On the New Mass
Oct 28, 2011
Matthew Hennessey
I had a conversation recently with someone very close to me. Despite being raised a Catholic—and even spending some time in a seminary—this person has fallen away from the faith. While I believe he still identifies as a Catholic in a hereditary sense, he is angry about the sexual abuse scandals, highly critical of the Church and its bishops, and does not attend mass in anything like a regular fashion.
Although I try hard to avoid discussing matters of faith with this fellow, it’s not always easy. He feels passionately that the Church has lost its way. While he knows that I am serious about my faith, and that my wife and I are raising our children in the Church, he often can’t resist pointing out just what he feels is wrong with Catholicism and how he thinks it can be fixed. His various grievances usually boil down to some variation of, “Christ was all right, but his followers really turn me off.” His various recommended fixes resemble standard-issue liberation theology.
Our recent discussion touched on the upcoming introduction of the new Mass translation. My friend lived through the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council, and remembers fondly the institution of the English mass and the turning around of the altar. At the time, he told me, these changes were greeted as a long-overdue and very welcome “opening up” of the Church. To him, the new translation sounds like the beginning of a roll-back of these important reforms.
What my friend always leaves out from these conversations is that he doesn’t attend mass anymore anyway, so the new translation is not of any material significance to his life. In fact, he stopped going to Mass well before the sexual abuse scandal became a defining issue for the Church. The anger and alienation he professes is therefore, in my view, something of a cover for his laziness. I believe this is true of many of the Church’s most vociferous public critics—for the most part nominal Catholics for whom the arrival of the scandal provided a convenient cudgel with which to beat an institution they had already abandoned.
The revolutionary developments of the late 1960s—the ones my friend remembers so affectionately—weren’t, in the end, enough to keep him and his cohort in communion with the Church whose hierarchy they now find so odious. My friend never considers for a minute the possibility that some of the reforms he found so timely and vital may have opened up the Church a little too much. He will not acknowledge the prospect that the current crisis in the American Catholic Church is at least partially a result of the Second Vatican Council’s well-intended attempts to let in some fresh air.
I am no scholar of Church history, nor am I a liturgical expert. But I am conservative by temperament, and so I operate on the general assumption that unforeseen and unintended consequences almost always outweigh the benefits of change. With 20/20 hindsight, I am inclined to view misguided reforms in the so-called “spirit” of the Second Vatican Council (which is not to say the council itself) as in some way leading to the current moment of general crisis. My gut has always told me that—despite the infinite moral asymmetry between the two—the guitar mass is at least as responsible for the diminution of American Catholicism as the sex abuse scandal.
Like I said, I try to avoid these conversations when possible. Nothing I can say is ever likely to persuade my friend that the Church is not what he imagines it is. I haven’t given up hope that with patience, and with God’s grace, he will see the error of his ways and return to the practice of the faith he was born into. Yet, as I frequently point out to him, there are any number of Christian denominations from which he could choose, were he so inclined, many of which are built around the reforms he sees as vital to Catholicism’s redemption. That he hasn’t done so indicates that he may not be as interested in reforming the Church as in tearing it down.
On the other hand, it’s easy for me to see how unsettling the new translation will be to some faithful Catholics. The notion that a familiar ritual—any familiar ritual, but especially one that sits at the heart of a system of belief—can be declared outmoded or invalid and revamped seemingly without warning is disturbing. But that’s not what is happening here. It’s important to remember that we are not getting a new Mass, merely a new translation. Latin is, was, and ever shall be the official language of the Church, and the Mass—whether in English, Spanish, or Italian—will always and everywhere be translated from the Latin.
In fact, as I understand it, the new translation is a more accurate rendition of the Latin Mass, correcting some of the less precise word choices stemming from the original translators’ desire to get the job done quickly. You might call it a more faithful translation. My own feeling: Simply moving forward isn’t progress if you’ve made a wrong turn. Sometimes, returning to the spot where you lost your way and selecting the right path instead is the true way forward, though it may feel like travelling in the wrong direction.
Somehow, I doubt my friend would agree.
Matthew Hennessey is a writer and editor who lives in New Canaan, CT. You can follow him on Twitter @MattHennessey.
Fall Web Campaign: Please donate to support the online mission of First Things.
Comments:
10.28.2011 | 3:56am
Being Alone says:
The English language has so many words to choose from. Whether the translation in English was intended to be that way or not, it must be corrected.
10.28.2011 | 6:32am
Brian LeCompte says:
It is a mark of the Holy Spirit that the Church can reform without losing anything substantive.
10.28.2011 | 6:52am
DVO says:
I don't think Marshall McLuhan had the church in mind when he said "the medium is the message" but if the shoes fits...
10.28.2011 | 6:54am
Charles Lee says:
In AA, we're cautioned against taking another person's inventory, meaning: it's difficult enough to discern the intentions of one's own heart, much less someone else's. Matthew, can you be so sure of the deepest intentions of your friend's heart that you can ascribe "error of his ways"? Is it charitable or kind to engage in such a dressing-down of a friend, especially in a public forum to which the friend has no ability to respond?
Many catholics love their church yet resent the efforts since the 1980s to roll back the reforms of Vatican II.
I suggest you send a copy of your essay to your friend and ask him if you got the details in his heart correct, and invite him to write a response of his own.
Many catholics love their church yet resent the efforts since the 1980s to roll back the reforms of Vatican II.
I suggest you send a copy of your essay to your friend and ask him if you got the details in his heart correct, and invite him to write a response of his own.
10.28.2011 | 6:57am
Resh Galuta says:
"Latin is, was, and ever shall be the official language of the Church, and the Mass—whether in English, Spanish, or Italian—will always and everywhere be translated from the Latin."
Errat hic auctor per ignorantiam an per insipientiam an per utramque. Multos per annos orabat omnis Ecclesia Graece. Immo dubitant edocti utrum umquam locutus sit ipse Dominus Latine. (Cum Pilato visus est in Evangelio Graece loqui.) Lingua Romana tunc tantum introducta est cum iam multi Christiani linguam Graecam litterasque Graecas legere not possent, ut orarent illi lingua cotidiana. Etiam hodie vivunt Christiani tum intra Ecclesiam cum in communione plena cum Illa quibus lingua Latina utique incognita sit dum orant lingua Graeca, Syrica, Slavonica, aliisque permultis.
Errat hic auctor per ignorantiam an per insipientiam an per utramque. Multos per annos orabat omnis Ecclesia Graece. Immo dubitant edocti utrum umquam locutus sit ipse Dominus Latine. (Cum Pilato visus est in Evangelio Graece loqui.) Lingua Romana tunc tantum introducta est cum iam multi Christiani linguam Graecam litterasque Graecas legere not possent, ut orarent illi lingua cotidiana. Etiam hodie vivunt Christiani tum intra Ecclesiam cum in communione plena cum Illa quibus lingua Latina utique incognita sit dum orant lingua Graeca, Syrica, Slavonica, aliisque permultis.
10.28.2011 | 7:02am
michael Currie says:
I am 63 years old. I have been going to Mass regularly for 40 years after a time in my youth when I had more important things to do; chasing girls and having a good time. Before that I went to Mass in my youth because my parents made me go. In those early days the Mass was in latin and in the last 40 years it has been in english. While I understand the importance of a faithful translation,and agree that it should be so, my attention at Mass was on the central drama taking place before me and in different ways it has always been thus. In my early days the structure, language and solemnity of the mass drew me in despite my youthful anarchy. The outer elements of the Mass had a power that later versions did not. Later it was the interior truths that I brought to the Mass that kept my focus on the Eucharist and the miracle of the mass.
My point is that no matter how uplifting and true the language is and allowing for those instances when the sheer beauty and transcendence of the Mass itself draws people to its' eternal truth, unless we have been taught the meaning of the words and their importance in life, in other words what it means to be Catholic, the liturgy in any form won't have much effect. I'm happy for the change but now the battle is elsewhere.
My point is that no matter how uplifting and true the language is and allowing for those instances when the sheer beauty and transcendence of the Mass itself draws people to its' eternal truth, unless we have been taught the meaning of the words and their importance in life, in other words what it means to be Catholic, the liturgy in any form won't have much effect. I'm happy for the change but now the battle is elsewhere.
10.28.2011 | 8:09am
Randy says:
The other benefit--aside from more carefully translating the Latin, and including more of the built-in scriptural references--is that the whole liturgy is made new again. Everybody is a neophyte again, and we can no longer just rattle off sentences without thinking. But we in the pews have it easy. The priests and music directors have the hardest work to do, to get up to speed. I pray for their brain cells along with mine.
10.28.2011 | 8:33am
Christine says:
As a convert to Catholicism since the late 90's I welcome the restored Mass translation. Coming from a conservative Lutheran background where "and with thy spirit" is still used in the old Common Service, the Mass texts that I encountered at the Catholic parish where I was received into the Church were an adjustment. Surely the Church can do better than that, I thought back then. Now she has, thanks be to God.
10.28.2011 | 8:58am
greggo says:
Resh got it right. Thank you. Your Latin is pretty good
"Latin is, was, and ever shall be the official language of the Church, and the Mass" Well no not really. The easy question is: Was the last Supper in Latin? And another point, for old folks this change in language may seem conservative but to kids it is a change. The true conservatives will want to keep everything just as it was last week.
:
"Latin is, was, and ever shall be the official language of the Church, and the Mass" Well no not really. The easy question is: Was the last Supper in Latin? And another point, for old folks this change in language may seem conservative but to kids it is a change. The true conservatives will want to keep everything just as it was last week.
:
10.28.2011 | 9:13am
Donna Mollica says:
I am still reeling from the author equating "the guitar mass" with the "sex abuse scandal" -- I cannot in my heart or mind bring those two issues into relationship with each other. The guitar mass was a way at the beginning of Vatican II to open liturgy to "full, conscious participation of the laity" in liturgy. It wasn't successful but it was a "good faith" attempt to engage the reforms of the Council. The sex abuse scandal is evidence of the institutional sin at the heart of the hierarchcy or "magisterium" if that is your preferred reference. I am not lazy and I have never been a lazy Roman Catholic. I am almost 60 years old and I have struggled all my life to remain faithful to the Church in spite of what I have perceived as a "rot" of authority and male privilege at the heart of the hierarchy that I know Jesus would confront if he were walking here with us today. However, this latest revision of the mass has "broken" my capabilities to stretch over the chasm that opens farther and farther as the spirit of the Second Vatican Council grows ever more firmly in my heart and life, and Rome continues its assault on the spirit of Vatican II without having the courage to call a new Council. I think it is fine and good that there are many in the church who welcome this change. But I would encourage those who do not to condemn those of us who cannot as "lazy" or "fallen away" Catholics. The Vatican II documents define the church as "the people of God". Maybe your friend doesn't join another Christian church because he remains faithful to the Catholic tradition of the saints and because he finds ways to be part of "the people of God" who are finding discipleship and people of God in new ways.
10.28.2011 | 10:03am
Dana says:
The guitar Mass is dreadful. It reduces something full of mystery and reverence to a self-indulgent jam session. You might as well be down the street at the Methodist church!
10.28.2011 | 10:04am
Artaban7 says:
As a 31 year-old Catholic theology teacher, I didn't live through Vatican II, but must admit trepidation at the changes.
I conform myself to the changes, even the loss of several much beloved responses, out of loyalty to the Church and as a practical exercise in the vital virtue of obedience. Yet I still wonder if the costs will prove to outweigh the benefits. I believe Mark Twain once said the only people that like change are babies with wet diapers.
Change that is necessary and good is often nonetheless painful, and I hope in the Spirit that this proves so...
"The sex abuse scandal is evidence of the institutional sin at the heart of the hierarchcy or "magisterium" if that is your preferred reference."
Donna, you make the fundamental error of mistaking Original Sin and institutional sin. All institutions will have members that sin, since all institutions are made of human sinners. That doesn't mean the institution itself has enshrined or formalized sin. The sex abuse scandal is evidence of two things:
1) The universality of human sin, with the % of priestly abusers being no greater than any other religious group studied, and indeed less than some secular ones (public school teachers).
2) And the pervasiveness of anti-Catholic bigotry among so many in the media and public.
I conform myself to the changes, even the loss of several much beloved responses, out of loyalty to the Church and as a practical exercise in the vital virtue of obedience. Yet I still wonder if the costs will prove to outweigh the benefits. I believe Mark Twain once said the only people that like change are babies with wet diapers.
Change that is necessary and good is often nonetheless painful, and I hope in the Spirit that this proves so...
"The sex abuse scandal is evidence of the institutional sin at the heart of the hierarchcy or "magisterium" if that is your preferred reference."
Donna, you make the fundamental error of mistaking Original Sin and institutional sin. All institutions will have members that sin, since all institutions are made of human sinners. That doesn't mean the institution itself has enshrined or formalized sin. The sex abuse scandal is evidence of two things:
1) The universality of human sin, with the % of priestly abusers being no greater than any other religious group studied, and indeed less than some secular ones (public school teachers).
2) And the pervasiveness of anti-Catholic bigotry among so many in the media and public.
10.28.2011 | 10:13am
Open24 says:
“Christ was all right, but his followers really turn me off.”
That's actually a quote from Ghandi, it goes like this:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Ghandi
That's actually a quote from Ghandi, it goes like this:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Ghandi
10.28.2011 | 10:49am
Ed says:
Donna Mollica is in serious error on dates and facts.
First, Vatican II did not authorize the changes in the Liturgy. The Council closed in 1965. Pope Paul VI unleashed the "Novus Ordo" Mass on an unsuspecting faithful in 1968. By any standard, the "Novus Ordo" Mass is an abomination.
Second, there is no thing as "the spirit of Vatican II". This phrase is not found in any of the Constitutions, Derees or Declarations of the Council. The only spirit present at Vatican II was the Holy Spirit.
Third, Vatican II clearly and unambiguously reaffirmed the Pope's authority over not just the faithful, but all other bishops. "The college or body of bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head, whose primatial authority, let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful, remains in its integrity. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as the Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." "Lumen Gentium", no. 22. Put simply, the Pope is "the supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful." Id., no. 25.
Fourth, many dissenting theologians were exceedingly unhappy with the Council's reaffirmation of the Pope's supreme authority. In response, these heretics and apostates coined and adopted the phrase "spirit of Vatican II". They claimed that "spirit" authorized them to ignore the Pope's authority and set themselves up as a counter-Magisterium. Not surprisingly, Miss Mollica mocks the Magisterium precisely because she believes in the "spirit of Vatican II". In all events, Vatican II did not authorize these dissenting theologians to usurp the Pope's (or the Magisterium's) authority. Almost immediately, the "spirit of Vatican II" became a license for heresy, and it spread through the Church like a malignant cancer.
Fifth, while the number of heresies unleashed in the "spirit of Vatican II" are too numerous to list here, it is telling (and maybe ironic) that in June 1972 Paul VI despaired that "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church." While there is dispute about exactly to what he referred, some who were close to Paul assert he was referring to the liturgical abuses arising from his authorization of the "Novus Ordo" Mass. There is your link, Miss Mollica, from the current Mass to the "spirit of Vatican II"--"the smoke of Satan".
Sixth, Miss Mollica is rightly upset about the clergy sex abuse problem. Sadly, she seems not to understand cause of the problem. Not surprisingly, she blames the institutional Church and the Magisterium. On this point Miss Mollica is most seriously in error. The clergy sex abuse problem is the direct and inexorable consequence of the "spirit of Vatican II" that Miss Mollica worships. In particular, after Vatican II, dissenting theologians and other enemies of the Roman Church objected to the Church's doctrines regarding, inter alia, homosexuality, priestly celibacy and female ordination. Not able to convince even liberal bishops, let alone the Pope, that these doctrines were "outdated", these heretics hijacked the seminaries. After that, the seminaries began to accept only men who supported these dissident views. In short order, the halls of the Church were three deep with men you were unfit for the priesthood for the prior almost two thousand years. The clergy sex abuse problem followed shortly. This entire problem and its cause is well-documented in Michael Rose's "Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church". The "spirit of Vatican II" caused the sex abuse problem. The "spirit of Vatican II" is Satan's latest assault on the Church.
First, Vatican II did not authorize the changes in the Liturgy. The Council closed in 1965. Pope Paul VI unleashed the "Novus Ordo" Mass on an unsuspecting faithful in 1968. By any standard, the "Novus Ordo" Mass is an abomination.
Second, there is no thing as "the spirit of Vatican II". This phrase is not found in any of the Constitutions, Derees or Declarations of the Council. The only spirit present at Vatican II was the Holy Spirit.
Third, Vatican II clearly and unambiguously reaffirmed the Pope's authority over not just the faithful, but all other bishops. "The college or body of bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head, whose primatial authority, let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful, remains in its integrity. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as the Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." "Lumen Gentium", no. 22. Put simply, the Pope is "the supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful." Id., no. 25.
Fourth, many dissenting theologians were exceedingly unhappy with the Council's reaffirmation of the Pope's supreme authority. In response, these heretics and apostates coined and adopted the phrase "spirit of Vatican II". They claimed that "spirit" authorized them to ignore the Pope's authority and set themselves up as a counter-Magisterium. Not surprisingly, Miss Mollica mocks the Magisterium precisely because she believes in the "spirit of Vatican II". In all events, Vatican II did not authorize these dissenting theologians to usurp the Pope's (or the Magisterium's) authority. Almost immediately, the "spirit of Vatican II" became a license for heresy, and it spread through the Church like a malignant cancer.
Fifth, while the number of heresies unleashed in the "spirit of Vatican II" are too numerous to list here, it is telling (and maybe ironic) that in June 1972 Paul VI despaired that "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church." While there is dispute about exactly to what he referred, some who were close to Paul assert he was referring to the liturgical abuses arising from his authorization of the "Novus Ordo" Mass. There is your link, Miss Mollica, from the current Mass to the "spirit of Vatican II"--"the smoke of Satan".
Sixth, Miss Mollica is rightly upset about the clergy sex abuse problem. Sadly, she seems not to understand cause of the problem. Not surprisingly, she blames the institutional Church and the Magisterium. On this point Miss Mollica is most seriously in error. The clergy sex abuse problem is the direct and inexorable consequence of the "spirit of Vatican II" that Miss Mollica worships. In particular, after Vatican II, dissenting theologians and other enemies of the Roman Church objected to the Church's doctrines regarding, inter alia, homosexuality, priestly celibacy and female ordination. Not able to convince even liberal bishops, let alone the Pope, that these doctrines were "outdated", these heretics hijacked the seminaries. After that, the seminaries began to accept only men who supported these dissident views. In short order, the halls of the Church were three deep with men you were unfit for the priesthood for the prior almost two thousand years. The clergy sex abuse problem followed shortly. This entire problem and its cause is well-documented in Michael Rose's "Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church". The "spirit of Vatican II" caused the sex abuse problem. The "spirit of Vatican II" is Satan's latest assault on the Church.
10.28.2011 | 10:55am
Fralupo says:
Joe DeVet:
Every language is going to get a new translation to line up with the 3rd Edition of the Roman Missal. Here are some links that show how its going in the US and Europe:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1349710?eng=y
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/10/pro-multis-in-the-the-misal-romano-tercera-edicion-for-the-usa/
Some languages need greater revisions than others, but it seems like every language is getting reissued.
Every language is going to get a new translation to line up with the 3rd Edition of the Roman Missal. Here are some links that show how its going in the US and Europe:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1349710?eng=y
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/10/pro-multis-in-the-the-misal-romano-tercera-edicion-for-the-usa/
Some languages need greater revisions than others, but it seems like every language is getting reissued.
10.28.2011 | 11:14am
Chris says:
There is a simple, yet profound solution to your friend's problem: Go to Confession!
I am not trying to be glib. The problem is not in the Church, it is in his heart and soul. If Jesus chose the Church to be His Bride with the full knowledge that She would be filled with sinners until the Second Coming, then it sure well behooves us to follow His choice. He knows better than us what it is to suffer for sins. Your friend only thinks he does. He IS the problem. Just as each of us, IS the problem in some way, shape, or form.
I am not trying to be glib. The problem is not in the Church, it is in his heart and soul. If Jesus chose the Church to be His Bride with the full knowledge that She would be filled with sinners until the Second Coming, then it sure well behooves us to follow His choice. He knows better than us what it is to suffer for sins. Your friend only thinks he does. He IS the problem. Just as each of us, IS the problem in some way, shape, or form.
10.28.2011 | 12:06pm
richard a aylward says:
The problem with Hennessey's friend is that he never believed that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, like Christ divine and human. The human is always messy. All problems stem from the lack of belief in the Incarnation. Mary is truly the Mother of God and she changed the diapers of the Son of Man. And those who have problems with the Incarnation are also those who have problems with those divine and human signs we call sacraments. Like bread becoming the Body of Christ and wine the Blood. Messy but marvelous, a whole world charged with the grandeur of God.
10.28.2011 | 1:03pm
bierce says:
"Latin is, was, and ever shall be the official language of the Church, and the Mass"
Kyrie, eleison.
Christe, eleison.
Halleluya.
Kyrie, eleison.
Christe, eleison.
Halleluya.
10.28.2011 | 1:28pm
The Moz says:
Can't wait for the new translation; excited at the prospect of putting more emphasis on the sacredness of the liturgy; it is sorely needed. Guitar Catholicism has been worse for the Church than the abuse scandal. Obviously the abuse scandal is a monstrous sin but the guitar church actually caused many more people to fall away.
10.28.2011 | 2:15pm
harry says:
“Latin is, was, and ever shall be the official language of the Church ...”
Actually, the liturgy was in Greek for hundreds of years. Some scholars believe "Kyrie Eleison" (Greek for "Lord have mercy") which was used in the Latin Mass for centuries, was a remnant of the Greek liturgy, which is certain was the language of the Mass in Rome to the end of the second century. Others believe that Pope Damasus, who had Jerome translate the Scriptures into Latin, also began the transition of the language of the liturgy from Greek to Latin. Latin had become the language of the people.
The essentials of the Mass have been the same for two-thousand years, as is obvious from reading St. Justin's (martyred ca. A.D. 169) descriptions of the liturgy of the Mass of his day. As for changes to it, I think once one has a grip on the spiritual reality of the Mass – we are made present at the passion and death of Jesus, who becomes truly present under the appearances of bread and wine – that how we arrived there shouldn't matter nearly as much as that we are there.
I think the rule should simply be to have Mass said according to one of the Church's currently approved standards using “authorized words” as St. Cyprian (died A.D. 258) insisted upon. I have had my children, upon returning from a non-standard Mass using unauthorized words, presumably to make it more “relevant,” tell me they weren't sure if they had actually attended a Mass. They wanted to know if I thought they had fulfilled their Sunday obligation. That should *never* happen in the Universal Church if it is to remain truly universal. Mass should be essentially the same everywhere and essentially the same as it has been for two-thousand years.
Actually, the liturgy was in Greek for hundreds of years. Some scholars believe "Kyrie Eleison" (Greek for "Lord have mercy") which was used in the Latin Mass for centuries, was a remnant of the Greek liturgy, which is certain was the language of the Mass in Rome to the end of the second century. Others believe that Pope Damasus, who had Jerome translate the Scriptures into Latin, also began the transition of the language of the liturgy from Greek to Latin. Latin had become the language of the people.
The essentials of the Mass have been the same for two-thousand years, as is obvious from reading St. Justin's (martyred ca. A.D. 169) descriptions of the liturgy of the Mass of his day. As for changes to it, I think once one has a grip on the spiritual reality of the Mass – we are made present at the passion and death of Jesus, who becomes truly present under the appearances of bread and wine – that how we arrived there shouldn't matter nearly as much as that we are there.
I think the rule should simply be to have Mass said according to one of the Church's currently approved standards using “authorized words” as St. Cyprian (died A.D. 258) insisted upon. I have had my children, upon returning from a non-standard Mass using unauthorized words, presumably to make it more “relevant,” tell me they weren't sure if they had actually attended a Mass. They wanted to know if I thought they had fulfilled their Sunday obligation. That should *never* happen in the Universal Church if it is to remain truly universal. Mass should be essentially the same everywhere and essentially the same as it has been for two-thousand years.
10.28.2011 | 2:36pm
Ed says:
The "essentials of the Mass" have not been the same for two thousands years. The essentials were the same, evolving organically and imperceptibly, until 1968. "The most severe verdict on the new Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI, against the urgent advice advice of many bishops, was given by then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, when he said * * * that 'a liturgy that had grown organically had been pushed aside in favor of a fabricated liturgy.'" Martin Mosebach, "The Heresy of Formlessness: The Roman Liturgy and Its Enemy", at 192. Virtually no aspect of the Mass was unscathed, especially the "essentials".
10.28.2011 | 2:47pm
harry says:
Hi, Ed,
Read St. Justin's description of the Mass of his day and see what you think.
Thanks,
Harry
Read St. Justin's description of the Mass of his day and see what you think.
Thanks,
Harry
10.28.2011 | 2:55pm
Nancy says:
Dust off a copy of the New Saint Joseph Sunday Missal. Imprimatur: Francis Cardinal Spellman, D.D July 1, 1957. There you will find 95% of of what is being hailed as 'the new translation'. I may have missed it but where is it printed...out of respect for basic honesty...that the Church used to say 'and with your spirit' and the Nicene Creed did start with "I" rather than 'we'. The creed then was written with 'and was made Flesh by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary' but if the cumbersome word 'incarnate' works so be it. A rush to dictionary.com will give the made flesh definition. I know people going to seminars, buying books, and all other sorts of meetings to help understand this new translation. Please---we follow as sheep so stop treating us as if we're as dumb as rocks. The mainstream media does that enough, let our Church be clear.
10.28.2011 | 2:55pm
harry says:
Hi again, Ed,
I forgot to mention that St. Justin's description of the Mass can be found, among other places, in #1345 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Thanks
I forgot to mention that St. Justin's description of the Mass can be found, among other places, in #1345 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Thanks
10.28.2011 | 3:13pm
Mick Leahy says:
Two points.
I don't think it was simply 'guitars' that did so much harm to the Church, but they are certainly a good symbol. I think the real harm began in a new 'nice' cathechesis, which seems to have abolished concepts such as hell, sin and damnation, and replaced them with a limp 'sign of the peace' and so on.
Secondly, I wish to commend Ed for a great summary of the situation regarding child abuse and its background, but would wish to add one point, if I may. In the sixties the Church, in some quarters, adopted some ideas from Freud (or as Chesterton described him, 'Fraud' ), to the extent that abusers were simply 'sick' people who could be treated and cured, rather than sinners who had committed evil. Ergo, who could be called a sinner? If this could be 'got away with', people who committed lesser sins such as illicit sex with consenting adults could easily reason this away as trivial. Of course, it was of little surprise that these treated abusers re-offended.
I don't think it was simply 'guitars' that did so much harm to the Church, but they are certainly a good symbol. I think the real harm began in a new 'nice' cathechesis, which seems to have abolished concepts such as hell, sin and damnation, and replaced them with a limp 'sign of the peace' and so on.
Secondly, I wish to commend Ed for a great summary of the situation regarding child abuse and its background, but would wish to add one point, if I may. In the sixties the Church, in some quarters, adopted some ideas from Freud (or as Chesterton described him, 'Fraud' ), to the extent that abusers were simply 'sick' people who could be treated and cured, rather than sinners who had committed evil. Ergo, who could be called a sinner? If this could be 'got away with', people who committed lesser sins such as illicit sex with consenting adults could easily reason this away as trivial. Of course, it was of little surprise that these treated abusers re-offended.
10.28.2011 | 4:00pm
Ed says:
Harry, many thanks. I have read St. Justin's description. Frankly, it is a bit vague, at least with respect to all the niceties. I do not dispute any of it; I continue to believe St. Justin would be scandalized by the Novus Ordo Mass and find nothing familiar or proper about it. Permit me to make a few observations.
The Liturgy was never supposed to be an "active" event. Thus, the priest did not face the congregation and the practice of veiling was prevalent. I should like to go back a bit further than St. Justin. The Last Supper was decidedly not an active event; the apostles had no active roles. In fact, Peter was admonished to be passive. It is, I suggest, beyond serious debate that the Novus Ordo Mass is nothing short of a congregational pep rally.
Until 1968, music at the Liturgy was Gregorian Chant, although admittedly the use of the Chant diminished before 1968 and Vatican II. But nothing so hideous as the guitar (and bongos and many other silly things) filled the void. Better a void than the non-liturgical songs played on instruments better suited to a 1960s suburban garage.
St. Justin also would not recognize the Novus Ordo Mass because virtually all kneeling that had existed for 1,960 years was eliminated. Most significantly, from the time of the ancient Church, Communion was always received while kneeling. Receiving the Body in the hands is an obvious transgression.
As mentioned above, veiling has been discarded. There is no longer the veil of silence during the Canon. There is no longer veiling of the sacred vessels and ciboria. The rite of the veiled paten is gone. Virtually all the mystery of the Liturgy has been removed. The new liturgy is, as then Cardinal Ratzinger said, a "fabricated liturgy". In fact, it was turned into a 1960s feel-good lovefest.
There are dozens of other aspects of the pre-1968 liturgy that have been eliminated or obscured beyond recognition. Something that seems to have been forgotten during those nihilistic days in the late 1960s is that the Council of Trent held that nothing in the Liturgy is "unnecessary or superfluous".
Best,
Ed
The Liturgy was never supposed to be an "active" event. Thus, the priest did not face the congregation and the practice of veiling was prevalent. I should like to go back a bit further than St. Justin. The Last Supper was decidedly not an active event; the apostles had no active roles. In fact, Peter was admonished to be passive. It is, I suggest, beyond serious debate that the Novus Ordo Mass is nothing short of a congregational pep rally.
Until 1968, music at the Liturgy was Gregorian Chant, although admittedly the use of the Chant diminished before 1968 and Vatican II. But nothing so hideous as the guitar (and bongos and many other silly things) filled the void. Better a void than the non-liturgical songs played on instruments better suited to a 1960s suburban garage.
St. Justin also would not recognize the Novus Ordo Mass because virtually all kneeling that had existed for 1,960 years was eliminated. Most significantly, from the time of the ancient Church, Communion was always received while kneeling. Receiving the Body in the hands is an obvious transgression.
As mentioned above, veiling has been discarded. There is no longer the veil of silence during the Canon. There is no longer veiling of the sacred vessels and ciboria. The rite of the veiled paten is gone. Virtually all the mystery of the Liturgy has been removed. The new liturgy is, as then Cardinal Ratzinger said, a "fabricated liturgy". In fact, it was turned into a 1960s feel-good lovefest.
There are dozens of other aspects of the pre-1968 liturgy that have been eliminated or obscured beyond recognition. Something that seems to have been forgotten during those nihilistic days in the late 1960s is that the Council of Trent held that nothing in the Liturgy is "unnecessary or superfluous".
Best,
Ed
10.28.2011 | 4:37pm
Jonathan says:
As far as I can tell, the "new" translations are very close to the first English translation I knew as a small boy...during that small sliver of time between 1965 and 1970 when the Tridentine Mass was being said in English in the USA. There are very few deviations from the incoming Missal and the missalette I took as a souvenir of my First Communion (I think Father gave me permission to take it, but say a prayer for me nonetheless!).
I am delighted that the Church is doing this, and look forward to more changes in the future...down the same path of restoring a sense of continuity with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the ages. If that be "turning the clock back," well, you know what? So be it. My alarm clock turns both forward and back, depending on which way it needs adjusting.
I am delighted that the Church is doing this, and look forward to more changes in the future...down the same path of restoring a sense of continuity with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the ages. If that be "turning the clock back," well, you know what? So be it. My alarm clock turns both forward and back, depending on which way it needs adjusting.
10.28.2011 | 9:56pm
sally r says:
The mistranslation of the Mass into English was not caused by haste, but rather by a consciously chosen method of translation known as "dynamic translation".
Rather than rendering a direct translation of the words into English words and syntax, the translators sought to "give a sense" of what was meant in the prayers. This usually meant omitting words and sometimes whole phrases that were perfectly easy to translate into English. Look at the Confiteor and the Gloria and you will see what I mean - the earlier version simply omits a few words of the prayers.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa - becomes "my own fault." Really? C'mon. Anyone can look at that and see that this is not a real translation, but a changing of the prayer itself. That meant we in the English speaking church weren't praying the same prayers as all the other languages were praying. There was no reason for this, and it's a good thing to put us all on the same page. We are the Universal Church, after all.
Rather than rendering a direct translation of the words into English words and syntax, the translators sought to "give a sense" of what was meant in the prayers. This usually meant omitting words and sometimes whole phrases that were perfectly easy to translate into English. Look at the Confiteor and the Gloria and you will see what I mean - the earlier version simply omits a few words of the prayers.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa - becomes "my own fault." Really? C'mon. Anyone can look at that and see that this is not a real translation, but a changing of the prayer itself. That meant we in the English speaking church weren't praying the same prayers as all the other languages were praying. There was no reason for this, and it's a good thing to put us all on the same page. We are the Universal Church, after all.
10.29.2011 | 9:14am
pdn Michael says:
Resh Galuta that was impressive! And thanks also to Harry's point about Latin becoming "official" at a surprisingly late date. To an Orthodox like me, a Catholic might say MYOB, and as a rule I would. And to be fair, there are a few variations on the Orthodox Divine Liturgy of a pseudo-King James version from the early 20th century that, to be charitable, sounds just like what it was, a translation by guys whose primary language was probably Russian or a "Galician" variant trying to effect King James English, and the result is predictably less than artful. And, it is fast becoming, to the Orthodox, just what Latin was to American Catholics prior to VII: Unintelligible.
(An Orthodox priest who is a good friend of mine is absolutely inflexible in his insistence on one of those pseudo KJ versions of the Liturgy. But he took it in good humor when I gave him a copy of New Skete Monastery's translation and suggested he publish a "parallel" pew edition with both versions on facing pages so that at least his parishioners could see what they were saying and singing meant in English). :)
However, (and hats off also to sally r) the Orthodox in North America haven't had the "blessing" of anything quite like the dynamic equivalent approach to Liturgical texts. At least to my ear, the Novus Ordo mass prayers are extremely pedestrian and not as inspiring as, apparently, the 1962 Latin. What I've seen of the latest translation is really, in my view, outstanding. In addition to a much more solid, biblical and theological "feel," it somehow seems to get the English version of the Latin rite more in accord with the prayers that were prayed for centuries, not only in the Latin rite but in Greek, Slavonic and Arabic and numerous other languages as well. In other words, an Orthodox Christian can detect "our" prayers in a way that was very difficult with the American Version of the Novus Ordo. In fact, and being fully aware that I risk inviting a bunch of Catholics to pile opprobrium on me, the latest translation might be a viewed as a de-Latinization in favor of a re-Catholicization of the mass.
Which brings me back to the MYOB part. Since the Liturgies are from an essentially common patrimony for which, so long as full communion remains unrealized, we are both responsible, it SHOULD matter what the other is doing with the texts. I suspect Catholics would agree with the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory that, "in the Liturgy, the Church truly becomes what she is." Thus, we should encourage one another in the quest for liturgical authenticity where the faith is prayed, proclaimed and celebrated among man and the bodiless powers of heaven. So in Christian friendliness I suggest to all Catholics of good will, and this sounds weird coming from an Orthodox, just do what the pope tells you!
(An Orthodox priest who is a good friend of mine is absolutely inflexible in his insistence on one of those pseudo KJ versions of the Liturgy. But he took it in good humor when I gave him a copy of New Skete Monastery's translation and suggested he publish a "parallel" pew edition with both versions on facing pages so that at least his parishioners could see what they were saying and singing meant in English). :)
However, (and hats off also to sally r) the Orthodox in North America haven't had the "blessing" of anything quite like the dynamic equivalent approach to Liturgical texts. At least to my ear, the Novus Ordo mass prayers are extremely pedestrian and not as inspiring as, apparently, the 1962 Latin. What I've seen of the latest translation is really, in my view, outstanding. In addition to a much more solid, biblical and theological "feel," it somehow seems to get the English version of the Latin rite more in accord with the prayers that were prayed for centuries, not only in the Latin rite but in Greek, Slavonic and Arabic and numerous other languages as well. In other words, an Orthodox Christian can detect "our" prayers in a way that was very difficult with the American Version of the Novus Ordo. In fact, and being fully aware that I risk inviting a bunch of Catholics to pile opprobrium on me, the latest translation might be a viewed as a de-Latinization in favor of a re-Catholicization of the mass.
Which brings me back to the MYOB part. Since the Liturgies are from an essentially common patrimony for which, so long as full communion remains unrealized, we are both responsible, it SHOULD matter what the other is doing with the texts. I suspect Catholics would agree with the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory that, "in the Liturgy, the Church truly becomes what she is." Thus, we should encourage one another in the quest for liturgical authenticity where the faith is prayed, proclaimed and celebrated among man and the bodiless powers of heaven. So in Christian friendliness I suggest to all Catholics of good will, and this sounds weird coming from an Orthodox, just do what the pope tells you!
10.29.2011 | 10:23am
harry says:
Hello, pdn Michael,
"Since the Liturgies are from an essentially common patrimony for which, so long as full communion remains unrealized, we are both responsible, it SHOULD matter what the other is doing with the texts."
Exactly.
"So in Christian friendliness I suggest to all Catholics of good will, and this sounds weird coming from an Orthodox, just do what the pope tells you!"
Exactly. Consider the following excerpts from *Mediator Dei*, written long before Vatican II and the liturgical changes that followed it:
"The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. ....
It follows from this that the **Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.** Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship. Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself."
--Pius XII in his encyclical Mediator Dei, November 20th, 1947
"Since the Liturgies are from an essentially common patrimony for which, so long as full communion remains unrealized, we are both responsible, it SHOULD matter what the other is doing with the texts."
Exactly.
"So in Christian friendliness I suggest to all Catholics of good will, and this sounds weird coming from an Orthodox, just do what the pope tells you!"
Exactly. Consider the following excerpts from *Mediator Dei*, written long before Vatican II and the liturgical changes that followed it:
"The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. ....
It follows from this that the **Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.** Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship. Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself."
--Pius XII in his encyclical Mediator Dei, November 20th, 1947
10.29.2011 | 10:33am
bill bannon says:
I agree with Donna and Charles Lee that radical critics are not always lazy. Bartolome de Las Casas,O.P.... led the Church toward Pope Paul III's 1537 rejection of the slavery permission granted by Pope Nicholas V (1455) and by 4 of his successor Popes to Iberia.
Pope Leo XIII dissented against the 29 Popes prior to him and ended the castrati system for the papal chiors in 1878 ( new advent seems to have blocked out the issue when you search there).
Las Casas and Pope Leo XIII had an inner whine...an inner revolt about their issues BUT... were high enough on the ladder to do something about it and thus they were not inclined to leave the Church as apparently many lower rung people have.
Pope Leo XIII dissented against the 29 Popes prior to him and ended the castrati system for the papal chiors in 1878 ( new advent seems to have blocked out the issue when you search there).
Las Casas and Pope Leo XIII had an inner whine...an inner revolt about their issues BUT... were high enough on the ladder to do something about it and thus they were not inclined to leave the Church as apparently many lower rung people have.
10.29.2011 | 12:31pm
Michael PS says:
The task of the translator is seldom straight-forward.
Take the familiar phrase, “per omnia saecula saeculorum.” “Saeculum” originally meant the annual increase of a herd or flock – It occurs in a prayer to Mars, quoted by Cato in the 2nd century BC that was of immemorial antiquity even then. Later, we find it being used to mean generation, in the temporal sense: Cicero speaks of an oak-tree that has seen many “saecula” of men. Later still, it comes to mean something like age or era, as when we speak of the Stone Age, or world, in the temporal sense, as in “the Ancient World.”
A literal, tentative translation would be “through all the ages of the ages,” which is scarcely English. The Book of Common Prayer translates it “world without end,” which is not really English either.
Take another example, “sed libera nos a malo.” Is “malo” neuter (evil) or masculine (the Evil One) There is nothing in the text to suggest one reading, rather than the other (and the Greek is equally ambiguous) “The Evil One” occurs in a number of 15th century English Primers.
Again, “et incarnatus est de spirtu sancto ex Maria virgine” is a far from literal translation of the Greek, which has “took flesh out of holy spirit and Mary the virgin.” Again, “Deum de Deo,” is an addition, corresponding to nothing in the original
Or, again, take “sanctorum communionem” in the Apostles’ Creed. It is usually translated “the communion of saints,” treating “sanctorum” as masculine. However, it could equally well be neuter: “a sharing in holy things.” It is plainly appositional to “Holy Catholic Church.” St Jerome exploits this ambiguity in the Latin to suggest it means both – and how does one translate that?
Take the familiar phrase, “per omnia saecula saeculorum.” “Saeculum” originally meant the annual increase of a herd or flock – It occurs in a prayer to Mars, quoted by Cato in the 2nd century BC that was of immemorial antiquity even then. Later, we find it being used to mean generation, in the temporal sense: Cicero speaks of an oak-tree that has seen many “saecula” of men. Later still, it comes to mean something like age or era, as when we speak of the Stone Age, or world, in the temporal sense, as in “the Ancient World.”
A literal, tentative translation would be “through all the ages of the ages,” which is scarcely English. The Book of Common Prayer translates it “world without end,” which is not really English either.
Take another example, “sed libera nos a malo.” Is “malo” neuter (evil) or masculine (the Evil One) There is nothing in the text to suggest one reading, rather than the other (and the Greek is equally ambiguous) “The Evil One” occurs in a number of 15th century English Primers.
Again, “et incarnatus est de spirtu sancto ex Maria virgine” is a far from literal translation of the Greek, which has “took flesh out of holy spirit and Mary the virgin.” Again, “Deum de Deo,” is an addition, corresponding to nothing in the original
Or, again, take “sanctorum communionem” in the Apostles’ Creed. It is usually translated “the communion of saints,” treating “sanctorum” as masculine. However, it could equally well be neuter: “a sharing in holy things.” It is plainly appositional to “Holy Catholic Church.” St Jerome exploits this ambiguity in the Latin to suggest it means both – and how does one translate that?
10.29.2011 | 12:55pm
Ray McCarthy says:
Perhaps the best example of my concern with the new English translation is the the Latin word makarioi, translated after Vat II as happy, in 2011 the replacement word is bhlessed. Listen to the first 5 mins of http://www.americamagazine.org/content/podcast/podcast-index.cfm?series_id=1293
This Catholic, who used Latin as an altar server when I was a child, studied Latin in HS and cares a great deal about the (C)church, wants to know why I am blessed at the Agnus Dei instead of happy
This Catholic, who used Latin as an altar server when I was a child, studied Latin in HS and cares a great deal about the (C)church, wants to know why I am blessed at the Agnus Dei instead of happy
10.29.2011 | 1:12pm
sally r says:
I agree that the work of translating a text is a complicated one. However, there are methods that can do the work in a better or worse way, or are more conducive to one task than another. At the end of the day, that's why we have a Magisterium that has the authority to make judgments about how best to do the work of the Church in creating authoritative liturgical texts. The goal of the current effort is to correct the most obvious errors where the dynamic equivalent translation method departed the furthest from the original. In the worst cases, the translators took on the role of re-writing the prayers -- a task that was well beyond their competency or authority.
I will welcome the opportunity to relearn our prayers in the Mass. These "new prayers" will very soon become the "familiar old mass" and may do a better job at helping us attend to the faith they make present to us.
I will welcome the opportunity to relearn our prayers in the Mass. These "new prayers" will very soon become the "familiar old mass" and may do a better job at helping us attend to the faith they make present to us.
10.29.2011 | 2:04pm
Carson Chittom says:
@Pdn Michael: As one Orthodox Christian to another, I can only concur with your comments (particularly the first).
I'd be interested to see how the new Catholic English texts and the Antiochian and ROCOR western rite texts compare.
I'd be interested to see how the new Catholic English texts and the Antiochian and ROCOR western rite texts compare.
10.29.2011 | 8:26pm
mjc says:
As one who is uncomfortable with the upcoming changes, I'd like to add a few thoughts. I take as much umbrage with those who state that the conservatives must be stupid/sinful/misinformed as I do those of you disparaging my faith and experience. Please don't use that as a discussion point and then wonder why we can't get along with each other. When I place myself and my faith above yours, I betray my lack of catholicity and humility.
It strikes me that the conservative faction did not just "go along" with the infallible Pope Paul when the New Order Mass was promulgated. It had to be awful to be told how everything one had prayed through, grown through, was somehow inadequate and not up to task. This new way was better, and if you feel bad you'll just get used to it. That attitude of the hierarchy, filtering through some of the liberals as well, was as wrong then as it is now. I'm thankful that those who cherished the Mass they grew up with were ferocious in defending their Faith, despite being told that they were inhibiting God and the Church. I hope you expect no less from me.
Most of the changes are innocuous. "And with your spirit" does not skew that greatly from "And also with you", despite so many on line discussions of ontological superiority and/or equality implied. The poetic "under my roof" is no problem. However, I defy anyone to teach me how "consubstantial" differs from "one in being with". Are we really discussing God's molecules, His makings as if we knew them?
Further, I tire of the argument that we have finally translated correctly. An argument for dynamic translation can certainly be made, as it was in the seventies. From what I've seen, the new dynamic translation from ICEL that was suppressed ten years ago would have been wonderful (and I suppose just as controversial). But be very clear -- dynamic translations still abound. Take the dismissal as an example. "Ite. Missa est." That's "(you plural) Go. It is a sending." Better in English is "Go. You are sent." Take a look at the multiple dismissals allowed. None are a true translation. Why are these obviously dynamic translations okay when so many others are so wrong? Isn't this a watering-down as well? Or instead, does the translation feel as arbitrary and capricious to you as it does to me?
Finally, let me comment to someone yesterday about the sexual abuse crisis. I was abused in the seventies. I've been the chair of my diocese's sexual abuse committee, serving under two bishops. I've had the opportunity to join in a class action suit and take money from my own church, an offer I comfortably refused. The sexual abuse crisis comes mostly from an authoritarian outlook that makes one of God's children more important than another. There are conservative and liberal abusers, Vatican I trained and Vatican II trained and neo conservatives as well. I believe the open style of Vatican II allowed victims to find their voices, and for that I can be grateful. By Grace I did not lose my faith, and I'm not sure I could say that if an imposed silence would have left me alone in that dark place. Don't kid yourself with the fallacy that the uncontrollable 1960's caused the problem. And be aware that most of the reformers I know act in great faith, standing in difficult dissent along with many of our beloved saints.
It strikes me that the conservative faction did not just "go along" with the infallible Pope Paul when the New Order Mass was promulgated. It had to be awful to be told how everything one had prayed through, grown through, was somehow inadequate and not up to task. This new way was better, and if you feel bad you'll just get used to it. That attitude of the hierarchy, filtering through some of the liberals as well, was as wrong then as it is now. I'm thankful that those who cherished the Mass they grew up with were ferocious in defending their Faith, despite being told that they were inhibiting God and the Church. I hope you expect no less from me.
Most of the changes are innocuous. "And with your spirit" does not skew that greatly from "And also with you", despite so many on line discussions of ontological superiority and/or equality implied. The poetic "under my roof" is no problem. However, I defy anyone to teach me how "consubstantial" differs from "one in being with". Are we really discussing God's molecules, His makings as if we knew them?
Further, I tire of the argument that we have finally translated correctly. An argument for dynamic translation can certainly be made, as it was in the seventies. From what I've seen, the new dynamic translation from ICEL that was suppressed ten years ago would have been wonderful (and I suppose just as controversial). But be very clear -- dynamic translations still abound. Take the dismissal as an example. "Ite. Missa est." That's "(you plural) Go. It is a sending." Better in English is "Go. You are sent." Take a look at the multiple dismissals allowed. None are a true translation. Why are these obviously dynamic translations okay when so many others are so wrong? Isn't this a watering-down as well? Or instead, does the translation feel as arbitrary and capricious to you as it does to me?
Finally, let me comment to someone yesterday about the sexual abuse crisis. I was abused in the seventies. I've been the chair of my diocese's sexual abuse committee, serving under two bishops. I've had the opportunity to join in a class action suit and take money from my own church, an offer I comfortably refused. The sexual abuse crisis comes mostly from an authoritarian outlook that makes one of God's children more important than another. There are conservative and liberal abusers, Vatican I trained and Vatican II trained and neo conservatives as well. I believe the open style of Vatican II allowed victims to find their voices, and for that I can be grateful. By Grace I did not lose my faith, and I'm not sure I could say that if an imposed silence would have left me alone in that dark place. Don't kid yourself with the fallacy that the uncontrollable 1960's caused the problem. And be aware that most of the reformers I know act in great faith, standing in difficult dissent along with many of our beloved saints.
10.29.2011 | 11:18pm
Jorge Lavanderia says:
To Ray McCarthy:
Blessed and happy are two words that mean the same thing in English in theological usage.
One of the great advantages of the revised translations is that it forces us to learn a few things. The 1973 ICEL travesty was translated on the assumption that Catholics are dumb and ought not be challenged to learn the meaning of words they don't know.
In colloquial English, happy doesn't mean the same as blessed. Theologically, they have a lot in common. Learning about this might be rewarding.
But it's a lot easier to complain.
Blessed and happy are two words that mean the same thing in English in theological usage.
One of the great advantages of the revised translations is that it forces us to learn a few things. The 1973 ICEL travesty was translated on the assumption that Catholics are dumb and ought not be challenged to learn the meaning of words they don't know.
In colloquial English, happy doesn't mean the same as blessed. Theologically, they have a lot in common. Learning about this might be rewarding.
But it's a lot easier to complain.
10.30.2011 | 4:33am
Michael PS says:
The word "beatus" is a coinage of Cicero's "ulla alia huic verbo, cum beatum dicimus, subjecta notio est, nisi, secretis malis omnibus, cumulata bonorum complexio," Cic. Tusc. 5, 10, 29 and he may be thought the best judge of its meaning.
Now he says "qui beatus est, non intellego, quid requirat, ut sit beatior: si est enim quod desit, ne beatus quidem est, id. ib. 5, 8, 23:" I do not understand how one who is "beatus" can become more "beatus" for he to who anything is lacking is not "beatus" This is close to the sense of "Beatific Vision," that excludes all wants/needs
He also speaks of a "beata vita, felicitas" Now "felix" means happy, in the sense of fortunate - a condition or situation, rather than a feeling. I fancy "beatus" does, too. Not an easy word to translate
It remains rare in classical Latin.
Now he says "qui beatus est, non intellego, quid requirat, ut sit beatior: si est enim quod desit, ne beatus quidem est, id. ib. 5, 8, 23:" I do not understand how one who is "beatus" can become more "beatus" for he to who anything is lacking is not "beatus" This is close to the sense of "Beatific Vision," that excludes all wants/needs
He also speaks of a "beata vita, felicitas" Now "felix" means happy, in the sense of fortunate - a condition or situation, rather than a feeling. I fancy "beatus" does, too. Not an easy word to translate
It remains rare in classical Latin.
10.30.2011 | 8:22am
Sally says:
Mjc: I really find it a stretch to say that the current mass translation corrections are going to parallel the disruptive experience of those who went from a Latin mass to a vernacular mass in the 1960's. The great majority of the changes have been made to the collects and short prayers that change every week and are said by the priest alone. No one remembers what the exact wording of those prayers were three years ago when the priest said them on the 14th Sunday of Ordinary time in Year A. So no one will be all upset at the change to any of those prayers.
The few changes in the prayers that we all say will take a bit of getting used to, but amount to a few words and phrases. I'm sure we all could have a lengthy debate about whether "consubstantial" is better or worse than "one in being". That's what the Bishops did and they concluded one was better than the other. That is their job, and I really see no point in continuing a debate over such an "insubstantial" question. If it doesn't really matter then why bother about the choice of one over the other?
In contrast the entire experience of the Mass was changed overnight in entirely unfamiliar ways in the 1960s. The two instances seem completely distinct to me. And even still, people got through that experience and found a comfortable resting place in the liturgy. I'm sure we will all get through this change in a much more easy and peaceful way.
I agree, by the way, with your rejection of the argument that the translation of the Mass has some connection with sexual abuse. Sin is sin, and it's been around for a very long time.
The few changes in the prayers that we all say will take a bit of getting used to, but amount to a few words and phrases. I'm sure we all could have a lengthy debate about whether "consubstantial" is better or worse than "one in being". That's what the Bishops did and they concluded one was better than the other. That is their job, and I really see no point in continuing a debate over such an "insubstantial" question. If it doesn't really matter then why bother about the choice of one over the other?
In contrast the entire experience of the Mass was changed overnight in entirely unfamiliar ways in the 1960s. The two instances seem completely distinct to me. And even still, people got through that experience and found a comfortable resting place in the liturgy. I'm sure we will all get through this change in a much more easy and peaceful way.
I agree, by the way, with your rejection of the argument that the translation of the Mass has some connection with sexual abuse. Sin is sin, and it's been around for a very long time.
10.30.2011 | 1:33pm
Mike M says:
Matthew Hennessey's friend seems to think that the Church has fallen into a pre-Tridentine state. Hennessey's notion that the guitar mass is morally equivalent to priestly sexual abuse suggests that his friend is correct.
10.30.2011 | 4:13pm
G says:
Mike M, you talk of “Hennessey's notion that the guitar mass is morally equivalent to priestly sexual abuse suggests that his friend is correct”. But why would you accuse Hennessey of making such an equivalence when he is careful precisely and explicitly to deny it?
Hennessey wrote: “My gut has always told me that—despite the infinite moral asymmetry between the two—the guitar mass is at least as responsible for the diminution of American Catholicism as the sex abuse scandal.” Thus, he take pains to say that the guitar mass and the sex abuse scandal are ‘infinitely morally asymmetrical’ – by which he obviously means entirely morally inequivalent and incomparable. His claim seems merely to be a sociological-causal one: the guitar mass has – as a matter of empirical fact – put as many, or more people off the Catholic Church than the sex abuse scandal. To twist/ignore Hennessey’s words like that seems rather perverse.
Hennessey wrote: “My gut has always told me that—despite the infinite moral asymmetry between the two—the guitar mass is at least as responsible for the diminution of American Catholicism as the sex abuse scandal.” Thus, he take pains to say that the guitar mass and the sex abuse scandal are ‘infinitely morally asymmetrical’ – by which he obviously means entirely morally inequivalent and incomparable. His claim seems merely to be a sociological-causal one: the guitar mass has – as a matter of empirical fact – put as many, or more people off the Catholic Church than the sex abuse scandal. To twist/ignore Hennessey’s words like that seems rather perverse.
10.31.2011 | 12:39am
Rick says:
@Donna
I was going to post a comment on how impossible it was to wrap my mind around the idea that the introduction of guitars into the mass was as responsible for the "diminution" of the church as pedophile priests who rape children are, but you beat me to it.
@Artaban7
You have decided to let the Catholic heirarchy entirely off the hook for habitually protecting and facilitating pedophiles. We are expected to believe that public school teachers have a worse track record. Could you give me just one example of a public school district superintendent who repeatedly transfered a teacher whom he knew to be an egregious sex offender from school to school, where the offender continued to molest or even rape children, and without ever letting the new schools know that he was assigning a sex criminal to teach their children?
I was going to post a comment on how impossible it was to wrap my mind around the idea that the introduction of guitars into the mass was as responsible for the "diminution" of the church as pedophile priests who rape children are, but you beat me to it.
@Artaban7
You have decided to let the Catholic heirarchy entirely off the hook for habitually protecting and facilitating pedophiles. We are expected to believe that public school teachers have a worse track record. Could you give me just one example of a public school district superintendent who repeatedly transfered a teacher whom he knew to be an egregious sex offender from school to school, where the offender continued to molest or even rape children, and without ever letting the new schools know that he was assigning a sex criminal to teach their children?
10.31.2011 | 6:11am
Joe DeVet says:
I'm always amused when people who were not there (even more so when people who were there) speak of the mass before Vatican II, asserting that the people in the pews had not idea what was going on because it was all in Latin.
On the contrary, we did know. From a very early age I was proud possessor of a St Joseph Daily Missal, which had Latin on each left page and an accurate translation of it on the right (or was it vice versa?) In any case, we could and did follow the mass as it unfolded in all its beauty. There were those who simply took up space; but for anyone who was interested, it was easy to follow the mass, and many did. (I still love the Latin mass; I love the English mass as well.)
Further, we knew if we had committed serious sin that we dare not present ourselves for Holy Communion.
The epistles and gospels were proclaimed in English, and of course the sermon as well. The sermons focused on important lessons in life, and on the ultimate goal of all of us in eternity. The salvation won for us already by Christ still must be appropriated by us through living right--and woe if we lived wrong. That was very clear.
Now the mass is in English, and I daresay people know less about what is going on than we did when it was in Latin. Not only during the mass itself, but about the real and terrible adventure which is the spiritual journey toward salvation. About sin and its consequences, and about the meaning of redemption.
On the contrary, we did know. From a very early age I was proud possessor of a St Joseph Daily Missal, which had Latin on each left page and an accurate translation of it on the right (or was it vice versa?) In any case, we could and did follow the mass as it unfolded in all its beauty. There were those who simply took up space; but for anyone who was interested, it was easy to follow the mass, and many did. (I still love the Latin mass; I love the English mass as well.)
Further, we knew if we had committed serious sin that we dare not present ourselves for Holy Communion.
The epistles and gospels were proclaimed in English, and of course the sermon as well. The sermons focused on important lessons in life, and on the ultimate goal of all of us in eternity. The salvation won for us already by Christ still must be appropriated by us through living right--and woe if we lived wrong. That was very clear.
Now the mass is in English, and I daresay people know less about what is going on than we did when it was in Latin. Not only during the mass itself, but about the real and terrible adventure which is the spiritual journey toward salvation. About sin and its consequences, and about the meaning of redemption.
10.31.2011 | 7:33am
Ann says:
Rick,
regarding, sexual abuse in public schools, please see this article. there are links in the article to the study referenced.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/apr/10040101
Schools, public or private, do not follow youth protection guidelines like those found in parishes or scouting organizations. Adults are routinely allowed access to children one on one with no one else present and the familiarity (non professional) that is allowed between students and teachers is shocking and a recipe for trouble. The fact that we hear so little about abuse in schools defies logic when you look at the number of children in schools. Knowing what we know of human behaviour and the sexualization of our culture and the prevalence of sexual abuse, we should be very suspicous of schools.
I always find it amusing that folks think the new translation will be too difficult for parishioners. That we are too dumb to understand "consubtantial" and such. I thought the "reformers" of VII thought we were so smart afterall "we are church" and needed to be given a role to suit our powers. But now we are stupid.
Hennessey is quite right that his friend's objections to the Church have nothing to do with the Church, the new translation or the sexual abuse scandal and everything to to with lack of faith, ignorance, laziness or an attachment to sin (like articial birth control, sex outside of marriage, etc) or ignorance or combination of these factors. i do not know which since I do not know this person's heart but I do know that his stated reasons are a bunch of hooey (based on Hennessey's description). I know many folks like his friend and it all comes back to the same thing in the end, a refusal to repent and submit to Christ. So we must pray for the continued conversion of all souls, our own included.
regarding, sexual abuse in public schools, please see this article. there are links in the article to the study referenced.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/apr/10040101
Schools, public or private, do not follow youth protection guidelines like those found in parishes or scouting organizations. Adults are routinely allowed access to children one on one with no one else present and the familiarity (non professional) that is allowed between students and teachers is shocking and a recipe for trouble. The fact that we hear so little about abuse in schools defies logic when you look at the number of children in schools. Knowing what we know of human behaviour and the sexualization of our culture and the prevalence of sexual abuse, we should be very suspicous of schools.
I always find it amusing that folks think the new translation will be too difficult for parishioners. That we are too dumb to understand "consubtantial" and such. I thought the "reformers" of VII thought we were so smart afterall "we are church" and needed to be given a role to suit our powers. But now we are stupid.
Hennessey is quite right that his friend's objections to the Church have nothing to do with the Church, the new translation or the sexual abuse scandal and everything to to with lack of faith, ignorance, laziness or an attachment to sin (like articial birth control, sex outside of marriage, etc) or ignorance or combination of these factors. i do not know which since I do not know this person's heart but I do know that his stated reasons are a bunch of hooey (based on Hennessey's description). I know many folks like his friend and it all comes back to the same thing in the end, a refusal to repent and submit to Christ. So we must pray for the continued conversion of all souls, our own included.
10.31.2011 | 10:32am
Rick says:
@Ann
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the public schools are cesspools of concupiscence, where children are routinely sexually abused by their teachers. Then let's consider a case in the Church, to take one at random, like that of Fr. Oliver O'Grady, who spent decades abusing and even forcefully raping Catholic children as young as two years old and was protected, retained in the priesthood, and transferred from parish to parish by Archbiship Mahoney, who knew very well that he was a serial abuser. Do I gather from your posting that a reasonable defense of these men might be to point to outside society and say, "Look at the filth and decadence of modern, secular society. How can you hold us to any higher standard?" That seems to be what you are saying. Could this attitude of deflecting blame onto secular society simply be a case of "a refusal to repent and submit to Christ"?
Item: I have a acquaintance with whom I used to teach in my town who has a character flaw. It is nothing remotely as severe as the case of O'Grady to which I referred above. But he seemed unable to completely control his attraction to young women in his public school classes. There was some innuendo in his speech, possibly some innapropriate touching. But that was all it took. After a complaint, his case was referred to the State Educational Professional Standards Board, and his teaching license was immediately revoked. Would that the Church had been that responsible!
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the public schools are cesspools of concupiscence, where children are routinely sexually abused by their teachers. Then let's consider a case in the Church, to take one at random, like that of Fr. Oliver O'Grady, who spent decades abusing and even forcefully raping Catholic children as young as two years old and was protected, retained in the priesthood, and transferred from parish to parish by Archbiship Mahoney, who knew very well that he was a serial abuser. Do I gather from your posting that a reasonable defense of these men might be to point to outside society and say, "Look at the filth and decadence of modern, secular society. How can you hold us to any higher standard?" That seems to be what you are saying. Could this attitude of deflecting blame onto secular society simply be a case of "a refusal to repent and submit to Christ"?
Item: I have a acquaintance with whom I used to teach in my town who has a character flaw. It is nothing remotely as severe as the case of O'Grady to which I referred above. But he seemed unable to completely control his attraction to young women in his public school classes. There was some innuendo in his speech, possibly some innapropriate touching. But that was all it took. After a complaint, his case was referred to the State Educational Professional Standards Board, and his teaching license was immediately revoked. Would that the Church had been that responsible!
11.1.2011 | 11:35am
Jim N says:
Talking about the new translation as a correction of a prior mistake by the Church is not accurate, nor is it at all helpful in discussions with those who see the new translation as an attempt to "roll back the reforms of Vatican II". Vatican II was a legitimate and proper Church Council and it should not be "rolled back". The Novus Ordo is a legitimate liturgy. It seems to me that the new translation is an attempt by the Church to focus more precisely on the literal meaning of the original texts. The Church thinks that now is an appropriate time for such a focus. I think we should defer to the wisdom of the Church.
11.1.2011 | 8:25pm
Artaban7 says:
"You have decided to let the Catholic heirarchy entirely off the hook for habitually protecting and facilitating pedophiles." --Rick
Rick seems to be claiming to have the ability to read minds! Don't quit your day job, buddy--I never said that anywhere. In a case where a bishop knew about an abuser and concealed a crime, that bishop should be held accountable under the law as anyone else would be. Interesting that most of you focus in on Mahoney. If so many bishops were guilty, why do we only hear the same two or three names?
But notice how quickly you lump ALL bishops (Catholic hierarchy) into one group and blame even the innocent. You also fail to consider that in instances of allegations of abuse, the bishops too are bound by law in what they can do. When I was growing up people used to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. So of course someone with an axe to grind against the Church isn't going to think a bishop putting a priest on leave and getting him away from the parish until the criminal investigation and proceedings are finished is doing enough.
"We are expected to believe that public school teachers have a worse track record." --Rick
Oh no, Rick, I don't expect you to believe it. All you have to do is a modicum of research to confirm it. Pay attention to your nightly news or the local paper. It's all over the place, and far more frequent than the priestly scandals. Difference is, the priestly scandals get front page and repeated coverage. Part of that is because priests are held to an incredibly high standard.
Sadly, a case like Teresa Engelbach (from my area) gets ignored or lauded by the press because the pedophile is a woman, and that's apparently a "victimless crime". What a pathetic (and wrong) cultural double standard. From memory, in the past year there has been a (public) track coach guilty of things with two of his students, and two incidents of rape on (public school) buses and in bathrooms. Some of many reasons people are trying to get their kids OUT of the public school system in St. Louis. Granted, most public school teachers aren't pedophiles, but it's more of a problem than with the priests.
Interesting you can personally speak of a public school colleague who was a sexually unethical, though. Interesting how you downplayed his potential predations as, "a character flaw", "innuendo" and "possibly inappropriate touching". "Possibly"?! Sounds like you're not quite sure what went on, I guess you and bishop Mahoney have quite a bit in common...
Rick seems to be claiming to have the ability to read minds! Don't quit your day job, buddy--I never said that anywhere. In a case where a bishop knew about an abuser and concealed a crime, that bishop should be held accountable under the law as anyone else would be. Interesting that most of you focus in on Mahoney. If so many bishops were guilty, why do we only hear the same two or three names?
But notice how quickly you lump ALL bishops (Catholic hierarchy) into one group and blame even the innocent. You also fail to consider that in instances of allegations of abuse, the bishops too are bound by law in what they can do. When I was growing up people used to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. So of course someone with an axe to grind against the Church isn't going to think a bishop putting a priest on leave and getting him away from the parish until the criminal investigation and proceedings are finished is doing enough.
"We are expected to believe that public school teachers have a worse track record." --Rick
Oh no, Rick, I don't expect you to believe it. All you have to do is a modicum of research to confirm it. Pay attention to your nightly news or the local paper. It's all over the place, and far more frequent than the priestly scandals. Difference is, the priestly scandals get front page and repeated coverage. Part of that is because priests are held to an incredibly high standard.
Sadly, a case like Teresa Engelbach (from my area) gets ignored or lauded by the press because the pedophile is a woman, and that's apparently a "victimless crime". What a pathetic (and wrong) cultural double standard. From memory, in the past year there has been a (public) track coach guilty of things with two of his students, and two incidents of rape on (public school) buses and in bathrooms. Some of many reasons people are trying to get their kids OUT of the public school system in St. Louis. Granted, most public school teachers aren't pedophiles, but it's more of a problem than with the priests.
Interesting you can personally speak of a public school colleague who was a sexually unethical, though. Interesting how you downplayed his potential predations as, "a character flaw", "innuendo" and "possibly inappropriate touching". "Possibly"?! Sounds like you're not quite sure what went on, I guess you and bishop Mahoney have quite a bit in common...
11.1.2011 | 8:36pm
Artaban7 says:
...oh, and I almost forgot...all they did was revoke his teaching license?! That doesn't get him off the streets, nor does it keep him from employment elsewhere. You don't need a license to be a coach at a school. Additionally, revocation in one state doesn't necessarily guarantee one can't get a license in another.
Without knowing all the details, I can't be sure, but it sounds to me like your "State Educational Professional Standards Board" may have just passed the buck and released a predator to freedom. How is that better than what happened in the worst of the Church cases? At least in those they tried to reform the pedophile. Here, it seems the public school Board did nothing of the sort.
Without knowing all the details, I can't be sure, but it sounds to me like your "State Educational Professional Standards Board" may have just passed the buck and released a predator to freedom. How is that better than what happened in the worst of the Church cases? At least in those they tried to reform the pedophile. Here, it seems the public school Board did nothing of the sort.
11.1.2011 | 8:37pm
Rick says:
Ann,
I finally followed the link in the Life Site News article, and read Shakeshaft's report. It has some very serious limitations. For one thing, Shakeshaft "piggybacked" on a study done by the AAUW (American Association of University Women) which has revealed, in past reports, a feminist agenda to portray women and girls as "victims" in the American educational system. Objectivity might be an issue here. Secondly, the AAUW study takes an extraordinarily broad interpretation of sexual abuse. Its definition includes "innapropriate jokes" and even "looks" or "glances" that could be construed to have some sexual connotation. For example, if a male teacher, while talking to a high school girl, were to allow his gaze to momentarily drop, that could be self-reported as an act of sexual abuse, even if it happened just once in the girl's entire school career. She would then be a victim statistic in Shakeshank's report. I don't think anyone in SNAP has claimed that he was abused because a priest glanced at him in a questionable way. Her off-the-cuff claim in interviews that abuse in public schools is "100 times" the magnitude of abuse by priests is also too vague to evaluate. Did she correct for the vastly larger number of students in public schools? Who knows? She doesn't say.
I finally followed the link in the Life Site News article, and read Shakeshaft's report. It has some very serious limitations. For one thing, Shakeshaft "piggybacked" on a study done by the AAUW (American Association of University Women) which has revealed, in past reports, a feminist agenda to portray women and girls as "victims" in the American educational system. Objectivity might be an issue here. Secondly, the AAUW study takes an extraordinarily broad interpretation of sexual abuse. Its definition includes "innapropriate jokes" and even "looks" or "glances" that could be construed to have some sexual connotation. For example, if a male teacher, while talking to a high school girl, were to allow his gaze to momentarily drop, that could be self-reported as an act of sexual abuse, even if it happened just once in the girl's entire school career. She would then be a victim statistic in Shakeshank's report. I don't think anyone in SNAP has claimed that he was abused because a priest glanced at him in a questionable way. Her off-the-cuff claim in interviews that abuse in public schools is "100 times" the magnitude of abuse by priests is also too vague to evaluate. Did she correct for the vastly larger number of students in public schools? Who knows? She doesn't say.
11.2.2011 | 8:27pm
Rick says:
@Artaban7:
I'll have to say I was shocked at the ferocity of your response to my arguments. But no matter how enraged you may be by someone saying the Church has some serious housecleaning to do, I don't think anything productive can come out of the conversation without some basic respect. Let's try to avoid the scathing, dripping sarcasm. Please...
First, I fail to see where I indicted the entire heirarchy of the Church. I thought it was clear that I was referring only to those who habitually protected and facilitated pedophiles.
Second, I picked Mahoney at random. True, he is one of the famous ones, but it isn't necessary to pick the ones we have heard about in the media. All I have to do is listen to my wife talk about her experiences teaching in a boys' Catholic school a few years back. One day, a boy ran into her classroom, after hours, in a state of shock. He had been about his business in the bathroom when a Jesuit priest actually grabbed hold of his privates. My wife went to the principal, a good and decent man, and said something should be done. He patiently told her that he would send a complaint up the line to higher authority, but that it would do no good. Many complaints about the same priest had been made, and they were always ignored. And, of course, this one was ignored as well. No, it isn't necessary to pick the famous names out of the newspaper.
Third, I am bewildered by your reaction to the story about David, my former teaching colleague. He was guilty of some innuendo in his speech, maybe one of his jokes, and also of putting his arm too familiarly around a girl's shoulders. That was it...relatively mild stuff. Nevertheless, he was fired, and his right to teach revoked. The system (the public schools) booted him out. I suppose that would be the secular equivalent of defrocking a priest. But you say that they were too easy on him. He tells bad jokes, and he put his arm around a girl's shoulders, and that makes him a "predator" who should be prosecuted and locked up to get him off the streets? Granted, I've known people who habitually told such bad jokes that I was tempted to visualize them locked up, but I'm relieved to report that we haven't become such a politically correct police state that such a thing is possible. You might want to ask yourself why you believe in such extraordinarily severe punishments for relatively mild human failings--at least if the perpetrator is a public school teacher.
You claim that priests are held to an incredibly high standard. And yet the Jesuit of my wife's acquaintance was repeatedly guilty of far more egregious sexual abuses than David was and nothing at all was done despite repeated complaints. What's wrong with this picture?
Finally, you have missed the most fundamental point I was trying to make. If there is a fire in your kitchen, it isn't a productive response to point to your neighbor's house and say, "His whole house is on fire. I've only got a little fire...why worry about it?" It doesn't matter how bad the abuses are in the public schools. The Church has to clean its own house! I have two boys who will habitually deflect any criticism by pointing to their brother and saying, "But he got away with it! Why are you criticizing me?" I expect that from children, but adults, not to mention Christ's church, should be able to avoid such morally flacid responses.
I'll have to say I was shocked at the ferocity of your response to my arguments. But no matter how enraged you may be by someone saying the Church has some serious housecleaning to do, I don't think anything productive can come out of the conversation without some basic respect. Let's try to avoid the scathing, dripping sarcasm. Please...
First, I fail to see where I indicted the entire heirarchy of the Church. I thought it was clear that I was referring only to those who habitually protected and facilitated pedophiles.
Second, I picked Mahoney at random. True, he is one of the famous ones, but it isn't necessary to pick the ones we have heard about in the media. All I have to do is listen to my wife talk about her experiences teaching in a boys' Catholic school a few years back. One day, a boy ran into her classroom, after hours, in a state of shock. He had been about his business in the bathroom when a Jesuit priest actually grabbed hold of his privates. My wife went to the principal, a good and decent man, and said something should be done. He patiently told her that he would send a complaint up the line to higher authority, but that it would do no good. Many complaints about the same priest had been made, and they were always ignored. And, of course, this one was ignored as well. No, it isn't necessary to pick the famous names out of the newspaper.
Third, I am bewildered by your reaction to the story about David, my former teaching colleague. He was guilty of some innuendo in his speech, maybe one of his jokes, and also of putting his arm too familiarly around a girl's shoulders. That was it...relatively mild stuff. Nevertheless, he was fired, and his right to teach revoked. The system (the public schools) booted him out. I suppose that would be the secular equivalent of defrocking a priest. But you say that they were too easy on him. He tells bad jokes, and he put his arm around a girl's shoulders, and that makes him a "predator" who should be prosecuted and locked up to get him off the streets? Granted, I've known people who habitually told such bad jokes that I was tempted to visualize them locked up, but I'm relieved to report that we haven't become such a politically correct police state that such a thing is possible. You might want to ask yourself why you believe in such extraordinarily severe punishments for relatively mild human failings--at least if the perpetrator is a public school teacher.
You claim that priests are held to an incredibly high standard. And yet the Jesuit of my wife's acquaintance was repeatedly guilty of far more egregious sexual abuses than David was and nothing at all was done despite repeated complaints. What's wrong with this picture?
Finally, you have missed the most fundamental point I was trying to make. If there is a fire in your kitchen, it isn't a productive response to point to your neighbor's house and say, "His whole house is on fire. I've only got a little fire...why worry about it?" It doesn't matter how bad the abuses are in the public schools. The Church has to clean its own house! I have two boys who will habitually deflect any criticism by pointing to their brother and saying, "But he got away with it! Why are you criticizing me?" I expect that from children, but adults, not to mention Christ's church, should be able to avoid such morally flacid responses.
11.3.2011 | 12:02pm
Artaban7 says:
Rick, I'm not enraged at all. As for sarcasm, I apologize--I try to meet others where they are in discussion, and you'd used "scathing, dripping sarcasm" in so many of your posts. For example @ 10.31.2011 | 10:32am "Rick says: Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the public schools are cesspools of concupiscence, where children are routinely sexually abused by their teachers."
But I shall endeavor to abide by your request and do as you say, not as you do. I would not have thought you so...fragile in the face of your own methods.
You state in your most recent post, "First, I fail to see where I indicted the entire heirarchy of the Church. I thought it was clear that I was referring only to those who habitually protected and facilitated pedophiles."
I am glad to have your retraction and clarification. But can you not see that your statement, "You have decided to let the Catholic heirarchy entirely off the hook for habitually protecting and facilitating pedophiles" was indeed an indictment of the entire hierarchy, whether you meant to send that message or not? When you accuse "the Catholic (universal is the meaning of that word) hierarchy... [of] "habitually protecting and facilitating pedophiles" what type of reaction do you expect?
As for "missing your fundamental point" about taking steps to address instances of pedophilia in the Church, I did not comment on it because it is so glaringly obvious as to be unworthy of further emphasis. Of course we need to take measures to protect children and bring abusers to justice.
You seem to miss my fundamental point that the problem is worse in the public school system as a whole, and yet it hasn't been given anywhere near the attention or resources of the Catholic side. Does it seem wise to you to put out the less damaging fire and allow the more destructive blaze to continue unabated?
But I shall endeavor to abide by your request and do as you say, not as you do. I would not have thought you so...fragile in the face of your own methods.
You state in your most recent post, "First, I fail to see where I indicted the entire heirarchy of the Church. I thought it was clear that I was referring only to those who habitually protected and facilitated pedophiles."
I am glad to have your retraction and clarification. But can you not see that your statement, "You have decided to let the Catholic heirarchy entirely off the hook for habitually protecting and facilitating pedophiles" was indeed an indictment of the entire hierarchy, whether you meant to send that message or not? When you accuse "the Catholic (universal is the meaning of that word) hierarchy... [of] "habitually protecting and facilitating pedophiles" what type of reaction do you expect?
As for "missing your fundamental point" about taking steps to address instances of pedophilia in the Church, I did not comment on it because it is so glaringly obvious as to be unworthy of further emphasis. Of course we need to take measures to protect children and bring abusers to justice.
You seem to miss my fundamental point that the problem is worse in the public school system as a whole, and yet it hasn't been given anywhere near the attention or resources of the Catholic side. Does it seem wise to you to put out the less damaging fire and allow the more destructive blaze to continue unabated?
11.6.2011 | 2:29pm
James Heaney says:
Resh, you just made my day. I knew all those years of Latin would pay off!
11.8.2011 | 10:16am
AKO says:
There's a lot of talk about pedophiles and the priests who rape children in these comments.
"You have decided to let the Catholic heirarchy entirely off the hook for habitually protecting and facilitating pedophiles."
It is obviously very sickening and although there are a lot of priests who don't do such acts, those who do need to be held accountable. Anyone who covers or protects those who do such acts are just as guilty and should be held accountable as well.
"You have decided to let the Catholic heirarchy entirely off the hook for habitually protecting and facilitating pedophiles."
It is obviously very sickening and although there are a lot of priests who don't do such acts, those who do need to be held accountable. Anyone who covers or protects those who do such acts are just as guilty and should be held accountable as well.
11.8.2011 | 11:46am
Artaban7 says:
Just as an aside, and to answer a request posed by Rick (for the name of one public school administrator that hid and protected a molester), it only took 8 days for the news cycle to prove my point:
"Jerry Sandusky, a former defensive coordinator under Paterno, has been charged with sexually abusing eight boys across a 15-year period, and Paterno has been widely criticized for failing to involve the police when he learned of an allegation of one assault of a young boy in 2002.
Additionally, two top university officials — Gary Schultz, the senior vice president for finance and business, and Tim Curley, the athletic director — were charged with perjury and failure to report to authorities what they knew of the allegations, as required by state law. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-said-to-be-planning-paternos-exit.html
"Jerry Sandusky, a former defensive coordinator under Paterno, has been charged with sexually abusing eight boys across a 15-year period, and Paterno has been widely criticized for failing to involve the police when he learned of an allegation of one assault of a young boy in 2002.
Additionally, two top university officials — Gary Schultz, the senior vice president for finance and business, and Tim Curley, the athletic director — were charged with perjury and failure to report to authorities what they knew of the allegations, as required by state law. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-said-to-be-planning-paternos-exit.html
Presumably, English suffered from a "hasty" translation in the wake of the Council. I really wonder if something else was afoot--a consistent (if perhaps well-intentioned) program of removing the sense of the sacred; of undermining even some doctrine; of providing such a manifestly incorrect translation that it would encourage further change through ad-libbing by some theatrical-minded priests.
Whether intentional or not, these things have all happened, and I would say they are the fruits of a banal, incomplete, and inaccurate first translation of the post-Vatican II mass. The "reform of the reform" which is upon us in the liturgy will cause heartburn by people who view it as just another imposed change. But it is a needed and overdue step in restoring the liturgy.