EDITORIAL Translation dispute reveals revisionists
agenda
Comme le prévoit, the
document setting out principles for translating Latin texts into English for
use in Catholic worship, is not a secret document or a subversive attempt to
undermine tradition. It was developed collegially and published by the Vatican
body erected to manage liturgical reform. It received the personal attention of
Pope Paul VI.
What is happening today to the principles laid out in that
document says much about the basic divisions in contemporary Catholicism, and
about the brazen revisionist efforts underway by those who disagree with the
reforms put in motion by the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council.
Certain elements in the church that deem themselves the keepers of
orthodoxy have staked out huge claims wherever the battles over liturgy and
liturgical translations have erupted. Comme le prévoit shows that
their orthodoxy is a slippery matter, that when it comes to obeying Vatican
decrees, theirs is a highly developed brand of cafeteria
Catholicism.
On the specific matter of translation, Comme le
prévoit clearly demonstrates that, contrary to the impression given
by some bishops and self-appointed liturgical watchdogs, rules already exist
for translating documents into English and for the development of original
documents in the vernacular. The International Commission for English in the
Liturgy has been following those rules for decades.
Some critics contend the English version of Comme le
prévoit was doctored by commission personnel to reflect a more
liberal approach to translation. Whatever the merits of that analysis, the fact
remains that the English version was authorized by Rome and reflects the only
official statement of translation philosophy in the post-conciliar era.
It should also be noted that commission personnel did not tamper
with Comme le prévoit in the dead of night -- they were asked by
the Vatican to assist with the English version, and Rome subsequently endorsed
their work.
The transition to conducting liturgy in modern languages was a new
experience for everyone, and particularly jolting for some. The past 30 years
of establishing liturgical practices in English have seen some bumps as well as
considerable success. It certainly is reasonable to suggest that it may be time
to change or adjust some of those rules and approaches to translation or to
discuss the workings of international commissions.
But to pose as a preserver of tradition while seeking to overturn
established rules is galling to those who have been involved in the process and
to those average Catholics who have benefited from the work of the
commission.
Today the Holy See is at work on a new set of translation
principles to replace Comme le prévoit. That process appears to
be unfolding largely behind the scenes, involving little consultation among the
liturgical experts who have labored over translations in the years since the
council.
Beyond the particular matter of liturgical renewal, the story of
Comme le prévoit illuminates a much broader landscape. The right
wing of the Catholic church, at least in the United States, has appropriated
such terms as orthodoxy and tradition as if they
somehow have special ownership of the terms.
When confronted with the documents of the Second Vatican Council,
the stock response has become that liberals are misinterpreting
those texts and taking things too far.
There is often a smidgen of truth in such roundhouse retorts. But
as Comme le prévoit shows, those in favor of reform have often
been the ones faithful to Vatican mandates. The thinkers who prevailed at that
council did, indeed, envision a different kind of church. Those who actually
lived through it, who helped craft the documents, who knew the instincts and
impulses of those historic meetings, know that the agenda of the right wing
today is nothing short of a rollback of Vatican II.
Perhaps the single biggest mistake of the early Vatican II
reformers and their heirs was that they trusted that the conciliar process --
and the results of that process -- would be honored, at least by church
officials. Leaders such as Chicago Cardinal Francis George, who appeared so
eager in the past to do the bidding of curialists intent on taking control of
the commission, should reconsider not only its history but whether changing
church mandates ought to occur by fiat from a single Roman congregation.
Those who love to advertise their fidelity to the institution and
to tradition might force themselves to look down the road to a point where this
frenzy of revisionism has played itself out. What we might well see, if they
have their way, is a church disconnected from the core tenets of the most
significant Roman Catholic gathering of the modern age -- and, consequently,
from the people.
National Catholic Reporter, January 14,
2000
|