Bishops reject controls sought by
Rome
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
NCR Staff
A much-anticipated set of new statutes for the International
Commission on English in the Liturgy provides none of the sweeping new powers
over the translation body a Vatican official demanded in late October 1999,
according to observers who have seen the statutes.
The sources, who spoke to NCR on the condition of
anonymity, said the statutes do enhance the supervisory role of the bishops who
govern the commission.
The new statutes represent something of a reversal for
Chicagos Cardinal Francis George, the U.S. bishops representative
to the commission. Sources told NCR that George had proposed a revision
of the statutes in January that was closer to the Vaticans demands.
Capping years of frustration with what it perceived as
translations that took too many liberties with Latin originals, especially in
the direction of gender-neutral inclusive language, Rome asked in
late October that the commission redraft its statutes to give Vatican officials
control over its internal operations (NCR, Dec. 24).
Because the commission was created at the Second Vatican Council
(1962-65) as a joint project of 11 English-speaking episcopal conferences,
without any direct tie to the Vatican, many observers see the current
controversy as a key test of the councils vision of a stronger role for
bishops conferences and local churches.
The new statutes, which were presented to presidents of the
English-speaking conferences at an unusual April 26 meeting in Washington,
ensure that bishops sit on key committees. They also create a regular review of
personnel by the bishops. Those moves will cheer critics who have long
complained that the commission is too dominated by its staff and advisers.
However, the statutes do not embody any of the most controversial
changes demanded by Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez, head of the
Vaticans Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the
Sacraments, in an Oct. 26 letter to the chair of the commission. Specifically,
the new statutes do not:
- Give the Vatican power to veto staff and advisers for the
commission in the form of a requirement for a nihil obstat from Rome;
- Bar the commission from producing original texts in addition to
translating Roman liturgical documents;
- Eliminate or reduce the functions of the full-time executive
secretary of the commission;
- Limit staff to fixed terms with longer service based on Roman
approval;
- Prohibit the commission from issuing documents without Roman
approval.
According to the sources who spoke to NCR, the
bishops conferences presidents who met in Washington did not take any
formal action, but the sense of the group was supportive.
A news release issued after the meeting endorsed the statutes
without revealing their content. The revised constitution, which a
working group of the episcopal board has drafted, addresses the need for
revision in practical and effective ways and provides a good foundation for
further discussion and refinement, it said.
Procedurally the next step is not entirely clear. Medinas
Oct. 26 letter directed that new statutes be approved by six of the 11
bishops conferences before coming to his office for approval. A later
letter from Medina, however, asked that the commission send the draft statutes
to his office before they go to the conferences.
An official from the U.S. bishops conference told NCR
that he expects the American bishops to receive the new statutes in
June.
Medina shows no signs of backing down from his demands. In a
recent letter to the editor of a U.S. magazine, he defends the request for a
nihil obstat and for a ban on producing original texts by the commission.
Sources said that the current version of the statutes represents a
substantial overhaul of an earlier proposal put before the bishops
who govern the commission at a special meeting in London in January. At that
session, called to respond to Medinas letter, George put a draft on the
table that integrated many of Medinas demands. Other bishops expressed
reservations, leading to a decision to create a subcommittee to consider
revisions.
The subcommittee consisted of George, Bishop Peter Cullinane of
New Zealand, and Bishop James Foley of Australia. According to the sources,
Cullinane and Foley, along with the commissions chair, Bishop Maurice
Taylor of Scotland, steered the draft away from the points in Medinas
agenda.
Its a victory for the collegiality agreed upon at the
Second Vatican Council, said a bishop from outside the United States who
has seen the new statutes. It protects the idea that the commission is a
project of the bishops conferences and not of Rome.
The bishop said that a new dynamic within the commission is a
tension between the other 10 conferences, largely supportive of the
commissions independence, and the United States. When Pilarczyk was
the U.S. representative, this was not the case, he said, referring to
Archbishop Daniel Pilzarczyk of Cincinnati. But Francis George is much
more Romes man.
George did not respond to requests for comment by phone and
fax.
The bishop said some of the resistance to Medinas agenda
within the commission is also resistance to domination by the United States.
Even though more than 80 percent of the worlds English-speaking Catholics
are in the United States, the bishop said the commission was designed to be a
cooperative venture and not an arm of the U.S. bishops conference.
Another source said that while bishops supportive of the
commission are generally pleased with the new statutes, some of its advisers
and staff are wary, waiting to see how the more hands-on role for the bishops
envisioned in the draft will work out in practice.
National Catholic Reporter, May 12,
2000
|