Sacramentary were “not at all” drastic. He went on to say that critics of ICEL translations were not really conservatives but archconservatives. And in a dismissive allusion to CREDO’s concerns about the role of the priest acting in persona Christi, he contended:
“Fundamentally that criticism seems to mean that, in the archconservatives’ minds, the priest and no one else is representing Christ in the assembly.”
Apparently ICEL also impugned the motives of Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez, the prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments. ICEL’s criticisms moved the cardinal to insist—in a letter to ICEL chairman Bishop Maurice Taylor of Galloway, Scotland, on October 26, 1999—that “observations [by the Congregation] have often been countered with unfounded charges of personal grudges and hostility to the Commission [i.e., ICEL].” The cardinal was quick to link ICEL’s ad hominem tactics to a broader strategy of non-cooperation, concluding:
In reality, the lack of response to the Holy See’s stated concerns on the part of those who have effectively had in hand the work of the Commission has often hampered and delayed the Congregation’s work to a notable degree, also occasioning a disproportionate commitment of its resources.
The recent history of ICEL’s work shows a growing disenchantment with the group—not only on the part of the Vatican but also among the American bishops. The revised ICEL Sacramentary, ICEL’s new translation of the Roman Missal, was expected to be routinely confirmed by the Vatican in 1994 after being quickly approved by the American (and other English-speaking) bishops. But the American bishops stunned ICEL and even their own liturgy committee by delaying the approval process. The US bishops’ conference did not explain the delay, and the bishops’ deliberations on liturgical translations were moved into closed sessions, so that only indirect reports on the content of their debates reached the general Catholic public. But obviously the support which ICEL had once enjoyed was now eroding. The texts for the Sacramentary—eventually released in eight segments along with certain ancillary texts—would finally be received by the Vatican in 1998. There is no evidence, at this writing, that the texts will be confirmed by the Holy See.
In Rome the mounting opposition to ICEL’s approach was much more evident. In a September 20, 1997 letter to the president of the American bishops’ conference, the Congregation for Divine Worship indicated that ICEL’s revised Ordination Rite (which is separate and distinct from the ICEL Sacramentary) “cannot be approved or confirmed by the Holy See for liturgical use.” Observers noted that all of the problems identified by then-Archbishop Medina in that letter could also apply to the new translation of the ICEL Sacramentary. Despite Cardinal Medina’s call for an early resolution to the translation problems, the ICEL revised Ordination Rite continues to languish. ICEL has not produced new revisions to correct the problems that were noted by the Congregation for Divine Worship, and the Vatican body has not (and surely will not) approved the existing version.
Cooperation still necessary
Within this historical context, it is instructive to revisit the CREDO principles of translation and compare them, seven years later, to the translation principles enunciated by Liturgiam Authenticam—a Vatican document approved by the Holy Father himself.
A provocative question arises from all of this: Had ICEL been respectfully attentive to its critics and listened carefully to the signals from the Vatican, would the English-speaking bishops have suffered the trauma of such a lengthy and confusing process of approval for new liturgical translations?
But the final chapters of this tumultuous era of liturgical translation have not yet been written. The principles set forth in Liturgiam Authenticam offer great promise for the future, but faithful Catholics will not feel any relief until the Instruction is actually implemented—that is, until new translations are introduced, and old ones corrected, to provide accurate and reverent rendering of liturgical texts. Will the liturgical establishment be willing—at last—to cooperate with the Vatican?
If the new principles of translation are taken to heart, the legacy of Pope John Paul II’s pontificate will include an extraordinary advance in authentic liturgical reform, in keeping with the real teachings of the Second Vatican Council. n
Father Jerry J. Pokorsky is the rector of St. Peter’s church in Washington, Virginia, and co-founder of CREDO.