A good idea that will inevitably be rejected...

Here is an exerpt from a courageous and entirely reasonable article by Rev. Michael J. Ryan, from America magazine:
It is now 45 years since the Second Vatican Council promulgated the groundbreaking and liberating document on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. As an eager and enthusiastic North American College seminarian at the time, I was in St. Peter’s Square on the December day in 1963 when Pope Paul VI, with the world’s bishops, presented that great Magna Carta to the church. The conciliar document transcended ecclesiastical politics. It was not just the pet project of a party but the overwhelming consensus of the bishops of the world. Its adoption passed overwhelmingly: 2,147 to 4.

Not in my wildest dreams would it have occurred to me then that I would live to witness what seems more and more like the systematic dismantling of the great vision of the council’s decree. But I have. We Catholics have.

For evidence, one need look no further than recent instructions from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that have raised rubricism to an art form, or the endorsement, even encouragement, of the so-called Tridentine Mass. It has become painfully clear that the liturgy, the prayer of the people, is being used as a tool—some would even say as a weapon—to advance specific agendas. And now on the horizon are the new translations of the Roman Missal that will soon reach the final stages of approval by the Holy See. Before long the priests of this country will be told to take the new translations to their people by means of a carefully orchestrated education program that will attempt to put a good face on something that clearly does not deserve it.

The veterans who enthusiastically devoted their best creative energies as young priests to selling the reforms of the council to parishioners back in the 1960s will be asked to do the same with regard to the new translations. Yet we will be hard put to do so. Some colleagues in ministry may actually relish the opportunity, but not those of us who were captivated by the great vision of Vatican II, who knew firsthand the Tridentine Mass and loved it for what it was, but welcomed its passing because of what full, conscious and active participation would mean for our people. We can see the present moment only as one more assault on the council and, sadly, one more blow to episcopal collegiality. It was, after all, the council that gave to conferences of bishops the authority to produce their own translations (S.C., Nos. 36, 40), to be approved, it is true, by the Holy See but not, presumably, to be initiated, nitpicked and controlled by it. Further, the council also wisely made provision for times of experimentation and evaluation (S.C., No. 40)—something that has been noticeably missing in the present case.

This leads me to pose a question to my brother priests: What if we were to awaken to the fact that these texts are neither pastoral nor ready for our parishes? What if we just said, “Wait”?

* * *

What is at stake, it seems to me, is nothing less than the church’s credibility. It is true that the church could gain some credibility by giving us more beautiful translations, but clumsy is not beautiful, and precious is not prayerful. During a recent dinner conversation with friends, the issue of the new translations came up. Two at the table were keenly—and quite angrily—aware of the impending changes; two were not. When the uninformed heard a few examples (“and with your spirit”; “consubstantial with the Father”; “incarnate of the Virgin Mary”; “oblation of our service”; “send down your Spirit like the dewfall”; “He took the precious chalice”; “serene and kindly countenance,” for starters), the reaction was somewhere between disbelief and indignation.

* * *

The reaction of my friends should surprise no one who has had a chance to review the new translations. Some of them have merit, but far too many do not. Recently the Archdiocese of Seattle sponsored a seminar on the new translations for lay leaders and clergy. Both the priest who led the seminar (an accomplished liturgical theologian) and the participants gathered there in good faith. When passages from the proposed new translation were soberly read aloud by the presenter (I remember especially the phrase from the first eucharistic prayer that currently reads “Joseph, her husband,” but which in the new translation becomes “Joseph, spouse of the same virgin”), there was audible laughter in the room. I found myself thinking that the idea of this happening during the sacred liturgy is no laughing matter but something that should make us all tremble.

There’s more: the chilling reception the people of the dioceses of South Africa have given the new translations. In a rare oversight, the bishops of that country misread the instructions from Rome and, after a careful program of catechesis in the parishes, introduced the new translations to their people some months ago. The translations were met almost uniformly with opposition bordering on outrage.

His proposal is, as I said, quite courageous:
What if we, the parish priests of this country who will be charged with the implementation, were to find our voice and tell our bishops that we want to help them avert an almost certain fiasco? What if we told them that we think it unwise to implement these changes until our people have been consulted in an adult manner that truly honors their intelligence and their baptismal birthright? What if we just said, “Wait, not until our people are ready for the new translations, but until the translations are ready for our people”?
Whoa! Priests standing up to bishops with a reasonable proposal to help avoid damaging the Church? The details of how this might work -- not reproduced here -- include trial runs in various parishes and consultation with the laity! Imagine!

It is an entirely sensible idea that would, if it was implemented, help to limit the fallout that is sure to follow the introduction of these awful translations.

Of course, the chances of it making a difference are slim, given the way the bishops are ruling the church. And if there are any lay people whose voices register with them, they are the ones who support the new translations -- which they support, of course, because their knee-jerk reaction is to support anything opposed by progressives in the church.

I have a feeling they'll get their crappy liturgy, and with it the smaller, "more faithful," and more flock-of-sheep-like church they so desire.

You can read Fr. Ryan's whole article here, or check out the petition site here.

I don't understand the purpose of on-line petitions, especially when they do not require the signers to give contact information. Apparently some people who have signed don't even see the need to leave their name, as many signed it "Anonymous."


Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I, too, do not grasp the strategy of on-line petititions, but as for this one there is a request for contact information (email address) and one does need to sign his/her name but can request that it appear as anonymous.

4:12 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I signed the petition and then read through the list of signees. I was amazed to see many priests, religious and lay ministers among them. In a time when we have such authoritarian people in power, it is nice to see that so many are willing to stand up for what they believe.

10:08 a.m.  
Blogger PrickliestPear said...

It didn't occur to me that the information displayed on the site is not all of the information given by the signers of the petition, so I was mistaken in suggesting this was pointless. Oops.

It's good to see that this is getting some attention, but I can't see Rome (where the real decisions about this are obviously being made) giving in on this one.

12:39 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.