In the February 2000 issue of This Rock we reported on a letter sent by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments (CDW) to the head of the International Commission on English in Liturgy (ICEL). ICEL is the body responsible for producing all the defective, “politically correct” translations of the Mass and other rites that we are made to suffer through.
In the time since we first reported on the letter, we have obtained a copy of its complete text, and it is indeed a joy to read. Though it is written in standard Vaticanese “diplomat-speak,” it is clear that the Holy See is extremely upset with ICEL and is demanding sweeping changes in the organization. For one giving the document a close reading, there are several points at which one winces with the realization of just how angry the Holy See is with the way ICEL has been conducting itself.
Here, with explanatory notes is the text of the letter:
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Prot. n. 2322/99/L
Rome, 26 October 1999
His Excellency, The Most Reverend Maurice Taylor Bishop of Galloway [The chairman of ICEL].
Your Excellency,
This Congregation is now able to respond to your recent letter requesting a meeting [This proposed meeting would have brought Taylor and other people from ICEL to meet with representatives of the CDW in Rome. Apparently, it would have attempted to convince Rome not to insist on certain changes regarding ICEL. The proposal to have the meeting has the ring of a last, desperate attempt to save the status quo] between Officials of the Congregation and representatives of the Mixed Commission for English-language translations. [The “Mixed Commission” is the same thing as ICEL. It is called “mixed” because it involves representatives from different English-speaking countries. ] As regards Your Excellency’s being received by the Superiors of the Congregation, the unhesitating answer is that you are always most welcome, [Here the Vatican is trying to be nice to Taylor] but from what is set out below you will appreciate that the Congregation considers that such a meeting, in order to be truly productive, ought to follow upon certain steps which should no longer be deferred. [I.e., quit stalling and do what we said. We’re not interested in meeting until action is taken on what we explain below.] On the other hand, the feasibility of more ample contacts between the Congregation and the employees or collaborators of the Commission is doubtful, [I.e., we’re not interested in talking to other people from ICEL. Their presence would only muddy the waters. We want action, not talk.] since such contacts not only lack a formal basis but are characterized by the very disadvantages to which it would seem that Your Excellency has had cause to advert since your letter was written. In addition, while it will be important to communicate the contents of this present letter to the relevant Conferences of Bishops, [The CDW xx was recently very displeased when it discovered that a U.S. official at the NCCB had been sitting on a letter they had issued rather than issuing it so that its contents would be implemented. Here, they underscore the fact that they want the contents of this letter to be properly communicated.] it seems best for a variety of reasons to contact Your Excellency directly concerning the important matters to be treated here, leaving to you the necessary contacts and measures towards a practical implementation.
The gravity of the present situation of the Mixed Commission has been underscored in relation to its work on a translation of the [editio typica altera] of the Rites of Ordination of the Bishop, of Priests, and of Deacons, [This refers to a recent incident in which the Holy See shot down the new Rite of Ordination that ICEL had prepared. They ticked off a whole list of problems with the translation, said it was so riddled with glitches that it wasn’t worth trying to fix, and suggested that the bishops find new translators—i.e., someone other than ICEL.] though its implications extend far beyond this single text. The Congregation notes that complications in the functioning of the Mixed Commission have now given Your Excellency cause to intervene in an exceptional way. Specifically, it has been reported that 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 Your Excellency in favor of a third text. [The Holy See uses this incident to illustrate the level of disorder within ICEL. To quickly dump one draft, get the second approved by the bishops on ICEL’s board, and then dump that on the authority of the chairman shows extraordinary disorder.] There are also reports that misunderstandings may persist in the interpretation of the response of this Dicastery given on 20 September 1997, including the supposition that the list of observations include with that response was exhaustive. In fact, as the response stated, that list was merely illustrative, and it was not intended to be subject to discussion or refutation by translation personnel of the Mixed Commission. [When the CDW nixed the proposed translation of the Rite of Ordination, it gave a list of sample problems with the translation but was careful to say that this list was not exhaustive. It merely illustrated the scope of the problem, and the translation would have to be done from scratch. Apparently, people at ICEL decided to act as if they would argue their way out of this judgment by acting as if the list was exhaustive, asking to “discuss” the items on it for purposes of refuting them. This, presumably, would have been something to be taken care of in the proposed, last-ditch meeting. By pointing this out, the CDW is saying: Look, don’t try to weasel us on this. We’re not interested in talking about it. The matter is closed”] Furthermore, from the reports which the Congregation has received, it would appear that Your Excellency, in the face of such difficulties, has commendably seized the appropriate moment to raise the issue of a revision of the Statutes of the Mixed Commission. [It would be interesting to know the context in which Bishop Taylor made this proposal. Presumably, he suggested that the statutes governing ICEL’s operation should be revised so that the commission’s role could be clarified. This fits with the model of a last-ditch attempt to save ICEL, and the Holy See takes him up on it, saying: Okay, you want to revise the statutes. This is how it’s going to have to be . . . ]
The context for such an initiative would seem to be characterized by two significant issues in particular, namely the role of the “executive secretary” [The executive secretary is a person who does not belong to the episcopal board of ICEL but who is responsible for carrying out its decisions. The Holy See is concerned with actions taken by the executive secretary has taken without episcopal authorization. The current executive secretary is a layman named Dr. John R. Page.] and the membership of the “advisory committee” specifically involving certain liberties taken by the former and the question of how to ensure more satisfactory membership [The Holy See is not happy with the current membership of the ICEL advisory committee, which is a group of non-bishops (priests, nuns, laymen) who are used as experts on various matters pertaining to translation work of the commission.] of the latter. The Congregation would concur with Your Excellency that these are points of particular concern, and wishes not only to pledge its support for a revision encompassing these issues, but also to underscore others which should be included in the same process. [I.e., we want more issues fixed than the two just mentioned.]
In seeking to fulfill its mandate of ensuring that translations accurately and fully convey the content of the original texts, the Dicastery for a number of years now has communicated its concerns regarding an undue autonomy [I.e., you’ve been monkeying with the text.] that has been observed in the translations prepared by the Mixed Commission. These observations have often been countered with unfounded charges of personal grudges and hostility to the Commission. [I.e., when we’ve pointed out your errors, you have just whined about us being unfair or hostile to you.]In reality, the lack of response to the Holy See’s stated concerns on the part of those who have effectively had in hand the work of the Commission has often hampered and delayed the Congregation’s work to a notable degree, also occasioning a disproportionate commitment of its resources. [I.e., your foot-dragging in making the changes we’ve indicated has been impacting our ability to do our jobs. We’re having to devote too much attention to problems caused by your not doing what we tell you.]
In their contacts with the Dicastery, not a few Bishops have expressed concerns [I.e., many bishops have been griping to us about the lousy quality of your translations and about the rigid, high-handed way you’ve been running things to keep your translations from being fixed.] not only about the quality of the translations produced by the Mixed Commission 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. Increasingly, the Mixed Commission’s texts paraphrase or redraft the editiones typicae, [I.e., the Latin originals.] while revising the rubrics so extensively as to impede effective recourse to the Latin text for the sake of clarification. In fact, the 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. [I.e., not only have you botched and convoluted the translation, but even after we’ve approved it you’ve gone on to sneak your own things into the texts and rubrics without the required approval from us.]
These concerns of the Congregation have recently been reinforced and have found authoritative confirmation in the instructions received by the Congregation for the preparation of new norms of liturgical translation. [I.e., the people we answer to here at the Vatican have instructed us to prepare new regulations for doing translations, and they have specifically told us to stop the shenanigans you have been perpetrating.]
For some years now, this Dicastery has also expressed its misgivings about the use of the Commission’s resources for activities not concerned with translation, including the composition of original texts, which in fact are not the province of the Mixed Commission.[ I.e., all you guys are supposed to do is translate what Rome sends you. You are not supposed to make up your own stuff. You are translators; not writers.] 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. [This refers to a tactic ICEL has used to get its texts into use without the required authorization by Rome has been to let publishers such as Liturgy Training Publications or The Liturgical Press print “advance” copies of the text. Technically, these are not supposed to be used until approval is given, but once they are published, dissident liturgists, liturgy planners, and religious orders start using them immediately. This is one way that gender-revised translations have been snuck in to many liturgies.] As regards texts of the original composition in the most recently revised English translation of the Roman Missal, reports have reached the Congregation of alleged plans to allow their publication for use by non-Catholic ecclesial communities even prior to the granting of any recognitio “Recognition”—i.e., the needed approval from Rome. for their use in the Roman Liturgy. 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. The freedom of the Holy See to act in matters pertaining to its competence cannot be encumbered in such a way.[ I.e., don’t think you can hurry us into granting approval to something based on your timetable for an unauthorized ecumenical initiative.]
An adequate response of the Mixed Commission to the Congregation’s expression of concern about a projected second volume of liturgical documentation that departs from the model of the Enchiridion Documentorum Instaurationis Liturgicae (ef. Prot. P. 451/98/L, 11 January 1999), has not been forthcoming. [This appears to refer to a second volume of Documents on the Liturgy (DOL). The first DOL covered conciliar, papal, and curial texts from 1963-1979 (with at least one notable omission being the 1975 xx document forbidding liturgical dance). The CDW is apparently unhappy with plans for this second volume and has issued ICEL instructions regarding it, yet these have not been obeyed.] The Congregation is obliged to note also that a translation of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum was published by the Mixed Commission without the necessary episcopal approbation and without the recognitio of this Congregation. [The English Ceremonial of Bishops (Liturgical Press, 1989) does not carry decrees of approval on the translation from the NCCB and the Holy See. ICEL released this one without either of the authorizations necessary.]
All of these factors appear to converge towards the conclusion that the Mixed Commission in its present form is not in a position to render [I.e., you guys are so screwed up that major reorganization has to be done.] 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, including acceptable translations of the book De Exorcismis et supplicationibus quibusdam, the Martyrologium Romanum, and any additional material that the Holy See may decide to insert in the Missale Romanum. [These Latin titles refer to the new rite for exorcism, the Roman Martyrology, and the Roman Missal.]It is inconceivable that English-speaking clergy and faithful should have to wait a decade or more for such translations.[Hip, hip, hooray! Recognition from the Vatican that we English-speakers have had to suffer interminable delays while ICEL fiddles with texts that should have been released years ago!]
Problems in the English-language translations of the liturgical texts assume a particular gravity in proportion to the prominence of the English language in the international community. Even while it remains essential that liturgical translations be made directly from the original texts into the various modern vernacular languages, the impact which the English-language translation is likely to exert on certain other versions is an observed and unavoidable fact, [I.e., if we let you screw up, then we’re going to have translators in other languages demanding we let them screw up in the same way out of fairness. Thus we may encourage gender-revisionism or rubric-tinkering in other languages.]which in turn must be said to place a significant responsibility on those charged with the translations into English. [I.e., we’re going to be watching the English translations closely.]Moreover, the experience of the years since the Council, as well as a deepening theological reflection, have brought clearly into focus the fact that the constitution, the regulation and the oversight of an international commission for liturgical translation are rightfully the competence of the Holy See to a degree which is not always sufficiently reflected in the Statutes which govern such bodies. [I.e., experience has shown that, since you are an international body, it is more appropriate for you to answer to us than to different national bishops’ conferences, and the rules will have to be changed to reflect this. Since national bishops’ conferences can’t easily hold an international body accountable, you’ve had to much free rein, and now you need an international body like the Holy See to make sure you do your job.]
It is therefore clear that a thoroughgoing reform and revitalization of the Mixed Commission is needed to ensure greater efficacy and to furnish a more sound procedural basis for the Commission’s functioning, while also supplying for any lacunae in its present juridical status. [I.e., as an international body not fully accountable to national conferences, you have a shaky legal basis for existing. The upcoming revision of your regulations will fix that, as well as your other problems.] Indeed, apart from the difficulties which have arisen, such a revision of the Statutes would appear to be overdue [I.e., we’ve let this sit for too long already.] in light of the subsequent publication of the 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici Code of Canon Law. and the 1988 Apostolic Letter Vicesimus Quintus Annus, in which his Holiness Pope John Paul II requested a re-evaluation of the working of Commissions for the translation of liturgical texts (cf. AAS 81 [1989] 916, n.20).
For these reasons, this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, exercising the mandate assigned to it in the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, article 62, regarding the superintendence of “those matters which pertain to the Holy See in relation to the moderation and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy,” hereby directs the Statutes of the “International Commission for English in the Liturgy” be revised thoroughly and without delay. [I.e., don’t think you can slide them by us with only minor changes and don’t think you can stall us on this.]The revised Statutes, drafted in active consultation with this Dicastery [I.e., don’t think you can go off on your own and develop a proposal; we plan on superintending the revision of your statutes.] and incorporating within the Constitution of the renewed Commission the considerations attached to this letter, [I.e., we specifically demand that you make the changes given below.] are to be submitted within six months[I.e., since we can’t trust you not to stall, we’re setting you a deadline.] for the approval of the 11 Member Conferences of Bishops. After they will have received the assent of at least a relative majority (i.e., six) of the Conferences—the vote within each Conference being by two-thirds majority [I.e., lest there be any doubt, here is the kind of approval the English-speaking bishops’ conferences need to give.]—the approved Statutes will then be subject to the recognitio of this Congregation.
Your Excellency, this Congregation is well aware of the difficulties of your own position as Chairman, and certainly has no intention of causing any distress to you personally. [I.e., don’t take any of this personally. We know you’re in a tough spot and that your staff will freak when they learn all this.] It wishes rather to encourage you to carry forward with determination your recent initiatives, and pledges you every assistance in bringing this complex and long-standing question to a rapid and definitive resolution. [I.e., so get to work. We’ll back you up when the time comes for the most painful changes, and we’re determined to get this taken care of swiftly.] The Congregation itself remains ready to provide any assistance which would be helpful.
I would be most appreciative if Your Excellency would keep the Congregation informed of all developments, including the forwarding of a copy of any circular letters sent to the Bishop Members of the Commission, to whom Your Excellency is free to communicate a copy of this present letter. [I.e., we want you to show us everything. We want to keep close tabs on all communications regarding the revision, and we don’t want stuff being done in secret.]
In expressing once again to Your Excellency its deep gratitude for your undertaking the necessary intervention [I.e., thanks in advance for the major surgery that is going to have to be done.] to set the Commission on a new and altogether more efficacious course, I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Jorge A. Card. Medina Estévez
Prefect
Considerations
Pertaining to the Revisions of the Statutes of the “International Commission on English in the Liturgy”
1) The activities of the Mixed Commission are to be defined as the translation into English of the editiones typicae of the Roman liturgical texts and books in their integrity. [I.e. without alterations being made.]Consequently, any proposals for cultural adaptation, modification or the composition of original texts remain the province [That the task of cultural adaptation would reside at the level of the national bishops’ conference is clearly part of the intention of canon 838 §3 in the Code of Canon Law]. of the individual Bishops’ Conferences according to the norms of the 1994 Instruction Variatates legitimae and subject to the approval of the Holy See. Likewise to be excluded from the activities of the Mixed Commission are relations with commissions or other bodies pertaining to non-Catholic ecclesial communities. [I.e., ICEL is to be a translation body, not an ecumenical relations body.] For such relations it is preferable that other structures be constituted when necessary, distinct not only in name but in fact from the Commission for translation.
2) It would seem also that the office of “executive secretary” is in need of a careful reconfiguration, 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. [I.e., this layman has been acting as if he had greater authority than the bishops on the episcopal board of ICEL.] Perhaps the Commission itself, constituted entirely of Bishops, might elect a Secretary among its officers, making unnecessary the presence of an “executive secretary” at its own meetings.[ I.e., we think that the executive secretary has been untrustworthy and may have been assuming too role in the deliberations of the bishops overseeing ICEL.]
3) Out of respect for the dignity of the human person and in light of Catholic teaching on social justice, paid employees of the Commission should have the necessary guarantees regarding their employment, [I.e., make sure they have jobs when they get out. but should serve ad tempus. “For a time”—i.e., we don’t want a permanent, unchanging translation bureaucracy here.] It would thus be opportune to ensure a periodic renewal, fixed by the Statutes, of all involved in the Commission’s work. [I.e., people should only serve a term with ICEL and then be let go. This will prevent single individuals from becoming entrenched and able to manipulate the translation process to their own ends. We want the current tyranny of experts to end.] This Dicastery, on the basis of the needs of the Commission, would reserve the right to grant an extension of such terms by dispensation whenever necessary. [I.e., don’t think that you can collectively save your jobs by objecting that some translators will be too good to lose. If some translator really is the greatest thing since sliced bread, we’ll extend his stay. The rest of you, however, have to go.]
4) The members of what are 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, [I.e., each translator for ICEL has to be specially approved by us, and this applies not only to future translators but to the ones you have now.] which nihil obstat will be issued in response to the presentation by the Commission of specified documentation that will include attestations by the Ordinaries of the prospective members. [I.e., so before we approve someone, we want a report on them from their bishop.]
5) All involved in the work of the Mixed Commission must understand that their contributions are anonymous and confidential. [I.e., so don’t look to be winning glory for yourself by participating in ICEL and don’t to talking out of school about what is going on in your work at ICEL. We don’t want the translation process politicized through the press.]
6) To prevent improper uses of texts prepared by the Mixed Commission, provisions should be made that the granting of copyright permission or direct publication for their use in liturgical celebrations or for any other use by the clergy, the faithful or the general public is excluded in the absence of the recognitio of the Holy See [I.e., you may no longer use that dodge of giving “advanced” texts to publishers before they are approved. Our approval must go on everything before it is published.] permitting their use in the Sacred Liturgy.
7) The redrafting of the Statutes should be undertaken directly by the Bishop members of the Commission rather than by its secretarial staff or its advisory committee, and the initial drafts should be treated as confidential [I.e., we don’t want the redrafting politicized by you leaking drafts to the press.] prior to the submission of a definitive draft (preferably by Easter of 2000 [I.e., we’re giving you an interim deadline, so don’t up the whole six months and then push for an extension)] for examination by the 11 Member Conferences and this Congregation.