Cover
story On
the lectionary, 11 men made the deal
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR. NCR
Staff
Eighteen months ago, 11 men met in the Vatican to overhaul the
American lectionary, the collection of scripture readings authorized for use in
the Mass. Short-circuiting a six-year debate over inclusive
language by retaining many of the most controversial uses of masculine
vocabulary, and revamping texts approved by the U.S. bishops, this group
decided how the Bible will sound in the American church.
To this day, the bishops, Bible scholars and liturgists whose
contributions to the lectionary were either dumped or revised can only guess
who was at the table when the decisions were made. Rome never said whose advice
on questions of detail mattered, whose scholarship was relied on to settle
disputes -- information vital, observers say, to evaluating the credibility of
the work.
Over the past few weeks, NCR has learned who the members of
this special Vatican working group were and pieced together something of their
backgrounds. Based on this information, certain points, long the subject of
rumor, can now be confirmed:
- Only one of the 11 men -- no women were included -- holds a
graduate degree in scripture studies;
- Two members of the group were not native English-speakers, and
another is from the United Kingdom with no significant time in the United
States -- critical, some say, to an appreciation of idiomatic American English;
- At least one of the advisers was a graduate student at the time
of the meeting;
- Several members of the group had a history of objecting to
inclusive-language translations, including two of the American archbishops and
the lone scripture scholar.
What has also become clear is that the elaborate consultative
process used in developing English-language translations for nearly three
decades meant little. Powers in Rome handpicked a small group of men who in two
weeks undid work that had taken dozens of years.
This is the scandal of it, said one source close to
the battle over the lectionary, upon hearing the names of those involved.
These decisions were being made by unqualified people with a clear bias
against inclusive language, said the source, who asked not to be
identified.
Working group members
Members of the working group interviewed for this article see it
differently, arguing that dozens of scripture scholars had been consulted along
the way to that Vatican meeting. Putting together a lectionary, they say, is
about more than Bible scholarship -- its about liturgy, doctrine and the
exercise of pastoral office.
The working group met from Feb. 24 to March 8, 1997, in the
offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the
Sacraments. It consisted of four archbishops, five advisers and two
note-takers.
The four prelates were: Jerome Hanus of Dubuque, Iowa, the chair
of the bishops liturgy committee; William Levada of San Francisco; Justin
Rigali of St. Louis; and Cardinal Francis Stafford, formerly of Denver and now
head of the Pontifical Council for the Laity. As a member of the doctrinal
congregation, Stafford chaired the groups sessions. The bishops
names were made public at the time and widely reported.
The other members, whose names are published here for the first
time, were Marist Fr. Anthony Ward, Jesuit Fr. Mario Lessi-Ariosto, Fr. Thomas
Fucinaro, Fr. Charles Brown, and Michael Waldstein. Ward, Lessi-Ariosto and
Fucinaro work for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the
Sacraments, while Brown works for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith. Waldstein, an Austrian layman who was teaching at the University of
Notre Dame at the time, was the lone outside expert.
The group was rounded out by two note-takers: Fr. James Moroney,
head of the U.S. bishops Secretariat for Liturgy, and Fr. Joseph Hauer,
Hanus chancellor in Dubuque.
Hanus told NCR the identities of these other group members
were never secret. Most sources contacted for this article, however, said they
regarded them as such, citing Romes long-standing practice of demanding
that the identities of advisers and consultors be kept confidential. In some
cases, sources told NCR, bishops have been asked to formally swear not
to reveal the names of those with whom they met after a visit to Rome to
discuss translation issues.
The working group is not merely a matter of historical interest.
The effects of their deliberations are still being felt, as recently as
decisions in June and July by the U.S. bishops to overhaul the
lectionarys introduction and to lift the imprimatur from another
translation of the psalms. Both decisions were made under pressure from
Rome.
Moreover, the working group was the first body to apply a new set
of Vatican norms for translation to an American liturgical document. Those
norms, which had been issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
in secret in the mid-1990s, superseded guidelines for inclusive language
translations approved in 1990 by a vote of the full body of U.S. bishops. The
Vatican norms ruled out inclusive language in many cases where it had been
approved by the U.S. bishops.
By all accounts, Waldstein -- as the only Bible scholar, and the
only one proficient in Hebrew -- played a key role in the group. His native
language is German, though he is fluent in English. Hes a member of
Communion and Liberation, a conservative Catholic group with roots in postwar
Italy. Currently, Waldstein runs a conservative theological institute in
Austria affiliated with the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio (see
accompanying article, page 6).
Lessi-Ariostos native language is Italian, and his command
of English was described by one source as spotty. Ward, though a
native English-speaker and well-regarded scholar, has never spent an extended
period in the United States -- much of his career as a priest has been spent in
Rome, recently as archivist for St. Peters Basilica.
Fucinaro and Brown are American priests on duty in Rome. Both were
ordained in 1989, Fucinaro in the diocese of Lincoln, Neb., and Brown in the
New York archdiocese. Both went to Rome for graduate studies, Brown in
sacramental theology and Fucinaro in canon law.
Though attempts to contact both men in Rome failed, several
sources told NCR that Brown had not completed his studies at the time the
working group met. They were unsure about Fucinaros status. An official
in the New York archdiocese said Browns personnel file is incomplete; the
chancellor of the Lincoln diocese refused to cooperate with NCR. Both Brown and
Fucinaro are relatively lower level employees in their respective congregations
but are apparently among the few in either office fluent in English.
Six-year controversy
By late February of 1997, the lectionary had been the subject of
controversy for six years. In November 1991, the U.S. bishops approved a new
lectionary that included three basic texts: the 1986 New American Bible version
of the New Testament, the 1970 New American Bible version of the Old Testament
and the 1991 revised New American Bible Psalter, or collection of psalms. In
May 1992, Rome confirmed their approval, an act that had up to that point been
largely pro forma. In June 1994, however, Rome notified the U.S. bishops that
the confirmation was revoked.
This was a novelty, said Msgr. Fred McManus, former
head of the bishops liturgy office and a longtime consultant for the
International Commission on English in the Liturgy -- known as ICEL -- the body
charged by English-speaking bishops conferences with doing translations
of liturgical texts.
Since the bishops began doing a lectionary in the
vernacular, back in 1964 or 1965, whatever was sent over [to Rome] was pretty
much confirmed. There was never any question about it, McManus said.
That process, he said, reflected the understanding that local
bishops conferences should decide what was appropriate for their own use.
That point is embodied in the Constitution on Liturgy, that formal
canonical approbation of texts for use in the liturgy would come from the
conferences of bishops, he said. The history of the process is that
the Holy See would offer ready confirmation.
A series of letters, meetings and consultations ensued,
culminating in a move unique to the history of the U.S. Catholic church -- the
seven U.S. cardinals active at that time went to Rome in December 1996 seeking
to resolve the dispute.
At the meeting, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Romes top
doctrinal official, said it was time to tighten up the process. In a speech, he
told the cardinals that with the first generation of liturgical texts in the
vernacular, these translations were perhaps not as adequate as they might
have been, but there was a real pastoral need to produce them
quickly.
With second generation texts, however -- such as the
new American lectionary -- Ratzinger said more care must be taken. They
will shape the biblical vocabulary, and hence the doctrinal foundation of
future generations of believers, he said. The message was clear: There
will be no rubber-stamping this time around.
Ratzinger also laid the issue on the line for the U.S. prelates.
I think we all recognize, from the perspective of doctrine, that the
principal question is the use of inclusive language, he said.
The meeting with the cardinals led to the creation of the special
working group. During its two-week session in late February and early March of
1997, the group decided to dump the more inclusive 1991 Psalter in favor of a
1950s-era translation, with some alterations. With the rest of the Old
Testament and the New Testament, the working group made hundreds of changes,
some more inclusive and some less so. For example, in Romans 5:12, the group
opted to change through one person sin entered the world
back to through one man. More generally, the group accepted
the Vatican position that it is not permissible to change pronouns from
singular (his) to plural (their) for the sake of
inclusivity.
The group also decided, however, to permit the Greek New Testament
term adelphoi to be translated brothers and sisters in many cases
rather than the more exclusive brothers.
Rome approved their results, as did the U.S. bishops in June 1997,
with a provision that they would review the matter after five years.
It was the decision on the Psalter that most infuriated many
inclusive-language advocates. A July newsletter from the U.S. bishops
liturgy committee, summarizing the results of the working group, said that the
Hebrew psalms have few masculine pronouns for God -- but the 1991 translation,
which cut down on masculine pronouns, was rejected anyway. Benedictine Sr. Ruth
Marlene Fox said the working group preferred to translate the Bible
inaccurately rather than appear to concede to demands for more inclusive word
choices (NCR, Jan. 8, 1998).
Though members of the working group insist that their prime
directive was to translate the text accurately, they acknowledge at least one
sense in which theological commitments guided their work. Waldstein told
NCR that the group wanted to honor traditional Catholic interpretations
of scripture -- a point with special importance for the psalms, many of which
have been read as references to Jesus.
Psalm 1, for example, reads in the New American Bible version,
Happy is the man who follows not the counsel of the wicked.
Waldstein said that, One device which translators may sometimes use is to
use the plural here, but doing so withdraws the text from the possibility of
that traditional rendering.
Radical alterations
This sort of theological screening, Waldstein said, is different
from the demands of inclusive-language advocates because it does not imply
transformation of the text.
At the June 1997 U.S. bishops meeting, Bishop Donald
Trautman of Erie, Pa., charged that the new lectionary was less inclusive even
than recent translations for Biblical fundamentalists. If even
fundamentalist traditions can use inclusive language and we cannot, what does
that say about our biblical scholarship? he asked (NCR,July 4, 1997, not
posted on this site).
The lectionary had been substantially and radically
altered, Trautman said at the time, rendering it no longer an
inclusive-language text.
Inclusive language had by the mid-1990s become an ideologically
charged concept, with many on the Catholic right arguing that feminists and
advocates of womens ordination were twisting the words of scripture to
advance their own agendas. Advocates of inclusive language, on the other hand,
contended that Bible translators were simply catching up to changes in English,
as well as the reality that in most cases scripture addresses both men and
women even when grammatically masculine terms are used.
Complicating the issue is that inclusive language is not an
all or nothing proposition. One key difference is between
horizontal inclusivity, meaning the use of gender-neutral terms for
human beings, and vertical inclusivity, avoiding masculine language
for God. Debate also swirls around which Greek and Hebrew words must remain
masculine and which can be translated more broadly. Making these decisions
involves exacting line-by-line analysis of the texts in their original
languages.
It is that need for deep familiarity with the original languages,
with the target language (in this case, English) and with Bible
scholarship in general that has led to questions about the qualifications of
the Vatican working group.
According to Benedictine Fr. Joseph Jensen, executive secretary of
the Catholic Biblical Association, almost 100 Bible scholars in the United
States had been involved in preparing the texts that formed the basis for the
lectionary -- 21 for the New Testament, 40 for the Old Testament and 36 for the
Psalter.
But when the final decisions were made in Rome, only one was
present -- Waldstein, an Austrian who holds both a license from the Pontifical
Biblical Institute in Rome and a theology doctorate in New Testament and
Christian Origins from Harvard. Though Waldstein has been a member of
Americas major association of Bible scholars, the Society for Biblical
Literature, for more than 10 years, Catholic Bible scholars contacted for this
article said Waldstein was not regarded as a major player in their
field.
Waldstein said he did not consult with any of the scripture
scholars who had worked on the lectionary in preparation for the working group.
It was not part of the process as far as I was concerned, he
said.
Lessi-Ariosto is a former professor of liturgy with at least
a doctorate in the field, according to Moroney, who described him as an
eminent scholar. He has for the past several years worked for the
worship and sacraments congregation. Fucinaro has a degree in canon law, while
Brown holds a masters degree from Oxford in theology. Ward is a
liturgist, though he holds no degree in that area. Moroney called him one
of the finest liturgy scholars I have ever worked with. Ward has degrees
in patristics and theology, and edits a liturgy journal called Ephemerides
Liturgicae (a liturgical journal).
The prelates involved likewise possess no special expertise in
scripture. Stafford has a graduate degree in social work. Hanus has a degree in
theology from St. Anselmos in Rome, while Rigali holds a degree in canon
law and Levada holds a degree in theology, both from Gregorian University in
Rome.
Given the critical nature of the decisions on the psalms, it is
especially striking that Waldstein was the only member of the working group who
had what he called fluency and facility in Hebrew. Waldstein told
NCR that other members of the group used an interlinear
edition of the Old Testament, which displays the original Hebrew and an English
translation, to follow along. He also said that the American archbishops took a
free day during the two weeks to consult with the rector of the Biblicum, or
institute for biblical studies in Rome, specifically on the psalms.
Waldstein did not regard the lack of expertise in scripture as a
deficiency in the other members of the group. They didnt really
need that sort of training. They had a general source-critical and historical
awareness, he said.
A pastoral challenge
Hanus contended that the lack of specialized knowledge of the
Bible did not handicap the bishops. All of us are scholars, we hope. We
were approaching this as a pastoral challenge, he said. We
werent novices to the issues that were at stake.
Moroney said the three American archbishops have exceptional
academic expertise. Their credentials are highly significant. Theyre
well-positioned both as bishops and as people with extensive academic
accomplishments on their own résumés.
Should American Bible scholars have been in the group? Yes,
according to several sources contacted by NCR. What would be lost
is that you dont have people on the local scene giving input, people who
know and work with the local language all the time, said Jesuit Fr.
Daniel Harrington, professor at Weston School of Theology in Cambridge, Mass.,
and editor of New Testament Abstracts. Carolyn Osiek of the Chicago
Theological Union echoed the sentiment, saying of course American
Bible scholars should be present for line-by-line analysis.
Youve got to have confidence in the process,
said Richard Clifford, also at Weston and at one time a consultant to the U.S.
bishops on the lectionary. Clifford argued that the well-regarded Pontifical
Biblical Commission, not ad-hoc groups, should handle these issues.
If its done by the Biblical Commission, the scholarly
community will have confidence. [The late Sulpician Fr.] Ray Brown was a
member, and he succeeded [Jesuit Fr.] Joseph Fitzmyer. Its hard to have
someone more respected than Brown or Fitzmyer. Clifford said that under
the terms of reorganization of the Biblical Commission approved by Paul VI, it
must be consulted before the issuance of new norms on biblical matters.
Apparently that process has not been followed with the American lectionary.
Moroney, however, rejected those suggestions. Most of the
work of scripture scholars was already completed. They were consulted all along
the way at every stage of the process, he said. Would it have been
better if an American scripture scholar were there? Thats not my judgment
to make, and I dont think its helpful to make it in
retrospect.
Speaking off the record, one translator rejected the argument that
because Bible scholars had been consulted, there wasnt a need for them in
the working group.
The final rejection of the lectionary was done by this
group. Anything that went before was not germane. The decision was made at that
table, he said. Thats where the dirty deeds were
done.
Hanus makes a different point -- that the pope makes the final
decisions, and its up to him to decide how to do that. To suggest that
the input of American scholars or the votes of American bishops should be
decisive is not how things work in a universal church.
All liturgical texts have to be confirmed ultimately by the
pope, Hanus told NCR. So the question is, what is the role
of the successor of Peter with respect to local churches and their liturgical
texts? The Holy Father is the one who has to confirm that this translation is
effective in conveying the faith. Its his responsibility to see that
unity is maintained as well as correctness of faith. Not absolute uniformity
but sufficient unity.
But in that quest for unity, some observers suggest that the deck
was stacked against inclusive language -- that the goal was less unity than
conformity to a preordained conclusion.
To begin with, the American bishops who had worked on the
lectionary most closely, and who were themselves Bible scholars -- Donald
Trautman of Erie, Richard Sklba of Milwaukee and Emil Wcela of Rockville
Centre, N.Y., -- were excluded from the working group. Instead, Levada, Rigali
and Hanus were named. While Hanus told NCR that Bishop [Anthony]
Pilla [of Cleveland, president of the bishops conference], was free to
appoint whomever he wanted, rumors persist that the Vatican, directly or
indirectly, asked for either Levada or Rigali and perhaps both.
Why? Observers suggest its because both men had a track
record of opposing inclusive-language translations. I heard that Rome
requested them, but youll never get that on the record, said one
bishop speaking on condition that he not be identified. In meetings of
the bishops conference, both men had intervened against ICEL translations
before, and had spoken against inclusive language, the bishop said.
It was well-known.
The International Commission on English in the Liturgy is the
official translating agency for the 26 English-speaking bishops
conferences. Its texts have become controversial in the 1990s for, among other
things, allegedly reflecting feminist biases -- most prominently,
avoiding masculine vocabulary in translation.
It was well-known that he [Rigali] was against inclusive
language. Its like sending the fox to guard the chicken pen,
another source told NCR. Neither Rigali nor Levada responded to requests for
comment on this article.
In some ways, the working groups conclusions seem
predictable in light of Ratzingers Dec. 13 address to the U.S. cardinals.
In it, Ratzinger criticized the lectionary for going too far toward a
more extensive or radical view of the requirements of inclusive language
in the New Testament. On the Psalter, he charged that there are other
influences at work in the translation, and these are cause for serious
concern. The last comment was taken by many as a reference to pressure
from womens groups for inclusive language.
Moroney rejects charges that the group was predisposed to reach
its conclusions. To make a judgment that this person or that person is
not committed [to inclusive language] is an unfair judgment, he said.
No one whose opinion I respect is unambiguously enthusiastic or
unambiguously opposed. ... The question of inclusive language is far more
complex than that.
Its not a question of commitment to the principle of
faithful inclusivity. Its in the means to achieving that end. Its a
muddy, thick process, Moroney said.
Hanus pointed out that in some passages, the group actually made
the text more inclusive where they felt accurate translation demanded it.
In four or five texts in the Pauline corpus, where he refers to the
New Adam or the New Man, we actually made it more
inclusive -- meaning, we made it more accurate, Hanus said.
No women involved
No one wants a scripture text thats a paraphrase or a
variant in the original text, Moroney said. The goal is not to
purify, expurgate or interpret but to faithfully proclaim the gospel.
Other critics have suggested that since the topic of inclusive
language is of special concern to women, the absence of any women in the
working group is striking. Waldstein, however, was untroubled. The issues
are well-known. I dont feel having a woman present would have added
anything, he said.
Some have raised the question of why this group should be making
these decisions in the first place. Why should Rome be deciding how scripture
sounds in English, especially after the U.S. bishops had voted overwhelmingly
in favor of the translation that Rome rejected? Fr. Jensen of the Catholic
Biblical Association articulated this concern in a June 13, 1997, letter to the
American bishops. We are especially concerned over the ecclesial aspects
of the matter, he wrote, compared to which the matter of inclusive
language pales into insignificance: On the claim of higher doctrinal
competence, the CDF refuses to allow the U.S. hierarchy to determine what is
appropriate for their own people.
Hanus, however, sees no rift between the U.S. episcopacy and Rome.
We work in collaboration and appreciate one anothers service. The
Holy Fathers service is universal, and it complements our local
perspective, he said.
Hanus argued that as Latin fades as a universal ecclesial
language, English is in some ways replacing it -- meaning that the texts
approved by the U.S. bishops have a broader role than simply suiting American
tastes. Many smaller conferences use our texts. We dont normally
think of that, but the Holy Father has to think of it. Others will use our
books as the basis of translation. Its an unfair cultural imposition, but
its a fact of life. As we talked with the CDF in Rome, it became clear
that English is the critical text for smaller language groups that dont
have scholars, universities, to assist them, Hanus said.
Hanus insisted that the lectionary issue was resolved
appropriately by the right people. There have been good reasons [for the
process followed], which have been clearly articulated to me. Ive been
satisfied, Hanus said.
But others are far less pleased. This was a deeply
demoralizing process, said one scholar close to the issue. They
[the Vatican] politicized what should have been a careful word-by-word judgment
by people who knew what they were doing, the scholar said.
Its as simple as that.
National Catholic Reporter, September 25,
1998
|