I am completely OFFENDED by the patronizing attitude of bishops who think that "Mary and Joe Catholic" are incapable of understanding words like "wrought" or "ineffable" or "gibbet." See the problem we're dealing with in our leadership?? They think the average Catholic sitting in the pews in the U.S. is a total dolt who is illiterate and lazy and has a tin ear for language. Hasn't any of them read Harry Potter? J.K. Rowling manages to use words like "basilisk" and "tremulous" and "graveled" and "bemusement" in books for children, for goodness sakes.
Hmm … some thoughts.
I also subscribe to the idea that the average Catholic is well able to understand certain words that some might consider
"highfalutin'". Regardless of the general "dumbing down" of culture, I have not lost faith in the ability of
people to appreciate the liturgy when it makes use of stately language, regardless of which vernacular (English, Spanish, German, Italian, etc.) is being
used. It may not be easy for most people to learn another language, but this does not mean that they cannot appreciate the beauty of
their native tongues.
Some days ago, Benodette related her experiences with an Anglican service, where she observed that "The
service is conducted in rather stately English, more modern than the Cranmer Prayer Book, but retaining some slightly archaic elements."
It is true that there are some words that are not used in an everyday fashion, but this does not mean that their occasional use cannot be contemplated,
particularly since - whether some quarters like it or not - they do bring a sense of gravitas and a unique resonance and beauty to the works in which they are
used. I am of the opinion that the liturgy in the vernacular should endeavor to "exploit" (if I may use that term) the best
that a particular language has to offer - and sometimes, that does involve the use of more "archaic" terminology. This is most
certainly true of the English language.
I must, however, also make note of this observation stated by Bishop Trautman of Pennsylvania:
He also said that the text's preference for mimicking the sentence structure of Latin, featuring long sentences with a large number of dependent clauses, impedes understanding in English. Trautman cited one prayer in the new Proper of Seasons presented as a single 12-line sentence with three separate clauses.
This is something I must agree with. The construction of sentences in Latin does have certain significant differences from the syntax of English. This is also true of the languages that derive from Latin, such as Spanish, Italian and German. I took some Spanish in college, and because I am now studying Italian, I have observed this fact in my attempts to translate some articles for the Forum. There are times when straight translations into that employ the same sentence structure used in Italian will simply not do, and there have been a few times when I have had to insert a comma or two in my English translations because it would make the sentence much easier to read and comprehend.
English is the first language I ever learned, but even I will tell anyone that it is not easy to "digest" a sentence that is more than five or six lines long, and which does not have commas in the appropriate places. This is something that myself always have to bear in mind, when I write speeches and essays. I can never forget a certain incident around twelve years ago, when a letter reached my desk, for my review before it was to be initiated by my boss, and then forwarded to the CEO for signature. I took one look at the letter and threw up my hands in frustration - it consisted of a single sentence that was around ten lines long, and had no commas. I ran out of breath reading it when I had reached the sixth line, and I felt that it had lost all sense by the time I got to the fifth line.
I hope, therefore, that this will be taken into consideration in the English translation of the liturgy. I have absolutely no problem with the occasional use of the more - shall we say, "old-fashioned" - English, but I would certainly like to see such considerations as differences in sentence construction and the basic rules of language taken into account in the translation from Latin into English. I daresay the liturgy is the most important work of "literature" ever to be written, because it is the "literature" of God, and the best that a particular language has to offer should certainly be made the most of, in writing the prayers through which we speak of our adoration of God.
I'm rather baffled by this whole phenomenon: is the overall dumbing down the result of genuflecting to the visual age, the iconic manner of communicating (sms's,emails, TV, video games etc.)? Or is the current non-existing language skills of the average Joe the legacy of a few decades of bad methodology and didactics in the teaching of languages? And then, people who read a lot usually express their thoughts in a clear way; they have at least an adequate vocabulary. I don't know if Americans (on the whole) are still great readers, but where I live the opposite seems to be the case.
I sometimes think, Mag6, that the "dumbing down" of society is the result of the loss of "enchantment" with reading, and an enthrallment with the computer age. Not that there is any reason to be disenchanted with reading - as a lifelong and somewhat obsessed reader, I can never go through the day without holding a book in my hands. Unfortunately, people (and I refer not only to this generation of children, teeners and adults, but also to some more mature individuals) seem to have "forgotten" the joys of reading - and sometimes, some of the material out there isn't exactly edifying.
Reading plays such an important role in shaping a person's outlook on life, to say nothing of his attitudes, speech patterns, and sense of culture and history. We can be taught grammar and syntax in school, but I'll always believe that we learn about the lyricism, the romance and the elegance of a language from the literature that we read. Where would English be without the poetry of Shakespeare, Tennyson, and the Brownings, to say nothing of the novels of Austen, the Bronte sisters, and Dickens?
I have great respect for the Internet, and the wealth of information that it provides. But I sometimes feel that there is something lost in confining ourselves to what we read on the Internet, thinking that it's a more convenient, more efficient and more expedient means of acquiring information. There is a unique joy and sense of fulfillment in opening a book, in seeing the printed words, in breathing in the unmistakable scent of ink and paper - there is a romance to reading that no Internet website can ever replace (just as there is an elegance to handwriting a letter, as opposed to the rather clinical e-mails we are so fond of nowadays!), and I hope that more and more young people will rediscover this romance. In a way, there is much of the human soul that can be found between the pages of the book. It is true that there are some books that are less than edifying. But it is also true that there are even more books in which we can discern all that is best in the human spirit, expressed in the most moving words that the human mind can ever express. I hope that mankind will never lose sight of this truth. The day we lose sight of it is truly the day we lose a part of our souls.
