New Chairman of USCCB Liturgy Committee
This just in. Bishop Trautman of Erie, PA was re-elected after an hiatus as chairman of the USCCB Liturgy Committee. Known as an ardent supporter of "inclusive language," Bishop Trautman's--er, Bishop Fishperson's--nomination from the floor was only the second in over 25 years, he won easily with 127 votes over the two slated candidates: Rigali (105) and Vigneron (7). What does this mean? Comments and reactions, please.
11 Comments:
It means we have a few more years before the conservatives are the majority in the USCCB. On the other hand, we are in the process of translating the new Roman Missal into English. But I think Cardinal Arinze will tell Bishop Fishperson to go jump a lake. I think we shouldn't have anything to worry about. Another thing: according to Catholic-Hierarchy.com, Bishop Trautman is 68.40 years old and he must submit his resignation when he is 75 years old. A few more years.
68.4 years! Father, you must be counting the days. I'm with you! Thanks for the encouraging view.
Peace, all.
One thing it means is that conservatives can be sore losers as well as linguistically challenged or just darn poor spellers. The origin of "traut" is German, and it means "beloved" or "dear" according to my dictionary. But since the curialists have already decided national conferences have little or no power, it means next to nothing, right?
OK Todd, we stand corrected--Bishop Belovedperson it is. Parable of the talents. Since Bishop Belovedperson and his fellow liberal bureacrats in the national conference have shown little respect for centuries of developed piety and liturgical tradition, they will--and should--have their "power" taken away from them.
Podatus, it could be the earmark of an embittered person to persist in name calling, even using a term of affection as a perjorative. For all the discussion about the beauty of chant, I find it incongruous that chant promoters could expect their bile not to have an effect on what they sing.
Though the world -- and even the Church -- dishes out injustice at times, we each have an opportunity to choose not to pass on the ill will we have experienced at the hands of others. It is all so much wasted energy, don't you think?
Gentlemen:
I'm sure we can all agree that ad hominem attacks are to be avoided. They are the fastest way to end a cordial discourse, and are the surest sign of a bankrupt argument. I'm sure Podatus was merely making a play of words on the extremes of the inclusive language movement, of which Bishop Trautman is an ardent supporter. (See, for instance, the bishop's statement that a lack of inclusive language "denies women their own identity"--surely a line from the Age of Derrida, which tries so desperately to make metaphysics subservient to language!) One is reminded of the bizarre phrase "fishers of people," which serves to utterly disembowel the word play on "fishermen."
The danger of the ad hominem attack is demonstrated quite well in denigrating lovers of the chant as full of bile. Such a statement is no more useful than, for instance, my making a passing reference to the heterodoxy of the OCP sacropop crowd. This statement may or may not be true--i.e., a majority of OCP subscribers may or may not be heterodox--but it will not do simply to assert that this is the case. (I cannot readily prove or disprove this particular statement; though if the question is the heterodoxy of some OCP texts, that's a different matter.) No straw men, please.
It should be noted that Bishop Trautman, in his previous term as Chairman of the BCL, did issue some cautionary guidelines regarding inclusive language for some especially absurd cases. See, for instance, http://www.adoremus.org/5-696-Whitehead.html.
David, thank you for your sensible reply.
I think making wordplay with a person's name is appropriate among friends or in a face to face exchange in a context of friendliness. I think it dangerous in a context of debate, weakening the logical arguments, and painting the "player" as possibly petulant. And that is too bad, because the inclusive language issue deserves a continued debate inclusive of sensibility and an attempt at mutual understanding.
"The danger of the ad hominem attack is demonstrated quite well in denigrating lovers of the chant as full of bile."
My comment was directed at Podatus, whom I presume is a lover of chant. Other hosts of this blog have been known for being a bit hasty in their arguments as well. As a lover of chant myself, a blanket condemnation would be foolish. For those who insist on harboring resentments and airing them publicly with inappropriate means, all I can say is, "If the shoes fits ..."
Regarding your Adoremus link, I would take it with a grain of salt. I've not known the bishops as a whole (even in the 80's) to be radical in their hopes for inclusive language. Trautman himself said this week his hope is to steer a middle ground with the concerns on both sides. For the moment, that should be good enough for all of us. Regardless, the effect of the BCL chairperson on the local level is much less significant than positive (or negative) leadership from the director's podium or organ bench.
Lacking any comments from the bishop himself, I think if the discussion continues, it would be best to argue on the merits of each side of particular issues of concern, taking commentary directly from Trautman himself and not lensed through a biased third party. People who have taken stands on inclusive language and more artistic language in the liturgy need not consider their views as mutually exclusive. There is some common ground to work on. We might consider that the promotion of such common ground might speed the needful work yet ahead in the liturgy.
I might also add that the Sacred Music blog might benefit from a more balanced perspective, lest its first efforts be viewed as one-sided.
Todd,
Taking up your suggestion, let's take a look at Bishop Trautman's statements. For many people who are weary of 30+ years of banal translations and annoying inclusive language, Liturgicam Authenticam (LA) is a godsend. According to Bishop Trautman, however, LA is an intrusion into a process that, by all accounts, has worked beautifully and needs little or no correction. According to an essay in America magazine (http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=1162&issueID=347), Trautman has 4 basic problems with LA:
(1) The mechanism for the approval of liturgical translations goes against the collegialty and cooperation bewteen Rome and local bishops conferences called for V2. He goes so far as to say that LA is "non-collegial, centralizing and controlling" and "micro-managing."
(2) LA will result in a translation that it "wooden and mechanistic" notwithstanding CDWDS protests to the contrary. He goes on for a couple of paragraphs battling a strawman: that only "word-for-word" and the most literal translations humanly possible are acceptable (who thinks this??)
(3) LA has thrown out "inclusive language."
(4) The Neo-Vulgate is "the final arbiter in textual questions" for biblical texts which will result in completely unacceptable readings.
Granted, these comments date from 2001, so maybe Trautman has revised some of these assertions; for (4) at least, he has badly misinterpreted LA, as clarifications by Rome have explained (the Neo-Vulagte is NOT the norm for all textual questions in the lectionary). If anyone can find more recent staements by Trautman on LA, I'd be grateful.
The basic problem I see is that for Trautman, it is simply unthinkable that the current translations and the process that produced them are flawed, seriously flawed. Trautman is in denial - the current translations were approved by Rome! LA repudiates the official guidelines! Trautman actually has the naivete to ask: "Are we to tell our people now that the bishops’ approval of these texts 30 years ago and Rome’s confirmation of that approval was flawed? Has the English-speaking world been praying with inaccurate texts confirmed by the Holy See?" The answer is a resounding YES! What else can explain the dramatic moves of the Holy See, the "micro-managing" and the "control"? Clearly, the CDWDS is convinced that there is a serious problem here and is taking drastic action. It's obvious to everyone except the good bishop.
Some of the bishops' points are worth discussing. However, the way he makes them is understandably annoying to "conservatives" such as myself: he paints those who disagree with them not just as ill-informed, but basically stupid ("Liturgical translation is an art rather than a purely mechanical operation" and "word-for-word translation is not a guarantee of fidelity to the original text" - gee, I never realized that . . .).
Many of his arguments are tendentious, to say the least: "in the English-speaking world exclusive language has become objectionable" - objectionable to whom? Radical feminists? Deconstructionists? He takes it as self-evident that "inclusive language" (itself a tendentious term) is good and right and is tone deaf to any real philosophical problems with replacing "man" with other words. Thus any reservations from Rome concerning "inclusive language" seem to him arbitrary. But that's an argument for another day.
Greetings, Sam.
I think Liturgiam Authenticam has a lot of flaws, and it's probably another post or a whole series to fisk through them all. I don't think curial documents are beyond criticism. LA's 1969 predecessor certainly has its share of detractors, right?
"The mechanism for the approval of liturgical translations goes against the collegialty and cooperation bewteen Rome and local bishops conferences called for V2."
Agreed. Vatican II speaks of the role of the local bishop in overseeing liturgy, not the curia. National conferences working together to ensure common liturgical practices within a nation or region makes more sense to me than that role being uurped by a foreign bureaucracy not known for its facility with all languages. One might argue the bishops have been remiss in their responsibilities, but it would seem the solution is better appointments, not trotting out a whole new mechanism.
"He goes so far as to say that LA is "non-collegial, centralizing and controlling" and "micro-managing.""
It could be interpreted that way.
"LA will result in a translation that it "wooden and mechanistic" notwithstanding CDWDS protests to the contrary."
Fair enough. The CDWDS has yet to trot out its drafts for all of us to see. They're not doing so well in the bishops' eyes so far. And their timing seems curiously similar to pre-Vox Clara. The jury's out, I guess.
"LA has thrown out "inclusive language.""
That is a problem. It has, hasn't it? The CCC didn't get it.
"The Neo-Vulgate is "the final arbiter in textual questions" for biblical texts which will result in completely unacceptable readings."
On a scholarly view, I can understand this. Why not return to the Biblical Greek and Hebrew?
"The basic problem I see is that for Trautman, it is simply unthinkable that the current translations and the process that produced them are flawed, seriously flawed."
I'd like to see something authoritative on that. My liberal friends were extremely critical of the 1967-75 work of ICEL. We thoroughly fisked the rites when I was in grad school. We all knew the translations needed to be better. My take: the current CDWDS is taking the Church in the wrong direction.
"Trautman actually has the naivete to ask: "Are we to tell our people now that the bishops’ approval of these texts 30 years ago and Rome’s confirmation of that approval was flawed? Has the English-speaking world been praying with inaccurate texts confirmed by the Holy See?" The answer is a resounding YES!"
The Catholic world hasn't been praying with the best possible texts, period. I think native English writers who can really write are the way to go, not just texts more closely aligned with the Latin originals.
"Clearly, the CDWDS is convinced that there is a serious problem here and is taking drastic action. It's obvious to everyone except the good bishop."
I think it's obvious to him. We just think their actions are misguided.
"However, the way he makes them is understandably annoying to "conservatives" such as myself: he paints those who disagree with them not just as ill-informed, but basically stupid."
I don't doubt he is annoying to some people. He's a cleric; some might say it goes with the collar. Unlike Trautman, I take time to discuss these things on this web site. I don't think conservatives are "stupid." There are some very sensible people who agree with the CDWDS. I prefer to debate on the merits of the issues, not feelings of being called names or calling names.
What does this mean ? Trautman's selection is a sign that the majority of U.S. bishops is not prepared to follow the conservative minority of Conference members in important areas of church affairs. In this election, Bishop T. prevailed over Cardinal Rigali who was supported by the minority group of prelates which believes that sacral language is primary, and that the holy words of liturgical texts should be rendered in a manner that is as close to the Latin original as possible. From this perspective, the choice of Trautman is plainly a setback for the Congregation of Divine Worship. Cardinal R. is a leading representative of those U.S. bishops who have called for a more literal translation of the original Latin texts of the Mass, and who have been supported by the Vatican in recent years. The entire episode is important because the final touches to the new edition of our English liturgical books are imminent. One wonders just which "interpretations" of current Roman directives the new chief of the B.C.L. has in mind ?
Todd,
Thanks for your response. For the record, I was only quoting the bishop, not agreeing with him. My point was that in Rome's judgement, the situation is serious enough to cell for the drastic action it is presently taking.
"I think native English writers who can really write are the way to go, not just texts more closely aligned with the Latin originals."
We can't have it both ways? Evidently, the more "progressive" view (I hate the labels, BTW) is that the Latin Roman liturgy is simply a template, a model. The integrity of the Romasn liurgy and the faithfulness of a translation to it is not a big priority. Inculturation, "proclaimability" and any number of other things are higher on the list. And since these are all worthy things to be considered, it's hard to argue against the position per se. This was Rome's problem with the ordination rite, and I think it's the major philiosophical difference between Rome and "progressives" like Trautman. Would you agree?
You comment is well taken about my feelings. I was only suggesting that Bp. Trautman's tone was one of the reasons for the hostility to some of his views. I find it a lot among liberals (and some conservatives), and they don't really realize they're doing it. For instance, the attitude towards anyone opposing inclusive language" is amazement that anyone could be so insensitive, so uniformed, so dense and backwards as to think that anyone but rednecks still uses "man" in a generic sense.
OK, I'm exaggerating to make a point, but it's annoying that there's no real argument, no intellectual angagemnet on this issue. As far as I can see, the argument is basically about people's feelings, or this is what is happening so we must accept it or be "left behind" or considered out of step with the progress of language. You get the idea.
Post a Comment
<< Home