The Catholic Biblical
Association of
America

"The English Used in Our Country"
Bible Translations for U.S. Catholics

An official of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in Rome informed the Catholic News Service in October 1994 that it had revoked the approval given by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to use the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV) in the Lectionary for Mass. Shortly thereafter the congregation also rejected the revised psalter of the New American Bible (NAB) for liturgical use. This action came in response to questions raised by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about the translations and particularly about the use of "inclusive language." Dispute over translations has considerable historical precedent in the United States.

The problem of translations of Scripture stems in part from the Reformation and the Council of Trent, which declared that the Vulgate (St. Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible) was "authentic" and was to be used in the liturgy. The council said nothing about Scripture in the original languages or about the text to be used in translations. The council fathers were, in fact, divided on the question. In 1564 the post-conciliar Rules of the Index warned against the indiscriminate distribution of vernacular translations and said that the bishop or inquisitor could permit the reading of vernacular translations done by Catholic authors; still, the magisterium said nothing about the base for the vernacular translation. Nevertheless, the council's declaration that the Vulgate was authentic led to a misconception that all vernacular translations were to be made from the Vulgate and not from the original texts. This was especially true in the Englishþspeaking world, where the King James version, translated from the original languages, had made such a contribution to the development of English style. The standard English Catholic translation was the soþcalled "Douay Bible," made by English Catholic exiles at the college at Douay and later at Rheims in the early 17th century. This in turn was revised by Bishop Richard Challoner, vicar apostolic of the London District, in the 1750's, with scholarly notes he added in accordance with the revised Rules of the Index.

In the United States, Bishop Francis P. Kenrick of Philadelphia, who later became archbishop of Baltimore, began a revision of the Challoner version in the 1840's. He soon found that his new rendering of familiar passages brought him criticism from other bishops. Thus. when he translated poenitentiam agite (Mt. 3:2) as "repent," with the note that he was trying to bring out the notion in Greek of the need for a change of heart, Bishop Ignatius Reynolds of Charleston attacked him for abandoning the more traditional translation: "to do penance." He later won another rebuke for mentioning in a note that baptizo meant immersion. His old friend, Bishop Martin J. Spalding of Louisville, urge him to omit the note, since "the Baptists out here have been exulting over it too much."

In 1858 the bishops assembled for the Ninth Provincial Council of Baltimore asked Kenrick, then the archbishop, to absent himself. They drafted a proposal to the English bishops to have John Henry Newman collaborate with Kenrick on producing a new and definitive English translation of the Vulgate. Unfortunately, nothing came of this proposal, and Newman was never officially notified that the Americans actually wanted his collaboration.

Kenrick died in 1863 and his version never received widespread use in the U.S. church. In 1866 the bishops at the Second Plenary Council initially urged its adoption, but had to drop the issue in the face of unexplained opposition from Kenrick's brother, Archbishop Peter R. Kenrick of St. Louis. At the time, Cardinal Alessandro Barnabò, prefect of the Congregation of Propaganda in Rome, expressed only the concern that the bishops should decide on a definite version for use in the U.S. church. With that, Kenrick's translation virtually disappeared from public knowledge--it is not mentioned among the English versions in either the original or revised Jerome Biblical Commentary.

The next effort to provide a U.S. Catholic translation of the Bible came in 1898, when Francis Aloysius Spencer, O.P., published a translation of the Gospels from the Vulgate. Three years later, he published a translation of the Gospels from the Greek. He had completed a translation of the remaining books of the New Testament from Greek when he died in 1913. Only in 1937, however, was the complete Spencer translation from the Greek published, revised by Charles J. Callan, O.P., and John A. McHugh, O.P. In addition, several U.S. scholars were involved with the "Westminster" translation of the Greek New Testament, begun under the auspices of the English bishops in 1913 and completed in 1935. In 1934 however, the Dutch bishops had received a negative response from the Biblical Commission to their query as to whether they could use translations from the Greek for the pericopes read at Mass. This decision, incidentally, led the English bishops to commission Msgr. Ronald Knox to translate the entire Bible from the Vulgate, a task that ran counter to a new endeavor in which U.S. scholars attempted unsuccessfully to enlist Knox's aid.

In 1936 Bishop Edwin Vincent O'Hara of Great Falls, chairman of the episcopal committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (C.C.D.), called for a new translation of the New Testament, made, in accordance with the Biblical Commission's response in 1934, from the Vulgate. His proposal, incidentally, led to the founding of the Catholic Biblical Association. The translation that ensued also brought criticism. Callan was the only U.S. consultor to the Biblical Commission in Rome. He was also to do the final English version of the translation. He was highly critical of the Rev. William Newton's translation of the Gospel of John, especially for his use of "shall" and "will"--he thought "will" was an example of the influence of Protestantism on the translation. But Callan had more serious objections. He was the editor of The Homiletic and Pastoral Review and in the summer of 1939 published an article by Thomas J. Kennedy charging that the proposed translation of Jn. 1:15 was "unquestionably incorrect, if not heretical." The translation read "He who is to come after me, has been made above me, because he was before me." In Kennedy's mind, this translation denied the divinity of Christ. Even casual reference to the Greek would have shown the impossibility of this rendering, he argued, and, after a tedious lesson in Greek grammar, he concluded that the new version was "to say the least, strongly tinged with Arianism."

Despite these difficulties, in the spring of 1941 the Confraternity version was published, complete with a letter in the front from Cardinal Eugène Tisserant, president of the Biblical Commission, and JacquesþMarie Vost‚, O.P., its secretary, commending the work. This brought forth another attack from Callan.

As a consultor to the Biblical Commission, Callan informed Bishop O'Hara that he was authorized to state that the commission had given no approval to the translation and that the letter from Tisserant and Vost‚ was not "to be construed into meaning a formal approval by that authoritative Pontifical body of the Confraternity New Testament as it now stands." Callan had, of course, neglected to mention that neither the Holy See nor the commission had ever approved of any vernacular translation.

O'Hara took the offensive against Callan's insinuations. He replied that he was "surprised that you should deem it necessary to seek authorization to make known that the Biblical Commission has given no official approval of the Confraternity New Testament. Whoever supposed it had! No one to my knowledge asked the Biblical Commission to give such official approval." But O'Hara knew he had not heard the last of Callan. To prepare for the next assault, he sent copies of his letter to Archbishop John T. McNicholas, O.P., of Cincinnati and Archbishop John G. Murray of St. Paul, both of whom served on the bishops' committee of the C.C.D. In the ensuing battle, the presence of a Dominican archbishop on the committee proved to be a powerful weapon.

Callan was not put off by the polite reprimand of a mere bishop. He now sought to enhance his influence in the U.S. church, at least in regard to biblical studies. On April 17, 1942, Cardinal Tisserant wrote O'Hara. Callan's influence on the letter was patent. The Pontifical Biblical Commission had compared the Confraternity New Testament and the Challoner version, said the cardinal, and found "certain stylistic divergencies ... which seemed less favorable to the new text. In view of the high esteem and authority in which Challoner's Version has always been held in all Englishþspeaking countries by reason of the excellency of its classical style and theological accuracy, the new version should not depart from the primitive text except for very serious reasons and for definitely justified corrections." Tisserant continued that since "the intervention of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in this matter has been formally requested by the Confraternity of Christian doctrine.... I esteem it my duty, for the benefit of the new Catholic Version, as well as for the name of the Biblical Commission, to recommend a serious revision, which should be entrusted to the representative of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in America, the Very Reverend Father Charles J. Callan, O.P." The cardinal concluded by stating that his letter, published in the Confraternity edition, "was intended as an encouragement and a recommendation of your enterprise, but not as a formal approbation of a text which had not as yet been published at the date of our letter."

The letter could not have been more of an affront to the U.S. hierarchy. But O'Hara lost no time in mobilizing opposition. He first drafted a response to Tisserant, recounting all the efforts Callan had made to thwart the project. He then forwarded a copy of his draft and of the cardinal's letter to McNicholas for comment.

McNicholas's response was a devastating critique of Callan's delusion that he was recognized as the country's foremost biblical scholar. His proposed strategy was first to enlist the aid of Archbishop Amleto Cicognani, the apostolic delegate, and then to thank Tisserant for his continued interest in the Confraternity edition. He then moved to his critique of Callan. McNicholas had been student master when Callan was a student in 1904. He considered Callan to be a "good theologian," but "not an eminent Scripture scholar." As for Callan considering "himself a master of English," it was an "opinion," said McNicholas, that "I personally cannot accept." But of one thing the archbishop was "certain, in all the years I have known Father Callan he has resorted to scheming, which has seemed to me very unworthy." While McNicholas urged that the episcopal committee proceed cautiously in presenting its case to the Biblical Commission, he was also "convinced that Father Callan is capable of using this Pontifical Commission for selfish reasons, for an approval which he is likely to interpret as singling him out as the most outstanding Biblical scholar in the United States, and for publicity reasons which he is apt to turn to his own advantage even if the Pontifical Biblical Commission is somewhat compromised."

McNicholas's final recommendation was that the episcopal committee should frankly tell Tisserant: "that we as Bishops charged by the whole U.S. hierarchy to undertake the work of the new translation are not willing to assume the responsibility of entrusting a `serious revision' to Father Callan. Let us ask if we may appoint a commission to make this `serious revision,' of which Father Callan will be only a member."

O'Hara put together the responses and requested a meeting with Archbishop Cicognani early in June. Enclosing a copy of McNicholas's letter, he stated that it represented the unanimous opinion of the episcopal committee. While he had hoped to have McNicholas be the spokesman with the delegate, he alone kept the appointment with Cicognani on June 10. He reported to McNicholas that the delegate "read carefully the first draft of the letter to Cardinal Tisseront [sic] and suggested that it be made even stronger in its references to the unsuitability of Father Callan as chief editor." Cicognani agreed to forward the letter to Tisserant and to write the cardinal "that he has seen the letter and approves it and will furthermore add his own representations.

To McNicholas fell the task of preparing the final draft of the protest to Tisserant. Thanking the cardinal for the interest of the Biblical Commission in the revision project, the letter stated that the bishops felt sure he would want "them to speak with complete frankness" on several points. First, the Challoner version had been long felt to be inadequate

The request of Your Eminence asking that "a serious revision" should be entrusted to one priest gives us Bishops very serious concern. Moved by the greatest sense of reverence due to the Holy See and with loyalty to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, it is our considered judgment that we of ourselves cannot assume the responsibility of asking Father Charles J. Callan, O.P., to bring out another edition of the Confraternity revision which will be a "serious revision." We cannot regard Father Callan as an eminent Biblical scholar. We wish to assure Your Eminence that the Scriptural scholars of the United States do not consider him in any sense an outstanding Scriptural scholar. Father Callan has certain merits as a theologian, but, even in this field, the theological censors appointed for the Confraternity revision rejected, after very careful consideration, the objections made by Father Callan.

Recalling that Callan had earlier shown imprudence in publishing articles in his journal that were so suspect that the apostolic delegate threatened to forward them to Rome, the letter concluded:

To put Father Callan, now, in a position where all the Scripture scholars of the United States will have to accept the "serious revision" made by him will shock Our Bishops and priests; it will belittle the work of the Commission of Scripture scholars representing the Bishops of the United States. and it will be interpreted as a withdrawal of the confidence of Rome in the work of this committee. We can assure Your Eminence that the Scripture scholars, who are wholeheartedly devoted to the Church and the inspired text, do not regard Father Callan as a serious Biblical scholar.

The letter was strong, and it certainly did not hurt the cause of the U.S. bishops that such opposition to Callan came from a fellow Dominican.

The committee dated the final letter June 27, 1942, and sent it to Cicognani, who promised to add "a personal letter of my own urging the viewpoint manifested by the Bishops." With mail during wartime slowed down, Tisserant did not reply until Oct. 14. The committee was "correct," he said, in stating that the Biblical Commission did "not wish to be associated officially with the work of revision," for:

It is the unquestioned privilege of the Episcopal Hierarchy to procure for the faithful committed to their care suitable translations in the vernacular of the Sacred Scriptures. The recommendation, therefore, of Father Callan, O.P.... was intended simply as a suggestion submitted to the Episcopal Committee, which we cordially thank for the frankness of its statement in his regard.

Tisserant concluded that, while he himself had earlier observed some difficulties in the change in English style, "it is enough for me to know that the Members of the Episcopal Committee are personally supervising the preparation of the revised English Translation of the Sacred Scriptures: I had never doubted their capacity and zeal."

There are a number of parallels between the efforts of Callan to undermine the publication of the Confraternity edition and the 1994 decision of the C.D.F. to have the National Conference of Catholic Bishops withdraw its approval of the NRSV and the revised NAB. On both occasions, the translations had the approval of the competent episcopal authority, but in both instances someone bypassed the bishops to appeal to Rome. In 1942, the bishops clearly understood that Callan was the instigator. They were bold in the assertion of their rights and they were successful. Their appeal to the theological and biblical competence of their advisers, in contrast to Callan's qualifications, was sufficient to have Tisserant reverse his position.

In the meantime, the U.S. translation project took a dramatic turn. In August 1943 the Biblical Commission clarified its earlier response to the Dutch bishops in regard to the pericopes used at Mass; aside from liturgical use, translations were encouraged from the original languages. This new Roman decision brought forth renewed criticism from The Homiletic and Pastoral Review that the Confraternity translation was not a faithful rendering of the Vulgate pericopes used at Mass. Translation was clearly a controversial process. But, in the meantime, the Confraternity team of translators turned to an entirely new endeavor--to make a readable American translation from the original languages.

The New American Bible, the first English translation of the Bible from the original languages, was not completed until 1970. By then, several changes had occurred. The Second Vatican Council had totally revised the liturgy, permitting the use of the vernacular if requested by episcopal conferences. Furthermore, it no longer required that the liturgical texts of Scripture, now on a threeþyear cycle, be from the Vulgate. The U.S. Catholic laity had its first experience of the new translation of Scripture in an interim form on the first Sunday of Advent 1964, when the first changes in the liturgy were introduced.

There were mixed reactions to the changes. Some problems arose from the people's unfamiliarity with a translation of the New Testament from the Greek. The C.C.D., for example, had translated Mt. 28:6 as "He is not here, for he has risen even as he said." The new translation was: "but he is not here. He has been raised, just as he promised." Some Catholics thought this diminished Christ's divinity and was, therefore, heretical. One such critic was the Rev. Gommar de Pauw of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, who condemned the new vernacular liturgy and led an early "traditionalist" schism. Raymond E. Brown, S.S., then teaching at St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore, patiently explained the reasons for the translation and pointed out that "when the New Testament says that Jesus was raised from the dead, it means that the Father raised him up." Other difficulties arose from an effort to render a text into too colloquial a form of modern English. For example, at Lk. 15:8 the woman was said to have lost a "dime." This may have been a better rendition of "drachma" and may actually have better portrayed the foolishness of the woman in the eyes of the world, but it seemed silly to the U.S. audience who first heard it. In light of a number of criticisms, the editors continued their revision of the liturgical texts.

Vernacular translations have, therefore, always been controversial. Yet, if they are to render the sacred text intelligible to the generation that hears them, it is essential that they be revised to take account of changes in language. One example is the changed connotation of masculine nouns and pronouns used in translation. In light of this, the editors of the New American Bible continued their revision and completed the New Testament in 1986. This new translation was to be used in a newly prepared lectionary.

In the meantime, at the annual meeting in 1990, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops approved criteria for inclusive language drawn up by the bishops' Committee on Doctrine and their Committee on the Liturgy. With the approval of the N.C.C.B., the new lectionary, based on the revision of the NAB, was sent to the Congregation for Worship in Rome for approval. After three years the congregation had made no reply (Joseph Jensen, "Inclusive Language and the Bible," Am., 11/5/94). The bishops subsequently approved a lectionary derived from the NRSV, as their counterparts in Canada had already done. This was the decision that the C.D.F. told the Congregation for Worship to have the bishops reverse.

The Code of Canon Law of 1983 altered the mode of approbation for vernacular translations. Publication of vernacular translations now had to be approved by "the Apostolic See or by the conference of bishops" (Canon 825). This is a significant development since the Rules of the Index in 1564, which left approval of vernacular translations exclusively to the local bishop or inquisitor--a position maintained by Barnabò in 1868 and Tisserant in 1942. While canonists are more competent to analyze the significance of this development, the recent action of the C.D.F. seems to imply to a historian that, while approval for a vernacular translation can be given by either of the competent authorities, approval by a conference can be withdrawn by the higher authority.

For some, perhaps the issue of inclusive language in a translation of Scripture is minor. If it is minor or indifferent, then why not remove one more obstacle to the people's hearing of the word of God? Seeing the issue of changes in the meaning of the English language, the U.S. bishops adopted their criteria in 1990 and subsequently approved both the NAB and NRSV, exercising, as Tisserant expressed it in 1942, "the unquestioned privilege of the of Episcopal Hierarchy to procure for the faithful committed to their care suitable translations in the vernacular of the Sacred Scriptures." Cardinal William H. Keeler, archbishop of Baltimore and president of the N.C.C.B., put it well in a statement issued last Nov. 1. He first of all acknowledged the unusual way in which the Congregation for Worship had communicated its decision. On July 27 the congregation had sent him a letter that "did not bear the characteristics of a formal decree." It was that letter that the congregation now said was the official withdrawal of permission to use the NRSV. While the cardinal was diplomatic, he concluded that "the continued collaboration between the Congregations of the Holy See and the committees of our Conference should help us soon to have a lectionary which will be both faithful to the tradition of the Church and serve the needs of our people for a lectionary in the English currently used in our country" [emphasis mine].

But regardless of where one stands on the issue of inclusive language in either the NRSV or NAB, the present decision of the C.D.F. raises the danger that people will think of the bishops as mere delegates of the pope, contrary to the position taken by the Holy Office in 1875 in its interpretation of papal primacy as defined by Vatican I (DenzigerþSch”nmetzer No. 3112þ16). It increases the false perception, about which Bishop Kenneth Untener warned, that bishops are mere "branch managers" (Am., 10/13/84). Of course, the principal question remains: What person or groups have such influence in Rome that the N.C.C.B. can be ignored?

As in many such episodes, there is an irony in this one that might indicate some confusion in Rome. The decision of the Congregation for Worship communicating the concerns of the C.D.F about the revised psalter of the NAB pertains only to its use in the liturgical lectionary. Is there any significance in the fact that this is the very translation chosen for the English version of Pope John Paul II's Crossing the Threshold of Hope?

GERALD P. FOGARTY, S.J., past president of the American Catholic Historical Association, is professor of religious Studies at the University of Virginia.

.