A Determined Vatican Official Calls ICEL to Accountability

by Unknown

Invoking the authority of the Holy Father and indicating that it is "inconceivable that English- speaking clergy and faithful should have to wait a decade or more" for liturgical translations, Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez (see letter) has directed that the governing statutes of the International Commission on the Liturgy (ICEL) "be revised thoroughly and without delay." Cardinal Medina says that the problems with English-language liturgical translation "assume a particular gravity" because the impact of English-language translations on other language groups is "an observed and unavoidable fact."

Cardinal Medina is the prefect for the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. His directive caps a decade-long effort by many in the Catholic hierarchy to contain the excesses of ICEL in its liturgical translation and revisions. The cardinal's letter, leaked to the National Catholic Reporter, is addressed to ICEL's chairman, Bishop Maurice Taylor of Galloway, Scotland, on October 26, 1999. It is the culmination of a long effort by the Holy See to encourage reforms in an organization that is seen to be increasingly resistant to the concerns of bishops and cardinals who take a particular interest in the accuracy of liturgical translations.

After observing that "the competence of the Holy See...is not always sufficiently reflected in the [ICEL's] Statutes," Cardinal Medina writes that his Congregation is "exercising the mandate assigned to it in the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, article 62"—where, on June 28, 1988, the Holy Father delegated to Cardinal Medina's Congregation "the regulation and the promotion of the Sacred Liturgy."

Specifically, Cardinal Medina directs that ICEL's governing statutes take into account the following:

• ICEL is to translate "Roman liturgical texts and books in their integrity." ICEL is to be excluded from the "adaptation, modification or the composition of original texts."
• The "office of executive secretary is in need of a careful reconfiguration" to encourage "due accountability" with "a clearer demarcation...from that of the Bishop Members of [ICEL]." Cardinal Medina suggests that a bishop, not a layman, be elected executive secretary.
• Paid employees "should serve ad tempus" with renewal procedures for periodic employment.
• Members "currently termed the Advisory Committee or the Secretariat, and their respective collaborators, shall require the nihil obstat of this Congregation in order to assume and to maintain their posts...."
• The work of ICEL should be "anonymous and confidential."
• Direct publication of liturgical texts before recognitio of the Holy See permitting their use in the Sacred Liturgy should be prohibited.
• "The redrafting of the Statutes should be undertaken directly by the Bishop members" of ICEL.
• The draft of the new statutes should be submitted to the Vatican "preferably by Easter of 2000."

January 2000 ICEL Meeting

According to a December 30, 1999 Catholic News Service report, "Representatives of the 11 bishops' conferences which sponsor ICEL will meet January 21 in London to discuss Cardinal Medina's letter." Cardinal Francis George, the American member of the ICEL board of governors, will represent the American bishops.

The January meeting promised to be dramatic (although little information is available at this writing). In June 1998, the National Catholic Reporter leaked the minutes of a March 24 and 25 meeting of the Administrative Committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB). The Administrative Committee is the steering committee for the entire conference. Cardinal George had just been appointed as ICEL's American representative. Before his appointment as ICEL's American representative, George was numbered among the bishops who actively sought to correct the ICEL texts.

The Reporter said that Cardinal George argued that there was "significant opposition" within the American hierarchy to the work of ICEL. The newspaper also reported that several other members of the ICEL board immediately disagreed. But in his October 1999 letter, Cardinal Medina himself said:

"In their contacts with the Dicastery, not a few Bishops have expressed concerns not only about the quality of the translations produced by the Mixed Commission [ICEL] but also about procedures which they felt limited their own ability to obtain corrections and improvements that they considered necessary for the accuracy of the texts."

At the upcoming meeting of the ICEL episcopal representatives, there can be no disagreement as to the gravity of Cardinal Medina's directives.

Confirmation of ICEL Sacramentary Remains Uncertain

Cardinal Medina accentuated the uncertainty over the ultimate approval of the ICEL Sacramentary in his October 1999 letter. Even though he referred to his 1997 letter, where he corrected in detail ICEL's translation of the Rites of Ordination, Cardinal Medina said the required corrections carry "implications extend[ing] far beyond this single text." He added: "Increasingly, the Mixed Commission's [ICEL's] texts paraphrase or redraft" the original Latin "while revising the rubrics so extensively as to impede effective recourse to the Latin text for the sake of clarification."

(It is interesting to note that Cardinal Medina is suggesting that priests should continue to have "effective recourse to the Latin text for the sake of clarification." This comment is welcome news to many who are concerned that diocesan liturgists sometimes exceed their authority, with questionable explanations that contradict the norms of the Roman Missal. Diocesan directives to include women during the washing of feet on Holy Thursday—in violation of the Roman Missal—is a well-known example.)

ICEL not only attempted extensively to revise the rubrics of the Rites of Ordination, but suggested extensive revisions to the ICEL Sacramentary as well. During the June 1995 meeting of the American bishops the ICEL "variations" to the Roman Missal were considered. For example, the Opening Rites would be called "Entrance Rites," with a variety of new options. Depending upon the option selected, the Gloria could be licitly eliminated. To avoid the use of "He became Man" in the Nicene Creed (Homo factus est), priests would be permitted to substitute the Apostles' Creed at any Mass, not only at Masses for Children. Observers noted in 1997 that all of the problems identified in Archbishop Medina's letter regarding the Rites of Ordination could also apply to the new translation of the ICEL Sacramentary as well. Archbishop Medina wrote that ICEL's composition of new texts for the Rites of Ordination were "in disharmony with the conventions of the Roman Liturgy, confused, largely unsuited to the circumstances in which they would be used, and at best theologically impoverished." He also wrote "the texts that form part of the Eucharistic Prayer" were "[p]articularly problematic." The ICEL Sacramentary, of course, commits the same mistakes. The complaint that ICEL failed "to transmit faithfully important doctrinal aspects of the Latin original" of the Rites of Ordination was echoed by many bishops during the debates on the ICEL Sacramentary.

In his latest, October 1999 letter, Cardinal Medina reiterates his Congregation's "misgivings about the use of [ICEL's] resources for activities not concerned with translation, including the composition of original texts, which in fact are not the province of" ICEL.

ICEL's Tactics

ICEL also has a history of attempting to circumvent the authority of the Catholic bishops and Vatican dicasteries. In a preliminary step in revising the Divine Office, ICEL published a new "inclusive language" translation of the Psalter in April 1995. Although it was said to be published for study and comment—and not for liturgical use—the intensive promotion of the ICEL Psalter provided wide access to texts that have not been approved for liturgical use by the NCCB nor by the Vatican. Publication of the ICEL Canticles followed. Both were published by Liturgical Training Publications (a press which belongs to the Archdiocese of Chicago), and are being promoted for liturgical use.

In his October 1999 letter, Cardinal Medina objects to this tactic: "A further concern is the fact that the Mixed Commission's authorization for the use of its texts, such as the so- called ICEL Psalter, appears to have resulted in their being employed in ways which directly contravene liturgical law."

Such attempts to contravene liturgical law have frustrated many of the bishops and other observers who have followed ICEL's activity over the years. Cardinal Medina clearly addressed the problem, observing that "texts and the rubrics have sometimes been altered in substance without prior authorization from the Holy See, and indeed without even a request for such authorization."

Referring to reports that ICEL plans to publish the recently revised ICEL Sacramentary for use by non-Catholics before Vatican confirmation, Cardinal Medina writes, "This very fact has then been presented to the Congregation by some quarters as an argument that the recognitio should be granted so as not to impede an ecumenical initiative." Cardinal Medina insists, on the contrary: "The freedom of the Holy See to act in matters pertaining to its competence cannot be encumbered in such a way."

Cardinal Medina's letter also revealed a little-known example of ICEL's propensity to avoid hierarchical guidance and supervision—a boldness that surprised even those who closely monitor ICEL's work. Normally, liturgical texts translated by ICEL are approved by English- speaking bishops and submitted to the Vatican for confirmation before publication for liturgical use. Cardinal Medina's letter indicates that he is "obliged to note" that a translation of the Ceremonial of Bishops (the book of prayers used by bishops during the celebration of major celebrations) "was published by [ICEL] without the necessary episcopal approbation and without the recognitio of this Congregation."

Cardinal Medina identifies "certain liberties" taken by the executive secretary as a matter of "particular concern, observing: "All of these factors appear to converge towards the conclusion that [ICEL] in its present form is not in a position to render to the Bishops, to the Holy See and to the English-speaking faithful an adequate level of service, nor to produce with appropriate promptness the texts that will be needed in the foreseeable future...." Hence he directs that "the office of executive secretary" in particular be carefully reconfigured "so as to increase in a notable way the due accountability of such a figure and to ensure a clearer demarcation of his role from that of the Bishop Members of the Commission."

The National Catholic Reporter, in its June 18, 1998 issue, revealed the urgency of ICEL's concern over the prospect of an unraveling ICEL Sacramentary in Rome—the consequence of Vatican's rejection of the ICEL translation of the Rites of Ordination. According to the Reporter, no formal decisions were made at the ICEL board meeting as to how to respond to Rome's most recent actions, though sources said the bishops hoped for a dialogue with Rome—a dialogue that would observe ICEL's established processes, rather than Rome issuing mandates."

By 1999, Cardinal Medina apparently recognized that the call for "dialogue" and other bureaucratic maneuvers by ICEL were actually tactics of delay. After Archbishop Medina's 1997 directive to correct translation errors in the Rites of Ordination, ICEL prepared draft responses that were multiple and confusing. ICEL's new drafts of the Rites of Ordination were in disarray, causing consternation at the Vatican. In his October 1999 letter, Cardinal Medina reveals: "...one draft translation was substituted at short notice by another, and that after the second had been approved by the Bishops of the Commission, that text was then set aside by [Bishop Maurice Taylor] in favor of a third text."

Cardinal Medina reminds the ICEL chairman that the Vatican's criticism of the ICEL translation of the Rites of Ordination, detailed in a September 1997 letter, was not "exhaustive" but "was merely illustrative" and "not intended to be subject to discussion or refutation by translation personnel of [ICEL]." It was the final call to accountability. While Cardinal Medina indicates that the bishops were "always most welcome" to visit with his Congregation, he adds that "the feasibility of more ample contacts between the Congregation and the employees or collaborators of the Commission is doubtful."

ICEL's Principles of Translation

Since its first English-language texts appeared in the early 1970s, ICEL's translation methods have been controversial. At the November 1994 meeting of the American bishops, several bishops argued that ICEL's principles of translation were based on a flawed and outdated 1969 document, entitled Comme le prévoit, that was included among a flurry of directives that attempted to implement the decrees of the Second Vatican Council. With the passage of time, existing principles of translation embodied in this post-conciliar document were widely seen as deficient. ICEL's use of contemporary language can be traced to this document.

Comme le prévoit also set the groundwork for theories of language and translation principles (such as "dynamic equivalence") that ICEL employs. Proponents of "dynamic equivalence" methods of translation insist such methods are necessary to ensure that liturgical texts can be easily proclaimed in the receptor language. Presumably this is the reason why words like "saint," "merit," "blessed," and "soul" are frequently dropped from the texts.

The "dynamic equivalence" method of translation was also invoked to accommodate a wide application of so-called "inclusive language." Sentences needed to be recast to avoid the generic use of "man" or male pronouns. The pervasive and frequently intrusive alterations were by design, clearly accommodating a contemporary feminist ideology.

As quoted in a January 1997 issue of the New Zealand Catholic, Dr. Ken Larsen, an ex-priest from Auckland, New Zealand, and one of the two principal translators of the revised ICEL Sacramentary, said, "We seldom refer to God as Him or Father, and in general we avoid personal pronouns." According to the New Zealand Catholic Larsen and an American Jesuit, Father James Devereaux, spent more than ten years working on the ICEL Sacramentary. Larsen added: "There are odd occasions where the word Pater occurs in Latin and sometimes you can't get around using the word Father. But in general we have been very meticulous in keeping to the principle of inclusive language."

On June 20, 1996 Archbishop Geraldo Majella Agnelo, then the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, said the Vatican was aware of the pointed debate over liturgical translations, but said the Holy See "pays more attention to the results that are ultimately approved by the bishops' conferences." He did hint the bishops themselves might take a more active role in ensuring the accuracy of translations, saying that perhaps "there is a need to make further clarifications to the bishops' conferences, in order to increase their involvement and their influence in something that is their right and duty: translating liturgical books and texts."

Archbishop Agnelo also gently signaled that ICEL's principles of translation were outdated. He said that while Comme le prévoit contains "valuable principles," it must be recognized "as a text dated 1969, from the first period of liturgical reform." He said that its current value "is therefore conditioned by the experience of the last 27 years, along with the fact that there exist new canon law norms regarding the approval of such translations." Archbishop Agnelo also observed that when the Vatican issued an instruction on inculturation and the Roman liturgy in 1994, no reference was made to Comme le prévoit. Instead, he said, it cited the Pope's 1988 apostolic letter on the liturgy, which called for a reflection throughout the universal Church on how liturgical translations have been accomplished and on the specific role of bishops' conferences in the process.

Despite such admonitions by the Vatican on the now-questionable value of Comme le prévoit, the trajectory of ICEL's translations remained the same.

Power Grab or Responsible Exercise of Authority?

In a December 24, 1999 editorial, the National Catholic Reporter described Cardinal Medina's letter as a "bare-knuckles power grab" and encouraged the Vatican to "take the time for real debate on translation." This ignores the fact that ICEL was given considerable time and opportunity to reform itself. Shortly after granting the Congregation for Divine Worship authority to regulate matters of liturgy in the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus in 1988, the Holy Father issued an apostolic letter on the liturgy, calling for a church-wide reflection on how liturgical translations have been accomplished and on the specific role of bishops' conferences in the process. He wrote:

"For the work of translation, as well as for the wider implications of liturgical renewal for whole countries, each episcopal conference was required to establish a national commission and ensure the collaboration of experts in the various sectors of liturgical science and pastoral practice. The time has come to evaluate this commission [i.e., ICEL], its past activity, both the positive and negative aspects, and the guidelines and the help which it has received from the episcopal conference regarding its composition and activity."

The Holy Father's concern for accurate and beautiful liturgical translations was reiterated in December 1993, shortly after the American bishops stunned ICEL by delaying the approval of its first segment of the Sacramentary. In an address to the bishops of California, Nevada, and Hawaii, during their ad Limina visit to Rome, the Pontiff affirmed the responsibility of the bishops to insist upon an accurate translation of the Roman Missal. He advised the bishops to "guard the full doctrinal integrity and beauty of the original [liturgical] texts." Translations, insisted the Pope, are to be "free from doctrinal ambiguity and ideological influence." Finally, he said liturgical translations were to reflect a "language of praise and worship which fosters respect and gratitude for God's greatness, compassion and power."

Beyond these public directives and expressions of concern by the Pope, Cardinal Medina insisted that his Vatican office has communicated "for a number of years now... concerns regarding an undue autonomy that has been observed in the translations prepared by" ICEL. The Holy Father's comments make it clear that Cardinal Medina's exercise of authority is not capricious, nor is he acting alone; nor is he bound by ICEL procedures. Cardinal Medina declares— with clear papal authority—that his office is defined by a mandate "ensuring that translations accurately and fully convey the content of the original texts."

What is the Future of ICEL?

Is ICEL as an organization essential to that mandate? In September 1999, the NCCB published the English translations of a small supplemental volume of Mass prayers and prefaces to be used during the "Great Jubilee Year 2000." The texts—in Latin, English and Spanish—were approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship. A close observer described the translation as an "excellent rendering of the Latin" and hoped that it is "a sign of things to come."

Apparently, ICEL was not involved in that process. Nowhere does ICEL receive credit for the translation. The introductory letter by Roger Cardinal Etchegaray also offered a provocative detail. He indicated that if any "bishop would like to prepare a different translation to the one approved, he should submit the translation to the Congregation for Divine Worship for the required approval." ICEL's monopoly on the translation of the Mass into English may already be broken.

It may be tempting for some supporters of ICEL to downplay the authority and burden of responsibility that belongs to Cardinal Medina and Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship. But in view of the cardinal's October letter directing the reorganization of ICEL, it would be a mistake to underestimate his determination.

Membership Requirements

CREDO is a tax-exempt, not-for-profit corporation. All contributions are very much welcome and are tax deductible. CREDO has been established as a society of priests. We also accommodate lay associates.

© Credo, P.O. Box 7004, Arlington, VA 22207, www.credo.org.

This item 2749 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org