Criticism? Impossible
by Susan Benofy
In the Fall of 1962, with the Second Vatican Council still in
session, several English-speaking bishops met in Rome to discuss
the production of the vernacular translations that they
anticipated would be authorized by the Council. The bishops
envisioned a committee which would produce uniform translations
for all the English-speaking countries. Their talks led to the
formation of the International Committee (later, Commission) on
English in the Liturgy (ICEL).
In 1967, ICEL produced its first official English translation of a
liturgical text, the Roman Canon (known today as Eucharistic
Prayer I). The translation provoked considerable controversy,
however; and in view of ICEL's current revision of the
Sacramentary, it is worth considering the 1967 controversy in some
detail.
Extensive coverage of the proposed translation was carried in the
<Tablet>, a Catholic periodical published in London. The fact that
some of the authors of these articles were members of the ICEL
Advisory Board makes them especially interesting. One of the
<Tablet's> authors, H. P. R. Finberg, a professor of local history
at the University of Leicester, had collaborated on the
translation of the Mass for <The Missal in Latin and English>,
originally published in England in 1949 and in the US by Sheed and
Ward in 1953.
Shortly after it was announced that Rome had approved the English-
speaking bishops' request to have the Canon said in the
vernacular, Finberg published a proposed translation in a <Tablet>
article, "The Canon of the Mass: An Alternate English Version."
Although Finberg himself was a strong advocate of retaining "Thee"
for addressing God, his version used "You"-to satisfy the
preference of the American hierarchy who originally requested the
translation, he explained. While Finberg subscribes to the
principle of simplicity of vocabulary his version contains such
phrases as "we make our humble petition"; "Mary, the glorious
ever-Virgin Mother of God"; "these gifts, this entire sacrificial
offering"; "He . . . took bread into his holy and worshipful
hands." Finberg says he had offered this translation to his
colleagues on the board "as an alternative to the American draft
they already have before them."
In November 1967, another article by Finberg, <The Canon in
English>, considers the English version which ICEL had just
published. He disapproved of many aspects of ICEL's offering. He
summarized a letter of Cardinal Lercaro, president of the
<Consilium>, insisting that the translation must be complete and
even literal, taking the Canon "without mutilation or
simplification of any kind," and cited explanations in ICEL's
notes accompanying the translation which he thought gave
inadequate justification for various omissions. For example,
ICEL's version of the Canon of the Mass begins, "We come to you
Father . . ." Finberg quoted ICEL's explanation: <come> "is here
intended to embrace the sense of suppliance." Finberg asked: "But
does it? This is surely more than most people will read into a not
very pregnant word."
Finberg also complained that expressions which convey the concept
of a hierarchical universe "are either softened or excised." He
concluded: "The truth is that, consciously or unconsciously, the
translators have bowed to the influence of critics who find much
of the Roman Canon repugnant to the contemporary mind."
Two weeks later the <Tablet> featured an unsigned front-page
editorial entitled "<Lingua Deserta>," which began by stating that
the vernacular liturgy "serves an invaluable pastoral purpose
today" and that there should be no real conflict between those who
support Latin and those who support the vernacular. However, it
was the author's belief that both sides have been "betrayed" by
the ICEL Canon. He supported Finberg's criticism, which he calls
"measured and moderate" but also "devastating" in its effect. The
editorial quoted part of ICEL's own statement, taking issue with
its assertion that the translation of the Canon "has already
achieved a considerable measure of success" [apparently by being
accepted by most English-speaking conferences), and said it is
"highly debatable" whether the assertions that the ICEL
translation "accurately conveys the sense of the original and
combines dignity with simplicity of language."
The editorial went on:
Nobody who studies it line by line with the original can fail to
notice that it is a prime example of that "desacralization"
against which the Pope has warned the Church. The ancient and
venerable text of the Roman Canon has been mutilated beyond
recognition.
The editorial ended with a plea to the bishops to reconsider,
since the Consilium has not yet given final approval to the ICEL
text.
ICEI rewrites history
How did ICEL react to this criticism? Consider some excerpts from
their official report to the English-speaking episcopal
conferences, as they were carried in a news release issued by the
US Catholic Conference on February 12, 1968:
In general, in those countries which have already put the text
into use, the translation has received overwhelming approval from
lay and cleric, peritus, and man in the street .... Certain
objections to the translation are more frequently heard, though in
fact they are small. In general the notes cover these objections
and it is important to refer to them ....
This reaction illustrates ICEL's ability to ignore criticism,
including official disapproval. In fact, by the time ICEL's
official report appeared in print, it had already been announced
that the ICEL Canon would not be approved in its original form and
would have to be revised. This announcement appeared, for example,
in the Tablet on January 6, 1968. Opinion in Rome of ICEL's
premier work, apparently, had been no more favorable than in
London.
Even today, an account of the history of ICEL by its current
executive secretary, John Page, mentions that the provisional ICEL
Canon issued in 1967 was "generally applauded," although he
acknowledges there were some critics. The only indication that
Rome actually <rejected> ICEL's original version is a bland
statement that in 1968 "a slightly revised form of Eucharistic
Prayer I was sent to the conferences of bishops." Even more
striking in its censorship of the controversy is the following
statement from a 1995 article by a founding member of ICEL, Msgr.
Frederick R. McManus:
ICEL's first major translation was the Roman Canon, now called
Eucharistic Prayer I. The text was accompanied by full notes
explaining the reasons for what had been done, and it received
formal approbation by the conferences of bishops and confirmation
by the Apostolic See.
The suppression of all reference to official disapproval of past
ICEL texts is especially significant in this article, which
reviews ICEL's history in the context of a defense against the
criticism of its current revision of the Sacramentary. Of this
criticism, McManus says:
The outcry was that of a minority. Generally these seemed to be
good people but people who were really and radically dissatisfied
with the Second Vatican Council more than with liturgical texts
... The complaints were usually poorly informed, often
overwrought in their generalized criticisms and their goals:
first, word-for-word, mechanistic translations and, second,
exclusive rather than inclusive language.
He adds: ". . . ICEL has adequately responded to even the most
ill-founded complaints . . ." As usual, this claim to have
answered critics was made without even any summary of the
arguments that were offered, let alone specific reference to
published accounts of any such answers.
Who rejects the Council?
Also characteristic of ICEL, and equally lacking in documentation,
is the charge that its critics generally reject the teachings of
the Second Vatican Council. A similar charge was made as early as
1967 (in the midst of a controversy on the ICEL canon text) by
Archbishop Paul J. Hallinan of Atlanta, one of the founding
bishops of ICEL and then the chairman of the American bishops'
Committee on the Liturgy. His biographer records that he said of
cardinals opposing his proposal that one of them "had simply
repealed in his mind the documents of Vatican II . . ."
Since ICEL has regularly questioned the motives and the mindset of
its critics, it is interesting to note who supported ICEL's Canon,
and what views of the Second Vatican Council and the reform of the
liturgy they held. Let us begin with the two sources quoted above
in ICEL's own report.
The first quote was from <Worship>, a liturgy journal published by
the Benedictine monks at St. John's, Collegeville, which had long
advocated use of the vernacular. an 1967 the editor was Father
Godfrey Diekmann, OSB, a member of the ICEL advisory board; Father
Frederick McManus was listed among its associate editors.) In this
article Father Aelred Tegels, OSB, charged that the "most violent"
critics of the ICEL text are a small minority "fundamentally
opposed to any English canon." But he also acknowledged the
existence of another group of critics, who "simply do not like the
Roman Canon, at least in its present form." He was much gentler in
his treatment of these critics, perhaps because he could be
numbered among them. Else where in the article Tegels wrote, "No
doubt we shall all soon be persuaded that we need new texts for
the eucharistic prayer." And a year later, he wrote that they
offered "welcome relief from the major deficiencies of the Roman
Canon."
The ICEL report's second approving quote is from a letter in the
<Tablet> written by Tad Guzie, SJ, of St. Edmund's House in
Cambridge. Like Tegels, Guzie seemed to be basically dissatisfied
with the traditional Roman rite. In a 1974 book he insisted that
the liturgical changes since the Council deemphasize the
consideration of the Eucharist as an object (in the old rite) in
favor of what he considers the primary symbol, the Eucharist as
action (in the new rite). In his view the Real Presence of Christ
in the Eucharist was no longer "an objectified physical presence"
but "a way of symbolizing the connection between our action and
the Lord whose victory it celebrates."
Clearly, those whom ICEL singles out as representative of its
supporters actually serve to validate Professor Finberg's charge
that ICEL has been influenced by "critics who find much of the
Roman Canon repugnant to the contemporary mind." Similar views
have been expressed by members of ICEL's own Advisory Board and
secretariat.
Since ICEL members themselves acknowledge that their agenda for
the reform of the Roman liturgy is much more "radical" than that
explicitly authorized by the Second Vatican Council, it is ironic
that critics are so often charged with rejecting the Council when
they ask for accurate translations of liturgical texts and
authentic implementation of the actual Council documents. Even
directives from official Vatican sources which call for the
elimination of abuses, or interpret the Council differently from
ICEL have been called "a loss of nerve." (Thus did Msgr. McManus
refer to a 1970 decree from the Congregation for Divine Worship,
in an article published in the July 1980 issue of <Worship>.)
Apparently in the minds of many of its members, only ICEL knows
what the Council <really> intended; and anyone who does not agree
with ICEL- even a bishop-is rejecting the Council. An incident
recounted in Godfrey Diekmann's biography illustrates this
attitude. In the late 1950s St. John's Abbey in Collegeville built
a new abbey church. Its design, in which Diekmann was involved,
was decidedly "contemporary." Father Andrew Greeley visited the
abbey, and Diekmann showed him the model, enthusiastically
pointing out all its advanced features.
Greeley asked the perhaps not too innocent question: "But Godfrey,
what if it is not the architectural wave of the future?" Godfrey
stopped dead in his tracks, frowned as though this thought had
never occurred to him, and then waved his hand: "Impossible!"
If ICEL members see it as the liturgical wave of the future, this
may account for why criticism of any kind-from grumbling in the
pews to detailed theological critiques from bishops-is so easy to
brush aside. Perhaps criticism of ICEL's agenda is thought to be
not only misguided or in error, but as- "Impossible!"
Susan Benofy works with Women for Faith and Family. This article
is excerpted from a longer report which will appear in the
Adoremus Bulletin.
This article appeared in the August-September 1996 issue of "The
Catholic World Report," P.O. Box 6718, Syracuse, NY 13217-7912,
800-825-0061. Published monthly except bimonthly August/September
at $39.95 per year.
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
Email address:
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------
