What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

I found an interesting about the bishops of the UK allegedly "killing" the story of the Pope’s Exhortation.

In a story by Damian Thompson I read (my emphasis):

This was the week that the leadership of the Catholic Church in England and Wales disgraced itself. Pope Benedict XVI issued one of the most significant documents written by a pontiff for many years – and the English bishops’ “communications network” effectively killed the story.

Real anger is building up in the parishes over the bishops’ behaviour, which led to the document – Sacramentum Caritatis – a historic, 60-page statement on the Eucharist and the Liturgy – receiving minimal coverage in most secular newspapers.

The Pope’s pronouncement, an Apostolic Exhortation, was a huge story for my newspaper, The Catholic Herald, which will publish full coverage of the document this weekend.

I can’t tell you how infuriating – and downright weird – it was to discover that our bishops just weren’t interested in talking to us about its contents.

So, yesterday, we took an unusual step. The Catholic Herald lodged a formal complaint with the Vatican’s worldwide head of communications, Archbishop John Foley, President of the Pontifical Commission for Social Communication.

Why did the Bishops of England and Wales keep silent? Inevitably, conspiracy theories are already forming, suggesting that they didn’t like the contents of the document. And I’m sure that some of them didn’t.

Pope Benedict calls for all new priests to be trained to say the new rite of Mass in Latin – he has yet to pronounce on the future of the Old Rite – and for a return to Gregorian chant. He also seems to shut the door on the prospect of married priests.

Not the sort of thing that the English Church’s right-on employees like to promulgate.

But those are side issues. The real point of Sacramentum Caritatis (Sacrament of Love) was its fabulously lucid and intellectually daring synthesis of Catholic teaching on the centre of the Church’s life – the Eucharist, or Holy Communion.

Reading the exhortation, I was awestruck by the quality of Benedict’s thinking: this is the most intellectually gifted pope for centuries. He spent months working on the document.

Today, two days late, the English and Welsh bishops’ website finally posted THREE WHOLE PARAGRAPHS on the subject. The Irish bishops, in contrast, issued a long and comprehensive response, setting out all the key points, on the day of publication.

So far as I am aware, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, has yet to say a word publicly about Pope Benedict’s exhortation. It is inconceivable that his predecessor, Cardinal Basil Hume, would have been guilty of such an omission.

 

In my article for The Wanderer which I sent today I wrote:

This document will have its enemies, as usual.  Some will say it’s bad because it doesn’t punish or impose.  Others will ignore it.  Some will intentionally misinterpret it. 

Happy Idus martiae! 

I can see you now.  You are peering at the screen in puzzlement, "But Father! But Father!" you are saying, "That can’t be right.  Shouldn’t that be Idus martius?!   You’ve got it wrong!"

No siree!  Latin idus is actually a feminine plural!  That’s right, it ain’t a masculine singular at all.  So, idus martiae is correct.

The names of Roman months were adjectives and they agree with masculine mensis.  That gives us Ianuarius, Februarius, Martius, etc.  The key points of the months were the Kalendae, the Nonae and the Idus.  The names of the months were then added to these as adjectives. Thus we have the Kalendae martiae or the Idus martiae.

There is a little verses to help you remember when the Nones and Ides fall.

In March, July, October, May,
The Ides are on the fiftenth day,
The Nones the seventh; but all besides
Have two days less for Nones and Ides.

This is the anniversary of the murder of Gaius Iulius Caesar in 44 B.C.

Caesar did not die in the Senate in the Roman Forum, despite the way Shakespeare staged it.  Remember?  Caesar dying under Pompey’s statue?  Nope, there was no senate house at the time.  It had burned down and the senators had to meet in other places while Julius Caesar was having a new building constructed (the Curia Iulia). 

So, the senators were to meet today in 44 at the little Senate house that Gn. Pompeius Magnus had had built outside the pomerium (city center limits) which he could not cross by reason of his having the command of legions (imperium).   This little senate house was attached to the stone theater he built near the modern day Campo de’ Fiori.  The complex’s portico extended to the modern day Roman street called the Via del Monte della Farina.  This stretches between the grand church Sant’Andrea della Valle and San Carlo ai Catinari.

Here is a view of the street!



Caesar was stabbed near the Theater of Pompei the Great in the Campus Martius, very close to where I live.  The place where he died is in the present Via del Monte della Farina.  This happens to be on the same street where you find the entrance to my old seminary in Rome.  Hmmm…

And an inscription along the street where Caesar was killed.



This is also in tradition the anniversary of the martyrdom of St. Longinus, the Roman soldier who pierced Jesus’ side with a spear.

If we can get WDTPRS through this day without my service shutting us down, ... it being the Ides of March we will have done something, for sure!

The Exhortation has a paragraph concerning Catholic politicians, bishops, and the Eucharist.  Here is the English "translation" of the paragraph (emphasis mine – I removed footnote numbers):

Eucharistic consistency

83. Here it is important to consider what the Synod Fathers described as eucharistic consistency, a quality which our lives are objectively called to embody. Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms. These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature. There is an objective connection here with the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29). Bishops are bound to reaffirm constantly these values as part of their responsibility to the flock entrusted to them.

Now let’s look at the end of par. 83: "There is an objective connection here with the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29). Bishops are bound to reaffirm constantly these values as part of their responsibility to the flock entrusted to them."

Here is the Latin: Vinculum haec sententia habet verum cum Eucharistia (cfr 1 Cor 1,27-29). Obligantur Episcopi ut sine intermissione haec iterent praecepta; eorum pars enim est muneris erga sibi creditum gregem.

Here is my rendering: This determination [namely, that politicians are particularly bound] has a strict tie with the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-19 – Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.).   Bishops are under the obligation to repeat these precepts without ceasing; for this is part of their duty toward the flock entrusted to them. 

There is language of "binding" in this paragraph: vinculum ... obligo, which in the first place is "to bind or tie around, to bind or fasten to any thing").   There is juridical/rhetorical language: sententia… praeceptum… pars… munus. 

Here is the Italian:  Ciò ha peraltro un nesso obiettivo con l’Eucaristia (cfr 1 Cor 11,27-29). I Vescovi sono tenuti a richiamare costantemente tali valori; ciò fa parte della loro responsabilità nei confronti del gregge loro affidato.

Here is the German: Darin liegt im übrigen eine objektive Verbindung zur Eucharistie (vgl. 1 Kor 11,27-29). Die Bischöfe sind gehalten, diese Werte ständig ins Gedächtnis zu rufen. Das gehört zu ihrer Verantwortung für die ihnen anvertraute Herde.

Remember: The Exhortation was not written in Latin, but Latin is now and will be the official text when published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. 

I have questions about (among others) the choice of the word "values".  In the German we have Werte, in Italian valori, in English values, in French valeurs.  Etc. Latin, on the other hand, has praecepta. 

Latin praeceptum is stronger than "value".  According to the noble Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary a praeceptum (from praecipio) is "a maxim, rule, precept; an order, direction, command, bidding; an injunction". 

Those words are far more forceful than "values".  Am I wrong?

The old incarnation of ICEL did this in the lame-duck prayers we are still using.  They reduce God’s commands to "values".  A perfect example is the Collect for the 21st Sunday of Ordinary time.  The Latin reads: "grant unto Your people to love that thing which You command (id amare quod praecipis), while the ICEL said – and I am not making this up: "help us to seek the values". 

In this post-Christian, post-modern world Catholics must use stronger terms to communicate what we mean. 

I think “values” will indicate to most people little more than their own self-projection.  That is precisely the opposite of what par. 83 is trying to communicate about the obligations of Catholic politicians and of Catholic bishops (and let’s include priests, the collaborators of bishops) in regard to the defense of human life in the public square!

This must apply also to people of other highly visible professions, such as journalists.  Catholic journalists and pundits must communicate the truth of things so as to promote the common good.  When they are called on to speak about specifically "Catholic" teachings and practices they have the same obligation as other highly visible public figures: they must bear witness in a way that is coherent with the Eucharist they approach.  They may not compromise on non-negotiable issues.  If they do, bishops and priests are obliged to correct them.  Concretely, I have in mind right now the recent sad exchange between Sean Hannity of Fox News and Fr. Thomas Euteneuer of HLI and then the dippy intervention of the priest of Legionaries of Christ, so liked by Mr. Hannity, who appears on Fox News from time to time.

The point of par. 83 is to indicate the solemn duty, the deeper responsibility these people have and how responsibility flows forth from the Eucharist itself.  The paragraph takes pains to remind both politicians and bishops and all of us who are their constituency (in a deep sense of that term) that we are bound in conscience to conform our public and private lives to the reality of the EUCHARIST as presented by the CHURCH and we must do so under threat of everlasting HELL (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-19). 

Bottom line: If Catholic politicians, journalists, educators, etc. compromise the non-negotiable and then approach the Eucharist improperly, they commit public scandal to others and risk eternal hell for themselves.  If Catholic bishops and priests fail to attempt to correct others when they err they commit public scandal to others and risk eternal hell for themselves. 

How’s that for a "value"? 

So, here is a problem.  All the vernacular versions seem consistent in speaking about "values".  The Latin, which is at this point the "already but not yet" official text, has much stronger language.  The Latin is, characteristically, less fuzzy.

I don’t know what is going on here.  Did no one bother to read the Latin and coordinate it with the vernacular translations?  Again, the document was NOT composed in Latin.  Latin is just another "translation" in that sense, even though it is the official text.  Weird, no?

QUAERITUR: When the final official version of the Latin is published, who will bother to consult it and then go back to CORRECT THE VERNACULAR VERSIONS??

Today we didn’t crash the server and despite all the efforts of the Matrix…

Many of you have sent donations.  Some small, some large.  All generous.

Folks, you have left me quite humbled, really.  Your kindness means more to me that you can know right now. 

o{]:...)

Also, I think I have a good workable strategery on the drawing board.