___________________________________________________________EDITORIAL__________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

The Enduring Promise of Reform
The Holy See cannot effectively govern the Church if directives from
Rome can be successfully resisted at the local level.

More than 35 years have passed since the close of the Second Vatican Council. A baby born and baptized into the Church after the final closing session has had enough time to grow to adulthood, marry, and have children of his own. The majority of people living on Earth today were not alive during Vatican II, and many people who were born after the Council have already died.

And now, a full generation after the Council, the Vatican has issued a new Instruction that “seeks to prepare for a new era of liturgical renewal.” This new document, Liturgiam Authenticam, makes it clear that the new era will not be a step beyond the mandate of Vatican II; rather, the Holy See is hoping now to realize what the Council fathers proposed. Can we infer, after all these years, that the liturgical renewal promised by Vatican II has not yet really begun? 

In this month’s cover story, CWR provides a thorough analysis of this important new statement from the Vatican. (See Special Report.) Readers will learn that we are delighted with the Instruction; Liturgiam Authenticam vindicates arguments that have been advanced in these pages for several years. But the unusual candor of this Vatican document also exposes a problem which the Church can no longer ignore.

The purpose of Liturgiam Authenticam is to provide norms for the translation of liturgical texts. But this is not a matter of unfinished business, left over from the Council. The Instruction refers to the “omissions and errors which affect certain existing vernacular translations.” Nor have these problems been trivial. As a result of these “omissions and errors,” Liturgiam Authenticam tells us, “the Church has been prevented from laying the foundation for a fuller, healthier, and more authentic renewal.” 

The conclusion is inescapable: We have not yet seen the renewal envisioned by Vatican II. The message of the Council—and, consequently, the celebration of the liturgy—has been distorted. The road to healthy spiritual renewal has been blocked by translators who produced defective texts. 

Liturgiam Authenticam offers to the faithful a promise of overdue relief; we can look forward to the elimination of tendentious translations, and the return of a dignified sacral language. But before that relief reaches the people in the pews, the norms established by Liturgiam Authenticam will have to be implemented. And therein lies the second part of our problem.

Failed implementation

Over a decade has passed since Pope John Paul II signed Ex Corde Ecclesiae. In that apostolic constitution, the Holy Father explained how diocesan bishops can ensure that Catholic colleges and universities teach authentic Catholic doctrine, and maintain a truly Christian educational atmosphere. Unfortunately, for the past 10 years the bishops of the United States have dithered over the implementation of the papal directives. And in their most recent round of discussions, the US bishops essentially conceded that they would do nothing to curtail the teaching of heterodox views on Catholic campuses. It may be harsh, but it is not inaccurate, to say that for the Catholics of the United States, Ex Corde Ecclesiae is meaningless. 

Take another example: In November 1997 the Holy See issued an Instruction on “the collaboration of the lay faithful in the ministry of priests.” That document carried an unusually high degree of authority; it was signed by no fewer than eight prefects of the Roman Curia. Among other things, the Instruction condemned “the habitual use of extraordinary ministers in the course of Masses.” Nearly four years later, “the habitual use of extraordinary ministers” remains the norm for American parishes. 

In the case of Liturgiam Authenticam, the Vatican can enforce its directives to some extent, by withholding approval from liturgical translations that do not meet the new guidelines. Since no text can be approved for liturgical use without the consent of the Vatican, eventually all translations can be brought into line with the norms of the new Instruction. But then again, how many priests are already using unapproved texts during the Mass? How many lectors are already making their own unauthorized changes in the wording of the Scripture readings? 

The problems that face the Church today will not be solved by the promulgation of new documents from the Vatican. The Holy See has already set forth, with admirable clarity and detail, a program for the renewal of the Catholic faith. The challenge now is for local churches to summon the will to enact that program. Rome has spoken. Is anyone listening? 

—By Philip F. Lawler