July 1980 Print

 
Michael Davies

The International Committee for English in the Liturgy and its moving force, Father Frederick R. McManus, are taken to task in this devastating examination by Mr. Davies. "The ICEL Betrayal" is Appendix V of the third volume, POPE PAUL'S NEW MASS, of his Liturgical Revolution. This latest book will be released by the Angelus Press in August, 1980.

'"The ICEL Betrayal", in this month's issue, examines the background and influence of Father McManus. In next months's issue the second part of this Appendix will appear, in which Mr. Davies examines the translations and texts approved by the ICEL.

The Pilot (Boston) reported in its 4 April 1980 issue that Father Frederick R. McManus had been elevated to the rank of Prelate of Honour, which entitled him to use the title "Reverend Monsignor." It added that: "This Pontifical honor was bestowed at the request of William Cardinal Baum, then Chancellor of Catholic University. Father McManus, a Professor of Canon Law in CUA's School of Religious Studies, also serves as Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies."

Before examining the background to the International Committee for English in the Liturgy it is necessary to study the background of Father McManus. Indeed, as will be made clear, the two are virtually synonymous.

Father McManus was born in 1923, ordained in 1947, and received his Doctorate in Canon Law from the Catholic University (CU) in 1954. He taught this subject at CU but also became deeply involved with the Liturgical Conference, an organization which is chiefly responsible for the present state of the liturgy in the U.S.A., and which was popularly known to those outside its ranks as "the Liturgy Club."¹ Prior to World War II small groups of priests and a few lay enthusiasts met in various parts of America to discuss and promote liturgical development. Benedictines were active in these groups and eventually organized the Benedictine Liturgical Conference and instituted an annual Liturgical Week. In 1940 the Benedictine Liturgical Conference disbanded and became the National Liturgical Conference. Today it is usually referred to as the Liturgical Conference and is still very active, promoting the works of such writers as Father Robert Hovda, Father Gerard S. Sloyan, Virginia Sloyan, Gabe Huck, Ms. Carla de Sola (on dancing in the sanctuary), and Father Frederick R. McManus. It also arranges parish workshops to be conducted by such speakers as Father Robert Hovda, Father Gerard S. Sloyan, Gabe Huck, and Ms. Carla de Sola—"The Spirit Moves—A Workshop in Dance and Prayer."

Real power in the Liturgical Conference resides in its board of directors, whose chairman is President of the Conference. Membership of this board signifies acceptance within the highest echelons of the liturgical elite. Its magazine Worship (now Liturgy) was undoubtedly the most influential journal in the U.S.A. in the liturgical field in the years preceding Vatican II, during Vatican II, and in the crucial years following the Council. Worship promoted and established the reputations of such radicals as Father Hovda (see Chapter V) and Father Gerald J. Sigler. It also published articles by Protestant liturgists. Sadly, theories which appeared extreme and outrageous in Worship in the sixties are now taken for granted by the contemporary liturgical establishment. It is now those who question these ideas who are considered as extreme and outrageous. I have shown in Chapter XV the extent to which some Catholics have accepted the Protestant concept that the Eucharistic Sacrifice consists of the self-offering of the congregation. This concept can be seen clearly in an article by Father Sigler in the November 1967 issue of Worship. He explained, quoting another liturgist, that there is more involved in consecration than the transformation of bread and wine into the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ: "Considered liturgically, in terms of the whole eucharistic prayer, 'consecration' is a processive offering to the Father of the whole assembly—Christ's Body which is the Church." According to the March 1969 issue of the journal of the Catholic Priests' Association, Father Sigler was one of the notorious group of fifty-one priests from Washington who came into conflict with Cardinal O'Boyle owing to their rejection of Humanae Vitae.

In 1959, Father McManus established himself as head of the American Liturgical Establishment when he was elected President of the Liturgical Conference. He was also an associate editor of Worship. It seemed only natural that when Pope John XXIII announced the Second Vatican Council, and established preparatory commissions, some American bishops turned to the Liturgical Conference for co-operation in formulating an American contribution. This considerably enhanced its influence. It seemed not only natural but inevitable that the President of the Liturgical Conference should be sent to Rome as an American representative on the Liturgical Preparatory Commission in the years 1961-62. It was then undoubtedly inevitable that he should be an American peritus for all four sessions of the Vatican Council during the years 1962-64. During this period he was replaced as President of the Liturgical Conference by Father Gerard S. Sloyan, also an associate editor of Worship. But Father McManus took over as President once more in 1964. The attitude of the Liturgy Club is well illustrated by a few comments made by Father Sloyan. He believes that the Anglican Church is actually more Apostolic than the Roman Church;² that in choosing permanent deacons the Church should exclude "retreat buffs, Serra Club members, rectory hangers-on, retired soldiers, corporation executives, law-enforcement officers, dedicated anti-Communists"³ and that the Duke of Wellington's famous remark about his own troops is applicable to the generality of the Catholic laity: "They may not scare the enemy, but by God they scare me."⁴ In 1970 he expressed dismay at the fact that even after six years of liturgical innovation: "Thousands of families still troop from parking lot to pew five and eight times a Sunday to participate in—nothing."⁵

In 1967 James F. Colaianni was appointed as executive director of the Conference. He had formerly been Editor of the extreme left-wing periodical Ramparts. Mr. Colaianni expressed the view that " 'worship' is a word religion should try to forget."⁶ This corresponds perfectly with the Cult of Man described in Chapter VII. The concept of "worship" is unacceptable to radicals as it denotes belief in a transcendent God to Whom we owe our love, our obedience, our homage. Mr. Colaianni made his view of what liturgy should be quite clear when he explained: "We live in revolutionary times and the liturgy must be revolutionary."⁷ It is hardly surprising that the Conference eventually changed the name of its official publication from Worship to Liturgy. Ignoring the true meaning of "liturgy", the Colaiannis of this world have managed to devalue the word in popular usage to signify something we do as a means of self-expression, rather than an act of homager offered to God the Father, in, with, and through the Son.

The Conference had obtained what amounted to official recognition by the American hierarchy when, after Father McManus became President in 1959, an official episcopal advisor was appointed. This advisor was, by statute, to be the President of the Bishops' Commission on the Liturgical Apostolate, since re-named the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy (BCL).

During the course of Vatican II, Father McManus was regarded as one of the three most influential periti on the Liturgical Commission.⁸ These periti were praised by Archbishop Paul J. Hallinan of Atlanta, also a member of the Commission, as probably the finest minds in the world today in terms of research, hard work, zeal, experimentations, and—to make sure he had neglected no aspect of their manifold talents—of "everything else!"⁹ As I have shown in Pope John's Council, the periti who drafted the conciliar documents were far more influential than the bishops who voted for them. Cardinal Heenan expressed his alarm at what would happen if the periti who drafted the documents obtained the power to interpret them. "God forbid that this should happen!" he exclaimed.¹⁰ This is just what happened, and Father McManus has expressed his satisfaction at the scope the conciliar documents left the periti for their interpretations: "The very important thing about the Council was that it was, by and large, very open-ended in dealing with liturgical reform. It was expected that a great deal would be left to the initiative of different countries and dioceses."¹¹ He was, of course, referring to the ambiguous phrases in the Liturgy Constitution, the "time-bombs" inserted to explode after the Council which I had described in chapters XV and XVI of Pope John's Council. Archbishop R. J. Dwyer accepted, with the benefit of hindsight, that the great mistake of the Council Fathers was "to allow the implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy to fall into the hands of men who were either unscrupulous or incompetent. This is the so-called 'Liturgical Establishment', a Sacred Cow which acts more like a White Elephant as it tramples the shards of a shattered liturgy with ponderous abandon."¹²

Thus, at the conclusion of Vatican II, when he resumed his position as President of the Liturgical Conference, Father McManus was the undisputed supreme guru of the American Liturgical Establishment. There could have been no other choice for the all-powerful position of Director of the Secretariat of the Bishops' Committee of the Liturgy (BCL). After he had been appointed to this post in January 1965 he tactfully resigned as President of the Liturgical Conference. Thus, the Conference in the person of Father McManus, had effectively taken over the BCL just as the Consilium, in the person of Father Bugnini, had effectively taken over the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. Father McManus resigned from this position in 1974, after having achieved his principal objectives. A tribute to him published in the December 1974 issue of the BCL newsletter stated:

It was through the ingenuity and effort of Father McManus that the national Secretariat was organized and continued to make progress in assisting the bishops with the renewal and implementation of the liturgy. Under the capable direction of Father McManus the Secretariat branched out into other efforts of liturgical renewal.

After the Constitution on the Liturgy and the advent of national liturgical commissions, Father McManus recognized the pastoral need for strong and effective diocesan liturgical commissions. He considered close collaboration between diocesan liturgical commissions and the national liturgical commission essential for liturgical development. Hence, under Father's guidance the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions was formed in 1968.

In his ten years as Director of the Bishops' Committee, Father McManus has overseen the publication of the official liturgical books now in use throughout the dioceses of the United States . . . Father McManus served on innumerable committees, always available for any type of assignment, consultation, or the like. Particular mention should be made of his concern and efforts to insure the full implementation of the liturgical reform. This was not done, however, without criticisms and difficulties.

Father McManus will continue to act as consultant to the Secretariat and will be an advisor to the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy.

This brings us at last to the ICEL, the International Committee for English in the Liturgy. This was a committee acting with the authority of all the English-speaking Episcopal Conferences. Executive authority was vested in the International Episcopal Committee and, naturally, effective control was in the hands of its Secretary. The Secretary-Treasurer of the International Episcopal Committee in 1966 was Father Frederick McManus. This was the crucially important period when work was proceeding on the translation of the Roman Canon into English, despite the fact that only one year before, in 1965, the Consilium had ruled that permission for a vernacular Canon would never be granted to anyone in any country, "nunquam nulli."¹³ Presumably the BCL (Father McManus) had authorized the International Episcopal Commitee of the ICEL (Father McManus) to ignore Rome and undertake this radical break with tradition which the Council Fathers had in no way authorized.

The actual work of translation was directly supervised by the all-important Advisory Committee. For practical purposes, the American Advisory Committee was in a position to impose its diktat on the consultants from other countries. The three members of this committee were: Professor George Harrison, Father Godfrey Diekmann of Worship, and—Father Frederick R. McManus. One English ICEL consultant, a Latinist of the very highest calibre, has assured me that soon after the process of consultation began it was made quite clear that the Americans, i.e., Father McManus, were not even making a pretense of considering criticisms and suggestions emanating from outside the U.S.A. A Canadian consultant, teaching at the Pontificial Institute of Toronto, resigned when he realized that all his corrections and suggestions were being ignored.

A number of British priests who find the New Mass itself quite acceptable, have been so appalled by the ICEL translation that they have banded together to form the Association for English Worship, which has the aim of obtaining a literate and accurate English alternative to the ICEL version. Its secretary, Father Mark Elvins, wrote a letter to the Catholic Herald which was published on 23 March 1979. He took issue with Father Anthony Boylan, Chairman of the English ICEL Advisory Committee and General Secretary of the Liturgy Commission of the Bishops of England and Wales. In the 9 March issue of the same paper, Father Boylan had claimed that: "Comments and suggestions on any of the translations used in our liturgy from whatever source are always received with gratitude by the different translating bodies."

Father Elvins, in his reply, found this claim somewhat hard to accept:

Our Translation Committee has scholars to equal any which ICEL may have, and their contribution towards a better English translation, given the opportunity, would prove quite significant. However, over a period of four years of trying to cooperate with ICEL and addressing criticisms to the appropriate translating bodies, the response has been most disheartening for those who believe in making a constructive contribution.

Before commenting on the ICEL translation of the Roman Canon, some examination of the manner in which it was produced can now be made. As has been shown, the ICEL was authorized, presumably by the BCL (Fr. McManus) to translate the Roman Canon. The work was supervised and approved by the ICEL Advisory Committee (Fr. McManus). It was then passed for approval to the ICEL International Episcopal Committee (Fr. McManus). The next step was the approval of the BCL (Fr. McManus), which was duly obtained. Theoretically, it should then have been examined by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. However, the NCCB voted its approbation without the bishops every seeing the translation, simply on the recommendation of the BCL.¹⁴ Father Milan Mikulich has proved conclusively that the "definitive" version of the New Mass now in use, including the four Eucharistic Prayers, was not circulated to the individual bishops for their approbation. He writes: "This was not done, and the American bishops were deprived of their rights. For this reason some of them complained."¹⁵ However, the complainants were few in number and the "definitive" translation is now a fait accompli. As will be shown later hierarchies which at first declined to use the ICEL translation were pressured into doing so by Archbishop Bugnini.

Obviously, the ICEL Canon was submitted to the Consilium for interim approval, and the U.S.A. had its own consultant to the Consilium in Rome—that consultant was Father Frederick R. McManus. Once the interim translation had received the approval of the Consilium for temporary use it was foisted upon the faithful and received the ultimate accolade—the Liturgical Conference announced that it would help to "develop a new understanding of the Mass." This prophecy has certainly proved to be only too accurate! The wheel had turned full circle. The Liturgy Club had campaigned for a vernacular Canon, a translation had been prepared under the close supervision of one of its most prominent members, and had been helped by him through each of the stages necessary to gain official acceptance. The Liturgy Club then imparted its blessing to the travesty of the Roman Canon which, though imposed on the faithful in the name of the bishops, was really its own creation.

It could be argued that I have greatly exaggerated the extent of Father McManus's influence, that one man could not possibly exercise such power, and that, in any case, the ICEL Canon and all the ICEL/ICET translations have been approved by Rome after scrutiny by about seven hundred English-speaking bishops. These objections are best answered by citing the case of the Second Vatican Council. In his classic study of the Council, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, Father R. N. Wiltgen noted that:

Since the position of the German-language bishops was regularly adopted by the European alliance (the Rhine group) and since the alliance position was regularly adopted by the Council, a single theologian might have his views accepted by the whole Council if they had been accepted by the German-speaking bishops.¹⁶

Father Wiltgen not only showed that this might be done but that it was done. It is a topic which I have also examined in Pope John's Council, Chapters III-V. There is thus an exact parallel between what happened at the Council and the manner in which ICEL operates. A single expert who can have his translation accepted by the American bishops can be sure that it will eventually be adopted by all the English-speaking hierarchies.

As I have already shown, it is clear that the ICEL texts were not, in fact, scrutinized by all the English-speaking bishops. Even if it could be proved that each of these bishops had received the full texts of all the ICEL/ ICET translations of the Ordinary, and the Propers of the finalized version, it would not follow that they had actually studied them, let alone compared them with the originals. I have a letter from a priest claiming that Cardinal Gray, President of the ICEL, had admitted to him in writing that he had not made a comparison between the Latin original and the ICEL translation before giving his approval. Cardinal Heenan pointed out that during the Council, where some documents were concerned, the Fathers, who were overwhelmed with material to read, could not possibly have studied the texts upon which they were supposed to vote, let alone the amendments.¹⁷ Our bishops have been overwhelmed with paper work since the Council and it is hard to imagine many, or even any, of them spending long hours checking the accuracy of translations with the Latin originals.

As regards the approval of Vatican congregations, even if confirmed by the Pope, such approval in no way makes an erroneous translation correct. They do not impart a kind of "sanatio in radice" i.e., a validation of the defect. Where the Congregation for Divine Worship or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith approve a translation it signifies that these congregations have presumed that the national hierarchies have assured that the translation is orthodox and accurate. Letters from such congregations are frequently drafted by a minor official and signed by the Cardinal Prefect as a matter of routine (let it be remembered that the man with effective power in the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship was Archbishop Bugnini!). Where the Pope eventually confirms the approbation given by a Roman Congregation in a matter such as a translation, it is known as confirmatio in forma communi and does not signify that the Pope has so much as seen the translation or even read the document he is signing.

Thus, the ICEL/ICET translations must be judged by one criterion only, whether they faithfully translate the Latin original. The real or alleged approval of any number of bishops, Vatican congregations, or even the Pope himself cannot make an incorrect translation correct.

The London Universe has the largest circulation of any Catholic weekly in Great Britain. An editorial in its 9 November 1979 issue claimed that the authors of the ICEL translation of the Novus Ordo Missae "appear to have laboured under the mistaken belief that beauty and clarity are incompatible. They have achieved neither. In aiming for simplicity they have produced banality."

The editorial then lays complete stress upon the fact that the ICEL translation is not simply banal but inaccurate, and inaccurate to the point of being doctrinally suspect:

To make matters worse, the multi-national corporation responsible for the translation of the New Rite of Mass from Latin into English has perpetrated hundreds of glaring errors.

Some of the errors are so serious that the original meaning of the Latin has been gravely distorted. In too many places this severe distortion tends to weaken or dilute the clear doctrinal teaching continued in the new Latin rite.

The International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Incorporated, is now revising its original work. About time too.

Christians have the right to worship in a noble and beautiful language—though no words are noble or beautiful enough to express what happens at Mass. And Catholics have a right to an English liturgy which means as much as the Latin liturgy from which it is supposed to have been translated.

A petition calling on the ICEL to revise its work with accuracy, beauty, and clarity would be no bad thing.

Catholics who try to keep up with the machinations of the liturgical bureaucrats will be familiar with the initials ICET. This body is frequently confused with ICEL. ICET is the International Consultation on English Texts. It is an interdenominational body with the brief of proposing texts which will be adopted by Catholics and Protestants in the interests of ecumenism. The heterodox nature of its translations has appalled the more conservative Protestants.¹⁸ For example, these conservative Protestants still believe in the existence of angels. Catholic and Protestant Modernists reject (and even ridicule) this belief and therefore cannot accept the phrase: "Lord God of Hosts" which has thus been replaced with the phrase: "Lord God of power and might" in the ICET Sanctus. However, some of the ICET texts have been adopted by ICEL and, for practical purposes, are now ICEL texts. Hierarchies wishing to use the ICEL translation must adopt the ICET texts incorporated into it as part of a package deal. ICEL will not allow its versions to be used without the ICET inclusions, and hierarchies which decline to use the ICBL translation deprive themselves of their share of the lucrative ICEL royalties. The ICEL insists upon payment from everyone making use of its texts and all those involved in the translation have been generously paid. It also insists upon absolute adherence to its typography, no variation is permitted in punctuation or capitalization. This precludes using capital letters for pronouns referring to the Divine Persons.

The ICET text were compiled in 1969 and first published in 1970. Various Protestant denominations opted to use them immediately as did the ecumenically-minded hierarchy of the U.S.A. Archbishop Paul Hallinan, Father McManus' colleague on the conciliar Liturgy Commission, was also Chairman of the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, working with Father McManus while the Canon was being translated. He died in 1967, but in a speech which had to be delivered for him, shortly before his death, he had spoken confidently of a common Ordinary for Catholics and Protestants in the not too distant future:

It would be narrow for us not to consider the ecumenical dimension in the future. It may not be achieved in fact for some years to come, but we can certainly look forward to a uniform text for Catholics and other Christians, not only in the Ordinary parts of our worship (Lord have mercy; Glory to God; Holy, Holy, etc.), but also in a newly translated Lord's Prayer.¹⁹

I have documentary evidence from a British bishop proving that as soon as the ICET texts appeared Father Bugnini began circularizing English-speaking hierarchies, pressuring them to adopt the ICEL/ ICET translation. By 1974 the only hierarchies still holding out against Father Bugnini were those of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. In June 1974, Cardinal Know, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, intervened personally, no doubt at the behest of the then Archbishop Bugnini, Secretary of the Congregation. The three hierarchies then capitulated. One English archbishop, in an ad clerum instructing his clergy to adopt the new translation, stated that while he personally regretted the changes the Holy See was anxious to have a common version for English-speaking countries and that we had decided to go along with the others. He did not specify where the others were going! The ICET texts were made mandatory in Great Britain in March 1975. They had already been incorporated into the 1974 edition of the Catholic Truth Society's Simple Prayer Book. Commenting on the capitulation of the British bishops, the late Archbishop R. J. Dwyer of Portland, Oregon, lamented that:

It is disheartening to note that the bishops of Great Britain and Ireland, who for so long have held out against the imposition of the horrendous ICEL translation of the Mass, preferring the older, more accurate, and more beautiful version, have at last thrown in the sponge and conceded victory to the liturgical barbarians. So now the entire English-speaking world is forced, by hierarchical fiat, to endure the inexactitudes and ineptitudes of a translation which, on the face of it, was made by men whose knowledge of Latin was deficient, who possessed no ear for the rhythm of language and whose general qualifications as translators would certainly not recommend them to any publisher on the lookout for a correct and musical rendering of, say, Goethe or Racine.²⁰

 

To Be Continued In Next Months Issue