Wednesday, June 21, 2006
St. Louis Seminarians
If you enjoyed the Duel of the Seminarians video I linked to in the previous post, you should check out the other web pages available from various St. Louis Seminarians. Some of them have formed a band called the Priesty Boyz (band site here; blog here), and Jeff Geerling has a blog of his own and a website. These are some thoughtful, prayerful guys, and the future of our priesthood looks good to me.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
I Guess We Know Which Side She's On
The newsreader for WOUB-FM, my local NPR station, in recounting the story of the warning to the Episcopal General Convention from the more traditional Anglican domains, referred at least four times to the Anglicans as "the Angelicans".
Eternal Protest
Fr. Kimel has an excellent discussion up at Pontifications about the election of a woman as Presiding Bishop in the PECUSA.
I've Got Your Spirit For You Pal, Right Here
Tom expresses his utter lack of interest in the new Mass translations in a post at Disputations. (Zippy notes in a comment there that he doesn't care enough about it even to put up a post about how he doesn't care about it.)
As I have mentioned in many posts, I think that a lot of the whining one hears about "prayerfulness" or "reverence" and the lack thereof at Mass amounts to disputes about matters of aesthetic tastes, and, as they say, de gustibus non disputandum est. Noticing that doesn't stop me, obviously, from pointing out the things that I like best at a Mass. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite: I could be arguing in my spare time, as it were. But I can't help but remember a discussion with Tom, back in the old days of the Free Catholic Mailing List, in which I said much the same thing that Tom is now saying in his post, only to be lectured by him about how, if there is a Form of the Good and a Form of Beauty, and if God is Good, then there must be some connection between Goodness and Beauty--aesthetic matters, in short, are not merely subjective.
A point with which I agree, if it is properly understood. But that certainly does not settle the question of whether it is in some sense--aesthetically, theologically, liturgically--better to say "and with your spirit" rather than "and also with you", one of the changes in the translation that seems to be singled out rather more often than its semantic content would appear to warrant, either for praise among those who think it a good thing, or for ridicule among those who, like Tom, find the issue to be a tempest in a tea pot.
Other changes strike me as far more important and interesting, as I've remarked in other posts. But the general principle involved--the importance of accurately and faithfully reflecting, in translation, the semantic content of the Latin originals--seems to me to be far more important than some folks are willing to admit. In some cases, at least in my opinion, the more literal translation is also the more aesthetically pleasing. For example, consider the prayer for the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time, which reads, in the banal version of the ICEL:
We are all of us imagines Dei and, as such, are called to rise above the sinful and the fallen and strive to be more like the divine and perfect ("Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect"). It seems unlikely that such a calling is grounded in merely subjective values. If actions and choices can be more or less noble and good, it seems at least plausible that the linguistic representations of those actions--and the virtues that underlie them--can also be more or less noble and good. Indeed, words are also employed as imagines, and there is no reason why words should not be arrayed in the greatest splendor possible. I like music of all kinds--medieval, baroque, classical, rock, jazz--but I think it goes without saying that a simple tune such as "Jesus Loves Me, This I Know" fails to rise to the same level as, say, Monteverdi's Vespers of 1610--or even "Love Divine." So it does not seem impossible to me that, say, one poem may rise above another in its manner of expression.
The Mass is our greatest theme, and the words we employ in giving expression to it ought to rise above all others in manner of expression, in my opinion. Certainly there will be disputes about whether these wordds really do rise above those--I think there will always be such disputes, because there is indeed an aesthetic component in such matters. There is a kind of grammar to aesthetics, however, and just as we ought to aim to express ourselves clearly and well in ordinary language, we ought also to express our theme of the Mass not only clearly (what seemed to be the goal of dynamic equivalence), but well.
As I have mentioned in many posts, I think that a lot of the whining one hears about "prayerfulness" or "reverence" and the lack thereof at Mass amounts to disputes about matters of aesthetic tastes, and, as they say, de gustibus non disputandum est. Noticing that doesn't stop me, obviously, from pointing out the things that I like best at a Mass. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite: I could be arguing in my spare time, as it were. But I can't help but remember a discussion with Tom, back in the old days of the Free Catholic Mailing List, in which I said much the same thing that Tom is now saying in his post, only to be lectured by him about how, if there is a Form of the Good and a Form of Beauty, and if God is Good, then there must be some connection between Goodness and Beauty--aesthetic matters, in short, are not merely subjective.
A point with which I agree, if it is properly understood. But that certainly does not settle the question of whether it is in some sense--aesthetically, theologically, liturgically--better to say "and with your spirit" rather than "and also with you", one of the changes in the translation that seems to be singled out rather more often than its semantic content would appear to warrant, either for praise among those who think it a good thing, or for ridicule among those who, like Tom, find the issue to be a tempest in a tea pot.
Other changes strike me as far more important and interesting, as I've remarked in other posts. But the general principle involved--the importance of accurately and faithfully reflecting, in translation, the semantic content of the Latin originals--seems to me to be far more important than some folks are willing to admit. In some cases, at least in my opinion, the more literal translation is also the more aesthetically pleasing. For example, consider the prayer for the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time, which reads, in the banal version of the ICEL:
Father, you show your almighty power in your mercy and forgiveness. Continue to fill us with your gifts of love. Help us to hurry toward the eternal life you promise and come to share in the joys of your kingdom.The Latin really is much better, more sublime:
Deus, qui omnipotentiam tuam parcendo maxime et miserando manifestas, gratiam tuam super nos indesinenter infunde, ut, ad tua promissa currentes, caelestium bonorum facias esse consortes.A more literal translation might be something like the following:
God, who make manifest your almighty power most of all in your forgiveness and mercy, pour forth your grace upon us without ceasing, that, as we hurry towards your promises, you might make us to be partakers of your heavenly goods.Somebody who is actually able to write decent English could probably come up with something much better than that--I offer it merely as a contrast to the ICEL version, which glosses over important elements of the Latin original. John Zuhlsdorf provides other examples of the same problem in his quasi-blog, What Does the Prayer Really Say? The simplified, "dynamic equivalence" examples have a certain utilitarian appeal, I guess, but they just don't cut it, in the end, because they don't aspire to anything, they fail to represent, in words, the grandeur of what they are saying.
We are all of us imagines Dei and, as such, are called to rise above the sinful and the fallen and strive to be more like the divine and perfect ("Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect"). It seems unlikely that such a calling is grounded in merely subjective values. If actions and choices can be more or less noble and good, it seems at least plausible that the linguistic representations of those actions--and the virtues that underlie them--can also be more or less noble and good. Indeed, words are also employed as imagines, and there is no reason why words should not be arrayed in the greatest splendor possible. I like music of all kinds--medieval, baroque, classical, rock, jazz--but I think it goes without saying that a simple tune such as "Jesus Loves Me, This I Know" fails to rise to the same level as, say, Monteverdi's Vespers of 1610--or even "Love Divine." So it does not seem impossible to me that, say, one poem may rise above another in its manner of expression.
The Mass is our greatest theme, and the words we employ in giving expression to it ought to rise above all others in manner of expression, in my opinion. Certainly there will be disputes about whether these wordds really do rise above those--I think there will always be such disputes, because there is indeed an aesthetic component in such matters. There is a kind of grammar to aesthetics, however, and just as we ought to aim to express ourselves clearly and well in ordinary language, we ought also to express our theme of the Mass not only clearly (what seemed to be the goal of dynamic equivalence), but well.
Fort Worth Holds Fast to Tradition
There is a good post at the Shrine of the Holy Whapping on the Fort Worth Diocese's emergency request for alternate Primatial Oversight after yesterday's decision by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church to elect a woman as Presiding Bishop.
Dynamic Equivalence Bites the Dust
From a Catholic News Service story on the new Mass translation:
In 2001 the Vatican issued new rules requiring liturgical translations to follow the original Latin more strictly and completely -- a more literal translation approach called formal equivalence -- and the resulting new translation adheres far more closely to the normative Latin text issued by the Vatican.
In an address to the bishops before they debated and voted on the new text and American adaptations, Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds, England, president of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, argued that the dynamic equivalence approach has come under increasing criticism from linguists in recent years and said that the more literal translations in many places will restore scriptural references that disappeared or were less evident in the earlier liturgy translations into English done in the dynamic equivalence style.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Naturalism and Eudaimonism
Apollodorus has a good post up at Aporetic Rambling on ethical naturalism. Read it quick before he takes it down!
Women in the Church
It was only a matter of time before the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States elevated a woman to the episcopacy, and then it was just a little hop and a skip to electing one of the women bishops Presiding Bishop.. The only suprise here is that it took so long: women were first admitted to Holy Orders over thirty years ago.
The consecration of Gene Robinson, as scandalous as it was, was not the shocker that the ordination of women was. There have always been bishops who have lived sinful lives, though perhaps not as openly as Robinson. But Robinson is, at least, fit matter for the Sacrament, whatever his attitude towards the other Sacraments, such as matrimony.
Accepting women into the priesthood, though, that's another matter (no pun intended): that's a fairly major theological split from the Tradition. The elevation of a woman to the episcopacy merely underscores that split, it does not make it worse. My old friend and mentor, Fr. Bob Duncan, now bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, summed up what the real problem here is:
Clearly this is where the greatest tragedy lies--the end of all hope for intercommunion. But there is another element of sadness here, and that is the way in which women are being used for political purposes, usually with their own consent. It is, indeed, very desireable that women take positions in the church the allow them fully express their calling, but I think that there are some fundamental mistakes being made here. First is this idea that the only way fully to express one's calling is through a "leadership" position. Another is the idea that ordained ministry is, in itself, fundamentally a "leadership" position that should be sought principally as a means of fulfilling a perceived calling to "leadership". Ministers are supposed to minister, they are servants. It is an accident of our own political history that such roles are seen as "leadership" roles. The episcopacy, of course, is somewhat different, since it is, inded, literally, a position of "overseer" (< Gr. episkopos), but he who would be first.... Why is it, though, that we live in a time and a place where ordained ministry is viewed as an avenue of power, an office of leadership?
I am reminded, in all of this, of the role that women played among the Recusant Catholics during the 16th and 17th century. During that sad period of English history--already a harbinger of sadder periods to follow!--it was illegal to celebrate the Mass, and priests had to do their work surreptitiously. It was dangerous work, too, since the penalty was usually death, often involving horrible torture and mutilation along the way. The work would have been much more difficult than it was, though, had it not been for the brave help offered by women, particularly widows, who were able to take in the priests and hide them in their homes. These women risked their own lives to help provide service and ministry to their fellow Catholics, and without them it is fair to say that the history of Catholicism in England would have been very different (the Martyrology for tomorrow features one of these women, Blessed Margarite Ball, who was martyred for the help she gave to priests).
It is essential to find roles for women in the Church that recognize their inherent equality in human dignity but that do not transgress the clear teaching of the Church that they are not fit matter for admission to Holy Orders. The challenge here is to see that human dignity does not, in itself, require standing in a particular overseer position in order to be fully expressed, indeed, such dignity has nothing to do with being in one position rather than another.
The consecration of Gene Robinson, as scandalous as it was, was not the shocker that the ordination of women was. There have always been bishops who have lived sinful lives, though perhaps not as openly as Robinson. But Robinson is, at least, fit matter for the Sacrament, whatever his attitude towards the other Sacraments, such as matrimony.
Accepting women into the priesthood, though, that's another matter (no pun intended): that's a fairly major theological split from the Tradition. The elevation of a woman to the episcopacy merely underscores that split, it does not make it worse. My old friend and mentor, Fr. Bob Duncan, now bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, summed up what the real problem here is:
"In many ways the election speaks for itself," Bishop Robert W. Duncan Jr. of Pittsburgh said in a statement. Bishop Duncan is the moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, a theologically conservative group of Episcopal dioceses. "For the Anglican Communion worldwide, this election reveals the continuing insensitivity and disregard of the Episcopal Church for the present dynamics of our global fellowship."It seems that certain communities within the Episcopal Church in the United States are happy to act unilaterally in certain matters (while criticizing the United States itself for acting unilaterally in other matters, one notes in passing). That is, in itself, not a good thing--communion requires some sort of consultation and regard for other points of view, not this "we're right and you're wrong" sort of thing. I suppose from their point of view, they are right and everyone else is wrong; no doubt they view the Roman Catholic Church as the institution that asserts itself to be right and all else wrong--but they have now effectively ended any chance of re-establishing intercommunion with Rome, let alone reunification. Rome must now turn to the East in its ecumenical efforts.
Clearly this is where the greatest tragedy lies--the end of all hope for intercommunion. But there is another element of sadness here, and that is the way in which women are being used for political purposes, usually with their own consent. It is, indeed, very desireable that women take positions in the church the allow them fully express their calling, but I think that there are some fundamental mistakes being made here. First is this idea that the only way fully to express one's calling is through a "leadership" position. Another is the idea that ordained ministry is, in itself, fundamentally a "leadership" position that should be sought principally as a means of fulfilling a perceived calling to "leadership". Ministers are supposed to minister, they are servants. It is an accident of our own political history that such roles are seen as "leadership" roles. The episcopacy, of course, is somewhat different, since it is, inded, literally, a position of "overseer" (< Gr. episkopos), but he who would be first.... Why is it, though, that we live in a time and a place where ordained ministry is viewed as an avenue of power, an office of leadership?
I am reminded, in all of this, of the role that women played among the Recusant Catholics during the 16th and 17th century. During that sad period of English history--already a harbinger of sadder periods to follow!--it was illegal to celebrate the Mass, and priests had to do their work surreptitiously. It was dangerous work, too, since the penalty was usually death, often involving horrible torture and mutilation along the way. The work would have been much more difficult than it was, though, had it not been for the brave help offered by women, particularly widows, who were able to take in the priests and hide them in their homes. These women risked their own lives to help provide service and ministry to their fellow Catholics, and without them it is fair to say that the history of Catholicism in England would have been very different (the Martyrology for tomorrow features one of these women, Blessed Margarite Ball, who was martyred for the help she gave to priests).
It is essential to find roles for women in the Church that recognize their inherent equality in human dignity but that do not transgress the clear teaching of the Church that they are not fit matter for admission to Holy Orders. The challenge here is to see that human dignity does not, in itself, require standing in a particular overseer position in order to be fully expressed, indeed, such dignity has nothing to do with being in one position rather than another.
Friday, June 16, 2006
No Wonder Ohio University is Only the Number Five Party School
With competition like this it's no wonder we're slipping in the ratings.
No Comment
From today's BMCR missive (2006.06.22), a review of G. E. R. Lloyd's book The Delusions of Invulnerability: Wisdom and Morality in Ancient Greece, as reviewed by James Jope, independent scholar, and H. Lyman Miller, Hoover Institute:
In spite of Lloyd's keen understanding of ancient Greek psychology, and the comparison -- telling not only for Greece but also for the West -- with China, the argument of this chapter seems weakened by the digression on Mediaeval Christianity. Few educated readers will disagree with Lloyd's criticism of American hegemonism, but it is oversimplified, precisely because Lloyd contrasts America with Christianity, after discussing the latter only as a mediaeval phenomenon. (Even such a recent doctrine as the nineteenth-century dogma of papal infallibility -- which undoubtedly merits discussion among delusions of invulnerability -- seems to be classed as mediaeval.) Unfortunately, the Republicans' reliance on wealth and power is driven not only by uncritical consumerism but by the serious political ideology of American Christian Fundamentalism, the importance of which Lloyd and many Europeans have not yet apprehended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)