EDITORIAL Liturgy hijackers campaign continues
When Cardinal Francis George of
Chicago fired longtime liturgical publisher Gabe Huck from his job as head of
Liturgy Training Publications, he sent a letter stating his belief that the
church had entered a new moment in liturgical catechesis, one that
requires new policy and new direction.
It was no secret that Huck and George did not get along. So the
firing -- sad as it may be because one of the nations premier dioceses
will be losing the services of someone who has given a lifetime of energy and
talent to the church -- was hardly a surprise (NCR, Aug. 10).
No one disputes the point that bishops need to put people in key
posts who reflect their philosophy. The question is not Georges right to
hire and fire, but the ends to which he is exercising that right.
The effects of what happens at Liturgy Training Publications will
be felt well beyond the borders of the Chicago archdiocese. Our worry resides
in that larger context, for a sustained campaign against liturgical renewal has
been underway in recent years. To some extent, George has been part of that
activity. The firing of Huck sends a message that another big step has been
taken.
Some history is in order. The liturgical innovations some now want
to reverse grew out of the understanding many bishops had of the documents
promulgated during the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).
The innovations found expression through the work of countless
scholars, in alignment with bishops conferences around the world and with
the approval of Pope Paul VI, who oversaw the council. His personal oversight
of a document on translation principles, Comme le prévoit, was
among the developments that helped launch the liturgical reforms of the last 35
years.
In the past three years, NCR has documented the march of
the revisionists, who have the ear of Rome these days.
What once was the work of an ecumenical council that grew into the
collaborative labor of international bodies, scholars and bishops
conferences became, in one recent case, the province of a select cabal of
revisionists (NCR Sept, 25, 1998).
NCR learned that 11 men met in the Vatican in 1997 to
overhaul the American lectionary -- a work that had already been approved by
the U.S. bishops conference. Of that group, only one held a graduate
degree in scripture studies.
Two members were not even native English-speakers. At least one of
the advisers was a graduate student at the time. Several members had a history
of objecting to inclusive-language translations, including two of the American
archbishops involved and the lone scripture scholar.
No one of any reputation who had been involved in liturgical
renewal during the past three-and-a-half decades was invited to the secret
gathering.
Since then, the reform the reform campaign has
gathered further steam. Under the direction of Cardinal Jorge Medina
Estévez, the Vatican Office on Liturgy has carried out a steady assault
on the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, a translation body
formed by English-speaking bishops at Vatican II.
Faulted by conservatives for over-enthusiasm for inclusive
language, the commission was first targeted by Medina in 1999, when he demanded
to take control. Spirited resistance from a majority of English-speaking
bishops -- the American representative to the commission, George, is the
outstanding exception -- has staved off total collapse, but the commission
today finds itself in a weakened and uncertain state.
A recent Vatican document on translation principles, Liturgiam
Authenticam, marked another nail in the commissions coffin, mandating
a traditional language that critics believe will leave many texts remote from
the language and experience of the people in the pews.
The design of liturgical space is another battlefront, as
NCR readers know from coverage of Romes attempt to dictate terms
to Archbishop Rembert Weakland regarding the renovation of Milwaukees
Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist.
Those who have participated in this assault speak as if they are
saving the church from some terrible affliction. They characterize the
liturgical developments of recent years as an ideology-soaked campaign, often
blaming ultra-feminists. Such exaggerations should be embarrassing. They are
necessary, however, to justify the undoing of work that has been approved at
the highest level of the church for years.
In reality, liturgical renewal has been hijacked by a group of
political operatives. They often insist they are taking back the
liturgy from liberal elites. Yet the truth is that what they couldnt gain
by consensus of their peers, they now are gaining through secret meetings and
authoritarian pronouncements. This is their church, they believe, and they will
have it their way, even if it means overturning the wisdom of the worlds
bishops gathered in a council, the decisions of numerous national bishops
conferences over more than three decades and the understanding of countless
scholars and experts.
Hardly a noble enterprise. Where will the campaign turn next?
National Catholic Reporter, August 24,
2001
|