YFN Explores Witness of Women Working for Change
by Leah Thomas

The spirit of Vatican II has been a catalyst for dramatic improvements in liturgical celebration. People of all cultures now celebrate mass in their native tongue, while women and men can use inclusive, non alienating language in the liturgy. On May 9, 2001, however, the Vatican released a document contrary to the spirit and practice of Vatican II. Liturgiam Authenticam (subtitled The Vatican's Instruction on the Proper Translation of Liturgical Texts) seemed innocuous at the time, a minor instructional that did not even garner much media attention. Yet there is cause for alarm. Litrugiam Authenticam reverses the advancements of inclusive language and the translation of liturgy into local dialects. It attempts to relegate liturgy to an era when the gender of women was disregarded and excluded, and labels such as "man" and "him" were synonymous for both men and women. The basis for this claim is the mandate that all liturgical translations mirror the Latin Vulgata, maintaining "the same person, number and gender as the original texts." It also prohibits the translation of the liturgy into languages that lack "a common academic and cultural formation," excluding the languages of many of our non European sisters and brothers. Finally, the Vatican places control of instruction and translation in the hands of the local bishops (who will then seek the authorization of Rome), as well as limiting the authorization of publishers to those "approved" by the Vatican.

Liturgiam Authenticam replaces a relatively liberal 1969 document as the new guide for liturgy and translation in the modern Church. Yet, it departs from the practice and oral tradition of the early Church, and even contradicts itself in places. It is threatening to all seeking a more inclusive, accepting Church. According to David Philippart, editor at Liturgy Training Publications in Chicago, "I don't really think it's even about language, it's about authority, about who's in charge."

From the church's beginnings, its liturgy reflected the experiences of its participants. The purpose of liturgy was to interpret an originary event (the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) within the present time. Thus, a primarily oral liturgy bridged the gap between the events of the historical Jesus and human experience. In doing this, liturgy created a tradition that was based on an oral (rather than written) source, giving rise to the term oral tradition. The existence of oral tradition dates back to the time of the evangelists. It is commonly accepted by scholars that the evangelist Luke had access to the scroll of Mark and other sources (referred to as Q and Special L) while composing his gospel. Yet, in reading Luke's eucharistic discourse, Jesus' words over the bread and the cup do not parallel those of Mark, rather, they are closer to Paul's letter to the Corinthians (though it is accepted that he did not have access to this written source). This is significant because elsewhere Luke is extremely faithful to Mark, especially when relating the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus. The sudden deviation occurs because Luke's community had an oral tradition that stemmed from their own celebration of liturgy. Their tradition differed from the written scroll of Mark. In writing his gospel, Luke chose to use the oral tradition of his community - the words of his liturgy -over a written source (Mark's scroll).

Oral tradition continues to evolve today to reflect the experience of the community. The reforms of Vatican II advocated for a liturgy for the Church that could be understood by the Church, and advancements in inclusive language are yet another step in this process. The use of inclusive language is a building block in establishing a tradition of and for the community. It enables liturgy to accomplish its ultimate purpose - to successfully interpret the originary event within the present time and circumstances - by including, rather than excluding, all people. Its use should be embraced, rather than condemned, as Liturgiam Authenticam suggests.

Liturgiam Authenticam also contradicts itself. It claims that translations that maintain the gender of the Latin text are more "faithful to the precise meaning of the text." However, the document then admits that many of the Latin words in the Latin Vulgata "denote both genders," a trait absent from the English vocabulary. For example, the Latin term homo is a neuter term, denoting both male and female. Translated into English, homo becomes a "man," a masculine term. The English language lacks the words to properly translate the "inclusive" term. Yet, according to the Vatican, the masculine word "man" and "he" are proper, precise translations of the original text. The irony of this situation is that the word man, in this context, is actually an inaccurate translation of a gender neutral word! The choice of "man" in this context is obviously more a reflection of "who is in charge" rather than a "proper precise translation." Liturgiam Authenticam also does not account for the historical fact that the Latin Vulgata was written by males, for males. Roman Catholic liturgy cannot revert to a time when the majority of women were largely uneducated and in positions of subservience. Liturgy must continue to reflect the experience of all of its members, including women.

Inclusive language in Catholic liturgy has opened the door to women who experience oppression in their own church. It also aids all members of the Church, offering new and creative metaphors for God, a God who is spirit, and was not (and will never be), male. Attempting to slam these doors plunges the Church backwards and denies the advancements that have fueled inclusiveness in the modern Church. It contradicts our earliest traditions, and heralds incorrect translations. As Catholic women, we must take a stand against this instructional. Fight to keep the inclusiveness in your own parish, and make your voice heard as opposition against it. This is a time when we are called to witness that our own oral tradition takes precedence over a document of alienation.