Friday 13 May 2011 the Holy See Press Office will make public the Instruction Universæ Ecclesiæ by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei about the implementation of the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" Summorum Pontificum of H. H. Benedict XVI. The Instruction will be published in the afternoon edition of the Osservatore Romano, dated 14 May.
The text of the Instruction - in Latin, Italian, French, English, German, Spanish and Portoguese - will be at the disposal of accredited journalists from 10 a.m. on Friday 13 May, being under embargo until noon. Together with the text of the Instruction, an editorial note will be provided.
(UPDATE: Mark Brumley, President of Ignatius Press writes: "The problem did not originate with the German text--at least not if the Italian translation is based on the same German text as that on which Ignatius Press based its translation. The German text of question 420 asks whether a Christian married couple may regulate the number of children they have. It does not ask whether the couple may use methods of contraception.")This conflicts with the original CNA post that sites and confirms that the 'problem' is in the "original German text" - so the question remains: "Where is the problem?" Is it in the original german or a translation issue that only crops up in the Italian? I am less worried about assigning blame (I am sure others are chomping at the bit on that one) and more interested in finding the 'problem' and figuring out if it will be corrected.
Apparently some of the foreign translations have been printed with confusing and wrong teachings on contraception. The original was written in German, and I guess the translation to other languages has created some odd language. Here is the relevant part of the story from Ignatius Press' Blog:Catholic News Agency has reported that the Italian edition of YOUCAT (Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church) suggests that "contraceptive methods" can be used by Catholic couples in regulating the size of families. The report says, "Vatican sources who spoke to CNA April 11 on the condition of anonymity speculated that the problem was in the original German text, a fact that was later confirmed by CNA." It further reports: "The English edition, published by Ignatius Press, does not contain the problematic language. It is not yet known if other language versions also contain the same controversial statement on contraception."Apparently the english translations are "OK" - I think the language could have been a little more clear for kids, but again, a lot of this is done on a translation basis, so the balance between continuity and precision is often a battle.
Below are paragraphs 420 and 421 from the English translation of YOUCAT, published by Ignatius Press:420 May a Christian married couple regulate the number of children they have?
Yes, a Christian married couple may and should be responsible in using the gift and privilege of transmitting life. [2368–2369, 2399]
Sometimes social, psychological, and medical conditions are such that in the given circumstances an additional child would be a big, almost superhuman challenge for the couple. Hence there are clear criteria that the married couple must observe: Regulating births, in the first place, must not mean that the couple is avoiding conception as a matter of principle. Second, it must not mean avoiding children for selfish reasons. Third, it must not mean that external coercion is involved (if, for example, the State were to decide how many children a couple could have). Fourth, it must not mean that any and every means may be used.
421 Why are all methods of preventing the conception of a child not equally good?
The Church recommends the refined methods of self-observation and natural family planning (NFP) as methods of deliberately regulating conception. These are in keeping with the dignity of man and woman; they respect the innate laws of the female body; they demand mutual affection and consideration and therefore are a school of love. [2370–2372, 2399]
The Church pays careful attention to the order of nature and sees in it a deep meaning. For her it is therefore not a matter of indifference whether a couple manipulates the woman’s fertility or instead makes use of the natural alternation of fertile and infertile days. It is no accident that Natural Family Planning is called natural: it is ecological, holistic, healthy, and an exercise in partnership. On the other hand, the Church rejects all artificial means of contraception—namely, chemical methods (“the Pill”), mechanical methods (for example, condom, intra-uterine device, or IUD), and surgical methods (sterilization)—since these attempt to separate the sexual act from its procreative potential and block the total self-giving of husband and wife. Such methods can even endanger the woman’s health, have an abortifacient effect (= cause a very early abortion), and in the long run be detrimental to the couple’s love life.
VATICAN CITY — The Vatican is opening a new avenue for dialogue, this time with Catholic bloggers.
The pontifical councils for culture and for social communications are inviting bloggers to the Vatican May 2 so the Vatican can “listen to the experiences of those who are actively involved in this arena” and “achieve a greater understanding of the needs of that community,” said a press release sent out this morning.
The meeting is pretty much open to any Catholic blogger, but the fact that there are only 150 seats in the conference hall and that the Vatican is looking for a mix of languages means the Vatican will be making some choices. The press release said the Vatican also wants a geographical mix and diversity based on the kinds of blogs out there: institutional and private, multi-voice and personal.
Those who want to attend must apply by sending an email to blogmeet@pccs.it and including a link to their blog. The press release also said that those who apply first will be given priority.
The pontifical councils chose the day after Pope John Paul II’s beatification because they assume many of the bloggers will already be in Rome and wouldn’t have to make a special trip. Simultaneous translation will be provided in Italian, English, French, Polish and Spanish.
Fr. Charles Bouchard, OP, past president of Aquinas Institute of Theology in St. Louis, has resigned from the board of the Center for Liturgy at St. Louis University in protest of the forthcoming missal translation. Pray Tell spoke to him about his decision.The battle lines are being drawn - and not by us, but by folks like Father Bouchard. There is a division, a divide, a dissidence that exists and it is a disease that has spread for decades here in America, and finally we are getting some remedy in the form of the coming Missal Translation later this year. People like Fr. Bouchard know that this remedy could exterminate the strain of dissident thought that pervades certain corners of the Church here in the U.S. To those that think as he does, this could be the end of the American Church.
* * * * *
Why did you resign from the board of the Center for Liturgy?
I greatly admire the work that the Center for Liturgy does, especially in the area of liturgy and homily resources. However, when education and promotion of the new missal became a central strategic priority, I told them I had to leave the board because I did not feel in good conscience I could promote something I thought was a mistake. [A mistake is vastly different than morally or theologically wrong. As we will see below, his objection is not founded in some objective standard but instead it is a subjective assesment. This is not valid grounds for infidelity to Rome.]
What are your objections to the forthcoming missal?
My objections are on several levels. The first is governance. [By governance he means - power.] This new translation is being imposed on us without adequate consultation and without apparent respect for the needs and cultural sensitivities of the American church. [This is in support of my point above, Fr. Bouchard is the one claiming there is a distinct American church, separate and differnt than the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church..."] Changes in the liturgy should strengthen worship, reverence, understanding and participation. I can’t see that the new missal is designed to do any of these things. [This statement is not academic. What I mean, is he is making an emotional point here, he cannot say this with any intellectual sincerity. He is a learned man I assume, and this argument would be destroyed in any back and forth debate.] Why is the American church not being allowed the same freedom with its texts that other language groups have been allowed?
I also object because there are many serious problems with our liturgy: poor music, inadequate participation by the faithful, bad preaching. Why are these issues not addressed with the same determination that was behind the missal revision? [Again, emotional appeal, and a fallacy. The Missal translation and settings are actually addressing portions of these "issues" where relevant.]
Finally, I object to the translation itself. Complaints about words such as “consubstantial” and the replacement of “for you and for all” with “for you and for many” are familiar. But the bigger picture is that there is a lack of appreciation for the beauty inherent in our own language. I have heard that the main reason for the new missal is to provide an English-language editio typica. This is perhaps understandable, but do we have to sacrifice the beauty of our own language to get there?
Why not commission a new version that is faithful to the editio typica, but yet produced by the top theologians and poets? In my experience the best preaching is rooted in metaphors that present the mysteries of the faith in a new light – helping us to grasp them just a bit more fully. Could we not also avail ourselves of this fresh metaphorical language in our liturgical texts as well? Can we not preserve doctrine and metaphor?
Words matter – and not just because they enforce doctrine. They also incite the imagination and enable the gifts of the Holy Spirit to deepen our grasp of God’s presence in our lives. [I applaud Father here, because he makes another compelling emotional argument here. What it lacks though, is any intellectual meat. This argument has at its roots a fear that the 'American Church' looses power [authority] over itself with these changes. This reigns in the liturgical abuses that have been rampant in past decades. This is Rome reclaiming her sheep. Father understands this, and he is correct - Words matter. He couldn't say what he really thinks - these new words will profess a Faith that is vastly different than the one we have today. It will be more Faithful to the One Truth Faith, and it will hopefully undo the past few decades of distortion and modernism.]
Do you think there will be much resistance to the new missal in the larger church?
I don’t think so. Unfortunately, most priests are too busy to protest, and most parishioners are used to the liturgical bar being so low that they probably won’t know or care. I do think that its introduction will cause confusion, especially since many Catholics never understood why we made the last round of liturgical changes. [I could write a book on this answer. Suffice it to say it will cause confusion because many will see a Mass vastly different in its WORDS than what they are used to – and once the disease is recognized by some the healing will start.]
What do you think our bishops should do? What would a successful missal revision look like?
I think it is too late to do anything now. The new missal is a done deal. But if we were to revise the missal, it would be a thing of exceptional literary, musical and artistic beauty. I wish the bishops would speak more forcefully to Rome about the needs and vitality of the American Church – a church that is arguably still one of the most observant and faithful in the world. [Again he points out a separate and distinct Church. With a capital C, something different from the Church in Rome.] I also wish they would strengthen liturgical music and preaching.
My biggest concern is about the loss of a coherent and effective teaching voice by the U.S. bishops. In my most cynical moments, I think that the Vatican has silenced them as a conference in order to “divide and conquer.” [And here we see the true colors... he sees this as a battle between the Vatican and USCCB – I think he is right, unlike him... I see it as a good thing!]
Some physical exercises automatically produce a feeling of quiet and relaxation, pleasing sensations, perhaps even phenomena of light and of warmth, which resemble spiritual well-being. To take such feelings for the authentic consolations of the Holy Spirit would be a totally erroneous way of conceiving the spiritual life. Giving them a symbolic significance typical of the mystical experience, when the moral condition of the person concerned does not correspond to such an experience, would represent a kind of mental schizophrenia which could also lead to psychic disturbance and, at times, to moral deviations.
According to the daily edition of L’Osservatore Romano, the document “puts together texts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, prayers, theological explanations of the Roman Missal’s Eucharistic prayers and everything that may be useful for the correct understanding, celebration and adoration of the Sacrament on the altar.”
L’Osservatore Romano also explained that the Pope’s desire is that the compendium will help both priests and laity in “believing, celebrating and increasingly living out the Eucharistic Mystery.” The Holy Father also hopes that it will stimulate “every faithful person to make of their own lives a spiritual worship,” the paper added.
Wow... you combine this with "The Spirit of the Liturgy" by Pope Benedict, writing as Cardinal Ratzinger, and you have a Mass primer set that is second to none!
But, I worry, too, that some of these newcomers will also be nostalgists, anti-feminists, and anti-gay bigots. The ordaining of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire is not something I would have advised, but after all these centuries of schism, I am not sure why that should have been the straw that broke the camel’s back. The first email I received this morning was from a Jewish friend who saw this aspect of the development when he wrote: "Do you think Pope B- might set up a Jewish rite if we asked him? We could call it Judaism. He could call it unity with church. Everyone's happy."Sure, he laces his words with "bad" language, the type that makes you easily agree. Words like 'anti,' bigot, and schism. But when was reconciliation ever a bad thing? When did we shoot the 'Prodigal Son' simply because he returned? Also, where is it in the Bible where Jesus goes out and slaughters the 1 lamb, because it ran away from the other 99? This strain of Catholics, and thinking is doing a lot of damage to these 'reconciliation' efforts, at least internally. Why must we fight ourselves?
Archbishop Augustine DiNoia, former under-secretary at the CDF until recently who helped draft the new structure, said: “We’ve been praying for unity for 40 years. Prayers are being answered in ways we did not anticipate and the Holy See cannot not respond to this movement of the Holy Spirit for those who wish communion and whose tradition is to be valued.”
He said there has been a “tremendous shift” in the ecumenical movement and “these possibilities weren’t seen as they are now”. He rejected accusations that the new Anglicans be described as dissenters. “Rather they are assenting to the movement of the Holy Spirit to be in union with Peter, with the Catholic Church,” he said.
