-----------
Fr. Mike Fallon
Oct. 2011
Catholica
The late Cardinal Thomas Joseph Winning was the Archbishop of Glasgow between 1974 and 2001. His biographer, Stephen McGinty, revealed in 'This Turbulent Priest: The Life of Cardinal Winning' [Harper Collins 2003] that at the beginning of the new millennium Winning was both aware and suspicious of the intention of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) to issue a document outlining new instructions on how Liturgical texts should be translated. He was also outraged at the disrespectful way in which the CDW treated the members of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) in particular its chairman, Bishop Maurice Taylor, his old college friend and a fellow member of the Scottish Episcopal conference.[1]
.........
Cardinal Winning was greatly angered not only by the secret manner in which the document had been put together and then published, but also by its content which arbitrarily overturned the principles, approved by Pope Paul VI, on which ICEL had been basing its work for three decades. It made him even more determined to highlight what he believed to be the important issues at stake during the Consistory.
In order to be able to speak with the maximum degree of authority, he faxed a draft of his proposed intervention to the Presidents of the English-speaking Bishops' Conferences around the world, including England and Wales, United States and Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa asking for consent to speak in their name. He duly received the authority he sought.
.............
When he addressed the Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals on the afternoon of Wednesday 23 May 2001, he spoke in English and his address was translated into ten languages. He began by setting out the context of his unease:
'My particular concern is with relationships between the Roman Curia and the Episcopal Conferences. The Apostolic Constitution, Pastor Bonus [John Paul II's Constitution of June 1988], rightly defines the function of the Roman Curia as a service, or diakonia. It is a service to the Holy Father in whose name the various dicasteries [Curia subdivisions] act, but it is also a service to the College of Bishops. As diocesan bishops, we value greatly the insight, the pastoral concern and support we receive from the heads and collaborators of the various dicasteries here in Rome. I personally have experienced very warm and friendly meetings with many members of the Curia.'[5]
.......
The Cardinal then spelt out the importance of this consultation and dialogue if the needs of the Church were to be best served; and what the consequences would be if this did not happen, implicitly suggesting this had been the case in the preparation and publication ofLiturgiam Authenticam.
'An essential element in genuine dialogue is that full information is available to those engaged in it. To engage in fraternal dialogue particularly before the publication of documents of far-reaching importance and with grave pastoral implications, is not to undermine or interfere in the work of the dicasteries. Rather it is in the interests of the whole Church as well as being the expression of the fraternal and collegial spirit which is the legacy of the Second Vatican Council.
If we are sincere in practising the principles of collegiality and subsidiarity, there have to be consultation and exchange of views prior to the publication of major Church documents. When such dialogue is lacking, misunderstandings arise and when, without due dialogue, major documents are published which appear to be contrary to previously established policies, these misunderstandings give rise to serious concerns, even to questioning the very reasons for the document and its canonical validity.'[7]
The Cardinal then went on to address the unsatisfactory manner in which the Documents were published and distributed by the Vatican.
'Moreover, given our modern communications technology, it is disappointing that major documents are released unannounced on the Internet. Not only does this mean that the bishops find themselves relying on others to bring these documents to their notice, but the secular media are able to deal with the contents of the documents before bishops have been properly briefed, causing misunderstanding and confusion among the People of God.
........
These strong words drew a mixed reception from his listeners. Stephen McGinty recounted what happened in the immediate aftermath of Winning's intervention:
'The speech caused great offence to Cardinal Medina Estevez who, quite correctly, read it as a direct rebuttal to his treatment of ICEL and the manner of the publication of Liturgiam Authenticam. Winning was relieved when two cardinals approached him afterwards and praised his words. At the end of the day Winning and Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor walked to the café within the building for an espresso….. In the café Winning was approached by Cardinal Estevez who was visibly angry and said, "You denigrated me in there." He then began to complain about the difficulty of his job, that it was forced upon him against his wishes. Winning had no time for either his evasions or his self-pity and was brisk in his response. "I didn't denigrate you. We're all adults here. We can speak as adults." At this point Estevez turned and walked off.'[10]
In light of all of the above, it is clearly inaccurate to claim, as many opponents of the New Translation have done, that the Conferences of English-speaking Bishopshave never taken the Congregation of Divine Worship to task over its successful efforts to interfere in, and seek to curb the rightful authority of, Episcopal Conferences, in this area. The various Conferences clearly supported Cardinal Winning's initiative and empowered him to speak on their behalf. The tragedy is that when he died, it seems they lost not only their spokesman but also their way. Indeed a decade later, the bishops seem to have performed a veritable volte-face: they seem to have surrendered their authority and no longer try to reclaim and re-establish their rights. For many of us, their increasing failure during these years to exercise their Episcopal authority in this area has been both sad and rather humiliating.
It would appear that our Bishops have allowed themselves to be bullied by Vatican officials who are actually in post in order to serve them. They seem to be embarrassed, and with just cause. It is after all the passivity of those bishops who have been in post for the past ten years that has landed us with a new translation of theEnglish Sacramentary in a style which the vast majority of English-speaking bishops neither asked for nor wanted: indeed, which it appears virtually no one except the officials in the CDW actively sought. But surely our bishops need to get over their embarrassment, and seek to begin to reclaim their rights. Power and control are addictive and it seems fair to assume that unless they are forcefully confronted by the bishops, the CDW, and indeed much of the Curia, will continue to act in an imperious and high-handed manner.
The Second Vatican Council articulated that ultimate authority rests with the college of bishops in union with the Pope. Unless there is strong leadership from a prophetic voice like Winning's, the respective roles of bishops and curial officials will become even more blurred and the rightful authority of the bishops will be further usurped. History shows the need for prophetic figures likeFrancis of Assisi and Catherine of Siena who, as loyal critics, challenged the status quo in the governance of the Church and were canonised for their efforts.
The question now is whether such a prophetic figure will emerge at this time in the English-speaking Church. Or will history show that the capitulation of the English-speaking bishops over the new translation effectively signalled the demise of the authority of local Episcopal Conferences and the subjugation of the clear teaching of the Second Vatican Council?
.........
Full article at Catholica
No comments:
Post a Comment