_Letters___________________________________________________

Five more years?

I applaud the work your publication, Helen Hull Hitchcock, and Adoremus have done regarding the liturgy. However, I am not able to achieve your level of enthusiasm for Liturgiam Authenticam. At the end of the article, A New Era Begins (June 2001), she says, “An integral plan for the revising of the vernacular translations of liturgical books is to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship within five years from the date of publication of this instruction….” 

Will it take five years—just to submit a plan? I believe that Martin Luther and Ronald Knox were able to translate the entire Scriptures in less time than this, and without first spending any considerable time on a plan. 

Elsewhere in the June 2001 issue, in discussing Ex Corde Ecclesiae you say, “Unfortunately, for the past 10 years the bishops of the United States have dithered over implementation of the papal directives.” You then add, “It may be harsh, but it is not inaccurate, to say that for the Catholics of the United States, Ex Corde Ecclesiae is meaningless.” I hope that it is not the case, but I don’t see much reason not to believe that 10 years from now you may be writing: “It may be harsh, but it is not inaccurate, to say that for the Catholics of the United States, Liturgiam Authenticam is meaningless.”

—Allan Smiley Cold Spring, Kentucky

Your concern is not unreasonable. However, there is a crucial difference between Ex Corde Ecclesiae and Liturgiam Authenticam, in terms of what the bishops must do to implement the document. Ex Corde Ecclesiae addresses the relationships between bishops and the Catholic universities located in their dioceses; the implementation of the document requires the active and continuing cooperation of the diocesan bishops. Liturgiam Authenticam involves the translation of liturgical texts. Since all liturgical texts must be approved by the Vatican before they are authorized for general use, the Vatican can implement this document without any help. 

— The Editor

The “third day” theme on Resurrection

I applaud and appreciate your emphasis of the cover and of the articles in the June issue of Catholic World Report on accurate translation of liturgical texts.

One phrase in the Creed at Mass especially needs emendation. “On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures” should read, “He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures.” 

Transposing the natural word order of the phrase “on the third day” in order to make the Resurrection [rather than the third day] appear to be according to the Scriptures makes not only an inaccurate translation but also a poor theological manipulation. 

The primitive creed in 1 Corinthians 15:4 clearly ties the Resurrection to the third-day theme. There the Greek uses a perfect tense for Jesus’ being raised. The Greek perfect connotes a present state of affairs resulting from a past action. The Latin lacks such a nuance. Otherwise, one might transfer the original Scriptural meaning to the creed at Mass as “He is risen.” Interestingly, Cardinal Karl Lehmann of Germany wrote an excellent treatise on the subject, Auferwekt am dritten Tag nach der Schrift [“Raised on the Third Day According to Scripture”] in 1968. 

Further, the paraphrase of “in fulfillment of” does not accurately translate the Latin preposition “according to.” The Gospel writers’ theme of fulfilling Scripture uses verbs rather than a preposition. 
Hopefully, the revised translators will fulfill not only the letter but also the spirit of the new Vatican directive.

—Edward L. Bode Jefferson City, Missouri

Commitment and inclusion

I commend your efforts to resist the politicization of liturgical texts, as featured in several articles of your June 2001 issue and highlighted on your cover.

Indeed Credo is mistranslated as “We believe,” as any high-school Latin student will warn us. What is the point of such an egregious and indefensible mistake? Perhaps it serves to emphasize community? But it does so at the cost of deleting commitment. The phrase “I believe” expresses personal commitment, while “We believe” is a mere declaration without a commitment from the speaker. Thus a great deal has been lost by the mistranslation that is repeated by millions each Sunday.

But on a second point, I would say you are wrong and the inclusive-language people are correct. In Latin, vir is a male human being, while homo is a human being whether male or female. Similarly in Greek, andros is a male human being, while anthropos is a human being whether male or female. Although we can use “man” ambiguously in either sense, English also has the resources to avoid the ambiguity and thereby better to capture the exact sense of the original; we can use the translations “people” or “human being.”

Indeed this is the precise point of the Instruction, as Helen Hull Hitchcock quotes it: 

When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family . . . this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation.

Hitchcock then immediately interprets this passage as endorsing the translation of homo and anthropos as “man,” although that translation shrouds the universality of the original in ambiguity. “People” would be much more in accord with the Instruction. At least this once, inclusive language is correct, since the original was inclusive. 

—Joseph Kenneth Casey Cincinnati, Ohio

The thrust of the Vatican instruction, on this point, is that translators should avoid using awkward phrases such as “man or woman” in place of a single term like homo or anthropos. By the same logic, the plural term “people” cannot be used to translate a singular noun. The use of “person” or even “human being’ might be acceptable, except that those terms are not used, in that context, in normal English parlance. It is true that there is a determined effort afoot to change normal English usage, bringing the language more into line with feminist prescriptions. But the Church should not be a party to any such politicization of the language—particularly not in her sacred liturgy. 

— The Editor

Incarnation precedes birth

I was struck by your June cover with its graphic commentary on the absurd mistranslation of the first words of the Creed. But this is hardly the worst case of the current mangling of this most important of documents. The worst in my view is the translation of incarnatus est as “was born” rather than “was incarnate.” Not only does the Holy Spirit in Scripture have no direct role in the birth of Jesus (though he has everything to do with Jesus’ incarnation, at conception), but perhaps more important the current translation for the Mass ratifies the extreme pro-death position on the humanity of the fetus: one “becomes man” only at (or after) birth. On the other hand the correct translation—”he was incarnate of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man”—is consonant with the Catholic and pro-life position, that a child (and our Lord) became fully human at conception. Let us hope this theological outrage—in the Creed itself!—at the hands of ICEL will be one of the first things our bishops address in their implementation of Liturgiam Authenticam. 

—John S. Belmont  Kanab, Utah

The Father and the Trinity

Recently I was struck when, on Trinity Sunday, the homilist made reference to “God the Creator, Jesus the Redeemer, and the Spirit the Sanctifier.”

Where I first noticed these substitutional terms was among contemporary American Protestants: in place of the great final benediction of Matthew’s Gospel (“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”), more “inclusive” language was inserted. At first glance I guessed that this was part of the continuing drive to expunge masculinity from contemporary worship.

But a second glance prompts some questions I put to anyone else who cares enough to consider them. Is not referring to God as Creator alone, a way of saying only how God relates to us? It reveals another face of our contemporary narcissism; everything is about us. We are created, but Jesus is the timeless Word. In fact the revealed relationship of the Trinity is of the Father to the Son, and the “Spirit of his Son . . . who prompts us, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” The real story is the Trinity’s inner “quantum physics” of love.

Also, do we think that somehow God does not see himself as Father? Do we think that we have stained him with our “patriarchalism?” But the proper name of God is in fact Father: the one “from whom every family in heaven and on earth takes its name.” (Eph 3:14) Human fathers derive their title only from God the Father. God as Father is the only way that he “talks” to the Son and the Spirit. St. Jerome interprets the passage from Ephesians as saying that earthly fathers are called so only in an “extended family” sense—that the only true Father is God.

Finally, aren’t we changing the only mission of Jesus as Christ and Lord to us when we play these name games? (But they are not games, because they have serious consequences.) We are sent to do a specific mission: to baptize all nations —according to quite specific sacred titles. When Trinity Sunday comes about, are we ashamed to name those ancient names?

I am certain that some of this is just thoughtlessness. I hope this may be a stimulus to thought before the next Trinity Sunday and the next Father’s Day.

—Stephen E. Speciale Scottsdale, Arizona

Defining death

Father Anthony Zimmerman’s letter, “Accepting death and transplantation” (June 2001), clearly demonstrates how imprecision coupled with wishful thinking can wreak havoc on exacting questions.

It is well known that Pope John Paul II, as Vicar of Christ and in his person, has a masterful command of language. He chooses his words most carefully. It is vintage John Paul II to leave room for debate (and to support dialogue), and only then to write with Peter’s pen.

Father Zimmerman’s arguments are defeated by the very thing he seems to be trying to uphold as evidence: the Pope’s definition of death. The definition describes death as “the total disintegration of that unitary and integrated whole that is the personal self. It results from the separation of the life principle (or soul) from the corporal reality of the person.” All arguments by Father Zimmerman fail especially if we would apply the second sentence of the definition, and not just parts of the first sentence. 

For example, Father Zimmerman says, “the heart, of course, may continue to beat after the unitary and integrated whole of the body’s life has disintegrated.” Notice that the Pope mentioned not just disintegration, but total disintegration. And how does Father Zimmerman know there is total disintegration? It is known as the Pope’s second sentence clearly states—when “it results from the separation of the life principle (or soul) from the corporal reality of the person.” Father Zimmerman’s argument does not want to wait for death as the Pope’s definition requires. 

On another point, Father Zimmerman refers to a “has-been body,” the way a 90-year-old man might refer to his glory days as an athlete. According to the Pope’s definition, there is no “has-been body” until you are, in fact, dead. There is no “second run” after the first run is over. 

Another point on which Father Zimmerman’s argument desperately lacks factual information concerns the guidelines that transplant teams use. After studying a brief history of various guidelines, even those most hostile to any guidelines at all could see how varied, subjective, and even unscientific the guidelines are. It is naïve to think that Big Brother is taking care of all this. Father Zimmerman assumes that because there are “guidelines here, there, and everywhere” that we are somehow molded into correct decisions. The fact is that none of these “definitions” comes close to the Pope’s definition.

Finally Father Zimmerman says that it is “crucial” that “mandatory” criteria and tests “be applied to every transplant donor . . . by which doctors can arrive at moral certitude.” Again his argument steps on its own feet. How can anyone arrive at moral certitude unless they apply the Pope’s definition of death completely and accurately in their medical guidelines?

If one reads carefully, the positions taken by Bishop Bruskewitz et al. (“Are Organ Transplants Ever Morally Licit,” March 2001) turn out to be in line with the Pope’s criteria, whereas the arguments of Father Zimmerman do not. Catholic bishops, medical scientists, and a philosopher have provided facts to inform others that the status quo in organ transplantation is not in line with Catholic teaching. It is imperative that we have accuracy in declaring death only when death has occurred. There must be conformity in this serious matter.

—Michael K. Brady Toledo, Ohio

A word of clarification may be necessary here. The “total disintegration” of the integrity between body and soul is not necessarily a lengthy process. Death occurs at a particular moment. The difficulty lies in pinpointing that moment. And—particularly in light of the prevailing contempt for the dignity of human life—Christians should resolve any uncertainties in favor of the possibility that death has not yet occurred and human life is still present.

— The Editor

“Scandalous, irreligious, stupid”

I am writing about the “Last Word” article (“So What Should I Do?”) by Diogenes in the June issue of Catholic World [sic]. The article is scandalous and casts a shadow on thousands of our young priests. How do you suppose a young man thinking about the priesthood feels upon reading a deprecatory article such as this? You have done enough harm already by your frequent bashing of gay priests. This is another thorn in the crown of acrimony. We know this problem exists, but not in the vast majority of priests. You have blown it out of proportion. Whoever wrote the article I’m referring to can be no less than a scandalous, irreligious, stupid fool.

My current subscription to Catholic World [sic] is about up. I will not renew it until I find an apology, retraction, correction—call it what you may—in a subsequent issue.

—Raymond L. Schultz New Hartford, New York

Diogenes was not “bashing” priests—gay or otherwise. He was prodding fathers to take their proper responsibility, to protect their children from the priests who might be sexual predators. Certainly such priests are a minority, but shouldn’t we protect our children against even relatively unlikely tragedies? Don’t we routinely insure our homes against lightning strikes? And what are the proper “proportions” of this horrible scandal? Would any family consider our coverage of the issue excessive after being touched by the trauma of sexual abuse? The problem of clerical abuse has been compounded by the clerical mentality which insists upon seeing the issue exclusively in terms of the rights and the emotional welfare of priests, rather than first considering the rights and the emotional welfare of innocent children.

— The Editor 

Lauds Diogenes

Diogenes is to be lauded for presenting the view from the pews on the subject of minor-abusing clergy. His approach comes as a refreshing antidote to the window-dressing of manifest failures on the part of English and Welsh bishops, reported elsewhere in the same issue (“Making Church Safe for Children,” June 2001) by Nick Baty. 

The point is that in the Roman empire this offense, called stuprum cum masculo or abuse of boys, carried the death penalty. Presumably even the Romans saw the need to protect young boys from predatory homosexuals. When a priest commits an act of pederasty he ceases by that fact to be a true priest; this message should be sent to the Nolan Commission, which was another act of window-dressing for failures that could have been remedied by a stern application of the existing law as of 1917 and 1983. The problem in England is that we have a generation of bishops who have persistently disdained canon law. 

—John Koenig Northampton, England 

Episcopal “Appendicitis” 

We find it very interesting that the US bishops as a group will not enact any part of the new Roman Missal until Rome approves or disapproves their ‘special indults’ or requests to deviate from the approved Latin text. Yet last fall the good Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz put into effect, in his Lincoln diocese, the new General Instructions for the Roman Missal, which is part of the new Missal, due to the improved rubrics over the old more liberal General Instruction of l975. Good for this courageous bishop! We call the bishops’ awkward delay: “Appendicitis—inflammation of the US Bishops’ Appendix.” 

—Mitch and Barbara Kralis Howe, Texas 

Is anyone listening? No!

Catholic World Report continues to delight each month with its news and commentary. But over the years I have increasingly come to appreciate the succinct and at times fearless editorial views of Philip Lawler, which are contemporary and clear. Always informed, as respectful as possible considering conditions in the Church, Lawler puts his editorial finger on the bottlenecks that not only thwart true renovation and reform in the Church, but which in any other organization would get the culprits summarily fired for insubordination!

You bet that Ex Corde Ecclesiae is dead in the water, after 11 years of the US bishops’ collegial cowardice and deliberate sabotage of Rome’s rightful initiative to protect and pass on the theological deposit of faith. But Father Ted Hesburgh and friends plotted the battle plan against orthodoxy decades ago at Land ‘o Lakes, and too many heterodox theologians have since been patted on their proud heads by those who go along with prevailing winds, to avoid tarnishing their liberal images or in hopes of personal advancement.

Thanks to Cardinal Bernardin and his followers, Communion in the hand was already a fait accompli in US dioceses when Pope Paul VI “permitted” it. And how many times has Rome forbidden regular use of general absolution—which still persists in Chicago and elsewhere? And as for the “generous” implementation of Ecclesia Dei twice requested by John Paul II, I know of an American bishop who said he had not heard of Ecclesia Dei, nine years after it was written. 

So regarding Liturgiam Authenticam, I can only say “good luck” to Rome’s efforts to clean up after 35 years of “experimentation” and “expert” demolition of what was once the lex credendi of our faith and life.

The problem, dear editor, is as old as Genesis: disobedience, especially among those who demand the obedience of others. Non serviam! 

The only part of your June editorial (“The Enduring Promise of Reform”) that I think is disingenuous is the last passage: “The challenge now is for local churches to summon the will to enact [Liturgiam Authenticam]. Rome has spoken. Is anyone listening?” Frankly, not many people are listening. Most of the remaining “faithful” 40 years after the Council are ignorant of the faith, which they live as a cultural relic only and ignore in practice. The Holy Father—God help him!—cannot or will not get rid of the episcopal insubordinates, and we all wait, some of us on our knees, for the next conclave.

—Father Charles O. Fiore Lodi, Wisconsin

Don’t encourage Armenian claims

The purpose of this letter is twofold. The first purpose is to say that I am delighted to have discovered online Catholic World Report and the excellent information it provides.

The second point pertains to an article in the April issue by Nicholas Jubber entitled “Who Remembers the Armenians?” As only the Armenian version is presented, I question the wisdom of such reporting. The reader is, through this misrepresentation, given a very bad impression of the Turks. Would not the Armenian people be better served by encouraging them to drop their animosity toward the Turks and let go of the past, to move on? It is true that not all Armenians hold such animosity, and they are the wise ones. The rest should follow their example.

As for genocide claims, research by non-Turkish independent sources does not support those claims. Also, the Turkish archives are open to all who would care to search them.

I hope that the Catholic Church will not become involved in this issue. If the Armenians are given encouragement to pursue such claims, this animosity could eventually lead to a situation like the Israel-Palestinian one. Do we need another conflict like that?

—Mary M. Eisch Saginaw, Michigan

We would respectfully suggest that most non-Turkish historians do support the claims of an Armenian genocide. And the continuing efforts by Turkish authorities to suppress the historical discussion lends credibility to that finding—while also helping to explain the lingering animosity among Armenians. In his pleas for a “purification of memory,” Pope John Paul II frequently made the point that an offense cannot be forgiven until it is first acknowledged.

—The Editor

Masonic sources?

Your recent information (World Watch, June 2001 issue) on the changing church attendance by the Chilean youth, based on a Gallup poll, has been accompanied by a comment of Francisco Castillo, professor of religious studies at Universidad La República. In this connection, I think it is fair to mention that the said University is a Masonic one, the Great Master of the Great Lodge of Chile being its current president. Are there not Catholic sources for your news of Chile?

—Erwin Carrasco Valdivia, Chile

The quotation from Professor Castillo was furnished to us by a thoroughly Catholic reporter. The professor was hailing the advent of a secularized society in Chile. In light of the declining church-attendance figures, his attitude is understandable. The fact that proponents of secularism feel that they are gaining the upper hand is, regrettably, part of the news. 

—The Editor

Questions on Lutheran orders

An item in the May edition, under World Watch, states that the Catholics and Lutherans are continuing to work on reunification, and that the two groups “should now be able to celebrate the Eucharist together.” 

How is this possible in view of the fact that the Lutherans do not have valid Orders? Have I missed something (revolutionary) that has come out of Vatican II? 

—Urban D. Kapler  Phoenix, Arizona

The joint celebration of the Eucharist would presumably come after the reunification.

— The Editor

Back to Catholic World Report - August/September 2001 - Table of Contents

Back to Catholic.net Magazine Rack