Monday, September 19, 2005
Adoremus Hijinks
I check the Adoremus web page now and then. One of our associates here at the parish left years ago, but his Adoremus Bulletin still arrives regularly. (I wonder why he didn't give them a change-of-address notice.)
Bishops Trautman, BCL head and every tradi's favorite baddie takes AB to task for their June 2005 issue, in which they print a nearly four-year-old quote from America:
“The Authentic Liturgy is truly an embarrassment. What can be done? The church has in its possession a blemished but authoritative document released by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments and approved by the Holy Father. It is not realistic to expect that it will be rescinded.” Bishop Donald Trautman, America magazine, October 22, 2001
Is that what he really said about Liturgiam Authenticam, the Vatican document on translation principles? That's how the words run together. But Trautman explained in a 27 July 2005 letter to AB editor Helen Hull Hitchcock:
"I believe you have rendered a great disservice to myself by taking the first sentence of the above cited quotation out of its original context, and even joining it to the subsequent paragraph of my article. In context, my original statement was limited to the use of the Neo-Vulgate in the Book of Sirach and comments by Father Alexander DiLella, O.F.M. and the Executive Board of the Catholic Biblical Association."
Here's the quote embedded in two paragraphs from the original article on America's web site:
Consider the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiastes). Alexander DiLella, O.F.M., of The Catholic University—a specialist on the Book of Sirach—has demonstrated that the Book of Sirach in the Neo-Vulgate has more “variants, glosses, and interpolations than any book of the Latin Bible.” How then can this Neo-Vulgate text become the absolute norm for scriptural texts used in the liturgy? The Authentic Liturgy is simply wrong in making the Neo-Vulgate the primary authority for translators of Biblical texts for the liturgy. The executive board of the Catholic Biblical Association, composed of our foremost biblical scholars, concurs in this judgment. Making the Neo-Vulgate the final arbiter in textual questions, when it is clearly known that the Vulgate is based on deficient original texts, appears to be a disservice to Scripture scholarship and the high standards of the Holy See. In this regard, The Authentic Liturgy is truly an embarrassment.
What can be done? The church has in its possession a blemished but authoritative document released by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments and approved by the Holy Father. It is not realistic to expect that it will be rescinded. For the sake of the church and its scholarship, it should at least be reviewed formally by the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Furthermore, to resolve the serious and fundamental questions raised by this document, a group of bishops—including bishops with liturgical and biblical backgrounds, bishop representatives of national and international translating commissions, other biblical and liturgical specialists designated by the conferences of bishops, and representatives of the Holy See—needs to meet to plan for implementation of the document at the local level. No one questions the need for a careful, well-reasoned document to assist in the challenging task of providing the church’s vernacular texts. After study and broad consultation, the document could be refined and made more complete and exact in its vision, especially with reference to the Neo-Vulgate. This would help all fulfill the words of St. Paul: “Come to some mutual understanding in the Lord” (Phil. 4:2).
Nice journalism, I must say. Picking up a quote in mid-sentence, no less. Hitchcock's reaction?
We are sorry that you thought this was a “disservice” to you, as this certainly was not our intention. We thought the quote accurately represented your views expressed in that article.
Catch the whole catfight in this month's issue.
My take: liturgical reformers have certainly given traditionalists no lack of ammunition for poor efforts at implementing Vatican II. But the poverty of some reform-of-the-reform arguments cannot be concealed by flimsy journalism like this. Hitchcock clearly disagrees with Trautman on inclusive language and any number of issues. No problem with that. But whipping the orthodoxfaithfulTM into a seasonal feeding frenzy over misquoting a four-year-old article seems a bit much.
