A kind reader has provided a transcript of a radio interview with the Bishop of St. Augustine, Florida, His Excellency Most Reverend Victor Galeone. You might remember that his statement about Summorum Pontificum was very severe. I wrote about it here.
His Excellency is described on this blog by people in that diocese as "a very solid bishop", "orthodox bishop" who "wrote a pastoral letter strongly endorsing Humanae Vitae". Another commenter wrote: "Bishop Galeone is very strong on marriage, family life, sexual morality, and other topics".
So, let’s give this fellow his due about those things.
It remains that his statement on the Motu Proprio was pretty harsh. Also, it has influenced other bishops!
Let’s hear what he said on the radio now that some time has gone by since his Memorandum was examined.
His Excellency was on the radio live on WQOP on 31 August. He took questions from callers. A reader here transcribed the entire conversationHe also has the audio. It is also posted on the transcriber’s blog who has adopted a rather familiar looking method of commenting. Imitation is the highest form of flattery, I hear! o{];¬)
I have removed the transcriber’s comments from this text, below.
In what is below, the emphases and comments are mine.
Announcer: You are listening to WQOP AM1600 in Atlantic Beach Queen of Peace Radio and this is Chris Williams, President of the Board of Queen of Peace Radio and we have
Bishop Victor Galeone from the Diocese of St. Augustine our very beloved bishop here in the studio with us…And on the phone now we have Jay. Jay can you hear us?
Caller: Yes, I can hear you.
Announcer: Jay, go ahead. You’re with Bishop Galeone.
Caller: Your Excellency, thank you so much for taking my call.
Bishop Galeone: Hey, you’re more than welcome Jay. What’s your question please?
Caller: My question is about the implementation of the pope’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum allowing for the use, the wider use of the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. I wanted to ask you what sort of requirements you would expect the clergy to demonstrate before they can offer the rites according to the extraordinary form. And would you, yourself be willing or available to offer the traditional rites yourself? [Two good questions. Bishop Galeone had said that he would reserve to himself the right to determine if a priest evidenced "ability" with the Latin language. That statement said the priest had to know what the texts meant rather than just be able to pronounce the words. That seems to go beyond the meaning of idoneus in the Motu Proprio.]
Bishop Galeone: OK, very good question Jay. Jay, first I would like to say that I am very loyal and obedient to whatever directives come from Rome. So, we’re going to implement this just as our Holy Father intended. So, so far as the norms, or guidelines that we’ll establish- they’ll be the guides, the norms of the motu proprio itself. [Okay… are they norms? guides? Are these suggestions? wishes? dreams? What are they? They sure sounded official in the Memorandum (pp. 1 and 2).] Interesting, we’re going to discuss this at our Priest’s Council meeting this coming Wednesday. This is one of the agenda items. We sent confidential notice [hmmm…] to the priests in advance letting them know that this does not become effective until actually September 14. It’s not in effect yet, but we would be implementing it here.
The Holy Father mentioned, for example there, that the priest would have to have sufficient command of Latin to more or less realize what they would be praying. [I would like to see a quote for that. I don’t think he said that was a requirement.] They cannot [I could agree with "ought not", but… "cannot"?] just be mouthing syllables or words that they don’t have any understanding of that. [Let’s have a little exam of priests saying the Novus Ordo, in various languages, even their mother tongue, and find out if they understand what they are saying.] And there’s another document that the Church has given that when priests are concelebrating the Church says it’s… This comes from Redemptionis Sacramentum, No. 113. It says that, "If a priest is concelebrating at an altar where the language being used for the celebration of the Mass is not only not his native language but he knows nothing at all about it he is not to concelebrate that Mass. He is to excuse himself and celebrate Mass with someone or by himself elsewhere." [In the CDW’s Redemptionis Sacramentum 113 we read that in the case Bishop Galeone mentions the priest should "attend the celebration in choral dress in accordance with the norms".]
So that’s taken a given that the priest must more or less understand in general. Now, I’m not saying every single word or syllable of what he is saying. Also he must know the rubrics, as we call them to celebrate that Mass properly and whatever else. The private Masses, all of that will be granted here. I’m not going to stand in anyone’s way that wants to do that. [What did that Memorandum with the diocesan prescriptions really say? "2. Only priests who are qualified may celebrate the extraordinary form of the Mass and the sacraments, even privately." So, perhaps the bishop’s "norms…guidelines…guides… norms" will be revised a bit in light of His Excellency’s clarification.]
Now, the second part of your question. Would I be willing to celebrate the Mass? Jay, I love Latin. [Here it comes…] Before I answer your question I want to preface it with this; I love Latin. I studied six years of Latin in the seminary. I did all my philosophy, theology, all the classes were in Latin. All the exams, oral and written were in Latin. To this very day I read an article (to…) St. Thomas Aquinas in the original Latin before I turn the light out any night. On the third part of the Summa. I go through it just regularly. I sing the antiphons at the end of Mass in my bishop’s chapel there at the residence concluding Night Prayers. I pray it in Spanish normally but the antiphons to Our Lady I sing the old ones at the season in Latin. [Ehem… the older form of Mass is not principally about the Latin language and those "old ones" are still in the newer books… But let’s go on.] My first ten years were celebrating the Rite of… Well first, before 1962 the Missal of basically John XXIII, which Benedict says is going to be the Missal followed by the Tridentine Rite, until 1970. To this day I still say the prayers to myself as I am vesting in Latin. So I have nothing against Latin. [BUT…]
However, Jay, and please do not misunderstand me, in my opinion it’s been a blessing to have the liturgy in the vernacular for our people. I’d like to quote, if I may an article I wrote in our St. Augustine Catholic Magazine of the June 2006 issue. I’m going to quote just a few sentences here [I guess he came prepared for this question!] "Periodically parishioners write to me requesting a Latin Mass in their parish. [That’s nice, no? It is nice to be invited, no?] They’re well aware that a Latin Mass is celebrated at Immaculate Conception every Sunday but they would like one closer to home. [Reasonable.] I am convinced that what these parishioners truly desire is not so much Latin in the Mass, as a spirit of reverence. [Okay, Your Excellency, sure. I agree. But you are starting with the wrong premise. It is not about Latin alone. There is far more to this issue than Latin. If that were the case, the Novus Ordo in Latin would be enough.] A sense that they have been in contact with the sacred while worshiping with their fellow parishioners."
And then I went on to quote in that same article an excerpt from a columnist back in the 1970’s. Actually it’s from Progressive Catholic Monthly. [?!? There is such a magazine? O LORD! Can you imagine?] A critic it was called. And Dan Herr was rather forward-thinking. [?!] I used to… I had to get a subscription to that. [I sure can’t say the same.] I didn’t subscribe to that on my own but I did read it and… But anyway, Dan in this column says, "How wonderful it is supposed to be once Latin is gone, the celebrant about-face, laymen permitted to make themselves hear from the sanctuary, choirs disband in favor of community singing. My God it was beautiful! Or at least it would be as soon as a few problems were worked out." Then it goes on to say, "Someone may ask what can be done about the lack-luster liturgies that we have." I’m quoting now, "Bring back the Latin Mass!" he says. "However I realize that we can never go back. But truly something can be done to recover some small part of the enchantment that is so patently missing from the Mass today." End of quote. [Am I missing something about the relevance of this quote?]
As early as 1974, that was when that article appeared, four years after the new rite went, in the progressives, this is a progressive journal I’m quoting from said something is missing in the new liturgy. Well, unfortunately Jay it’s still missing in the way many priests celebrate the Mass. So would I celebrate the Mass? I could do it, yes but I would rather not. I have nothing against Latin, [It’s not about the Latin!] it’s just that I can pray [But, with due respect, it isn’t just about how we as celebrants can pray but also how the people can pray. Isn’t that the sense of Sacrosanctum Concilium?] so much better at a public Mass now, praying in my native tongue or in Spanish, which I understand perfectly. I could do it in Latin but I’d rather not because the people don’t understand Latin. [Don’t they really? They have translations in their hands, which they follow. The ordinary of Mass isn’t all that mysterious, after all. It isn’t as if most of these folks have never been to Mass before. Many of them will understand quite well what is being said. As a matter of fact, people are put off when the priest’s Latin is poor, which suggests they understand more than one might think. And… again… "understanding" what is going on is on many levels, as is "participation". This is always going to remain a mystery.]
I don’t know if that answered your question or not but I hope that I made my… I explained myself properly. [I don’t think he did. He said he would prefer not to. He didn’t say that he would not do it. We will have to wait and see. From what I read in comments people made about this bishop, it strikes me that he would eventually be willing, if approached properly, to celebrate the older form of Mass himself. Shepherds with big hearts will do even these things, I think.]
Announcer: Thank you Jay. Does that… Does that answer your question for you?Caller: Thank you very much. Yes.
Announcer: You’re welcome Jay.
Okay, that is what I have of the transcript that pertains to Bishop Galeone’s responses about the older form of Mass.
In the balance, I think this is what we see.
- First, His Excellency has modified the position that was set out in his Memorandum in regard to priest’s being qualified to say the older form of Mass. He is adjusting his view.
- Second, there is a meeting on Wednesday to discuss the Memorandum.
- Third, the bishop seems stuck in the view that this is all about the Latin language. I don’t think that most people who go to the older Mass will say that the issue with them is mainly Latin. Latin is part of it, because it is hard to separate it from the Rite. And we do belong to the Latin Rite…right? The bishop is reducing this to an issue of Latin, and therefore comprehension of Latin on the part of those involved.
- Fourth, there seems to be yet a double-standard stemming from the issue of "understanding" the texts of Mass. I suspect that His Excellency would be very much against quizzing his priests about the meaning of this or that vernacular Mass text. And the priests would be pretty angry about that, too! But somehow he thinks that it is fair to do this in respect to the Latin texts of the older Missal. This seems like a double standard.
Would it not be more helpful, rather than to focus on the inability of people and priests to understand Latin well, to focus more on helping priests understand the Latin and rubrics, etc. better? Rather than present the negative view full of obstacles, why not say "Sure, Latin is going to be a problem right now. But I will personally help or find help for every priest who wants to use this Missal to learn Latin and the rubrics well enough so that he can do it properly."
Would that not be a better approach?
Loading ...
“But I will personally help or find help for every priest who wants to use this Missal to learn Latin and the rubrics well enough so that he can do it properly.”
I wish he would say this but I’m not hopeful. Oddly enough, we are having a visit today from Bishop Baker, formerly of Charleston, who actually did say something to this effect(although I don’t think he’s personally gung-ho on the TLM either). Bp Baker was pastor of the Cathedral of St. Augustine prior to being made Bishop of Charleston. I hope he has a chat with our bishop and the latter sees the light.
For a bit of trivia, the city of St. Augustine was founded in 1565, just two years after the close of the Council of Trent, and during the time of the Pian reforms. So it would be particularly appropriate for us to have the Tridentine Rite revived here.
Anglican parishes which are identified as Anglo-Catholic often used a book called the English Missal. It is word for word, note for note and rubric for rubric a translation of the Missale romanum all set in noble 16th cent. English which makes a fine liturgical language. Sadly, Anglo Catholics are inclined to follow Rome and most have modernised their liturgies, in some cases simply switching to the Novus Ordo.
But wouldn’t it be fun if (after the CDF had gone over it with a fine tooth comb) the old Rite were allowed using this book as an option to the Latin? Latin would no longer be the issue. Fr. Z could stop pulling his hair out at the constant incorrect references to the “Latin Rite” and those priests and bishops who ramble on about nobody understanding Latin would be forced to deal with the Rite itself. Of course they would still reject it don’t you think?
… in my opinion it’s been a blessing to have the liturgy in the vernacular …
This bishop should read Veterum Sapientia. Slowly!
Yes Father!
Its not only the Latin, its the sense of reverence and tying oneself to the Catholicism of more than 1500 or so years. I can relate to worshipers from centuries ago, and worship God in the same manner.
I would rather have a properly translated Extraordinary Form in English, than the Novus Ordo in Latin.
One more time, if I may, and I promise this will be the last time:
… the Roman Pontiffs often and much extolled not only the excellence and importance of Latin, but also prescribed its study and USE by the secular and regular clergy, warning against the dangers that would result from its neglect.
(… saepe et multum Romani Pontifices non solum linguae Latinae momentum praestantiamque in tanta laude posuerint, sed etiam studium et usum sacris utriusque cleri administris praeceperint, periculis denuntiatis ex eius neglegentia manantibus.) Veterum Sapientia.
Notice the word USE. Latin is not meant to be shelved by saying that “it’s been a blessing to have the liturgy in the vernacular.” Surely it’s a blessing to have the vernacular for someone who is ignorant of Latin, just like it’s a blessing to have a hearing aid for the deaf. But deafness is not a blessing. And ignorance of Latin is not a blessing.
Sadly, majority of catholics, even those who claim to favor the extraordinary form, will tell you that they prefer the vernacular. As proved by some of the comments above. But it contradicts the Church’s teaching on the subject.
I’m from Argentina.
I’m studying Latin… and it’s not so terribly difficult. Almost every Spanish word comes from a Latin one.
Maybe it’s much more difficult for English-speaking people.
But it’s worthy the effort. After all, and as Father Z wrote, “we do belong to the Latin Rite…right?”.
It is now only a couple of weeks before the Motu Proprio comes into effect. I think it was a very wise provision that the Holy Father made when he has increased the authority and scope of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Perhaps he foresaw or at least had a feeling that there would be a fair bit of misinterpretation and fudging when it came to implementing the Motu Proprio and glossing over the accompanying letter.
I think that the Ecclesia Dei Commission is going to be very busy in the next few months. Let’s make sure they are: why can’t all these local decrees from bishops, if they seem a bit on the nose, be submitted to the Commission for comment, clarification and even correction. After all they are in the public domain.
Hello Fr. Z,
Well said: “It’s not about the Latin!”
His Excellency would realize this if one were to…take a properly celebrated High Mass and just put it into the vernacular. Every word. The most casual observer still would be struck at just how different a liturgy this is from what obtains in most parishes. In fact, he might be even more struck once he compared the missals side by side.
And it is not merely the rubrics and the vestments or the “visible” roles for the laity. Or the music. Or mode of reception of communion. Or even just celebration ad orientem. (Though these are all important aspects which form the theological praxis of the traditional mass.) Surely even the good bishop knows this much. However much he is hung up on the Latin.
Perhaps someone could forward some of Lauren Pristas’ recent articles on the theological emphases of the collects in the Pauline form versus the Johannine/Pian. It’s not that the novus ordo is heretical or illict, or that the traditional is perfect. But there’s a real shift in the theological thrust between the two – to the impoverishment, some of us might argue, of the new missal. And this is one reason, beyond just the reverence and beauty, why so many are attracted to the traditional form.
I wish he could take the time to understand that.
It’s not just about the Latin.
best regards
Richard
His Excellency’s reference to Redemptionis Sacramentum, 113 seems to be ill-conceived. It refers only to the case of a concelebration, not a case of a single celebrant. Secondly, it refers to a situation in which the concelebrant is “not capable of pronouncing the parts of the Eucharistic Prayer proper to” him. Especially given the reference in 112 to Sacrosanctum Concilium, giving permission to priests to celebrate the Mass in Latin, it’s clear that the restrictions of RS 113 do not apply to the general question of a single celebrant praying the Mass in Latin.
Nonetheless, His Excellency is attempting to use RS 113 to make a point about a celebrant’s capacity to celebrate a Mass. Are there any documents out there that provide any insight into this question? On the surface, one might suspect that, Latin being the language of the Church, there is the “assumption” that a priest is capable of celebrating a Mass in Latin, as well as in any language(s) in which he is able to speak. But, are there any documents that address a priest’s capacity to celebrate Mass in which he is not fluent?
More to the point — are there any documents that make a distinction between the ability to correctly pronounce and the ability to understand an arbitrary snippet from the Mass in an arbitrary language?
Just curious, since it would seem that this is the path down which a discussion of the meaning of “idoneus”, vis-a-vis bishops’ reactions to the MP, would likely need to go…
One of the most significant aspects of the Motu Proprio is given the right to choose to the priest, and restoring a legal and theological “tension†in their relationship. Subsidiarity is a significant part of VII’s teaching on collegiality, it is its counterbalance. It ensures that there is legitimate counterbalance and the bishop does not become an absolute monarch.
I meant “tension” in the relationship between priests and bishops.
David O’Rourke said: “But wouldn’t it be fun if (after the CDF had gone over it with a fine tooth comb) the old Rite were allowed using this book as an option to the Latin?”
No, it wouldn’t. First, it’s no longer the “old” Mass, as it was never abrogated. Secondly, one of the reasons the Mass has endured for all these centuries is because of the unchanging nature of Latin.
Fr. A
I don’t know. All these Bishops saying “my priests don’t know latin”. Don’t they effectively accuse themselves of disobeying Vatican II? Because it clearly said that seminarians (even before beginning theological studies) “are to acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and of the documents of the Church” (Optatam Totius, 13).
Isn’t the training of the priests ultimately one of the responsibilities of the bishop?
Comes across as nervous, desperate, and uninformed in a “know-it-all” kind of way.
CHI FU DUNQUE IL PRIMO IMBECILLE A DIRE CHE IL LATINO È UNA LINGUA MORTA? NON LO SAPREMO MAI, SAPPIAMO SOLO CHE APPARTIENE A UNA FAMIGLIA CHE NON CONOSCE ESTINZIONE
Léon Bloy
There is no need for the Bishop to state that he is loyal etc… because actions speak louder than words. Why would he even feel the need to put out that disclaimer before he even begins to answer the caller’s question?
Léon: Per cortesia… non gridare (cioe scrivendo in maiuscolo).
I can’t help but think we’ve come a long way since the days of St. John Neumann. The “Little Bishop,” who was the fourth bishop of Philadelphia, learned Gaelic so he could hear the confessions of Irish immigrants. He lead by example.
Monica:
I have spent a lot of time thinking about this in the last few days, and this morning at a depressing NO Mass I suddenly realized that the issue of loyalty to Rome is the crucial one.
We have done a lot of niggling over the knowledge of Latin and rubrics, etc. which Bp Galeone appears to be demanding. What he is basically doing, although probably not on his own initiative, is attempting to prevent the Tridentine Rite from being celebrated. In his defense, I will say that he probably just took the diocesan liturgist’s advice and didn’t really examine the issue – simply because he doesn’t think the liturgy is important. We wouldn’t have so many bizarre liturgies (ranging from New Age heretical to simply Protestantized) in this diocese if he did consider it important.
But I think he does want to be loyal to Rome, and if fact this was one of the first things he stated. Since the Pope’s motivation was to make the Tridentine Rite (or whatever you want to call it) more available, he is clearly defying the Pope’s intention with his harsh restrictions. And this would matter to him.
Personally, I think the issue should be treated not necessarily on a point by point basis (although we should be prepared to answer it that way), but from the point of view of loyalty to Rome and adherence to the Pope’s instructions and intentions.
To EDG:
Yes — Responding to the M-P on a point-point by basis is not profitable. It is akin to the lawyer scrutinizing a document in order to identify loopholes and ambiguities, which might be useful in justifying a dissenting opinion. The articles in the M-P must be interpreted within the context of the Pope’s accompanying letter, which makes his intent abundantly clear. His intent is clearly to make the Alternative Form more, and not less, available.
AMR
It’s so disgusting to be talked down to all the time. Perhaps this bishop doesn’t realize it, but we peons down here know that the bishops bought a bad bill of goods 40 years ago with the “spirit of V2.” We can also tell when they botch the extraordinary form, just as we can tell when they botch the ordinary form. If they stopped playing the high-and-mighty master once in a while and looked beyond their noses, they’d see that. Many of their parishoners have more education than they. Someone ought to notify them of that.
Antonio,
My scant studies of Spanish have helped me immensely to understand Latin at the Indult Mass here in Pittsburgh. About half of English comes from Latin, or so my Latin-English dictionary says so, thanks to the Norman invasion of England in the year 1066.
There is something uniquely American in the efforts to diminish the MP, in my humble opinion. When the great waves of immigration took place in the late 19th and early 20th century, there was a great effort to learn and use the English language by most immigrants and their children. Many children were not taught their parents’ language, so as to be more “American”. As a result, Americans, generally speaking, have a disdain for learning and using foreign languages. One doesn’t have to go far to find hostility to the growing use of Spanish in the US. Since the teaching of Latin has disappeared from American schools, the understanding and proper use of English has noticeably declined. Teenage slang, pop (slop) culture and the business world have systematically wrecking English.
Back to the topic – there is nothing in the American mind that prevents the learning of some Latin for worship other than obstinance and most Americans have no idea how much Latin they use in their daily speech.
Many Eastern Orthodox use Church Slavonic, as, I imagine, the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church and the Byzantine Catholic Church do, at least on occasion. The Maronite Catholic Church uses some Arabic and Aramaic in its Holy Quorbono. Yet, we Americans can’t learn some Latin? No, I won’t accept it. The evangelized most of the Western Hemisphere with the Mass in Latin and we can learn enough of it to understand.
Here is a great and free Latin English Dictionary. It is one of the greatest collection on the Net.
Richard
To Alan M. Rees:
Yes, it is odd that we are the ones put on the defensive with respect to the MP. The Pope has spoken, we want to do what he has permitted, and yet we are the ones who are being challenged over this.
Some days ago on another forum, someone posted that he was not sure if this blatant obstructionism represented the death throes of the old guard, or whether it was more on the order of “alea jacta est” (supposedly said by Caesar upon crossing the Rubicon, as we all know). Has the American Church establishment decided that this is the point at which their rebellion will become open?
I don’t think this was in Bp Galeone’s mind in any way when he took these ill-advised steps.
But it was probably in the mind of some of the other people involved in this. The crucial difference between their attempt at rebellion now and their successful ignoring of Rome for the last 40 years is that, thanks to the Internet, those of us loyal to Rome are in communication with each other and are aware of what these people are attempting to do. They are actually dying out, but I think they don’t recognize this fact themselves and instead believe they can defy Rome yet again, with their usual impunity, and consolidate their control over the Church in the US (hence the speed with which the other Florida bishops rushed to sign on to Bp Galeone’s restrictions). I suspect they are mistaken this time.
EDG, your post says it well. We seem to be the ones who are on the defensive with respect to the MP. I cannot help but be convinced, however, that on Judgement Day, these obstructionist bishops will be on the defensive. I think they may be in violation of the Fourth Commandment.
so much better at a public Mass now, praying in my native tongue or in Spanish, which I understand perfectly. I could do it in Latin but I’d rather not because the people don’t understand Latin.
So, those who just might attend their parish’s weekly Spanish mass for whatever reasons – esp. if that may be the only time they are practically able, must now feel that they have not fully attended a holy celebration because they “don’t understand Spanish”? Once again it’s all about him, his preferences of what are deemed the practical languages, and let’s face it, playing to the common denominator of the very “monster” of the un-enriched faithful that such bishops themselves have created!
With all of the directions the bishop took off to in attempting to answer the caller’s simple question of whether the bishop would celebrate in Latin, and his listing of his many years of Latin study, etc., he made me come the conclusion that what he lacked there in his education were simply more courses in Logic! That’s one thing that Latin does accomplish – eliminating all of the wordiness that has no real meaning to the subject at hand.
From Fr. K:
I think that the Ecclesia Dei Commission is going to be very busy in the next few months. Let’s make sure they are: why can’t all these local decrees from bishops, if they seem a bit on the nose, be submitted to the Commission for comment, clarification and even correction. After all they are in the public domain.
Yes, and then in that 3 year review, the Commission will have for its basis the REAL reasons more people have not been able to participate (the numbers): out right prevention; lack of exposure, thus education; lack of willingness to educate priests or give them opportunities to be “pastoral”. Hopefully the Commission will have the insight to judge what new “fraternal corrections” need to be administered to the bishops on the second go around!
Of course, these various episcopal “guidelines” are really restrictions. Too bad some of these bishops haven’t been concerned about the liturgy until now.
Meanwhile, in a local parish, the priest a few weeks ago mentioned his liturgy prof (I think from Pathological College in DC) and said that that prof had more influence on his liturgical approach than anyone else. This was a few minutes after ordering everyone to shake hands with everyone else just before mass.
Then last Sunday he jumped the shark by having everyone wear name tags at mass, saying it would continue through September. Luckily, I arrived late. Then in the homily he told everyone that his scheme to have everyone wear name tags was contained in the Sunday Gospel.
He’s yet another cleric who thinks that mass is not primarily for the worship of God but rather to get everyone together.
Beam me up, Scotty. There’s no intelligent life here.
Joe,
It’s more complicated than that, but you are correct in that there is a large connection with immigration, which periodically gets to be a problem in the States, as it is now.
Americans also tend to be somewhat parochial & ahistorical in outlook because we are such a young country and geographically isolated. The commonsense framework is also primarily pragmatic with a strong strain of anti-intellectualism. All these things are involved.
Most Americans really don’t see what they might “get out of” learning another language. If they flirt with the idea of learning another language, it’s often not done in a very realistic way. It’s a glamour thing, like one might experience over learning to cook authentic mongolian food to throw a dinner party, have a genuine tea ceremony just because you can, or something like that.
It truly doesn’t dawn on most people that the exercise of Latin, in mass for instance, might make things possible that simply might not be able to happen in only one language.
Joe,
It’s more complicated than that, but you are correct in that there is a large connection with immigration, which periodically gets to be a problem in the States, as it is now.
Americans also tend to be somewhat parochial & ahistorical in outlook because we are such a young country and geographically isolated. The commonsense framework is also primarily pragmatic with a strong strain of anti-intellectualism. All these things are involved.
Most Americans really don’t see what they might “get out of” learning another language. If they flirt with the idea of learning another language, it’s often not done in a very realistic way. It’s a glamour thing, like one might experience over learning to cook authentic mongolian food to throw a dinner party, have a genuine tea ceremony just because you can, or something like that.
Many Americans have vaguely heard that their language is related to Latin, but I’m not sure how many people take it at all seriously or have any idea about it beyond what they’ve heard. When one gets right down to it, they’re probably likely to say it won’t help them learn anything to learn Latin because it would involve they learn Latin.
It truly doesn’t dawn on most people that the exercise of Latin, in mass for instance, might make things possible that simply might not be able to happen in only one language. I mean by this that there are meanings in languages that don’t translate exactly. If one wants to really understand something, it is useful to be able to express it well. It’s why we have “borrowed” so many words from other languages. Being able to express in several languages richens understanding, not the other way around (which is the common contention here).