Liturgical rejects: Vatican dismisses translations and translators.

Over previous years Catholic Insight has brought numerous articles on the pros and cons of biblical translations from Latin to English and their use in the Liturgy. On March 31, 2002, the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship sent a letter to the presidents of bishops' conferences saying that it would not accept the English translations presented to it hitherto. That includes the Canadian English translation of the Roman Missal sent in several years ago.

On April 25, Rome announced that it had created its own supervisory board for translations into English (Vox clara), which will make the final decision on what is, and what is not, acceptable (see C.I., July/August, p.28). Father John Zuhlsdorf writes a regular column on the proper translation of Latin liturgical texts into English in the American weekly The Wanderer. The following abbreviated article was published there in its May 16, 2002 edition.

Editor

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) has withheld its formal approval (recognitio) of the newest English translation of the second edition (edition typica altera) of the Latin Roman Missal. The letter conveying news of the rejection was dated March 16, 2002, and was over the signature of the Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez. Appended to the letter were several pages of "observations" making abundantly clear why the CDW refused the translation prepared by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL).

The CDW apparently sent the letter to the presidents of conferences of bishops "in whose territory the Liturgy of the Roman Rite is habitually celebrated in English." A dicastery ("office, department") of the Holy See will often send a communication intended for all the bishops of a region first to the president of the conference. The president, in turn, is to distribute it to the other bishops.

One American bishop with whom I spoke about the CDW letter told me that he had not received it through any regular channel and only knew about it because a third party sent it to him by e-mail. There is more than one kind of cover-up, I suppose. (Editor: In Canada, no mention has been made of it anywhere).

Vigorous language

It is well worth the time to explore what the Congregation communicated to the bishops. In a departure from the usually careful and diplomatic curial style, this rejection letter contained some of the strongest language I have ever read in a letter coming from the Holy See. It reminded me instantly of the letter by which some years ago the CDW rejected the translation of the newer Latin edition of the Ordination rites for bishops, priests, and deacons, and then effectively beat the tar out of the bishops for even submitting it in the first place. To that notable letter the Congregation had attached many pages of corrections; even those it stated were in no way to be considered exhaustive.

In the new rejection letter we find a similar statement. Regarding the appended "observations," which are called "the principal reasons" for the rejection, the Cardinal Prefect writes, "Though these are extensive, they are not intended to be exhaustive, even in a generic sense." That is to say, the Congregation did not bother even to list all the different categories of problems, much less all the problems themselves. The translation was so bad, it seems, that the Congregation opines that the only way to point out everything wrong would require "an integral annotated or reworked text." In other words, the Congregation would need to redo the whole translation with comments and then put it side by side with ICEL's submission.

It would be helpful to have a chronology of events so that we can put this latest development in context. Then, when we go through the CDW's new letter with its appended observations, everything will make more sense.

Looking back

You will recall that the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) …