USCCB: End may be in sight for great gibbet debate
Print Friendly VersionBy JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Baltimore
Although public attention during the fall meeting of the U.S. bishops this week is largely focused on what the bishops have to say about abortion and the incoming Obama administration, the assembly may also be remembered as the climax of a long-simmering debate over liturgy â one which, improbably, has come to be symbolized by the fairly obscure term âgibbet.â
In recent decades, the Catholic church both in the United States and around the world has seen major debates over liturgy, especially the vexed question of liturgical translation. In broad strokes, the Vatican has insisted on an approach which is closer to the Latin originals and more âRomanâ in both syntax and vocabulary, a thrust which has been resisted by some bishops and liturgists who argue for a style thatâs more contemporary and closer to the idiom of the local culture.
That debate erupted anew last June when the U.S. bishops met in Orlando to consider a draft of the âProper of Seasons,â part of a new translation of prayers and other texts for the Mass. Several bishops argued that the new text is too unclear and awkward to be effectively proclaimed in American parishes.
Auxiliary Bishop Richard Sklba of Milwaukee, for example, said last June, âIf I have trouble understanding the text when I read it, I wonder how itâs going to be possible to pray with it in the context of worship.â
In terms of concrete examples of that broad indictment, bishops pointed to several alleged oddities in the new text, but the most popular case in point was its use of the word âgibbetâ to render the Latin term patibulum.
Bishop Victor Galeone of Saint Augustine, Florida, mockingly said, âThe last time I heard that word was back in 1949, during Stations of the Cross in Lent.â Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania, a longtime critic of the new translations, said the draft Proper of Seasons contained a number of âarchaic and obscureâ terms, chief among them âgibbet.â
The International Commission on English in the Liturgy, the translation body responsible for the Proper of Seasons, took the assault on âgibbetâ seriously enough that it issued a statement in its defense after the Orlando meeting.
âNone of the critics of this word seems able to produce a workable alternative,â that statement read.
ââGuillotineâ, 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,â the statement read, â[ICEL] has also been aware that the phrase âthe gibbet of the Crossâ was used by Saint John Fisher.â
In the end, the bishops failed to muster the two-thirds vote needed to approve the Proper of Seasons in Orlando, so it went back for additional tweaking. The text before them this week is the result of that revision â and although the new draft may not satisfy its most severe critics, the symbolically laden word âgibbetâ is conspicuously absent.
On the Wednesday of Holy Week, for example, the Orlando version read: âOh God, who for our sake willed that your Son should suffer on the gibbet of the Cross.â That has been retouched to: âOh God, for our sake you willed that your Son should suffer the ignominy of the Cross.â A similar phrase is used in place of âgibbetâ on Good Friday. Elsewhere, âgibbetâ is simply replaced with âcross.â
Yesterday, Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, New Jersey, chair of the bishopsâ committee on liturgy, presented the new draft to the conference. During a press briefing later in the day, Serratelli was asked if deletion of the term âgibbetâ ought to be read as a choice in favor of a text thatâs more understandable.
âWe want to make it accessible, as well as to draw upon the rich diversity of our Biblical and theological language,â Serratelli said.
âI wouldnât want to see any of us put on the gibbet of vocabulary,â Serratelli laughed.
In fact, regardless of what the bishops decide to do today, they may not have seen the last of "gibbet." The text will have to go to Rome for approval, which means it's possible that "gibbet," as well as other revised points of word choice and sentence structure, could still stage a comeback.
The Proper of Seasons is one part of the much-anticipated new translation of the Roman Missal, the comprehensive collection of prayers and other texts for the Mass. During brief floor discussion yesterday, Serratelli was asked when he expected the project to finally reach completion. The liturgy committeeâs hope, he said, is that the U.S. bishops will finish their review of all the translations by November 2010, sending them off to Rome in hopes of speedy approval. That would give publishers a year to crank out new English editions of the Roman Missal, he said, with the roll-out date in parishes thus tentatively set for Advent of 2012.
Knowing the long and bumpy history of translation debates, however, Serratelli quickly added: âAll this is subject to change.â
Debating for about five
Debating for about five years already, and as many as four more before this finally gets printed -- but forty years ago, they sure moved quickly on the new missal, didn't they? What did the bishops have then that they don't have today? They could obviously work far more efficiently, speedily, and toward a common purpose then.
This "great gibbet debate"
This "great gibbet debate" seems to be symbolic for the Bishops fixation on death and the instruments of death. This is very symbolic that they are stuck in this word debate. Why the Bishops get so caught up on words and issues that fixate on death is because they seem to want to not really deal and grow with LIFE fully and completely and in promulgating the living word and Gospel of Life, to bring the true spirit of Jesus Christ into the world.
All around us are the signs of life. There are billions of people on this planet, the obvious sign of birth and life and love, yet these men are fixated on instruments of death. Yet, the instruments of death that they fail to see as the PRIORITY to eliminate are NUCLEAR WEAPONS. They fail to speak out against this threat and Culture of Death. They would rather prioritize and focus on issues that belong to women, of the womb, while the world's population may well become extinct from the use of nuclear weaponry by accident, neglect, misunderstanding or just arrogant stupidity and ignorance.
The entire sentence is probably a mistranslation from a misinterpretation from sometime in history. I don't believe that God willed Jesus to die on a cross. I don't believe that God wants us all to die in a nuclear catastrophe. I believe Jesus knew His fate as a prophet, a Son of God, was to die to sin as all the prophets before Him and to prove the Resurrection to eternal life. It was inhumanity, ignorance, self-righteousness, worldly powerful religious totalitarianism that willed Jesus to die on a cross, not God. The translation is most likely severely mistranslated. Jesus never denied Free Will, even if it meant His death on a cross. We each have a guardian angel, and they see the face of the Lord continuously. They are higher celestial beings than men and women. They are NOT ALLOWED to interfere with our Free Will. Jesus also did not interfere with individual Free Will. That speaks volumes about God and who He truly Is and this is lost in the translation and therefore how we misinterpret how we can try to imitate Him.
That these words might entice the Pharisees in our own Church to condemn them as heresy would just be further evidence that they are spiritually stunted by mistranslations and that they know not the true spirit of Jesus Christ who did not and does not interfere with our Free Will. The key here is to know essentially what true love really means and what forgiveness means to us and to Christ, and what it truly means to love and to lay down one's own life for others.
This word debate is just credible evidence that the translations that have been handed down in the scriptures are not entirely reliable as a sole source for finding truth, because the truth like the wheat has been mixed up with the weeds of mistranslation and misinterpretation.
If Bishop Trautman can't
If Bishop Trautman can't explain "gibbet" to his flock, how does he explain "Trinity" or "Incarnation"? Or doesn't he?
To some people, the more
To some people, the more that is shrouded in mystery and secrecy, the better, but that is not how to engage most people. For people to be engaged with shared prayer, there needs to be an easy understanding of most of what is being said. The less the priest/bishop has to stop and explain the definition of words, the easier the understanding...in the same way that good grammar and punctuation lets the reader get to the content rather than getting stuck on the errors along the way.
Then, germangreek, the real mysteries shine through...
The words 'permutating',
The words 'permutating', 'steamer recliners', and 'Titanic' spring to mind.










Why would the Vatican want
Why would the Vatican want the translation to be closer to the Latin originals and more âRomanâ in both syntax and vocabulary? Do you think the original writers of this scripture debated the use of hieroglyphics before settling on Latin as their choice of language? No, they used the language that was the standard for the times with syntax that was standard for the times, not some past language. Scripture is supposed to be ever revealing to us and what we end up doing is explaining the meaning of words and the context of that meaning because we can't understand it since we do not use the "old" language. I'm not suggesting that scripture be re-written into the present day vernacular, just a little sense when it comes to choosing words or phrases that have meaing to us today...and gibbet does not fall into that category.