Liturgy has always aroused strong passions. In the 19th century, some London churches served by Anglican priests who wore lace were stoned. So it is not surprising that the introduction of a new translation of the Catholic Mass should be turbulent. It raises many interrelated questions about the process by which the translation has come to exist, about the quality of the new texts, and about how best to respond to it. It is helpful to treat these questions separately.
The central question concerns what matters. For most Catholics what matters most about texts is to transcend self-consciousness in praying aloud with others. They want to be on the same page and to sing from the same hymn book. So it will be important for people happily to pray the same responses. Uncertainty about how to respond simply breeds a mumbling hesitation that proclaims neither faith nor freedom.
The process can be described briefly.The Roman Missal, revised after the Second Vatican Council, was quickly translated into English under a committee representing the Bishops of the English-speaking world, the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL). It was always recognised that the translation, which tried to render the prayers of the Missal into contemporary spoken English, would need substantial revision.
A new translation that took account of the many criticisms received of the first text was prepared for discussion by ICEL in consultation with the Bishops of the English-speaking world, and in 1998 was subsequently approved by each of their Bishops' Conferences. But the translation did not receive approval by the Vatican which was preparing a new Latin text of the Roman Missal.
This was published in 2002. In the previous year the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship, with little consultation even of members of the Congregation, had issued the document Liturgiam Authenticam. It contained guidelines for translation which emphasised integral and exact translation.
In 2002 the Congregation established the Vox Clara committee to give advice to the Holy See on English-language texts. In 2003 ICEL was restructured to have a formal relationship with the Vatican Congregation. It prepared new translations under the new guidelines, which were discussed by Bishops' Conferences, approved in 2006 and confirmed by the Vatican in 2009.
In 2010 the Vatican authorised the final text. It contained some 10,000 further changes from the text previously approved by the Bishops. This intensified controversy about the translation, led to widespread anger among the translators, the leaking of texts, and declarations of resistance among many of the clergy who will implement it.
In addition, the German Bishops withdrew a translation of liturgical texts prepared to the new guidelines on the grounds that it was unusable. (The documents relevant to the process and opinions can be found on PrayTell.)
Underlying this long process is the question of who controls the liturgy. It has been proclaimed that the Vatican controls the translation of texts, not the Bishops' Conferences. To what extent that is theoretically a good thing depends on your understanding of the Church.
When judging the process devised by the Congregation for Divine Worship, however, most people will focus on its success in producing good texts that are happily received by clergy and laity. A tacit consensus has emerged that the consultation and transparency central to due process have been lacking, and that this lack has diminished the quality of the work and the good will necessary for its implementation.
Judgments about the quality of translations are inevitably subjective. Commentators tend to compare the best bits of the version they applaud with the worst bits of the versions they dislike.
My own judgment, based on a limited reading, is that, considering the narrow instructions governing its preparation, the new translation overall is surprisingly good. In less skilled hands the result could have resembled Inspector Poirot's English. In fact it reads more like the English used in costume drama — workable, but with a slightly archaic and formal flavour. It demands that the celebrant slow down and settle into period. It also supposes relatively high linguistic skills in its audience.
In the Australian Church the formality of the texts will make great demands on the many celebrants and the members of congregations for whom English is not a first language. Communication of meaning will inevitably suffer.
Most congregations will find it difficult to take in the meaning of the Sunday prayers as they listen. The translation retains the complex balanced periods of the original Latin text, and so demand a long attention span. To help comprehension, some celebrants will adapt what they read; others may precede the prayer with a commentary on its meaning. Neither expedient helps good liturgical celebration.
These reflections are not intended to criticise the translators. They are faithful foot soldiers landing on a beach chosen in some one else's battle plan. But my reflections do raise a wider question about liturgy. Should it be seen as a jewelled ossuary of precious symbols and words, or as a living resource to be worked with and adapted? The process of translation, following the long practice of the Roman and Eastern churches, regards it as the former.
Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street.