Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:22:11 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Cd. Mahony on the new Missal (LONG!)

The following is the text of an interview with Roger Cardinal Mahony
that was printed in the November 13, 1992 "Tidings" (the newspaper of
the Archdiocese of Los Angeles).  It is used by permission and is
copyright (C) 1992 The Tidings.  It may be redistributed
electronically so long as the copyright notice is retained.  To
subscribe to the Tidings or for more information call (213) 251-3360.

The article is by the Editor of the Tidings, Tod Tamberg.  Anything
in [] is by me, Gordon Zaft. The Editor's Note preceeding is by Mr.
Tamberg.  Any typographical errors, except as noted, are mine and not
the original's.

--------------------------Begin Article---------------------------------

Editor's note: Translated into English from the original Latin in
1973, the prayers we use at Mass and at other times are currently
undergoing a second revision under the auspices of the International
Committee for English in the Liturgy (ICEL).
  Last Spring, the ICEL released "The Third Progress Report on the
Revision of the Roman Missal" to the bishops of the world's 11
English-speaking episcopal conferences.  Since then, a number of
bishops -- including Cardinal Roger Mahony -- have expressed concern
over portions of the proposed translations.  On July 7, the cardinal
articulated his concerns in an eight-page letter to Archbishop Daniel
Pilarczyk, archbishop of Cincinnati and chairman of the Episcopal
Board of the ICEL.
  In its Oct. 26 issue, TIME magazine, which had obtained a copy of
the letter, said Cardinal Mahony was at the head of "a conservative
group" of bishops aiming to "shoot down" the proposed changes, mainly
because they objected to the new translation's use of gender-neutral
language.
  In a recent interview with The Tidings, Cardinal Mahony discussed
in detail his concerns both with the ICEL's proposed translation and
with the process which produced the "Third Report."

Tidings: What is the need for a new English translation of the Roman
Missal?

Cardinal: The need for a new translation is pressing.  The 1973
translation was rushed and as a result, some of the English
expressions just don't captivate the spirit -- which is an important
part of drawing people into a deeper sense of prayer and worship.

Tidings: Is the ICEL's proposed new translation acceptable, or should
it be scrapped and the process begun anew?

Cardinal: As I stressed in my letter to Archbishop Pilarczyk, the
majority of the ICEL's translations are extremely well-done and
represent a vast improvement that will be welcomed by all.  So, it's
not a matter of scrapping the whole thing.
  There are, however, a number of problematic sections in the Third
Progress Report, which incidently, gives us translations only of
parts of the Missal.  I suggest that we lift up those problematic
sections and engage the U.S. bishops in a larger group to help
Archbishop Pilarczyk come up with proposals that can then be shared
with the other episcopal conferences.  In fact, I propose that all
episcopal conferences do the same thing.
  TIME magazine incorrectly stated that my concern was primarily with
sexist language.  My concern is that the bishops do not have or are
not going to have enough hands-on work with this document.

Tidings: Why should the bishops be involved at this point in the
translation process?

Cardinal: First, I must say that the bishops' involvement in the
process is key.  There are many areas in the life of the Church where
we need to delegate responsibility to consultants and staff.  But
because of "lex orandi, lex credendi" -- which means that what is
said aloud in worship is what one believes -- we as bishops need to
have a primary role in matters like this which involve the life of
prayer and worship in the Church.
  The current process is wanting.  Next year, the respective
episcopal conferences will be given a completed proposed translation
for which we can vote "yes" or "no" section by section.
  Before that vote, it would be better to get 30 or 40 bishops
together with some experts and consultants and spend a week at some
retreat house just working on those problem sections -- which aren't
that many -- to come up with what we feel is a translation that
maintains the integrity of the Latin version's theology and
ecclesiology while giving it to us in inspiring English.  I couldn't
spend a week in the whole year doing something more important than
this.

Tidings: What about the use of gender-neutral language in the
proposed new translation?

Cardinal: Obviously, we need to be sensitive in this area.  In
general, I think the translators have done a good job in this new
translation with two exceptions.
  First, the Roman Missal does not use the Latin word "Pater"
(Father) that often.  But where it does, it does so with a particular
purpose.  The word Father has a theological meaning as Jesus speaks
to the Father.  And I'm simply saying that in those instances
"Father" should be retained.
  The Missal uses "Dominus" (Lord) much more frequently and I think
this is the appropriate and wonderful place to substitute many of the
other titles -- Creator, Redeemer, etc., to give the greater sense of
God's power and goodness.
  What I'm afraid the translators have done, however, is to look at
the word "Father" and say "Oh we can't have that word," rather than
to ask, "What is the theological, ecclesiological sense of the word
in the Latin prayer?"
  Second, there are a few places where the use of inclusive language
is so exaggerated that it changes the content and imagery of the
prayer.  For instance, the prayer over the gifts which reads "Pray,
brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty
Father.  May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the
praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his
Church," will be changed to read "Brothers and sisters in Christ,
pray that our sacrifice will be pleasing to God.  For the glory of
God's name, the good of the Church, and the salvation of all the
world."
  There is a power and beauty in God engaged with us in accepting our
gifts that is totally missed in the new translation.  This is a
classic example of one of the relatively few places where the new
translation's attempt at inclusive language fails dismally.

Tidings: Where in the proposed new translation do you find
improvements over the 1973 version?

Cardinal: There are quite a few places, actually.  For instance, in
Eucharistic Prayer III we say "...so that from East to West a perfect
offering..."  The new translation brings us back to what the original
Latin says and it's much more poetic: "...so that from the rising of
the sun to its setting..."
  We need to make sure that the English reflects well the theology
and content of the Latin in the expressions that lead us to worship,
prayer and the deepening of our relationship with God.  That's the
purpose.  If there's a difficulty with the translation, then let's fix
it.

Tidings: What do you think of the proposed changes in the Lord's
Prayer? (See box) [attached to end of document]

Cardinal: There are some prayers that are enshrined in the long
tradition of the Church and should not be changed unless the words
become so archaic that people cannot understand them.
  This is a mammoth change which will create a generation [*] gap in
our families.  Children will no longer be able to pray the same
prayer as their parents and grandparents because each will be using
different versions of the "Our Father."
  It's neither wise or fair to make this major change without
consulting our people first.  If we are going to do it, let's
approach it like we do with the conversion to the metric system.
Let's give ourselves a 10-year window where we consult on the parish
and archdiocesan council levels first.  You can't just drop this on
folks and say "Here it is."
  Also, efforts to use contemporary language don't always work.  For
example, there was a proposal to change "manger" to "feed box" in the
new Lectionary.  "Manger" is not a word we use frequently, but it's
meaningful because it's enshrined in our Christmas carols and
stories.  "Away in a Feed Box" sounds absurd and people in the
streets will say you're crazy to change it.

        [*The printed copy said "gender", however Mr. Tamberg informed me it
should have read "generation" as above.--GZ]

Tidings: In your letter to Archbishop Pilarczyk, you expressed
concern that the translators had reworded the text of prayers to
reflect their own theology and ecclesiology.  What did you mean by
that statement?

Cardinal: Some of the translations are so convoluted that they seem
to reflect a point of view that's someone's agenda and that troubles
me.  In some cases, I think we're dealing with an exaggerated
feminist agenda -- which is something different from the use of
inclusive language.
  I think our goal should be inclusive language, but that doesn't
mean we have to tie into some of the feminist agenda that has, I
would say, some of its own theological and scriptural aberrations.
  I have also called for the publication of the list of people who
worked on the various sections.  This is not a witch hunt.  On the
whole, they've done a wonderful service to the Church with these
translations.
  When we bishops work on a pastoral, we list every single person who
came to any hearing or contributed in any way to the discussion.  We
should expect no less from the ICEL.


[End of interview.  Following is the box with the Lord's Prayer]

                        The Lord's Prayer

Proposed new translation:               Current version:

Our Father in heaven,                   Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be your name,                  hallowed by thy name,
your kingdom come,                      thy kingdom come,
your will be done,                      thy will be done,
on earth as in heaven.                  on earth as it is in heaven.
Give today our daily bread.             Give us this day our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins                     And forgive us our trespasses
as we forgive those who sin against us. as we forgive those who trespass
Save us from the time of trial          against us.
and deliver us from evil.               And lead us not into temptation,
For the kingdom, the power, and the     but deliver us from evil.
glory are yours
now and forever.

============================End Article=================================







Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU