Under Popes John Paul II and Benedict, especially Benedict, the clarification of the common priesthood of the baptized and the ordained or ministerial priesthood of those who receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders occurred. In the 60’s 70’s and 80’s, the emphasis on the common priesthood of the baptized had blurred the distinction of the ordained leading to an absurd laicizing of the priests and clericalization of the laity. Reversing that silliness led to an increase of vocations to the priesthood under these two pontificates.
It led to a recovery, too, of Catholic identity in a protestantized and now secularized world.
The question of renewing the true identity of the ordained priest and all other Catholics of their baptismal identity, has led the current pontificate to decry clericalism. This occurs in both the ordained priests and laity who are clericalized in paid and volunteer positions they hold for a lifetime sometimes.
I think this nebulous term of clericalism, not clearly defined, but opinions galore about it exist and sometimes the term is used wrongly, can create a mess for the Church and the true identities of both clergy and laity, meaning a loss of identity.
Clericalism is like an exclusive elite club. But priests need professional organizations that assist them in their “profession.” They have specific roles in the Church and should be regarded as “experts” in Church teaching and canon law. Their roles as defined by dogma, doctrine, theology and canon law must be respected not denigrated.
Clericalism, truly understood, oversteps the boundaries that doctrine and canon law establish as well as norms that are regulated by the pope or local bishops.
For example, Summorum Pontificum allows the faithful to have access to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass either in their own parish or nearby. It also allows them to have the other sacraments, such as baptism and Holy Matrimony in the EF form. It also allows for Requiem Masses in the EF form. To be denied this outright by a priest who does not agree with the norm established by the pope, would be clericalism. Of course if no priest who can do it is not available that is another question.
But another example is true too as it concerns the Ordinary Form. If a priest autocratically says Mass ad orientem, with out readers and extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and no female altar servers, in a parish where the pastor allows these things, that is clericalism which equals authoritarianism. What is allowed by liturgical law is denied.
Think too of priests who change the words and gestures of the Mass in what they think is a better academic way but truly is arrogant clericalism. They break liturgical law and complain they know better when they break the law.
However, when laity demand that the clergy allow them certain privileges not allowed them, such as having a second marriage without an annulment in the church, or at least the reception in a social hall where a civil official officiates, or to be able to receive Holy Communion, have official roles in the liturgy and in the parish even though living in a heterosexual or homosexual state of mortal sin, that is clericalism.
What do you say?
38 comments:
The "clericalization of the laity" is not based on the theology of the priesthood of the baptized. This is nonsense. It may be based on a misunderstanding of the theology of the priesthood of the baptized, but I suspect that is rarely the case.
You decry the "nebulous term of clericalism," yet you use it over and over and over, indicating by the way you misuse it that your understanding is as cloudy as anyone's.
For example, you say, "But priests need professional organizations that assist them in their “profession.” They have specific roles in the Church and should be regarded as “experts” in Church teaching and canon law. Their roles as defined by dogma, doctrine, theology and canon law must be respected not denigrated."
Dogma and doctrine do not define who is and who is not an expert - at anything. There are many laity who have far greater expertise in Church teaching and canon law than many clerics. Is not your assertion a shining example of "clericalism" at its worst, making a claim that priests, by virtue of ordination, are experts, while those who have not been ordained are not?
The last two paragraphs of your post compare apples and oranges. The rubrics of the mass are human law; the doctrine regarding divorce and remarriage is Divine law. The violation of the former is not equal in stature to the violation of the latter.
Father, you are to follow human law has it concerns the canon laws of marriage, of celibacy, of the rubrics and many, many other things, including Summorum Pontificum. The old canard that divine law and human law are opposed to each other is passé. Yet, I must admit as an amateur psychologist and trained sociologist, that your last sentence is a Freudian slip of the admission of guilt on your part, the guilt of clericalism which you yourself pronounce although unwittingly.
In terms of the religious and canonical education of your parishioners, I understand that your pastoral assistant, a sister, is far better educated than you are in the specifics you mention. But in your defense, your are the pastor and a priest and have canonical backing for your authority which she does not have. You have no reason to clericalize her whatsoever or turn over your authority to her because she is far superior in education to you.
"The old canard that divine law and human law are opposed to each other is passé."
You will note that I never said divine law and human law are opposed to each other. That argument is void.
I made no Freudian slip. I freely admit that I make adjustments to the prayers of the mass when the English is tortured or unnecessarily complicated.
The Collect for the 15th Sunday is a prime example:
"O God, who show the light of your truth
to those who go astray,
so that they may return to the right path,
give all who for the faith they profess
are accounted Christians
the grace to reject whatever is contrary to the name of Christ
and to strive after all that does it honor.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever."
"...give all who for the faith the profess are accounted Christians the grace to reject..." is clumsy and prolix. It may be a very "accurate" translation of the Latin text, but it fails to communicate well in English.
Far better is "...give who who profess the Christian faith the grace to reject..." works much better and is the wording I use.
The prayers are not exercises in 1) translation or 2) obedience.
Father McDonald,
This statement of yours does not make sense:
But another example is true too as it concerns the Ordinary Form. If a priest autocratically says Mass ad orientem, with out readers and extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and no female altar servers, in a parish where the pastor allows these things, that is clericalism which equals authoritarianism. What is allowed by liturgical law is denied.
1) Ad orientem is assumed by the Missal
2) Readers are optional and extraordinary ministers are not required
3) The Vatican says it is the priest's prerogative to follow the immemorial custom of male servers only. The use of females as servers started as an abuse and was a political statement by lefties
So I fail to see the clericalism there
If a priest insists on only celebrating versus populum is he not denying what is allowed by liturgical law, namely celebrating ad apsidem? If he insists on female servers and lay Extraordinary Ministers is he not denying what is allowed by liturgical law, namely not to employ them? The option, where allowed, for Communion in the hand is at the choice of the individual communicant, as is the option to receive on the tongue, so insistence on one or the other is a different matter. But whether or not the Chalice is offered to the laity is a decision which the parish priest is entitled to make without reference to higher authority or lay preference.
Clericalism is usually taken to mean the undue influence of the clergy in secular affairs. Applying it in an ecclesiastical context is problematic. Like other opprobrious epithets such as racism and sexism it usually means what the user wants it to mean.
Your clericalism which asserts that you have the authority to re-translate the English Mass just because you think your translation is better (and it might be) is palpable. You simply don't have that authority unless the missal's rubrics says "in these or similar words". This is a prime example of clericalism and laity in the know, meaning they have a copy of the words of the Mass in their hands and know what the official translation you must use is, have a right to call you out or ask you not to do so as does your bishop. Canon law counts and it protects the laity from this type of clericalism because it has implications for other forms of clericalism and the total disregard of human law and authority that our pope and bishops have.
I don't re-translate the English mass. I do adjust carefully some of the texts that are unnecessarily wordy or, due to the rules of Liturgiam Authenticam, maintain a Latin word order that, given the differences in syntax, don't work well in English.
I am fully aware that what I am doing is not allowed. Neither, I would point out, is speeding in a car, but that doesn't stop some people from doing it, does it? So don't howl about following the rules...
“Father” Kavanaugh,
Your last statement will be sent to your bishop.
Apparently, “Father” Kavanaugh is disobedient to Vatican II which prohibits a bishop or priest from changing the texts of the Mass. A breathtaking display of arrogance. I suspect his reformulations are lousy
Bishop Stephen Parkes
Catholic Pastoral Center
2170 East Victory Drive
Savannah, Georgia 31404.3918
Well, we have Father K doing his own translation/abridgement of scripture, and then we have the laity in parishes running things for life and watching bishops and priests come and go, and also pretty much doing as they please...."The Club".
And then they wonder why their churches not packed with non-The Club members throwing money at them.
Some time ago, Fr Kavanaugh gave an example of how he 'tweaked' a Collect to 'improve' the English. It was a very minor change, the equivalent of doing 73 mph in a 70 mph limit. Whether it was indeed an improvement is debatable.
When translating from Latin into English it is impossible to replicate the word order for the simple reason that Latin is a highly inflected language and English is not; furthermore Latin is more terse than English. Take the opening of tomorrow's OF Collect:
'Deus, qui te in rectis et sinceris manere pectoribus asseris ...'
Notice that the main verb is at the end of the clause - very common in Latin, unknown in English. The accusative + infinitive construction (te manere) is how Latin deals with indirect speech - English is more wordy ('that you abide') and cannot detach the 'you' and place it earlier in the sentence. 'Rectis et sinceris' can only refer to 'pectoribus' (ablative plural) so it doesn't matter if adjective and noun are separated as they are in this instance with 'manere' which in turn can only go with 'te'.
The official translation has:
'O God, who teach us that you abide in hearts that are just and true ...' The main objection to this would be that 'asseris' doesn't really mean 'teach us'.
To claim that Liturgiam Authenticam attempted to impose Latin syntax and word order on English is quite simply untrue, as my short example makes clear. I did ask Fr Kavanaugh to provide an example, but he declined to do so.
The danger of Fr Kavanaugh's 'tweaking' is that he is attempting to correct what is after all a translation without referring to the original text, and by doing so risks subverting the intended meaning.
I did not decline to do so. I cited LA #20: "While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses."
LA #47 suggests that Latin syntax is "proper" to liturgical prayers while the syntax of other languages is not, or is less so. "Liturgical translation that takes due account of the authority and integral content of the original texts will facilitate the development of a sacral vernacular, characterized by a vocabulary, syntax and grammar that are proper to divine worship, even though it is not to be excluded that it may exercise an influence even on everyday speech, as has occurred in the languages of peoples evangelized long ago."
Further, "B. Syntax, style and literary genre 57. That notable feature of the Roman Rite, namely its straightforward, concise and compact manner of expression, is to be maintained insofar as possible in the translation."
And #59 "Even so, expressions that have a particular doctrinal or spiritual importance or those that are more widely known are, insofar as possible, to be translated literally."
Maintenance of Latin syntax is expected by LA.
I did not decline to do so. I cited LA #20: "While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses."
LA #47 suggests that Latin syntax is "proper" to liturgical prayers while the syntax of other languages is not, or is less so. "Liturgical translation that takes due account of the authority and integral content of the original texts will facilitate the development of a sacral vernacular, characterized by a vocabulary, syntax and grammar that are proper to divine worship, even though it is not to be excluded that it may exercise an influence even on everyday speech, as has occurred in the languages of peoples evangelized long ago."
Further, "B. Syntax, style and literary genre 57. That notable feature of the Roman Rite, namely its straightforward, concise and compact manner of expression, is to be maintained insofar as possible in the translation."
And #59 "Even so, expressions that have a particular doctrinal or spiritual importance or those that are more widely known are, insofar as possible, to be translated literally."
Maintenance of Latin syntax is expected by LA.
John Nolan,
I suspect his knowledge of Latin would make it unlikely he could render a proper translation into English.
Anonymous,
If experience has taught us anything, it is that writing to bishops is an exercise in wasting good paper. Nice of you to post the bishop's coordinates, but seldom does writing a bishop make any difference in any situation. The superforce has the Church at its mercy for now and the status quo reigns.
Actually, I'm Anon2, bishops can be swift to take action when painted into a corner by unwanted public displays by those under their authority.
Suchlike a public posting of proudly abridging scripture in conflict with directives for those celebrating liturgy, notes for scriptural translators nonwithstanding. A pastor's job is not that of translator, but to do the red and black thing as indicated, and why it is printed, and it is what they swore to faithfully do. Anyone who thinks rules are for other people, and publically crows over it, cannot be suprised when called to have a heart to heart with their boss.
That such a heart to heart is possible cannot be denied, if the bishop thinks it in his own best interest to curb a disallowed activity such as self appointed scripture translator/editor, but quite another matter as to anyone else hearing of such a heart to heart, though.
Anonymous at 8:00 PM,
You may be right because a lot of losers remain bishops or priests because they can’t learn something useful like coding even though they have failed their flocks and should seek alternative employment
When "Father" Kavanaugh has lost Anonymous 2, you know he has lost.
"...proudly abridging scripture..." AND "... self appointed scripture translator/editor..."
If you're going to make accusations, please do it accurately.
My references were not to Sacred Scripture, but to the prayers of the mass.
Of course the thread is on clericalism, not proper translation techniques from one language to another, in particular, Latin to English.
The Church gives us the liturgical books. In the Ordinary Form there are many options which the priest can choose, from penitential acts, to prefaces and Eucharistic Prayers and dismissals. In one or two places the rubrics say "in these or similar words."
But it is the Church, through the Magisterium that gives us the Liturgy and the liturgical books.
To change the translation that is given, no matter how poor, is an act of clericalism on the part of the priest. The laity deserve what the Church gives us, not what the priest decides to give them.
There is no difference in what Fr. MJK does and another priest who takes it a step farther and uses the 1970 missal with its translation.
Do either of them have the authority to do so? No--but taking that authority is clericalism.
Father McDonald,
"Father" Kavanaugh is violating the mandate of Sacrosanctum Concilium, so he appears to be a Cafeteria Catholic and an arrogant one at that. I feel badly for his parishioners. They deserve better.
"There is no difference in what Fr. MJK does and another priest who takes it a step farther and uses the 1970 missal with its translation."
Yes, there is a great difference. You yourself note that when you say "...the person who takes it a step farther...".
Would we say there is no difference between, say, a person who speeds in his car (and gets caught) and a person who breaks other laws and commits more serious crime? Of course not.
Father K, firstly, as for drawing a line between prayers and scripture, you do not draw one in initial comments, you say merely "mass texts".
Secondly, you know you are not allowed to do so, but brag about it using the metaphor of deadly speeding which others do, so why not you.
It is exalting yourself as final arbiter rather than following as directed by Holy Church, an egocentric abuse of your office, which is clericalism. There is ZERO humility in this quoted text of yours, only pride.
"I don't re-translate the English mass. I do adjust carefully some of the texts that are unnecessarily wordy or, due to the rules of Liturgiam Authenticam, maintain a Latin word order that, given the differences in syntax, don't work well in English.
I am fully aware that what I am doing is not allowed. Neither, I would point out, is speeding in a car, but that doesn't stop some people from doing it, does it? So don't howl about following the rules."
“Father” K is sounding more and more like a selfish, puerile, egomaniac
"Father K, firstly, as for drawing a line between prayers and scripture, you do not draw one in initial comments, you say merely "mass texts"."
Mass texts are not Scripture texts. I do not "draw the line." They are different things of themselves.
"Secondly, you know you are not allowed to do so, but brag about it using the metaphor of deadly speeding which others do, so why not you." (It's not a metaphor, it's an analogy.)
I'm not bragging about speeding. Ask the Blog Owner who is the one to which I refer.
"It is exalting yourself as final arbiter rather than following as directed by Holy Church, an egocentric abuse of your office, which is clericalism."
I'm not exalting myself. I suspect I may be better at the spoken/prayed English language than some of those who gave us the current translations. I'm certainly better at editing American English.
When I asked Fr Kavanaugh to furnish an example of an English text which replicates Latin syntax and word order to the detriment of English he failed to do so. Hardly surprising, since it is not possible. The Collects, prayers 'super oblata' and Postcommunions are notable for their 'classical' style which is terse and economical. Example:
'Gratiam tuam, quaesumus, Domine, mentibus nostris infunde'.
'Grace your, we ask, Lord, with minds our infuse'.
Really?
'Pour forth, we beseech you O Lord, your grace into our hearts'. That's a literal translation on the lines that LA wanted. It doesn't follow Latin word order or syntax - this is not possible. It replaced 'Lord, fill our hearts with your love' which was an unsatisfactory paraphrase since it deliberately omitted the crucial concept of sanctifying grace.
It was this sort of abuse that LA sought to rectify. I have read the document and do not need Fr Kavanaugh to quote it back at me. I asked for an example of a post-LA English text which faithfully replicates Latin syntax and word order to the detriment of English syntax and word order. I'll save him the trouble of looking - no such exists.
He can tweak and twiddle to his heart's content. Unless his congregation is following the prayes in a hand missal or worship aid they are unlikely to notice.
That is an excellent example from, among other prayers, The Angelus. That stretch can be tough to speak aloud when trying to inflect for meaning. Basically there are lots of ‘qualifiers’ and ‘identifiers’. But These are important and have been both stumbling blocks for clergy and clarifiers. I think there is a tendency to change the wording so as to avoid thorny theological and social topics.
John Nolan,
Father Kavanaugh is a slightly more sophisticated version of Mark Thomas. Like Mark Thomas, he never responds directly when he is caught intellectually by his better.
rcg
A good example is the passage from EP III - 'agnoscens Hostiam cuius voluisti immolatione placari' It is rendered as 'recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself'. Nothing theologically dubious about that, but had LA's rules been followed it would have been more accurately translated as 'recognizing the Victim by whose sacrifice you willed to be appeased'. This was too strong meat for the redactors.
Another example of excessive and clumsy wordiness is in the Confiteor. 'Quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, opere et omissione'. Rather than the concise and elegant 'that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, deed and omission', the translation cut and pasted the circumlocution found in the old ICEL. In this they were complying with the bishops' request to change the people's parts as little as possible. Still, it was a missed opportunity.
To maintain that formal equivalence in translation requires using the word order and syntax (grammatical structure) of the original language is nonsense; it doesn't work with German, let alone Latin. That a carefully thought out document on the principles of liturgical translation should advocate something which a reasonably intelligent schoolboy knows to be absurd beggars belief.
Furthermore, to state baldly that 'maintenance of Latin syntax is required by LA' and then to furnish quotations which in fact prove nothing of the sort suggest the writer is so enmeshed in purblind ignorance and prejudice as to be impervious to rational argument. However, I hope that others may benefit from my comments.
A good example of Latin's terseness and economy is the epitaph to Captain Robert Falcon Scott: 'Quaesivit arcana Poli videt Dei' (he sought the secrets of the Pole and now he sees the secrets of God). Five words in Latin, fifteen in English.
John Nolan,
Notice who has not come back with a devastating rejoinder?
Pierre, give him time. He won't admit he is mistaken and he has to find a way of justifying a fallacious argument in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But he always wants to have the last word. This, like his penchant for hair-splitting and nit-picking, is a decidedly feminine characteristic.
I have said what I need to say, and so do not need to reply to any further squibs. This does not mean she has won the argument; it's simply the only way to shut her up.
John Nolan,
Bravo!
I'll take "A decidedly feminine characteristic" is a compliment, John. However, it's not true as there are nit-pickers a-plenty among the manly men who are not disturbed by having someone say they are displaying "feminine" characteristics. In any case, I am quite happy to be included, at least in your mind, among the many great women in history.
The quotes from LA do express the desire of the legislator to maintain Latin syntax in English translations. It is not "nit-picking" to point that out.
"...the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner..." is about as clear as it gets.
"Replication" is your word. I didn't use it for a reason. Translations aren't replications. LA understands that and doesn't call for them.
As a result we have too many prayers that are, in English, clumsy and akward.
LOL - John Nolan nailed it!
Other than Lady Thatcher, I can’t think of another woman in the last 50 years who was a great national leader, unless your idea of “leadership” is providing extra money for abortions during a pandemic like Pelosi!
Reading the above I remembered that cynical old Italian saying : To translate is to betray.
An adequate translation requires not just great command of the language but suppression of ego.
Anonymous at 8:15 AM,
Bingo!
Post a Comment