Worship Times

The media is awash with commentary surrounding the Clinton sex scandal, most of which seems to center on the notion that the leader of our country has broken a trust with the American people. Less talked about in the national media is the scandal of how the leaders of our church have broken a trust with American Catholics.

At the Second Vatican Council, in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the bishops called us by a name we were not used to hearing. They said we were the "People of God." By that, the bishops meant that the baptized are "instruments of salvation" (9) and that we are all "consecrated to be...a holy priesthood" (10). They said that the faithful, by our baptism, share in "the priestly, prophetic, and kingly office of Christ, and have their own part to play in the mission of the whole Christian people in the church and in the world" (31).

We have taken the bishops at their word and trusted that they were right. For the most part, American Catholics have seen ourselves as members of the royal priesthood. We have seen ourselves as having an essential part to play in the mission of the church. We have seen ourselves as the people of God. For the most part, American Catholics no longer think of "the church" as only those who are ordained. We no longer think of the mission of the church as "Father's job."

It has not been easy. We have had long, heartfelt discussions with family and friends over the years. We have struggled with "the changes" that were so badly presented to us in the 1960s and '70s. We have endured the occasional pastor or bishop who resisted the mandates of the council and caused division and confusion in some parishes. We have been forbearing as confusing and sometime contradictory "explanations" were issued about sacramental practices that were initially sanctioned and later suppressed. We have been patient because we knew our leaders were struggling just as we were struggling. We began to see them as human beings like ourselves. We believed that even when they were shortsighted, ill tempered, or misinformed, they had our best interests at heart. We trusted them.

One of the most controversial reforms initiated by the Second Vatican Council was the permission given to celebrate the liturgy in the "mother tongue." Celebrating the liturgy in our native languages was essential if we were to fully share in the mission of the church. If the bishops were telling us that "by virtue of their royal priesthood, [the laity] participate in the offering of the Eucharist" (10), we had to be able to make that offering intelligently in our own languages. And we had to be able to hear the Scriptures -- hear God's call -- in a way that we could understand it.

We trusted that the bishops would give us the tools and the methods to do this. Many mistakes were madein implementing the reforms without enough catechesis,but most of us hung in there. We believed the bishops were doing their best. And by 1970, we had a lectionary composed of readings from the then-new New American Bible. In 1986, scholars and bishops revised the translation of the New Testament of the New American Bible. However, the lectionary retained the older, original version of the New Testament. In November 1991, a more-than-two-thirds majority of the U.S. Bishops approved a new lectionary that included the 1970 New American Bible version of the Old Testament, the 1986 New American Bible version of the New Testament, and a 1991 revised New American Psalter. In May 1992 Rome confirmed the U.S. Bishop's approval. This was the culmination of a more-than-six-year process involving a team of international scholars and bishops. Our leaders told us this new lectionary was a clearer, more accurate translation and that it would help us participate more fully in the liturgy and the mission of the church. We trusted that they were right.

That should have been the happy ending. By now, we should have already begun to see the first fruits of the new and improved lectionary. Catechumens, neophytes and children should by now have heard at least one full reading of the three-year cycle from the new lectionary. But it has not been so. Yet one more confusing, contradictory edict was issued from Rome. In June 1994, Rome reversed itself. The Vatican now said that the lectionary that had been crafted and worked on by eminent international scholars, that had been debated, discussed and approved by the full body of U.S. Bishops, that the Vatican authorities themselves had looked over, studied and approved -- they now said, sorry, we didn't mean it; the new lectionary is no longer approved.

A patient, indulgent Catholic might have thought at that point that anybody can make a mistake. Lots of good translators and theologians worked on this thing, and the U.S. Bishops as a body are certainly no slouches. But a good-hearted Catholic might think, surely they have the best of the best in Rome. Maybe somehow their very best people over there didn't see it when it came over in 1992. Maybe their top guns were just now able to uncover significant translation errors.

Of course we'd want to know what grievous errors called for such a drastic decision -- just so we wouldn't be subject to the same mistakes again. But they wouldn't say what was defective about the now-unapproved lectionary. Instead they formed a secret committee which - for two weeks in early 1997 -- met with four bishops from the United States and came up with another version of the lectionary. The fact that Rome was unwilling to say who was on the committee might have stretched the patience of some. But trust is trust, and if you're going to trust someone you can't pull out when the going gets tough. It's just like when all those cabinet members got on all the talk shows a few months ago and said, "We believe the President, and we're sticking by him."

So we trusted that even though the process was confusing and the committee was secretive, and even though the Vatican was probably going to put a more conservative spin on things than some of us might have wanted, we trusted that they would put their very best people on it to come up with what they believed was the very best lectionary for American Catholics.

That's the scandal of it all. We trusted them, and they broke faith with us.

In a September 25 report, the National Catholic Reporter identifies the members of the committee. Besides the four U.S. Bishops -- none of whom are biblical scholars and none of whom worked closely on the lectionary revision -- the committee was made up of four clerics from the Vatican. Two of them were American priests who were ordained in 1989 and were in Rome for graduate studies. One of them allegedly had not finished his studies at the time he sat on the committee. The third priest was Italian and reportedly was not fluent in English. The fourth priest was British and has not spent any extended time in the United States. None of the Vatican priests were Scripture scholars.

The committee also included an Austrian layman named Michel Waldstein. His native language is German -- though he is fluent in English. Waldstein was the only Scripture scholar in the group and the only one proficient in Hebrew. He also runs a conservative theological institute in Austria affiliated with the Franciscan University of Steubenville. Rome did not see fit to include the scholars from its own Pontifical Biblical Commission. It did not include any U.S. biblical scholars, and it did not include any women. These were not the best of the best, the top guns that many of us had assumed they were. In fact, if the NCR report is to be believed, the primary qualification for membership on the committee seems to have been having position against the use of inclusive language in the lectionary.

ML is concerned about how much further the trust of American Catholics can be tested. How much more can the good will of the faithful be counted upon? Does Rome really want the church -- the whole church -- to fully participate in the Christ's priestly office or not?

The NCR goes into a good deal of detail about the qualifications -- and lack of qualifications -- of the secret committee and provides extensive commentary on the reaction of noted bishops and scholars. If you haven't seen it, find it in your library and read it. It's not as titillating as the Starr Report, but it is at least as disheartening.

The lectionary will be reviewed again in five years. If we are truly part of the royal priesthood, we are entitled to be part of the review process. However, the initiative will have to come from us. The extent to which the bishops listen to us depends on how seriously we trust ourselves to be the people of God.
 
What do YOU Think? 
Send an e-mail to ML Editor 
or post an entry on the ML Current Issue Discussion Board. (All submissions become the property of RPI and may be edited for length.)