'Setting our ecclesial gauges' and liturgical translation update
Print Friendly Version| All Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr. | |
| Friday, June 27, 2008 - Vol. 7, No. 41 | |
Since Fr. Isaac Hecker founded the Paulist Fathers in 1858, theyâve been the quintessentially âAmericanâ religious community in the Catholic church. The Paulistsâ core mission is evangelization, with special emphasis on ecumenism, inter-faith dialogue, and outreach to the alienated and the marginalized. They typically execute all of the above with panache, great balance, and a keen sense of humor.
Among other things, the Paulists run Santa Susanna in Rome, the American parish in the Eternal City. For several years, I distinguished myself as quite possibly the worst parish council member in Santa Susannaâs history. On one of the rare occasions when I actually managed to show up for a meeting, I found that I had been pre-listed as âabsentâ on the agenda. Iâm now well on my way to replicating that dismal record as a board member of âBusted Halo,â a media ministry of the Paulists targeted at youth.
I recently had the chance to try to make it up to the Paulists by speaking at a June 19-21 convocation in Washington, D.C., marking the orderâs 150th anniversary. The affair was organized by an old friend, Fr. Paul Robichaud, former rector of Santa Susanna and currently the point man for Heckerâ beatification cause. The event was held on the campus of the Catholic University of America, bringing together not only Paulist fathers, but also friends of the order, including its network of associates.
Oblate Fr. Ron Rolheiser, a renowned spiritual writer, was another of the featured speakers, telling the Paulists that over the years he has come to appreciate four things in particular about their community:
- The orderâs remarkable accomplishments despite its small size;
- The members' creativity;
- The âwide embraceâ of the Paulists;
- The orderâs âsanity and balance.â
In my experience, heâs right on the money.
Speaking of Rolheiser, I also spent a couple of days in San Antonio this week, keynoting the Oblate School of Theologyâs Summer Institute. The day I arrived Rolheiser injured his knee, and yet he kept going throughout the three-day event -- leading me to dub him the âTiger Woodsâ of the Catholic meeting circuit.
The rest of Rolheiserâs presentation to the Paulists was devoted to what he called âsetting our ecclesial gaugesâ correctly in the new century now dawning. Specifically, he offered a list of âTen Commandmentsâ for Catholic life today, with a bit of commentary on each.
(1) Be Beyond Ideology
Rolheiser urged his audience to position themselves âbeyond liberal, beyond conservativeâ -- in other words, to âhave an unlisted numberâ with respect to the ideological infighting in Catholicism that followed the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Instead, Rolheiser advised being âwomen and men of faith and compassion,â going wherever those instincts may lead.
In that regard, Rolheiser noted the irony that two of the most popular, and most controversial, movies of 2004 were both from filmmakers with a Catholic background: Mel Gibsonâs âThe Passion of the Christâ and Michael Mooreâs âFahrenheit 9/11.â Itâs remarkable, Rolheiser said, that Catholicism can contain both of these ways of seeing the world, âthough not often in the same person.â
Setting oneâs gauges correctly, Rolheiser suggested, involves being able to see both the wisdom and the defects of each of the Catholic sensibilities expressed in those two movies -- and many others beyond them.
(2) Incarnate both the Kenotic and the Triumphant Christ
The âkenoticâ Christ, Rolheiser explained, is the Christ of humility and suffering (from the Greek word kenosis, for âemptinessâ), while the triumphant Christ is the Christ of glory. The contrast between these two images, he said, forms âone of the great archetypal tensions in the church today.â
Christians often appear divided between these two poles, Rolheiser said, as if itâs a matter of choosing one or the other. Instead, he said, Christian life needs both.
âDonât be afraid to be everything,â he counseled, âand donât be afraid to be nothing.â
(3) Be for the Marginalized without being Marginalized Yourself
Sometimes, Rolheiser said, Christians who emphasize service to those on the margins -- the poor, those alienated from the church, and so on -- tend to end up marginalized themselves, stressing the need to âspeak truth to powerâ to such an extent that they drift out of the mainstream.
In the end, he argued, doing so undercuts the effectiveness of oneâs ministry. The trick, he suggested, is to be an effective voice for the margins but from the heart of oneâs own community.
(4) Be Leaders without being Elitist
Rolheiser said leadership is badly needed in todayâs world, and Christians with a clear vision shouldnât be afraid to strike out in bold new directions. At the same time, however, he suggested itâs important not to lose contact with the grass roots.
âBe led by the artists, but listen to the street,â he advised.
Later, a member of the audience asked Rolheiser how to strike the right balance. His advice was rather than seeking to construct abstract theories about leadership, the best thing to do is to observe effective leaders in action. In virtually every case, he said, youâll see a deft combination of personal vision and yet deep sensitivity to the rhythms and perspectives of the community.
(5) Be Iconoclastic and Pious at the Same Time
Rolheiser quoted the great German scripture scholar Ernst Kasemann to the effect that the problem with modern Christianity is that, âthe liberals are impious, and the pious arenât liberal.â The trick, Rolheiser said, is having the capacity both to âsmash idolsâ and to âkneel in reverence,â depending upon what the moment demands.
âItâs the two together that make the great heart,â Rolheiser said.
(6) Be Equally Committed to Social Justice and Intimacy with Jesus
A balanced Catholic, Rolheiser argued, should be ready both âto lead a peace march and to lead the rosary.â As an example, Rolheiser offered Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Worker Movement. Too often, Rolheiser suggested, Catholics tend to choose between social activism and a deep spiritual life, when in fact the two belong together.
(7) Be Thoroughly in the World, even as You are Rooted Elsewhere
Quoting the life of a saint Rolheiser said heâd once come across, he called upon his audience to accept a life of âtortured complexity.â In part, he said, this means a thorough immersion in modern culture, and yet a capacity to allow oneâs deepest sense of belonging and identity to be shaped by sources outside that culture.
(8) Ponder as Mary Did
Another way of putting this bit of counsel, Rolheiser said, is to âeat the tension thatâs around you.â
Rolheiser warned that sometimes the Mary of popular Catholic devotion threatens to obscure the Mary of Scripture. He noted that Mary is the only figure in the New Testament described as âponderingâ the words and deeds of Christ; typically, his disciples and the crowds are said to have been âamazed.â
âAmazement,â Rolheiser said, is akin to an electrical current -- all it does is transmit energy. âPonder,â on the other hand, he compared to a water purifier. It âcarries, holds and transformsâ what enters it, so that it comes out more pure.
At the foot of the cross, Rolheiser said, Mary wasnât simply âamazedâ by the suffering of her son, a response that might have led to a lust for vengeance. Instead, she âponderedâ it, so that hate was transformed into grace and love.
âWe need ponderers at every level of the church,â Rolheiser said.
(9) Incarnate a Deeper Maturity
One of the modern worldâs most urgent needs, Rolhesier said, is for models of responsible freedom. Christians should never seek to limit human freedom, he argued, but they also understand that real freedom does not mean license to do anything at all. Christians today ought to be âpioneersâ in illustrating a life of true freedom.
Applying the point to Catholicism, Rolheiser noted the irony that questions of Catholic identity somehow seemed less pressing in North America in an age in which most Catholics were poor, immigrants, and living in various forms of a socio-ethnic ghetto -- in other words, in a world in which their freedom often chafed under both de jure and de facto restraints.
What we seem to be less clear about, he said, is how to be solidly Catholic in a world in which weâre âaffluent, educated, and culturally mainstream.â
(10) âMake Love to the Songâ
Quoting a friend in a rock band, Rolheiser said that real artistry is not about trying to inflate oneself, or even to appeal to the audience. Art begins, he said, when everything else falls away and the focus is exclusively on the song.
âThatâs ultimately what ministry is,â Rolheiser said. If ministers are caught up either in trying to impress others with their skills, or playing to the sensitivities of their audiences, they have not yet âgot it.â
The trick, Rolheiser said, is to become so caught up in the ministry that doing it well, according to its own inner logic, becomes an end in itself. Once that happens, he said, everything else will usually take care of itself.
* * *
Two weeks ago, I reported on a sharp debate over liturgical translation that unfolded at the spring meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in Orlando, Florida. The bishops were voting on a proposed new translation of the Proper of Seasons, a collection of prayers that forms part of the Mass. Most observers expected approval to be a formality, in part because four other English-speaking bishopsâ conferences have already accepted it, in part because many bishops are weary of liturgical tussles after more than a decade and a half of debate.
Instead, the vote over the Proper of Seasons produced the most drama of the three-day session, thanks in large measure to a speech by Bishop Victor Galeone of Saint Augustine, Florida.
By all accounts, Galeoneâs speech motivated a number of other bishops to express their own reservations about the translation, with the result that the voting in Orlando was inconclusive and the outcome now hinges on mail-in ballots from bishops who were not in attendance. (The result is expected around July 18.)
In the meantime, the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, the translation body which produced the Proper of Seasons, has taken Galeoneâs criticism seriously enough to respond to it. (ICEL is a joint project of 11 English-speaking bishopsâ conferences, including the United States. After a Vatican-induced reorganization in 2002, ICEL largely adopted Romeâs preference for a more âsacralâ translation style closer to the Latin originals.)
The ICEL secretariat, led by Msgr. Bruce Harbert, produced a 1,000 word response to Galeone, which was circulated initially among the member bishops, and later sent a copy on to me.
In his speech, Galeone argued that the new translation is too âslavishâ with respect to the Latin original, with the result that its prayers are too awkward, too remote from normal English speech, to be proclaimed effectively. In effect, Galleone suggested that the translation amounts to a departure from the post-Vatican II vision of worship in the vernacular languages of the community.
Galeone cited, for example, a prayer after Communion in the Proper of Seasons:
Fill our minds, almighty God,
with sure confidence
that through your Sonâs death in time,
to which awesome mysteries bear witness,
you have given us perpetual life.â
The word âthat,â Galeone argued, suggests a purpose clause in normal English speech, but here itâs a simple conjunction, following almost word-for-word the structure in Latin. The result, Galeone said, is clumsy. Thatâs indicative, he said, of problems that run throughout the text.
Perhaps most pointedly, Galeone mocked use of the term âgibbetâ in the new translation, meaning the upright beam from the cross.
âThe last time I heard that word was in 1949 in grade school, during the Stations of the Cross,â Galeone said.
The ICEL statement begins by congratulating Galeone for breaking ânew ground in the public discussion of liturgical languageâ and âraising the debate to a higher intellectual level.â Previous critics, the statement says, focused on individual word choices, but Galeone raised âstructural and semanticâ issues that run through the entire text.
The statement concedes that it would perhaps be clearer in English to phrase the prayer after Communion this way, which is more or less what Galeone suggested in Orlando:
âFill our minds, almighty God,
with sure confidence
that you have given us perpetual life
through your Sonâs death in time,
to which awesome mysteries bear witness.â
Yet the Latin original, the statement said, ends on a strong eschatological note (âperpetual lifeâ) and the translators wanted to honor that structure -- expressing the hope that such modes of expression, admittedly âunfamiliar at first, will soon become familiar.â
Last but not least, the ICEL statement comes to the issue of âgibbet.â Here Iâll quote it in full:
âThere remains the issue of âgibbetâ, which Bishop Galeone and others criticize as too archaic for liturgical use. None of the critics of this word seems able to produce a workable alternative. It should not surprise us that an English translation for Latin patibulum is difficult to find, since that word denotes an instrument of torture no longer in use. It is made up of the root pati-, âto sufferâ and the suffix âbulum, which, to quote the Oxford Latin Dictionary, âforms substantives from verbal bases denoting instrumentsâ.
âAs a stabulum is a structure devised to facilitate standing (from stare) and a conciliabulum is a structure devised to facilitate the holding of meetings, so a patibulum is a structure devised to facilitate suffering. âGuillotineâ, âelectric chairâ and âsyringeâ share the purpose of patibulum, but not its shape. âGallowsâ denotes a device similar in shape and purpose to a patibulum, but in modern speech seems only be used for structures designed for hanging by a rope. âYokeâ is a possible translation, but it has the weakness that it denotes the shape of the device but not its purpose, whereas the pati- element in patibulum draws attention to its purpose. A vivid modern translation might be âdeath-machineâ, but this would be found unacceptable by those many commentators who prefer blandness in liturgical language.â
âIn choosing âgibbetâ to translate patibulum, [ICEL] has been aware that the phrase âthe gibbet of the Crossâ was used by St. John Fisher.â
Regardless of how one assesses the rights and wrongs, the ICEL statement at least seems to make one thing clear: The commission, which generally has the support of the Vaticanâs Congregation for Divine Worship, is not prepared to let âgibbetâ go quite yet.
(As a footnote, the U.S. bishops decided in Orlando not to send the Proper of Seasons back to ICEL if itâs indeed voted down, but to rework it themselves.)
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
Thank you, John, for another
Thank you, John, for another insightful column.
The upshot to the many discussions surrounding 'gibbet' and other obscure English words is that people are being introduced to their meaning. There are many English expressions that we only hear in the ecclesial context -- words that we grow to understand because of our faith practice. To cut out new (or rather, 'old') words because they are apparently unfamiliar seems pretty rigid and close-minded.
Fr. Juan Romero Palm
Fr. Juan Romero
Palm Springs
GIBBET - "Upright stake"
It's the standing beam, right? It's a STAKE in the ground analagous to a large tent pole. Jesus "pitched his tent" among us in the incarnation ("And the word was made flesh and DWELT AMONG US...John 1).
It's the upward beam pointing in the "direction" to which Jesus was alwas oriented: AD PATREM. In His Paschal Mystery, He takes us with Himself to the Father. This is His mission as mediator and exemplar---where the Head is, the Body also must be: we share in both the suffering AND GLORY of Jesus.
I certainly hope that a renewed Eucharistic Prayer will refer not only "from east to west," (the historical direction of evangelization), but will also ADD "FROM SOUTH TO NORTH," its contemporary and future dynamic flow.
I have always favored "dynamic eqivalent" of translations--the transmission of meaning in an intelligible and culturally appropriate way. Litigical translation is a special genre, and ICEL and second wave of English translations did it well with full approval of Rome. Let's continue on that path! I beleive new church-political realities allow us to do so, and the effective intervention of the Bishop of St. Agustinge signaled that.
[In seminary, from 1952, I regularly read WORSHIP and later the back issues of ORATE FRATRES, the magazine's predecessor. Have done litugical studies at St. John's, Collegeville, Instituto Superior de Pastoral in Madrid, and Nortre Dame University, and have been a priest for 44 years. I still enjoy occasionally celebrating Eucharist in Latin, but much prefer English and Spanish. Welcome to check my blog
I never heard the word
I never heard the word "gibbet" spoken until very recently, although I've known what the word meant since I was a child. A few years ago, however, while various lectors were reading the prayers associated with the Stations of the Cross, one of them paused, seemed hesitant, then continued in a strong, clear voice "...the giblets of the cross..."
I almost fell out of the pew laughing. Only years of practicing respectful silence in church kept me from breaking the mood.
Thanks for profiling the
Thanks for profiling the Paulists, John. They are a good bunch of guys. Fr. Rollheiser's wisdom is, as always, on the money. I think it's a message they really need to hear and internalize. On my blog I juxtapositioned something you wrote about the need for truth and a robust identity when it comes to dialogue, with Rolheiser's first point of transcending ideology. While we absolutely need to transcend these divisions, it won't happen, I don't think, until there is a much broader appreciation for the need for identity, as well as an appreciation of the Magisterium's teaching, in the of the Church in the US.
Native-born English speakers
Native-born English speakers throughout the world will be in Bishop Galeone's debt if there results a genuine reconsideratioin of these Mass texts. Only the USCCB has the muscle to challenge, respectfully, the decisions reached by ICEL.
Englishwoman
The International Commission
The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL)has done a brilliant job of translationg the Catholic missal into noble and reverent English. Four or five other English-speaking Catholic Episcopal Conferences have already found the translation acceptable. I hope the National Conference of Catholic Bishops will SOON approve the recent ICEL translation - as is - so that the long-suffering English-speaking Catholics of the world will at long last have a good approved English translation of our liturgical texts. Fellow Catholics of other lanaguages have had their approved liturgical translations for a long, long time. Can't the vaunted English-speaking Catholics of the world finally get their act together?
Regarding Bishop Galeone's little problem with the English word "gibbet" as a posssible translation for "patibulum," I'll say a rosary for his intentions if he can come up with a better word.
It is a pretty funny
It is a pretty funny objection. The translation committee could call it a "squimrumple" if they wanted, and after a few repetitions people would know exactly what it meant. The only reason people don't know what a "gibbet" is, is because they don't hear the word very often. The committee could also leave the word as Latin and just say "patibulum". After all, nobody bothers translating "Christ" or "Catholic" or "Apostolic" into historically accurate English synonyms, they're just left as is in the Nicene Creed. (Of course, those are Greek, not Latin. Maybe only Latin terms need English equivalents.)
The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, unless you take yourself very, very seriously and want everything to be just perfect.







"The US bishops decided to
"The US bishops decided to rework it themselves." Does this mean without the other English speaking countries? And then would bishops from other countries have to approve?