(1/17) Thread: This article on the recent decision of the Scottish Bishops, in the wake of the Indian Bishops, to adopt the ESV-CE keenly searches for problems that don't really exist, and introduces other problems of its own:
(2/17) First off, the usual, tired criticisms about the ESV-CE's lack of inclusive language, and that this will "undoubtedly create problems of reception" in parishes. 
(3/17) Really? I can count on one hand the number of people in parishes I've met since my conversion in 2008 who felt strongly about this.
This may be an issue for woke academics, but in my experience most people just aren't particularly bothered about inclusive language.
This may be an issue for woke academics, but in my experience most people just aren't particularly bothered about inclusive language.
(4/17) Second, the main thrust of the article: the proposal that multiple translations be used in vernacular lectionaries.
(5/17) The current vernacular translation of the Liturgia Horarum as used in the UK, Ireland, and other non-US English speaking nations, is held up as a great example of this.
Personally, I have always found this a barrier to praying the Office of Readings in particular.
Personally, I have always found this a barrier to praying the Office of Readings in particular.
(6/17) The fact that, for example, the RSV is used for certain books and the Good News Translation is used for others means that there is a really uneven tone from week to week that is quite off-putting.
(7/17) The RSV is on the formal-equivalent end of the translation scale, and has a reading level of age 17+
The GNT is on the dynamic-equivalent end of the scale, and has a reading level of 12+
(reading level data from biblegateway.com/blog/2016/06/b…)
The GNT is on the dynamic-equivalent end of the scale, and has a reading level of 12+
(reading level data from biblegateway.com/blog/2016/06/b…)
(8/17) If several versions with similar translation philosophies and reading levels had been used, perhaps this might not seem as schizophrenic, at least for me.
But why use different Bible translations at all?
But why use different Bible translations at all?
(9/17) Well, because the Bible is a collection of books written under the inspiration of God by different people at different times, of course!
But almost all Bible translations already translate poetry differently from prose! This isn't a problem that needs "fixing".
But almost all Bible translations already translate poetry differently from prose! This isn't a problem that needs "fixing".
(10/17) But the proposals go much further. Apparently, there should be different translations of the *same passage* for each particular liturgical celebration.
This is, if I may say, utterly ridiculous. The intertextual links within the liturgy would be greatly obscured by this.
This is, if I may say, utterly ridiculous. The intertextual links within the liturgy would be greatly obscured by this.
(11/17) The proper place to bring out different emphases in the same passage used on (e.g.) a Sunday and in a Votive Mass is surely the *homily*, not the translation!
(12/17) The naive optimism here is astounding.
Do we really think people would actually read said advice? Isn't it dangerous to make the proclamation of the word of God subservient to "choice" in this way? (There's already enough destabilising and dizzying choices in the OF!)
Do we really think people would actually read said advice? Isn't it dangerous to make the proclamation of the word of God subservient to "choice" in this way? (There's already enough destabilising and dizzying choices in the OF!)
(13/17) It is also claimed that this would be economic. Hah! In what universe?
How many corporations would need royalty payments for licensing their translation?
How expensive would the technology be?
How costly the printed books for when the technology inevitably fails?
How many corporations would need royalty payments for licensing their translation?
How expensive would the technology be?
How costly the printed books for when the technology inevitably fails?
(14/17) Liturgical reform and vernacular liturgy are expensive businesses - didn't enough Catholic publishers go bust in the 1970s for us to have learned that lesson by now?
How many parishes post-Covid are going to be able to afford this proposal?
How many parishes post-Covid are going to be able to afford this proposal?
(15/17) Finally, the old lowest-common denominator trope, and the ultimate aim of this exercise. Dumb everything in the liturgy down in the hopes that everyone will understand it.
Because, of course, this worked wonders in the 1970s, 80s, 90s...
Because, of course, this worked wonders in the 1970s, 80s, 90s...
(16/17) It's interesting that the example used is of teaching a class - hammering home the banal rationalism and didacticism often present in the Ordinary Form.
Still, it is the homily that should aid the understanding of passages that may be obscure to a given parish community.
Still, it is the homily that should aid the understanding of passages that may be obscure to a given parish community.
(17/17) It should be pointed out that this is not a new idea of Rev Fr Thomas O'Loughlin's - he has been suggesting this since at least 2015: academia.edu/15978668/Lecti…
Even so, IMO it's not a very well-thought through or good idea, either theoretically or practically.
Even so, IMO it's not a very well-thought through or good idea, either theoretically or practically.
