Here is a "great"(more accurately -- grate) editorial from the liberal National Catholic Reporter that I came across via Seattle Catholic. It makes for some very interesting reading -- if you can stomach the whining and spitefulness -- as you can see how these liberal Catholics view the "battle" over liturgical translations from their side of the barricade.
What's most telling is their heavy use of perjorative, emotionally-loaded words, e.g., "tactics used to reverse the reforms [of Vatican II] ... were secretive and engineered by people incompetent in the discipline and accountable only to a small group who had achieved power." Wow, they sure are gracious in defeat! :-)
Apart from the amusement in reading this piece, it is also instructive to note that, like most liberals, the editors at the National Catholic Reporter are never willing to admit defeat. They see this as only a setback (albeit a significant one) in their battle to rewrite Scripture and liturgical texts in feel-good inclusive language. Note how the editors offer some friendly advice on what to do next:
In service of that Gospel [really -- more like in service to your self-absorbed ego], there are numerous possibilities for moving ahead on this issue now that it has been decided [Hmm. How does one "move forward" if the matter has "been decided"? Methinks you don't really think the matter has been decided]. One of the most important considerations will be acknowledging the mistakes of the past. Yes, even though one might agree with the general direction and processes of liturgical reform since Vatican II does not mean one automatically agrees with every word translated or, God knows for certain, every song sung.
What will be most important is the manner and degree of educating -- catechesis -- that is done regarding the new translations and why things are changing [here's the plan (and it's worked so well in the past) get liberals in influential positions (DRE's, liturgists, etc.), and dismiss, belittle, sabotage and undermine the Magisterium].
We hope that the educating is user-friendly, pragmatic as well as theoretical and theological. Most of all, we hope professional liturgists and practitioners are brought in as full partners in the preparation of teaching materials and in the implementation of the new translations.
Finally, we suspect that the way forward will also include accommodating those who simply refuse to go along and will stand in place and continue to use the same language they’ve been using for decades. Our suspicion is that God will not be terribly upset by a little show of resistance. [Sure. Just like the liberals "accomodated" traditionalists who loved the Latin Mass, "refused to go along" with the deconstruction of the Mass and "continued to use the same language they'd been using" for centuries! I can't speak for God, but I seem to recall that liberals in the Church hierarchy were more than a little upset by those "little shows of resistance". What rank hypocrisy.]
No comments:
Post a Comment