Disturbing the people
Cardinal Francis George of Chicago noted that a long-standing division between bishops who prefer standard American English and those who want a literal rending of Latin has become more complex. Some bishops on both sides have realized that the current English text is more familiar and meaningful to many Catholics than the centuries-old Latin text once was, he said.
Since the above isn't in quote text I assume the reporter translated whatever the Cardinal said into gibberish since there is no plan to go back to Latin only, but only to reform the English translation.
"There are those who have been quite critical of the present translation, but who are now saying that we don't want to disturb the people, especially in the situation of weakened episcopal authority we have now," he said, referring to distrust of bishops who failed to remove child molesters from the priesthood.
Exactly how does a more faithful translation disturb the people? Wouldn't a more accurate translation of the Word of God be nothing but be a benefit. And exactly why was it okay to "disturb the people" with all the changes made in the sixties and it is wrong to make corrections now? Not working towards valid reform demonstrates a weakening of episcopal authority and not the opposite. If you can't get the laity to accept better scriptural translations then what would be a better example of weakening authority?
Conference president Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, Wash., spoke of different credibility issues related to the scandal. While surveys show that 90 percent of priests love the priesthood and more than 90 percent of parishioners say parish priests do a good job, bishops fare less well. Priests fear that bishops will remove innocent priests.
And the laity fear that they will not remove guilty ones. I bet "bishops fare less well" is quite an understatement. Most of the anger has not been directed at fallen priests, but at those who facilitated their behavior by playing the diocese version of musical chairs. Of course priests have a valid concern about false accusations in the current climate. I remember while in the military after the Tailhook scandal and the endless sexual harassment training that there was great fear of being falsely accused by those who saw this as an easy way to retaliate against a supervisor they didn't like.
Some bishops, including Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, chairman of the bishops' Committee on Liturgy, believe the changes are clunky and obscure. For instance, in the Nicene Creed, "one in being with the father" would be replaced with "consubstantial with the father." [Source]
Wee Catlicks are 2 dum to lrn more precise theological terms. When Bishop Trautman was voted in for the bishops' Committee on Liturgy we knew that we would get more of the same. The very bishop who has been sending off letters arguing with the Vatican about the Holy See reserving the right to appoint members to ICEL and as to whether the text even needed to be reformed. This of course is no surprise since as chairman of the BCL he was responsible during the years of massive revisions of scriptural and liturgical texts. It is hard to see the problems in your own handiwork.
Update: Mark Brumley has a more substantial take on the same article.
Known as 
I think the reporter gave the game away with "a literal rending of Latin." That's certainly what the present translation gives us.
you know if it weren't for the whole jesus thing i might think about becoming an orthodox jew
Cdl George's comments are mystifying. Trautman, of course, is merely playing the only role he knows: jackass-of-all-trades and master of none.
I for one would welcome a more faithful and beautiful translation of the typical edition. But I could see how people would balk at first. It is funny how progressives (especially those tied to the "professional church workers" industry) have become traditionalists ("but we have been doing it this way for thirty-five years, we cannot change now!)
The average "Joe six pack" in the pews would be absolutely mystified to read what the documents of the Second Vatican Council actually said about liturgy! I realize this more and more as I am told that the council "did away" with latin and Gregorian Chant and all that ancient history. I shouldn't be surprised, because some priest or nun somewhere along the way must have told them this.
The Professor beat me to the punch.
Someone mentioned the changes made in the 60's needed correcting. To that I agree and one step further, I think many of the unchecked changes made by the relgious Education departments of the 70's to be even more damaging and certainly need correcting. The Redemptionus Sacramentum was published to make it easy to correct some of the abuses born of that era, but alas, "we have been doing it this way for years" heralds once again.
I pray somehow, or someone, will step up and get everything straight. I can't keep taking the beating at my Parish much longer.
Eric
Wow, and I thought that Cardinal George was one of the good ones. I guess the heresy rampant in his Archdiocese has worn him down. How sad.
The argument that "we don't want to disturb the people" reminds me of the new reason for preserving Roe v. Wade: it has become precedent and therefore cannot be repealed even though it's a lousy law.
I think they'll have to print the Latin and English side by side in the missal. When people see how much has been left out before and is now translated faithfully, they'll be all for it.
Still, it's true that the length of time the bad translation was left be does create a pastoral problem. But the blame goes to the original screw-up, not the fix.
I just hope that if/when they change things they do it all at once instead of trickling it down over the next 40 years.