The most clamorous case in point is ICEL’s preference for “inclusive language,” avoiding gender-specific pronouns where consistent with the meaning of the text (“people,” for example, rather than “men”).

ICEL defenders hotly deny that the commission peddles heresy, but they insist that translation is an art rather than a science. Word-for-word fidelity can mean infidelity to bigger ideas. The faith, they say, can’t be frozen in time.
 

The agency is the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, sponsored by 11 English-speaking bishops conferences (including Australia, England and Wales, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, and the United States). Its work is to translate liturgical texts, such as the prayers for Mass and the baptism ritual, from Latin into English. 

For its fiercest critics, ICEL (the initials are usually spoken as a word pronounced “eye-sell”) incarnates the “smoke of Satan” Paul VI once warned has infiltrated the church. They see ICEL translators as radicals who lack the courage of their convictions, afraid to support women’s ordination or gay marriage openly, preferring to advance their stealth agenda by reshaping liturgical language.

The most clamorous case in point is ICEL’s preference for “inclusive language,” avoiding gender-specific pronouns where consistent with the meaning of the text (“people,” for example, rather than “men”).

ICEL defenders hotly deny that the commission peddles heresy, but they insist that translation is an art rather than a science. Word-for-word fidelity can mean infidelity to bigger ideas. The faith, they say, can’t be frozen in time.

In that sense, the row over ICEL is a classic instance of the “back to the future” tension of the John Paul years. One faction believes post-Vatican II reforms went too far, another not far enough.

The fight over ICEL is also illustrative, however, of another great debate, this one over the distribution and exercise of power. From this point of view, the core issue is collegiality, the idea that bishops and their conferences should be able to make decisions about areas of church life they know best. 

During the recent Synod of Bishops, several speakers cited the tough new Vatican document on liturgical translation, Liturgiam Authenticam, as an example of where Rome should leave well enough alone. 

The latest round in this tug-of-war, reported for the first time in this column, came Oct. 6, when a group of presidents of the ICEL bishops conferences had two appointments in the Vatican. One, at 11:30 AM, was with Cardinal Jorge Medina, head of the Congregation for Divine Worship. The other, scheduled for 12:30, was with Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Congregation for Bishops. The Re meeting actually started 15 minutes late because Medina took up so much time with an opening statement berating ICEL. 

The meeting with Re is significant, because it signifies that the ICEL bishops are trying to frame the issue in terms of collegiality. Re is known to be sympathetic; in the lead-up to last May’s special consistory, Cardinal Thomas Winning of Scotland consulted Re in an attempt to defend ICEL, and Re
encouraged him to press ahead (Winning has since died).

It’s unclear what the results of these Oct. 6 sessions will be. Medina, in response to a question I put to him at a recent press conference on the new Roman martyrology, was blunt in condemning “too much creativity” and a “lack of fidelity to the original Latin” in English translations. That does not suggest
someone re-thinking his position.

Yet Media turns 75 on Dec. 23, and thus hits canonical retirement age. It’s possible his successor may not have the same approach. The congregation’s secretary, Archbishop Francesco Tamburrino, is a Benedictine regarded as more moderate than his boss. The pope’s own liturgist, Bishop Piero Marini, is also on a different page. (To take one example, Medina frowns on liturgical dance, but papal Masses organized by Marini are notorious for Broadway-style
routines). Most people think Marini would not leave the pope’s side as master of ceremonies this late in his pontificate, but it’s possible he could hold both jobs at once.

On the other hand, there is a better-than-even chance that Medina’s successor will be English-speaking, given how much of the congregation’s work in recent years has focused on the ICEL problem and the English-speaking world. Sources tell NCR that Medina has told the pope that either the next prefect, or the next secretary, should be an English speaker. 

Rumors in the United States suggest two American candidates, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, the current representative of the U.S. bishops to ICEL, or Archbishop Justin Rigali of St. Louis. Both have been sharply critical of ICEL. These are merely rumors, however, and anything could happen.

Pro-ICEL forces are hoping the growing weight of the collegiality argument is on their side. Re’s signals of support are important. Liturgiam Authenticam will not be repealed, but it can be enforced more or less aggressively depending on who’s calling the shots.

Anyone who knows the people of ICEL realizes they never asked to be a stalking horse for larger debates in the church, and they don’t enjoy it. Important questions are at stake, however, and one senses the road will only get bumpier from here.

A new crossroads looms in November, when the U.S. bishops will elect a chair-designate for the Committee on Liturgy, the group that will shape the policy of the U.S. bishops on the ICEL question. The two candidates put forward by the nominating committee? George and Rigali.

* * *

Readers of this column will probably be interested to know that NCR has an exclusive story this week about the secret propositions from the recently concluded Synod of Bishops.  It's available as breaking news on our website at
http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/110901/110901e.htm

The e-mail address for John L. Allen Jr. is jallen@natcath.org

TEL:  1-816-531-0538
FAX:  1-816-968-2280