The new papal document Magnum Principium marks a dramatic shift in power away from Rome towards the world’s bishops’ conferences, in line with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. That, at least, is the line put out by its supporters since it was released last Saturday. But does it stand up to scrutiny?
Pope Francis issued the text motu proprio – that is, under his own personal authority – while he was in Medellin, during his stirring visit to Colombia. Magnum Principium amends the hitherto obscure canon 838 of the Code of Canon Law, changing the way that liturgical translations are approved. When bishops’ conferences submit draft translations to the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship, they will no longer receive a list of mandatory alterations, but rather a simple “yes” or “no”.
In recent years, French, Italian and German bishops’ conferences have clashed with the Congregation, leading to lengthy delays over new translations. With this new document, Pope Francis is seemingly trying to break the logjam, while still giving the Vatican the final say. So it is not a sweeping redistribution of power, as some claim, but rather a rebalancing.
Even so, the text may have significant consequences. But it is too early to judge what they will be. It is possible – even likely – that there will be more variations within language groups. In a decade or so, the words of the Mass in Birmingham, England, could be strikingly different to those in Birmingham, Alabama. Such liturgical diversity is not a problem per se. Catholics in previous centuries were at ease with a variety of rites. In addition to the Roman Rite, there was the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, the Dominican Rite and so on. But this good-natured co-existence is harder today because liturgy has been politicised. Favouring one liturgical usage over another is seen as taking a side in a grand theological battle raging since at least Vatican II. The old saying lex orandi, lex credendi holds true: seemingly subtle liturgical changes can lead to profound changes in belief. This explains the misgivings over the new document in conservative circles.
Liberal-minded Catholics, in contrast, are rejoicing. They hope that the “new” English Mass translation, introduced in 2011 after decades of wrangling, will be thrown out – or, at the very least, tweaked. But are the world’s English-speaking bishops’ conferences eager for more textual battles? And if so, is it certain that all the changes will be to progressives’ liking?
Let’s not forget, finally, the vast majority of Catholics who have no investment in the “liturgy wars”. They do not wake at three in the morning worrying about whether Et cum spiritu tuo should be translated as “And also with you” or “And with your spirit”. As a Church, we should be focusing on what does keep them awake at night, rather than launching into a new, energy-sapping round of liturgical infighting.
When Jacob Rees-Mogg was asked on television about his views on gay marriage and abortion, he replied in a way that should have surprised no one. He is, after all, a practising and well-informed Catholic, and as such, one should assume, is opposed to abortion in all circumstances. In the same way, no Catholic can recognise a union of two people of the same sex as a marriage. And yet, Mr Rees-Mogg found himself on the receiving end of a torrent of criticism. The more mild expressions of disapprobation called his views “abhorrent”; but much of the commentary was far more extreme.
This is sad, but entirely predictable. In case we needed reminding, Catholics in Britain are tolerated as long as they keep their “abhorrent” views to themselves. We are here on sufferance, it seems, not as of right. The anti-Catholic feeling that led, for example, to the Gordon Riots of 1780, has not altogether gone away. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, but we cannot pretend that Catholicism is nowadays mainstream.
Mr Rees-Mogg has been portrayed as an outlier in the national conversation. And yet, the truth remains that many, religious or not, will agree with what Mr Rees-Mogg had to say. It would be a stretch to claim that he speaks for a silent majority, but it is true to say that he is certainly not alone.
The strength of the reaction to Mr Rees-Mogg underlines the difficulty of the task the Church has of proclaiming the truths of the Gospel to our nation. It also underlines the brittleness of those who set the tone of the national conversation, in that it is clear they cannot tolerate dissent.
This reaction, indeed over-reaction, points to the weakness of their position. For if abortion and gay marriage are such good things in themselves, why should anyone be bothered by dissent from this supposedly self-evident right-thinking?
Perhaps, despite protestations, the conscience of the nation is troubled by the way we abort so many unborn children. Mr Rees-Mogg touched a nerve. All of us need to be courageous and follow in the path he has taken, and stand up for the unborn in the public forum. Like him, we will not be shouted down.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.