THE LITURGY AND THE LANGUAGE OF LOVE

By Rev. Jerry Pokorsky

Some time ago, I offered a Mass in celebration of a 65th wedding
anniversary. When I asked the devout Catholic couple the secret of
their success, they responded that they always prayed together and
never used foul language when they argued. It took me some time to
understand the profound significance of their holy boast. Even in
arguments they strove to use a language of love.

The language used in a marital relationship has an analogue in the
liturgy.  The liturgy is the priestly action of Christ and his Body
and Bride the Church (<Sacrosanctum Concilium>, 7). So just as verbal
and non-verbal communication between husband and wife promote and
express the marriage union, the words and gestures of the Mass are
designed to promote and express the union of Christ with his Church.

Since 1993 the American bishops have been reviewing and voting on a
contemporary revision of the translation of the Mass as proposed by
the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL). The
new Sacramentary (the book containing the prayers of the Mass) will
be in two volumes. In June 1995, the American bishops, in their
plenary meeting, are expected to vote on the main parts of the Mass.
If all goes according to ICEL's plan, the two-volume Sacramentary
will be eventually approved by the bishops, assembled, and sent to
the Holy See for confirmation. The executive secretary of ICEL has
been quoted as saying that in response to the changes in contemporary
language, the translation of the Mass from the official Latin will be
revised every generation or so.

LOSS OF THE FAMILIAR

Every priest who has listened to a saga of marital strife knows that
a good marriage needs effective communication (honest but free from
self-absorption and narcissism).  It's almost a cliche to say that
when communication breaks down, in many cases, so does the marriage.
A wife's lament, "He's not the man I married" reveals, in perception
or in reality, a loss of a sense of the familiar and a failure in
communication. To a significant degree, communication depends upon a
common and reliable use of language. When the language is subjected
to unnecessary change (as opposed to organic growth) or when it is
distorted by ambiguity, communication is distorted.

ICEL has systematically removed an important and reliable vehicle of
communication in the liturgy by censoring the familiar English
"sacral vocabulary." Words such as "soul," "spirit," "beseech,"
"merit," "servants," "handmaid," and "majesty"-which were at once
archaic and endearing to faithful participants in the liturgy-have
virtually disappeared from liturgical translations. ICEL's plan to
revise the Mass every generation to accommodate contemporary
linguistic usage strikes at the heart of effective and enduring
liturgical communication.

In the Roman Canon, shortly before the Consecration we should be
praying "...for the redemption of their souls" (<pro redemptione>
animarum <suarum>). But ICEL deliberately fails to translate "soul"
(<animarum>) and insists upon translating the phrase as "...for our
well-being and redemption." ICEL's prejudice against the use of
"soul" continues in the invitation to Communion. Where the Latin
reads, "...but only say the word and my <soul (anima)> shall be
healed" (<sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur> anima <mea>), ICEL
translates the phrase "...but only say the word and <I> shall be
healed."

Catholics who are homebound with advanced age often unconsciously
revert to the traditional "And with your <spirit>" (<Et cum> spiritu
<tuo>) in response to the liturgical greeting by the priest, "The
Lord be with you." ICEL had a chance to restore the correct
translation to the 1973 Sacramentary, but ICEL's present revision
continues to censor "spirit." This is not an isolated example. ICEL
occasionally drops whole phrases to avoid the use of archaic words or
phrases. Hence, while in the Roman Canon we should pray "...in the
sight of Your divine <majesty" (in conspectu divinae> maiestatis
<tuae>), ICEL has decided to drop the entire phrase. Liturgy as
ideology

LITURGY AS IDEOLOGY

The censorship of the sacral vocabulary in favor of contemporary
language is at the heart of ICEL's demand to revise the translation
for every generation. There seems to be a close relationship between
the notion that the Church needs a new translation for every
generation and the tendency-all too common, but obviously not
happy-for a married man to figure he needs a new, younger woman every
ten years or so. It's easy to understand the appeal of what is new
and exciting. But living chastity in marriage means finding your
excitement in what is familiar, not what is exotic. What's more, it
is easy to find excitement within familiarity-in marriage or in the
liturgy-if one is really in love. The emphasis on contemporary
language that cries out for revision in every generation has reduced
the liturgy to the arena of ideology and competing interests,
especially between the sexes.

The competition between male and female has reached a fever pitch in
society. Women were once a civilizing influence in the culture,
bringing out the best in male characteristics. But increasingly young
women are renouncing femininity and even taking on the worst of male
attributes. The liberated woman as "sexual predator" is becoming more
and more stereotypical in film and popular culture. At the same time,
as expressed in their behavior, men are renouncing the properly
masculine characteristics of courage and self-control. As a result,
the proper order of male and female relationship-
romance-marriage-sex-babies in that sequence-has been scrambled, with
a skyrocketing divorce rate thrown in for good measure.

A reflection of marital conflict in the liturgy can be found in the
influence of the feminist ideology. The introduction of "inclusive
language" has had the effect of blurring the distinction between male
and female, priest and people, Christ and his Church. The neutering
of the language invites a chronic loss of awareness of the
differences between male and female, in a futile attempt to paper
over sexual differences. By drawing attention to the contemporary
gender-neutral ideology, "inclusive language" amounts to an attack on
the complementarity of the sexes.

It is common to see flyers advertising diocesan liturgical workshops
which promote the "reasonable" demands of "moderate" feminism,
especially "inclusive language, as a matter of "justice." Traditional
hymns are the first to be emasculated. For example, the third verse
of <Faith of Our Fathers> now reads, "Our mothers, too, oppressed and
wronged, Still lived their faith with dignity..." The modern
seminarian, too, is constantly evaluated on whether he appropriately
uses "inclusive language." Formation personnel in seminaries even
insist that seminarians change the authorized liturgical texts to
accommodate "inclusive language." (I recall an episode in the
seminary that caused suppressed snorts of laughter when the deacon
prayed that we might be good "stewards and stewardesses" of God's
creation.) The infallibility of the pope is a topic for theological
debate in seminaries; but the demand for divisive "inclusive
language" is not negotiable. 

AN ODD CENSORSHIP

Properly speaking, the liturgical text belongs to Christ. It is the
dialogue between Christ, the Bridegroom, and the Church, his spotless
Bride, as she listens and responds to her Lord and unites herself to
him as he offers himself to the Father. The marital imagery of the
Mass reflects the complementarity of the sexes found in Scriptures,
especially Genesis- a complementarity which confounded the
surrounding ancient pagan cultures. Man and woman were not created to
<compete> with one another, but to complete one another in the image
and likeness of God.

But in a single prayer, ICEL neglects the holiness of the Church, the
bride of Christ, and manages to undermine the complementarity of
priest and people, Christ and the Church, man and woman. ICEL
translates the traditional Offertory prayer, the <Orate, Fratres>, as
"Pray...that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God" rather than
"Pray...that <my sacrifice and yours> may be acceptable..." (<ut>
meum ac vestrum <sacrifieium>)- thus failing to draw attention to the
distinction between the priest (representing Christ) and the people
(representing the spotless bride of Christ, the Church). In the same
prayer, ICEL translates <ad laudem et gloriam nominis sui> as "for
the praise and glory of <God's> name" when the Latin reads "for the
praise and glory of <his> name". ICEL changes "his name" to "God's
name" apparently in deference to gender-neutral sensibilities.
Finally, the prayer should conclude with "and the good of all <his
holy> Church (<totiusque Ecclesiae suae> sanctae). But ICEL
translates this phrase as "and the good of all the Church" dropping
the word "holy" and changing "<his> Church" (<sui>) to "<the>
Church."

The promotion of "inclusive language" is not progressive; it is
regressive. It ensures that the pattern of conflict between male and
female found in the worship of ancient pagan deities will be
perpetually enkindled in Christian liturgy.

But there are other disturbing trends in ICEL's current revision of
the Roman Missal. In many contemporary catechisms dealing with the
6th Commandment, words such as "purity," "holy," and "virgin" have
been replaced with concepts such as "value systems" and concerns for
"self-esteem." It must be admitted that the results have been
devastating. The typical Catholic high school often breeds
indifference (and sometimes contempt) for holiness, purity and
virginity, the essential conceptual building blocks for healthy
marriages and families.

Revisiting the proposed revision of the Roman Canon, the long term
ICEL agenda becomes clear. The mistakes of the 1973 translation,
despite recent admissions that the first translation was "done in
haste," were not corrected. In the prayer remembering St.  Joseph,
the Latin calls him "the spouse of the Virgin" (<eiusdem> Virginis
<Sponsi>).  But ICEL continues to translate the prayer, "Joseph, her
husband" avoiding any reference to "the Virgin." After the
Consecration, ICEL again retains the 1973 translation of
<offerimus...hostiam> puram, <hostiam> sanctam, <hostiam> immaculatam
as simply "this holy and perfect sacrifice." But the Latin is
considerably more vivid with profound Scriptural and marital imagery:
"a <pure> victim, a <holy> victim, a <spotless> victim." Doubtless,
these words are alien to contemporary culture. But so is the Church's
authentic teaching on chastity.

LAST HOPE FOR EPISCOPAL ACTION

There are many other proposed changes and adaptations including a
"Litany of Praise," an invention designed by ICEL as an optional
substitute for the penitential rite. But it neither asks for
forgiveness nor is followed by the absolution. Further, ICEL
continues to translate the consecratory formula, <pro multis>, as
"for <all>" instead of "for <many>." ICEL begins the Nicene Creed
with "<We believe> in God." But the opening line of the Creed should
have been translated accurately as "<I> believe in God" (Credo <in
unum Deum>). And the "Song of Praise" becomes the generic title for
both the <Gloria> and the proposed "Easter Canticle," an alternative
to the <Gloria> during Easter.

In November 1993, the body of bishops gave the bishops' doctrine
committee responsibility for independent oversight of liturgical
translation efforts. As reported in the April issue of <Catholic
World Report>, the six-man doctrine committee was recently stacked
with members of the liturgical establishment. So it comes as no
surprise that in March, the doctrine committee reviewed ICEL's
translations and concluded that "...all the texts were theologically
orthodox and any other concerns that may have been raised have been
satisfactorily addressed by the liturgy committee." In the meantime,
several other English-speaking bishops' conferences have already
approved these texts. The American bishops will vote on the texts at
their June plenary meeting. 

A vote rejecting the ICEL texts would raise hopes that the liturgy
might one day recover the familiar and endearing sacral vocabulary. A
lifetime of familiarity challenges the believer to enter into a close
personal communion with the Lord in union with the whole Church. The
English sacral vocabulary in the liturgy-for better, for worse, for
richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health-is the enduring
language of love.


This article appeared in the June 1995 issue of "The Catholic World
Report," P.O. Box 6718, Syracuse, NY 13217-7912, 800-825-0061.


   -------------------------------------------------------------------
   
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com