NEWS
2001 NEWS STORIES
December
November
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January
ARTICLES
LETTERS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2001
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
NEWS
JUNE 2001
DRAWING ON MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS' experience in liturgical renewal, the Holy See has developed and laid down norms for the translation of prayers of the liturgy and of Scripture. Three years ago, on the twenty-fifth anniversary of Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the Holy Father commenced "a new gradual process of evaluation, completion and consolidation of the liturgical renewal" begun by the council. One of the results has been the publication, on March 28 2001, of Liturgiam authenticam, (On the Use of Vernacular Languages in the Publication of the Books of the Roman Liturgy.) Being the fifth instruction on the implementation of the renewed liturgy, Liturgiam authenticam supersedes, says the Vatican, "all norms previously set forth on liturgical translation" (with the exception of the fourth instruction) and "calls more than once for a new era in translation of liturgical texts."
According to Helen Hitchcock of the Adoremus Bulletin, Liturgiam authenticam, divided into five chapters, covers a variety of issues: the choice of vernacular languages for liturgical use; the principles of translation of liturgical texts and Holy Scripture; the procedures involved in choosing commissions (such as the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, which has produced our current English liturgical texts); the procedures involved in publishing texts; and the translations of "propers" for feasts and other special observances.
According to the news release, which accompanied the publication of the instruction, the Roman Rite, like other liturgical rites of the Church, "has its own style and structure that must be respected in so far as possible in translation." The translation of liturgical texts is not "so much a work of creative inventiveness as one of fidelity and exactness in rendering the Latin texts into a vernacular language, with all due consideration for the particular way that each language has of expressing itself." While liturgical language must be "easily comprehensible to ordinary people," it must also express the "dignity and oratorical rhythm of the original: a language of praise and worship which fosters reverence and gratitude in the face of God's glory." Liturgical language, therefore, is "not intended primarily as an expression of the inner dispositions of the faithful but rather of God's revealed word and his continual dialogue with his people in history."
In Adoremus, Hitchcock notes that these statements stand in striking contrast to Comme le prévoit ("as foreseen"), a document issued in 1969 by Consilium, the Vatican commission which oversaw liturgical change in the years immediately following the council. Comme le prévoit advocated, according to Hitchcock, "'adaptations and altering metaphors to appeal to the taste of the times," instead of what had been "customary sacral language." The new instruction, however, says that a translation of liturgical texts should be guided "by the convictions that liturgical prayer not only is formed by the genius of a culture, but itself contributes to the development of that culture. Deficiency in translating the varying forms of addressing God, such as Domine Deus, Omnipotens, æterne Deus Pater, and so forth, as well as the various words expressing supplication, may render the translation monotonous and obscure the rich and beautiful way in which the relationship between the faithful and God is expressed in the Latin text."
Though it never specifically mentions inclusive language, the instruction notes that translations should not be bound by the ideological notions -- political, theological or otherwise -- of the translators. It states that when the original text uses "a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation."
As for specifics, the instruction decrees that "the Creed is to be translated according to the precise wording that the tradition of the Latin Church has bestowed upon it, including the use of the first person singular" -- "I believe," instead of "we believe." It also says that et cum spiritu tuo should be translated "and with your spirit" (instead of "and also with you"). The instruction calls for the return of mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa ("through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault") to the confession of sins. The use of the word "Yahweh" is forbidden "in accordance with immemorial tradition evident in the 'Seputuagint' version" where "the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the word Dominus is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning" (such as "Lord").
Liturgiam authenticam further extends the role of the Holy See in the translation of texts, insisting that all new texts receive a recognitio (recognition) before they are published or used. Without a recognitio, any "act of the Conference of Bishops entirely in no way attains legal force." "Modifications, even substantial ones, may be introduced by means of" the recognitio, says the instruction.
Those interested in reading the new instruction may access it on the Vatican web site (www.vatican.va).
LYNCH RESPONDS TO COLEMAN. As noted in the April issue of the Mission [see the article "Studied Ambiguity"], Father Gerald Coleman, rector of St. Patrick's Seminary in Menlo Park, wrote an open letter to the Mission and San Diego News Notes in response to the article, "Damnable Falsehood," published in the February 2001 issue of our paper. That article featured a letter written by Robert Lynch, special projects director of Concerned Roman Catholics of America, to Bishop Tod Brown of Orange. Bishop Brown had endorsed the views of Father Coleman that the state should recognize long-term, committed homosexual unions. Father Coleman addressed Lynch in his open letter that was published in both Catholic San Francisco and the Orange County Catholic, the organ of the diocese of Orange.
In April, Lynch sent his own reply to Coleman's open letter to Patrick Mott, the editor of the Orange County Catholic. Lynch asked Mott to publish his letter in the May issue of his paper. Mott told the Mission that he could not publish Lynch's letter, because of its length. Mott said, though, that he might publish an edited version of Lynch' s letter, and other letters responding to Coleman he had received, in the July issue of the Orange County Catholic.
On May 5, Lynch faxed the Mission the text of the letter he sent to Mott. The unedited version of the letter follows: "After more than a year of silence, Father Gerald D. Coleman finally admits in his April 2001 article in the Orange County Catholic that he erred in asserting his approval, without any moral reservation, of the recognition, protection, respect and assistance in civil law of long-term, committed and loving homosexual unions. (See "Is Proposition 22 Discriminatory?" in the February 25, 2000 issue of Catholic San Francisco).
"Not content with simply admitting his heterodoxy, Father Coleman tried to rehabilitate himself by making a new assertion that authentic Church teaching recognizes committed, chaste, lifelong homosexual unions or relationships. His new assertion, however, appears to be heterodox, frivolous and naive for several reasons, including the following: A chaste homosexual union is a contradiction in terms. A homosexual union by definition is a union which involves sexual feelings between persons of the same sex, with impulses towards genital expression, which are always unchaste. Father Coleman's assertion is thus illogical in that it calls for the recognition of an entity which can not exist.
"Jesus warns believers to avoid not only impure actions, but also impure thoughts and desires (Matthew 5: 27-30). Committed, lifelong homosexual unions are always voluntary and continuous proximate occasions of the sin of impurity. The Church has always taught that one who is in the presence of such a proximate occasion of sin is bound to remove it.
"The Church teaches that homosexual persons are called to chastity by the virtue of self-mastery, by prayer and sacramental grace, and at times by the support of disinterested friendship (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2359). In the light of this teaching, committed, lifelong homosexual unions would have to be seen as a fatal impediment to this call to chastity.
"More than a year ago, Bishop Tod Brown endorsed and recommended Father Coleman's heterodox assertions in a private communication to all the priests of the diocese of Orange. Will he now either publicly or privately retract his endorsement and recommendation?
"What action will Bishop Brown now take to minister to those homosexual persons in his reportedly one-million-plus member flock who undoubtedly received false counseling and penitential instruction from those of his 273 diocesan and religious priests who under obedience accepted his endorsement and recommendation?"
"INTELLIGENT, PASTORAL AND TRULY COURAGEOUS" is how the four theologians who reviewed it described Father Peter Liuzzi's book, With Listening Hearts, Understanding the Voices of Lesbian and Gay Catholics. This, according to the Tidings (the organ of the archdiocese of Los Angeles), which interviewed Liuzzi in its May 4 issue. According to the Tidings, Liuzzi's book, which was published only earlier this year by Paulist Press, has already almost gone through its first printing -- 5,000 copies. Amazon.com, noted the Tidings, has listed With Listening Hearts as one of its top-selling gay and lesbian books.
In the interview, Liuzzi says that he had long felt a calling to work with the poor and that he sees his ministry to homosexuals as just such work. "I've found the poor people that I'm supposed to be with," said Liuzzi. "They' re not physically poor, but they're poor in the sense that many people in the Church really don't like them." He noted that he feels he is "contributing something to making this [the welcome of the Church] better for the Catholic gays who will come after we're all gone."
As for his book -- Liuzzi said that it took him three years to write it. "I love to play with words," he said. "A lot of the book has that. You can say some beautiful things between the lines. I try to say a lot between the lines."
MERCY FOR MCVEIGH. Cardinals Roger Mahony and William Keeler, Archbishop of Baltimore, issued a statement May 2, protesting the execution of Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh was to be executed May 15 for the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 persons, including 19 small children. Admitting that "no one can diminish the responsibility of those who committed this crime," the cardinals wrote that "this execution can only compound the violence. It will not bring genuine healing or closure. It will not bring back to life those who died. It will be just one more killing." The cardinals noted one ironic possibility: McVeigh's execution will give more of what he seemingly wants -- "attention and notoriety."
Mahony and Keeler spoke as influential representatives of the United States Catholic bishops -- Mahony is chairman of the Committee on Domestic Policy for the United States Catholic Conference, and Keeler is chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The cardinals wrote that they "strongly believe that the use of the death penalty diminishes us as human beings." Referring to John Donne's meditation ("no man is an island. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind"), Mahony and Keeler declared, "how much more are we diminished when a man is killed on our behalf."
"Some believe," wrote the cardinals, "that Timothy McVeigh's execution will serve justice. But how can more violence and killing, state-sanctioned or otherwise, serve justice?" McVeigh's execution, said the cardinals, will add to the culture of death. Noting Pope John Paul II's repeated calls for a culture of life, which "rests on the foundational principle that all are created in God's image," the cardinals wrote: "we are called to uphold the life and dignity of every human being at all times including the lives of those justly convicted of horrible crimes."
Noting the pope's statement in Evangelium Vitæ that since societies today can defend themselves against killers without resorting to capital punishment, they should restrict themselves to non-violent means of protecting society, the cardinals said, "such non-violent measures can give the offender time repent of his or her crime and allow the possibility of receiving God's grace."
The week before the statement of Cardinals Mahony and Keeler, the pope asked President Bush to grant McVeigh clemency. Clemency would commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.
THE RIGHT, OR WRONG, OF SECESSION. Roger Cardinal Mahony has appointed a group to help Angelenos decide whether the secession of San Fernando Valley, the harbor area, and Hollywood from the city of Los Angeles is moral, according to a May 4 Los Angeles Times report. Critics of the San Fernando Valley secession movement have called it an attempt on the part of the more affluent to separate themselves from the poor in the rest of Los Angeles. Cardinal Mahony's close friend, Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, has, according to the Times, called secession "downright immoral."
Thomas Chabolla, director of the archdiocesan office of justice and peace, and head of the group appointed by Mahony, wrote in a letter to Richard Close, chairman of the secession group Valley VOTE, that more than mundane concerns must influence the question of secession. "While there will be numerous studies examining the economic and political implications of Valley secession," wrote Chabolla, "the task of this working group is to study and identify the moral and ethical implications of the secession proposal." Close has insisted that the Valley is not uniformly affluent, but has pockets of poor. He also argues that secession will help everyone, including the poor in the old city.
Tod Tamberg, spokesman for the archdiocese, told the Times that the list of participants in Chabolla's group has not been finalized. It will, though, include members of other Christian denominations, as well as representatives from the Board of Rabbis.
CATHOLICS HAVE LONG BLESSED everything that moves and doesn't, including animals. Unitarian-Universalists, it seems, are now adopting the practice, as well. On Sunday, May 6, the Sepulveda Unitarian-Universalist Society in North Hills (called "The Onion" for the unique shape of its building) conducted a blessing of the animals. Emma Rosloff, 12, told the Los Angeles Times, "We're blessing them because most people treat [their pets] like property, but they're not. People don't respect animals enough."
Miss Rosloff and her friend, Nicole Rorke, also twelve, conducted the blessing ceremony, which included about 18 dogs and a couple of chickens. Dayla Frazier, the president of the North Hills society, attended the event. She described for the Times the eclectic character of her group: while she, herself, is Jewish, she said, "we also have Catholics, every kind of Protestant, Muslims and atheists."
One might wonder in whose name a society that includes atheists blesses anything. Indeed, the Unitarian-Universalists do not insist on a belief in God. On the "Onion's" website one learns that Unitarian-Universalists believe in such things as "every person is important and valuable"; that "each person should be free to seek for what is true and right"; and that "we need to take care of the earth, the home we share with all living things" -- but they make no mention of God.
DOWN WITH HISTORIC CHURCHES. The United States Supreme Court on Monday, April 30 let stand a 1994 California state law that exempts churches and religious organizations from local and city landmark preservation laws. Without comment, the court dismissed an appeal from the California state supreme court that in December upheld the California law.
In 1994, preservationists in San Francisco tried to prevent the closure, by the archdiocese of San Francisco, of nine parish churches. Then assemblyman Willie Brown carried the assembly bill that exempted "noncommercial property owned by any association or corporation that is religiously affiliated" from local preservation laws.
Bay Area preservationists and San Francisco attorneys, along with the Los Angeles Conservancy, challenged the state law in lower court. According to a Los Angeles Conservancy press release, "the plaintiffs believe the law unconstitutionally grants preference to religious organizations in giving these organizations a unique right to exempt themselves from inherently neutral preservation laws." The Conservancy also noted that that the law "could significantly undermine future efforts to preserve Los Angeles' sacred places." The lower court sided with the preservationists, but an appellate panel subsequently voted 2-1 to uphold the law.
The preservationists then appealed to the state supreme court, which in December 2000, in a close 4-3 vote, upheld the state law. Justice Marvin Baxter wrote for the majority that exempting religious organizations merely freed owners "to use the property as they would have done had the property not been designated a historic landmark." Justice Stanley Mosk, in his dissent, argued that the California law indeed violated the first amendment by singling out religious organizations for special treatment. Justice Kathryn Werdegar, a Wilson appointee, joined in the dissent, arguing that, "particularly in California, with its relative paucity of historic buildings and its population perpetually rich in newcomers, preserving what landmarks we have is all the more vital to creating and continuing a sense of community."
Ken Bernstein, director of Preservation Issues for the Los Angeles Conservancy, told the Mission that the 1994 law "does not eliminate every tool to preserve historic religious structures. The law in question prevents local governments from designating religious-owned properties as local historic landmarks in the future, if the religious institution objects. It does not apply to other levels of government -- for example, the National Register of Historic Places, maintained by the National Park Service. In addition," continued Bernstein, "proposals to demolish or drastically alter a historic religious structure would still be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared prior to demolition."
The Conservancy, said Bernstein, does not "have any current significant threats to Los Angeles religious structures that we're working on. St. Vibiana's cathedral, a past source of controversy with the archdiocese of Los Angeles, is now slated for preservation and reuse as a performing arts center for Cal State LA." If the law had been in effect in the past, though, said Bernstein, "we would have lost important religious structures such as the Breed Street Shul, an important historic synagogue in Boyle Heights that has been recognized as part of Hillary Clinton's 'Save America's Treasures' program. While the Shul's former rabbis wanted it demolished if it could no longer serve its former congregation (which had moved elsewhere), the Jewish Historical Society has rescued it and is transforming it into a museum on the history of immigrant communities in Boyle Heights, and a community center for today's Boyle Heights community."
A PROMINENT PSYCHIATRIST, Doctor Robert Spitzer, has announced that the results of a new study on homosexuality supports the contention of some psychologists and psychiatrists that homosexuals can change their orientation, says a May 9 press release issued by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Speaking at the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) convention held in May in New Orleans, Spitzer said that, "contrary to conventional wisdom, some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation."
Spitzer admitted that, "like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behavior cold only be resisted, and that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that to be false. Some people can and do change." Spitzer interviewed 200 men and women who have experienced a significant shift from homosexual to heterosexual inclinations, a shift they have maintained for at least five years. Many of those he interviewed sought to change their orientation because of disillusionment with the promiscuity and unstable relationships characteristic of homosexual life, for religious reasons, or because they wanted to maintain a marriage. By the time he commenced the interview, Spitzer discovered that three-quarters of the men, and half of the women, he interviewed had married.
According to the NARTH report, Spitzer "cautioned against an either/or view of orientation change." Spitzer said he prefers to see change "as a diminishing of unwanted homosexuality and an increase in heterosexual potential -- recognizing that for some, change is possible along a multi-dimensional continuum." As long as treatment is not coercive, Spitzer said he believes "patients should have the right to explore their heterosexual potential."
Spitzer, who is chief of Biometrics Research and professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York City, was the leading figure in the 1973 decision of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the official diagnostic manual of mental disorders.