Poor Faulkner

Submitted by Simon on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 6:41pm

Bishop Trautman complains, re the new translation of the Roman Missal, that "[t]he vast majority of God’s people in the assembly are not familiar with words of the new missal like 'ineffable,' 'consubstantial,' ‘incarnate,' 'inviolate,' 'oblation,' 'ignominy,' 'precursor,' 'suffused,' and 'unvanquished.' The vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic." While I am somewhat sympathetic to the real underlying complaint (viz. that the new translation might be too wooden in places), albeit more so to Fr. Zuhlsdorf's response (at the link just given), this complaint is unpersuasive.

The "vast majority of God's people," your excellency—even the average thereof—are not four years old. And these are not Hemingway's ten dollar words, even declining to adjust for inflation. I find it very hard to credit the idea that the vast majority of people do not know the vast majority of these words, even if their use in the liturgy is new. Are we really to believe, for instance, that people don't know know words like "incarnate"?

Besides, suppose the criticism is fair, and that some readers will be accosted by these words for the first time. What of it? The fundamental purpose of education is to create a mind that is not totally flummoxed when confronted with something new. I simply do not accept the scathing indictment of catechesis—or, for that matter, of the teaching of the English language at grade school level—implicit in Bishop Trautman's remarks; far from spitting the bit, I think that encountering, say, "consubstantial" for the first time in the new translation of the creed will welcome the opportunity to broaden and deepen their understanding of the trinity. To the extent we fear they will not, we should see this as an opportunity for catechesis (cf. C.C.C. ¶ 983), and a rich new seam to be mined in homilies.

Of G.K. Chesterton, Dale Ahlquist wrote: "If you are a turnip, you may not be interested in reading [him]. But if you have a brain, and like the idea of using it to come to conclusions, [he] is just right for you." The average Catholic is not a turnip, and with all respect, it is surprising to see a Bishop dressing up his aesthetic concerns with the new translation—he "complained about [its] ... lack of 'pastoral style'"—in the claim that they are.

post facto:
The new translation I (1/15/10)
Hodiernus lectio principalis (2/7/10)
The new translation II (4/29/10)

Simon's blog

Add new comment

1354 reads

Religion

Now, maybe this is the English major in me talking, but ought it

Submitted by Rafique on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 12:19am.

not be the goal, to raise the standard of language, not lower it? I mean, I know you don't want a translation that alienates the common reader, but these words shouldn't be too hard for anyone with a high school education or above, right? Besides, the old rule still applies: If you don't know what they mean, look them up.

my score

Submitted by bucyrus on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 9:52pm.

OK, I was an English major, have a master's degree, scored 1440 on my SAT. I don't know 2, and am iffy on one other. My take is that this suggested the word choices are too high level for most folks.

Here's the thing. Any written material should use language geared to the level of the expected audience. IMO, it's more important for your words to to be understood than to be admired by lovers of choice words. UNless you are a poet first.

I'm as prone as the next blathering blogger to dropping the choice boutique word that fits juuust right even though many folks don't know what it means. But if I were ever given conclusive evidence that the choice word warmed the heart of one while obscuring my meaning to 3 others, I wouldn't flinch from employing a one-syllable substitute.

Well, guys,

Submitted by Simon on Thu, 10/29/2009 - 11:29am.

Here's the thing. The prayer itself is written in latin, and for good reason: while it may be translated into "the"—i.e. many—vernacular language(s) of the nations, having a single, authoritative source text is "an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth," as Pius XII put it in Mediator Dei. The goal of any translation is to render what the prayer really says (which is the latin text) in the vernacular (which, in this case, is English) as faithfully as the vernacular will allow. Otherwise, the risk is that the universality of the liturgy disintegrates. We might paraphase Justice Story: non erit alia liturgia Romae, alia Athenis; alia nunc, alia posthac. To be sure "and also with you" feels like more elegant English than "and with your spirit," but that isn't what the prayer says, and it isn't what other vernacular translations say. Granted, it's more important that the words be understood than that they be admired by lexophiles, but it's most important of all that the translation be faithful to what the prayer actually says. So the criterion isn't just to use language geared to the level of the expected audience; we're translating a prayer not writing one.

surely you aren't suggesting that...

Submitted by bucyrus on Sun, 11/01/2009 - 11:04am.

I agree that it's clearly undesirable to change the actual meaning.

But surely you aren't suggesting that the English language lacks appropriate translations at a simple vernacular level for all terms such as those you cited: ineffable, consubstantial, incarnate, inviolate, oblation, ignominy, precursor, suffused, and unvanquished?

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

Search

Poor Faulkner

Now, maybe this is the English major in me talking, but ought it

my score

Well, guys,

surely you aren't suggesting that...

Recent comments

Featured Movie

Syndicate

Who's online

Centerfield

The Volokh Conspiracy

Edward Tufte

Scrappleface