In our July/August edition we introduced what we headlined as the "Vatican crackdown on translations" (pp. 10-11), referring to a new document entitled, in Latin, Liturgiam authenticam, readily translated as "Authentic Liturgy." Now liturgy refers to the forms and language which the Church uses to guide worship. Needless to say, worship is all-important. Consequently, nothing elevates the mind more to the adoration of God than a beautiful liturgy, and nothing infuriates the faithful more than bishops or priests who take it upon themselves to introduce changes in the words and execution of the Liturgy, especially that of the Holy Eucharist. In this article the author provides more details about the expected changes.
- Editor

The recent Vatican document called Liturgiam authenticam (L.A.) is an "instruction," being the latest of five major instructions from the Vatican liturgy office. The first appeared in 1964, a few months after the major Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The others came in 1967, 1970, and 1994, treating of changes and adaptations in the Mass, duties of the bishop, and inculturation of the Liturgy. The fifth concentrates on matters of translation and appeared on 28 March 2001.

L.A. is 52 pages long. It begins with two pages of background, and then a seven-page overview, being a handy summary of the whole. The instruction itself follows for 35 pages, divided into 133 sections (almost four per page). Sections 19 to 33 are on general principles for all translation; 34-45 give norms for translating Scripture and preparing lectionaries; 46-62 give norms for translating the non-scripture prayers, prefaces, etc.; and 63-69 cover norms for "special types of text," such as the Creed, the Eucharistic prayer, and rubrics. If one is too busy to read all this, the overview presents a handy summary in just seven pages and is available on the Vatican internet (http://www.vatican.va).

Directives for ICEL
We have often heard criticisms of the English translations done by ICEL, the International Commission on English in the Liturgy. ICEL and all similar bodies round the world are spoken of by L.A. as "mixed commissions." The ICEL began in 1963 (this writer was an active member from 1964 to 1973, and therefore a consultor) and it gradually came to be dominated by a radical, progressive, and untraditional approach. Meanwhile, in the 1980s, the Vatican began to demand a more faithful approach. L.A. implicitly recognizes the shortcomings of our present ICEL version, and calls on the bishops to be personally responsible for "perfecting" or "thoroughly revising" (n.77) the texts in a "timely manner."

L.A. speaks of the "intensive activity" of revising and translating the liturgy around 1970 into all the major languages of the world (p.1). There followed a "period of practical experience," and then, in 1988, Pope John Paul II marked the 25th anniversary of the Vatican II Liturgy Constitution with an Apostolic Letter (4 Dec.) which "began a...process of evaluation of the liturgical renewal."

In 1977, the Pope asked his Congregation for Divine Worship to "codify the conclusions of its work regarding translations." This fifth instruction, L.A., is precisely that, a treatise on translation. To say it simply, the gigantic and revolutionary task of changing the liturgy was too much for the Vatican and the bishops to do in a short time without letting mistakes slip through, particularly in the surrounding climate of cultural and religious and sexual revolution.

To be honest, we must acknowledge that some Catholic leaders actually embraced some of those mistakes. They helped drive exasperated Catholics to demand the retention of the old Latin Mass. We can now hope that L.A. will help turn us decisively toward a more faithful English Catholic liturgy.

The authentic liturgy
L.A. is called "authentic liturgy," a term obviously chosen deliberately. The two words are the very first in the opening sentence in Latin. Here it is in English:

"The Second Vatican Council strongly desired to preserve with care the authentic liturgy, which flows forth from the Church's living and most ancient spiritual tradition...."

This reminds us that liturgy is not manufactured but received, handed down to us from our sacred past, and so demands reverent fidelity when it is translated. Many traditional Catholics think that the authentic liturgy has in fact not been preserved.

The sentence goes on to say, "and to adapt it with pastoral wisdom to the genius of various peoples...." This is the progressive side of the Catholic penny. It begs many questions. Do we adapt the liturgy to the people, or rather the people to the liturgy? For that topic, see below.

Liturgical norms
About four years ago, Catholic Insight discussed six (then still secret) Vatican "norms" for translating Scripture in the face of feminist "inclusive language" demands. These norms are given in L.A. (nn. 34-45, as noted above), but the word feminism is not used, rather, "pressure and criticism on ideological or other grounds" (p. 7).

L.A. calls for stability and uniformity in the Bible across a language territory (n. 34, 35). Stability will foster memorization of Bible texts, where different interpretations or readings exist; the Latin New-Vulgate Bible is the norm to be followed (n. 37). The Vulgate's numbering of Bible verses is also preferred:

Other points

Biblical words in popular devotional prayers (e.g., the Angelus) should be retained in the liturgical version of the corresponding passage.

The Greek "Septuagint" translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, used by Christians "from the earliest days," is to be consulted in variant readings.

The divine name Lord (Latin, Dominus) is to be used as usual, in place of the sacred Hebrew name Yahweh. Attention must be paid to interpretations by the Fathers of the Church, and those frequently found in Christian art and hymnody (n. 41, a-c).

Concrete (anthropomorphic) words for God and related concepts-such as walk, arm, finger, hand, face, flesh, horn, mouth, seed, and visit-are to be retained, and not replaced by some abstract or personal term. [Example: "The just man will live on the Lord's holy mountain," not "in the presence of the Lord" (Ps. 14:1) (n. 43].

Terms such as soul and spirit for an individual are to be retained, not rendered by a pronoun [Example: "My soul," not I, "shall be healed," before communion at Mass, based on Mt. 8:2). The translators are to avoid terms that have a confusing or ambiguous sound. [Example: grasped, pronounced "graspt," but the "pt" is almost inaudible, and only "grass" is heard. (See Phil. 2:6, Jerusalem Bible)]. In preparation of a Lectionary, the "title" of a reading (which gives its theme) is to use the actual wording of the reading itself, if the Latin Lectionary (L.L.) does this. Likewise, the "incipits," that is, the L.L. words prescribed for the beginning of a reading, are to follow the Bible version being used, and if these are not actual Bible words, they are to be translated exactly as in L.L., unless otherwise specially permitted by the Vatican Office of Divine Worship. [Example: "At that time, in those days," and such like (n. 45)].

Canada's Lectionary
The present Lectionary in Canada (the NSRV translation) labours under a disqualified feminist translation and numerous other shortcomings. L.A. states clearly how the Lectionary should be prepared. It remains to be seen how long this task will take, with willing and not grudging editors.

Most of the existing Canadian liturgical books violate various requirements of L.A. It is arguable that the Vatican should take in hand the Englishing of the Bible, as well as the Liturgy, and promote a common Bible for the English-speaking Catholic world. Canada has shown its untrustworthiness going feminist, and the U.S.A. almost did the same. The "New American Bible" (Catholic) is so confused that it has gone through several revisions already.

Most major modern English bibles have lapsed into a "New" (that is, feminist) version. The old Catholic Douai Rheims Bible has lasted over 400 years with one major revision (Bishop Challoner's Bible) in 1752. Were this to be emended conservatively, exactly as the Vulgate in Latin has recently been, it might well prove to be the best English Catholic Bible, and long-lasting as well.

Some specific changes

Nicene Creed: "I believe," not "we believe."

Instead of "what we have done" etc., return to "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault."

Not "and with you," but "and with your spirit."

Not "I shall be healed," but "my soul shall be healed."

Use long-standing sacral terms: Chalice, not cup; priest, not presider. The law of praying and the law of believing L.A. treats of the Catholic theological axiom lex orandi, lex credendi (the law for praying sets the law for believing). It argues that the "lex orandi" (that is, the official liturgical prayers) must be in harmony with the lex credendi," here meaning "the faith" and "the wealth of Catholic doctrine" in the Latin prayers. It further states that the prayer language (in the vernacular) must be "adapted to the dogmatic reality that (the Latin wording) contains" (n. 80).

The basic strength of the lex orandi is that it sets the lex credendi, declares and establishes it. This means that to know what a church believes, listen to what it says when it prays. This is a more dynamic answer than a list of statements on a piece of paper. It is all the more true, the older the prayers. A new prayer may not survive long usage. But Catholic prayers that have withstood the test of time are firm indicators of Catholic Faith.

We have seen wholesale changes made in our Catholic Liturgy since Vatican II, starting in 1964. All those old prayers dropped, or shortened, or changed! Does this huge program of change in the old lex orandi not mean a huge change in believing?

Yes, it does. And in fact, we have seen a colossal loss of faith among Catholics since the new Liturgy began. L.A., if faithfully implemented, will certainly improve our Liturgy. But a further reform is still needed, a fuller restoration of the lex orandi, especially the ancient collects, prefaces, and eucharistic prayers.

UNICEF meddling again

Beginning in the mid 1980s, pro-life groups, especially Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), began to draw attention to UNICEF's promotion of contraception and abortion in Third World countries. Attempts to convince Catholic UNICEF supporters, especially the Canadian Conference of Bishops, failed. In 1990, CLC member Winifride Prestwich submitted documentation to the Vatican delegation in New York exposing UNICEF's activities. Apparently, it got mislaid or never reached its destination. In 1993, Miss Prestwich put the facts in the booklet UNICEF: guilty as charged (Life Ethics Centre, Toronto), and handed copies to Archbishop Martino, the Vatican delegate to the U.N. when he visited Toronto.

In 1996, the Vatican finally cut off its token payments to UNICEF. Even after that, Canada's bishops and various Catholic school boards continued to support UNICEF for several years.

Following is a summary by Zenit in Rome exposing how deeply UNICEF has been involved in the promotion of anti-life measures in Third World countries.

Roots of anti-life sentiments began in 1960s
Rome-The September 11 attack on New York and Washington delayed the U.N. Children's summit, originally scheduled to begin today. But it won't put off indefinitely the battles that are sure to surface at the summit.

The summit's preparatory document already has ignited scandal and controversy. Some passages of the text, instead of concentrating on the objective of saving millions of innocent human lives, are being turned into claims for free abortion and the diffusion of contraceptives among adolescents, without parental consent.

These two proposals have been defended particularly by the governments of the European Union and Latin America-in most cases, in flagrant violation of their own national constitutions, which recognize the right to life. Two delegations asked that the proposals be rejected on the grounds they are not part of the summit's objective. Indeed, the Holy See and the United States resolved to concentrate on concrete aid to help children around the world. In addition, 17 Muslim countries have declared their total opposition to measures that deprive parents of their authority over their children.

UNICEF, which started as the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund but later dropped "international" and "emergency" from its name, was created in 1946 for the specific purpose of helping the child victims of the war in Europe and China. Beginning in the 1960s, it adopted Malthusian theories, promoting contraceptives, sterilization, and other birth reduction programs.

In May 1966, the then executive director, Henry R. Labouisse, submitted a report entitled "Possible Role of UNICEF in Family Planning" to the Executive Council. The debate caused division in the council. The Swedish, Indian and Pakistani delegations approved the idea that UNICEF participate in population-control programs. Delegations of Catholic countries were opposed. The African nations, with the exception of Nigeria, also responded with a clear "no," stating that the programs were racist.

Hilaire Willot, head of the Belgian delegation, criticized the program to control births in India because, he said, "incentives were offered to accept abortions and sterilizations," which he thoroughly opposed. The proposal was put on hold, and participation in family-planning programs was instead decided on a case-by-case basis.

Subsequently, as also happened in the World Health Organization, these types of proposals were accepted with a stratagem. The program to reduce the number of births was renamed "reproductive health" of mothers and children.

In 1970, Labouisse himself recommended that the Executive Council "authorize UNICEF to include the diffusion of contraceptives in government aid programs." The recommendation was accepted despite much opposition. The representative of the French delegation said, "It was necessary at least to guarantee the free will of families." However, Labouisse replied that this "was a program of governments, and not of UNICEF."

In 1966, UNICEF spent $700,000 in family planning programs. In 1971, this rose to $2.4 million; and in 1973, $4.2 million, in 30 countries. Over the years, cooperation has increased between UNICEF and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the world's most powerful promoter of abortion and contraception.

In 1978, Johns Hopkins University published "Population Reports," an in depth look at all the population control projects that UNICEF had been involved in. Between 1987 and 1990, UNICEF participated substantially in family planning programs in Nepal, Malawi, Jamaica, Burundi, Kenya, Cape Verde, Tanzania and China.

In the 1987 International Conference to "Improve the Health of Women and Children through Family Planning," UNICEF openly supported abortion as "a legal service, of good quality and accessible to all women."

In 1992, UNICEF pressured to have abortion legalized in countries where it was illegal. The Vatican permanent observer at the United Nations, Archbishop Renato Martino, had already denounced these practices as early as April 16, 1990. The next day he declared before UNICEF's Executive Council that the group had become a promoter of abortion.

UNICEF's repeated involvement in birth-reduction programs led the Holy See in 1996 to withdraw its symbolic annual contribution, which had encouraged Catholics to give generously. The decision was made after UNICEF confirmed that it had distributed abortifacient substances in Rwanda and Zaire.

Archbishop Martino noted that, instead of allocating funds to help children, UNICEF was using them to put an end to human lives. In particular, the Holy See denounced:

UNICEF's publication of a manual which recommends the distribution of abortifacient products for refugees.

UNICEF's pressure on some countries to legalize abortion.

UNICEF's participation in programs for the distribution of contraceptives. While UNICEF denied some of the Vatican's accusations, the U.N. Agency's annual report that year included family planning and abortion as "one of the most effective means to combat poverty." The differences between UNICEF and the Holy See have not been resolved. Moreover, they have increased because of the radical positions taken by current UNICEF executive director Carol Bellamy.

As a New York state senator, Bellamy gained attention as one of the most radical promoters of abortion. In September 1999, under the Clinton administration, she was confirmed for a second term as executive director. The term lasts until April 2005.