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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
"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.<\/p>\n
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?<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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<\/a>]<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n