LETTERS

National Catholic Reporter, Feb 11, 2000

Blessing peace

* Bishop Samuel Ruiz Garcia turned a happy phrase: "priesthood of the culture" (NCR, Dec. 10, 1999). Using this in a slightly different nuance, it captures our mission as church. As a priestly people, we are to influence and change our culture in a leavening way.

The leavening way is not the way of worldly power and diplomacy. It is not the prudent way. It is the prophetic way. It is the way of Bishop Oscar Romero and of his predecessor, Jesus of Nazareth. Scott Schaeffer-Duffy (NCR, Dec. 3, 1999) exposed the way the church has been going about it for many a year since the days of Constantine. Bishop Daniel Reilly in Worcester, Mass., feted the military and affirmed the premise of war to solve national problems. The premise is "might makes fight."

Reilly has not been the prophetic voice of Pope Paul VI, who stood in the assembly of the United Nations and shouted, "War, never again!" Reilly and our military ordinariate and all our military chaplain corps have not been the prophetic voice of an Archbishop Romero who stood in the pulpit of his cathedral and shouted out the condemnation of the violence and the killings of the military in his own country.

What a wonderful day when all of us will replicate the vision of Schaeffer-Duffy and Dorothy Day and Romero. We will be ostracized by the cultural values of our fellow citizens and will be labeled troublemakers. But like Pope Pius X told the Austrian diplomat, "I do not bless war. I bless peace."

BILL PICARD Brecksville, Ohio

Learning from history

* Recent developments at The Catholic University of America (NCR, Dec. 17, 1999) at the end of this century remind me of similar events that occurred at the same institution at the start of the 20th century, when then, CUA president Msgr. DJ. O'Connell and the board of trustees conducted a witch hunt against Henry A. Poels, professor of Old Testament. They harassed him between the years 1908 and 1910 when Poels resigned. The fundamental complaint against Poels was that he held and taught "too advanced ideas," among which was that Moses was not the literal author of the Pentateuch! The longsuffering and denounced Poels was later vindicated. History does not repeat itself, but some people never learn from it either.

JOHN A. DICK Leuven, Belgium

Liturgy and language

* The dispute over the English translation of church language ("About-face on liturgical language," NCR, Jan. 14) is somewhat of a "mute point" to most of us in Catholic Deaf Ministry. We regularly and methodically translate scripture and liturgical prose from a spoken linear language (English) to a signed spatial language (American Sign Language). Our work requires us to "create new texts" in order to make the messages of Our Lord and the rituals of our church accessible to deaf persons.

We do this through a process of analyzing the meaning contained in the text of the source language (English, not Latin), and then transferring and restructuring these concepts into the target language (ASL). The success of this process requires both theological insight and linguistic skill, but is essentially animated by the Spirit of inclusive ministry and, as such, cannot really be defined by a magisterial commission.

Part of Vatican II's intent was to open Catholic hearts and minds to their faith's meaning, enabling them to participate fully in liturgy and gain spiritual wisdom. While revisionists and reformers deliberate spoken and written translations, we move with the Spirit and change the English words to uncover the meaning visually. We are called to do so. Signing in English word order would confuse many of the deaf and render our work pointless.

The Word comes alive for deaf Catholics not by speaking or writing it in a particular way, but by moving it, semantically intact, into the kinetic and highly expressive language of the deaf. The "quality of the proclamation" is maintained (many even say enhanced) by the precise movements and inspired expressions of church interpreters. They don't have the luxury of consulting the International Commission on English in the Liturgy. Preparing to interpret, they consult lectors and musicians. They study readings and religious concepts meticulously. They are guided only by their understanding of American Sign Language, their knowledge of liturgy and by the powerful spirit of their own Catholic faith.

THOMAS M. SMITH Plainfield, N.J.

* The excellent series (Dec. 24, 1999/Jan. 7 and Jan. 14) by John L. Allen Jr. on the conflict between the Vatican and the International Commission on English in the Liturgy throws light on the serious problem of senior members of the hierarchy, whose narrow education stopped many years ago, making demands about the use of English in the liturgy.

Ten years ago I was privileged to be in a parish that had a "children's" liturgy that was carefully planned along the principles of Vatican II. A committee consisting of the pastor, associate pastor, a nun teaching in the sixth grade, a first grade teacher and two parents met to examine the texts for future Sunday Masses. When the language in the lectionary was found difficult, other responsible texts were considered. In many cases the translations found in The Good News Bible were used. At other times the New English Bible and The Way translations were found to be the best. In all cases, the decision was based upon which text conveyed the meaning of scripture in the most understandable language.