As I talked with my sister about the proposals, I expressed a desire to gather with women who were not in my close circle to hear their perspectives.

She immediately thought of some of her friends and women in her parish, which is two hours away from where I live.

Without our frequent conversations, she doubted she would have heard much about the synod and suspected the same would be true for them.

They might be interested in learning more and engaging in a "conversation in the Spirit."

Conversing with the spirit

Two weeks later, 12 women, ages 16 to 68, gathered in my sister's living room to learn a bit about the current synod and how women's participation and leadership continues to surface.

After a brief introduction to the synod, we engaged in a "conversation in the Spirit" focused on their experience of church and their desires for the church.

As the sharing unfolded, it was clear that the church is both home and a place in which they long to be more at home.

Several women shared experiences of being treated as an afterthought, noting that over the years, their participation has been invited only when there aren't enough men to fill roles.

Others shared that they feel like women do the bulk of the work in the parish community.

These two experiences are not mutually exclusive. There was joy, laughter, and pain palpable in the room and a deep desire for more.

Language counts

The synthesis report reads:

"There is a need to ensure that liturgical texts and church documents are more attentive to the use of language that takes into equal consideration both men and women, and also includes a range of words, images and narratives that draw more widely on women's experience."

Drawing on this proposal, I asked those gathered about their experiences of the language and images used in the liturgy.

What difference would it make to them if they were more inclusive?

Most were unsure how to answer.

I suggested inclusive language for humanity, which came up organically in our first round of sharing.

I offered the possibility of expanding our images of God, for instance praying with the variety of images offered in scripture and tradition.

I asked about the lectionary and the possibility of incorporating more narratives that include women.

After painting these as possibilities, we listened to one another's perspectives.

One by one, we shared.

I heard pain over the fact that we pray "God came for us men and for our salvation."

I heard curiosity about praying with expanded images of God, images that draw on relationship, like Hagar's name for God in Genesis, the "Living One Who Sees Me."

I heard an understanding that God is neither male nor female and yet a deep familiarity and comfort with God as he.

I heard openness to translations of God language that might use fewer pronouns.

I heard a hunger for more scriptural texts that have women protagonists. I heard a thirst for more women saints to be highlighted.

Underneath it all, I heard a desire to be seen, to be valued, to be invited to participate as women and human beings.

Inclusive liturgy

In this circle, my role was facilitator and listener.

I love the church deeply, as do the women gathered in my sister's living room. And I long to feel more at home in the church.

In my own heart, I feel the pain of knowing that sometimes when our liturgical prayers and church documents say "men," they mean humanity.

But sometimes, they mean what they say—men.

It is exhausting to remind myself that, mostly, "men" means me too. Except when it doesn't.

Last summer, as I eagerly read an official English language document from the synod, I paused in gratitude when I realised that the inclusive language of the text was how it was intended to be written.

I was not reading an inclusive language translation. The church intended my inclusion, and so I was included in pronouns and in the phrase "brothers and sisters." I felt seen.

I also feel seen and nourished by God's Word in scripture and delight in texts that include women.

I long to hear more of these narratives at Sunday Mass.

As a co-convener of the Catholic Women's Preaching Circle, I notice that often women preachers will choose texts that center women.

I encounter women who are in our sacred texts but whose stories are often unfamiliar. They, too, are protagonists, and together we lift them up, and I am lifted up.

As I continue to reflect on this synodal proposal, I am mindful that liturgy, language, and story shape us.

They form us.

How we choose to speak about ourselves and one another and the stories we choose to tell are reflections of what we believe is important and worth keeping alive.

Those choices shape who we will become.

As we expand our language for God and humanity and as we expand the images and scriptural texts we use, not only will women feel more seen and heard by those very texts.

The language, images, and texts will truly shape the people of God to more fully and truly see and hear women. Read more

Kelly Adamson is Director of Residence Life Ministry at the University of Dayton.

The final report of the October 2023 session of the synod referred to "the widely reported need to make liturgical language more accessible to the faithful and more embodied in the diversity of cultures."

The English-speaking church has an easy response to this request: the 1998 translation of the Roman missal done by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, known as ICEL.

Its work was rejected by the man who would become Benedict XVI, but the time has come to put it forward again.

Implementing liturgical translations has often been controversial, both recently and in the long ago past.

The first schism in Rome occurred early in the third century after Pope Callistus I translated the liturgy from Greek into vulgar Latin — the informal, popular version of the language at the time — so that the common people could better understand the celebration of the Eucharist.

Hippolytus, the first antipope and author of Eucharistic Prayer II, led a revolt to keep the Greek liturgy. The dispute became so bitter and violent that pagan soldiers arrested both men and sent them to the tin mines of Sardinia.

After the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Catholic Church began translating liturgical texts from Latin into contemporary languages for the same reasons Callistus put the liturgy into Latin: so that people could participate more fully and actively in the liturgy.

The translations were supposed to be made by episcopal conferences and were subject to final approval by Rome.

ICEL's 1998 translation was supposed to replace the translation that had been done quickly after the council.

The group, which comprises 11 bishops' conferences from the U.S. and the United Kingdom to India, the Philippines to New Zealand and Australia, employed experienced translators, liturgical scholars and even poets.

They also added new prayers — for example, presidential prayers after the Gloria that picked up themes from the Sunday Scripture readings.

The 1998 translation followed the 1969 Vatican instruction, "Comme Le Prévoit," which stated, "The language chosen should be that in ‘common' usage, that is, suited to the greater number of the faithful who speak it in everyday use, even children and persons of small education."

The 1998 translation was well received by English-speaking episcopal conferences, who approved it and sent it to Rome for final approval.

However, by the time the translation got to the Vatican, the rules were changing. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, preferred a word-for-word translation of the Latin rather than one that was easily understood when it was proclaimed.

At first, the English-speaking conferences fought for their translations, but the Vatican was not interested in listening.

In one instance, the American bishops asked to send a delegation to Rome to talk about the translation, but the Vatican agreed only on the condition that Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk not be part of the delegation. Pilarczyk had a doctorate in classics and could run circles around Vatican officials.

In 2001, the Vatican issued new instructions about translations of the Roman missal in "Liturgiam authenticam," which directed "the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses."

Eventually, under new leadership, ICEL followed Ratzinger's directions and produced the flawed 2010 translation that we are now using in church.

Thus, one cardinal in Rome, whose native language was German, was able to overrule years of work by the English-speaking bishops and tell them how they should pray their own language in worship.

Times have again changed. In 2017, Pope Francis revised canon law to emphasize that the main responsibility for liturgical translations lies with episcopal conferences.

According to Francis, the Dicastery for Divine Worship should no longer impose a given translation on episcopal conferences.

Nor should it be involved in a detailed word-by-word examination of translations.

Under these new procedures, the 1998 ICEL translation would have been easily approved by the Vatican.

Because Francis told the synod delegates not to talk to the press, it is hard to know from where the recommendation on liturgical translations came.

Did the push come from the bishops or the lay delegates at the synod?

Was it from Africa? Asia? Latin America?

These parts of the church have certainly wanted more respect for "the diversity of cultures."

But given that the biggest recent fight over translation involved English speakers, the call may have come from one of the ICEL countries.

It certainly did not come from the American bishops, who have no interest in revising liturgical texts. But perhaps other English-speaking bishops want to revisit the translation.

Granted this history, what would be a good way forward for the English-speaking church?

First, since it takes years to do a new translation, ICEL should begin by resurrecting the 1998 translation and reviewing it for minor improvements.

This translation, the fruit of years of work, is much better than the one currently used. There is no need to start from scratch.

Sadly, ICEL, which holds the copyright, does not allow the 1998 translation to be posted on the web (although some creative searching on Google turns it up), so it is difficult for people to see how good it is.

Second, changing the people's responses would probably be a bad idea. Going from "And also with you" to "And with your spirit" and back to "And also with you" would cause whiplash among the laity.

On the other hand, if Christian denominations agree on common English texts for the Gloria, the Nicene Creed and the Lord's Prayer, then adopting these texts would be worth the effort for ecumenical reasons.

Third, in the meantime, priests should be given permission to use the 1998 translation for the parts of the Mass that are said only by the priest: the presidential prayers, prefaces, Eucharistic prayers, etc.

Let priests have the option of using the 1998 version or the current version, and see which one promotes fuller participation in the liturgy.

It would be instructive to see which version becomes more common after five or 10 years of allowing them both.

Which translation do priests find easier to proclaim, and which version do people more easily hear and understand?

One of the problems with how the church does liturgical translations is that they are not tested in the real world before they are imposed throughout the church.

The hierarchy does not believe in market testing translations to see what works.

Allowing priests to use the 1998 ICEL translation would be a good way to test its value.

Sadly, practical problems will foster inertia in liturgical translations.

Publishers have warehouses full of the current missal that they want to sell. Pastors don't want to spend money on new missals.

Bishops do not want to risk backlash from conservative Catholics who oppose any change in the liturgy.

All of this makes it likely that we will have to endure the current translation unless liturgists, priests and people in the pews support the synod's call for change.

If the United States is going to experience a true Eucharistic revival, then it needs liturgical texts that promote the full and active participation by all people in the liturgy. The current text does not do that.

The 1998 ICEL translation is a step in the right direction.

• Thomas Reese SJ is a senior analyst at Religion News Service, and a former columnist at National Catholic Reporter, and a former editor-in-chief of the weekly Catholic magazine America. First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

Improved translations for the opening and post-Communion prayers are also under consideration.

The initiative was confirmed by Bishop Stephen Lowe, president of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and the bishops' representative on the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL).

The revised inclusive lectionary, a joint venture among the bishops' conferences from Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, will incorporate the Revised New Jerusalem Bible (RNJB).

Lowe cited the RNJB's affinity with the well-established Jerusalem Bible translation, currently approved for New Zealand, and for its embracing inclusive language.

The New Zealand Bishops' Conference has endorsed the project. "We await the same from our Australian and Irish counterparts," said Lowe.

The undertaking of the new lectionary is expected to span approximately three years.

During this phase, the conferences will spearhead a programme aimed at acquainting parishes and schools with the new edition.

New priest's prayers too

Since its introduction in 2011, New Zealand's Catholics have voiced concerns about the English used in the prayers of the Mass.

In 2011, Vox Clara a Vatican committee, pushed through an English translation that was more in line with the original Latin.

Direct translations from Latin, maintaining Latin syntax, have occasionally muddled the meaning in English, and the 'muddled meanings' is a prominent point emerging from New Zealand's Synodal feedback.

Reflecting on the potential of the improved Mass prayer translations as a solution to the existing translation's critiques, Lowe hinted at a solution with the release of a revised book of prayers the priest uses at Mass.

Welcoming the intent of the move, New Zealand liturgical theologian Dr Joe Grayland said the facility has been available to all bishops since September 3, 2017, when Pope Francis published Magnum Principium (The Great Principle).

In releasing Magnum Principium, Pope Francis emphasised the need for translations to

• remain loyal to the original text
• loyal to the language it is translated into, and
• be comprehensible to congregants

The Australian, Ireland and New Zealand bishops' solution keeps the status quo for the congregation's prayers and responses.

1998 Roman Missal translation

From 1983 - 2003, New Zealand Bishop Peter Cullinane was a respected member of the Episcopal Board of the International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL).

It was a time when the 1998 Sacramentary was developed.

In 1998, all the bishops of the English-speaking world agreed on a translation of the Roman Missal.

However, also in 1998, the prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez, blocked ICEL's work.

Medina, a Chilean, spoke no English and set up Vox Clara, a group of senior bishops from English-speaking countries.

Vox Clara held its inaugural meeting in Rome in April 2002 under the chairmanship of then-Archbishop George Pell of Sydney.

According to columnist Robert Mickens, Medina mercilessly bullied ICEL officials.

The universally acceptable and inclusive translation is not lost and is still available:

• The Sacramentary - Volume One - Part 1
• The Sacramentary - Volume One - Part 2
• The Sacramentary - Volume Two - Part 1
• The Sacramentary - Volume Two - Part 2

Sources

• NZ Catholic
• CathNews NZ
• CathNews NZ

The petition asks the Bishops' Conferences of England and Wales and Scotland to reconsider their decision to use the gender-exclusive Bible at Mass.

So far over 150 people have signed the petition.

The bishops' controversial decision involves scrapping the Jerusalem Bible translation, which is currently heard at Masses in Britain, in favour of the English Standard Version (Catholic edition).

When the Bishops' Conference of Scotland announced they had decided to enact a similar change for the lectionary in Scotland, a who is a Senior Lecturer in Patristics at the University of Edinburgh, said the decision was disappointing.

"They really need to consider more carefully the pastoral impact of continuing to prevent Catholic women from recognising themselves as referred to in the words of Scripture in this way," Dr Sarah Parvis said.

"The US evangelical Protestant provenance of the ESV [English Standard Version] translation is also a concern."

In her introduction to the petition, instigator Bridget Kennedy says:

"The Bishops have chosen to exclude at least fifty percent of the ecclesial community. Their choice of Bible translation can but speak of an attitude that continues to judge women second class citizens in the Church.

"Language shapes thoughts and attitudes, and the impact of rendering Holy Scripture in this way is to deny the inclusion of female disciples of Jesus, not only in the language of the liturgy, but in the good news of salvation.

"At his election address, Pope Francis set a tone of inclusiveness when he greeted us together as ‘fratelli e sorelle' (brothers and sisters). The Bishops might have taken their lead from the Vicar of Christ.

"It was to mutual interdependence that Jesus entrusted a woman and a man as he died upon the cross.

"It was a woman Jesus commissioned first Apostle of the Resurrection. It was the stories of the women of faith that Jesus heard the men repeating as they made their way together to Emmaus. The Bishops might have taken their lead from Jesus.

"This issue has stirred within me ‘a fire burning in my heart, imprisoned in my bones' (Jeremiah 20.9).

"My prayer is that you might join me in prayerfully encouraging the Bishops to open their hearts and minds to what the Spirit might be saying to the Church through the anger, disillusionment and disbelief of its faithful women."

Source

• The Tablet
• Image: The Tablet

An event called Voices of Faith, held to mark International Women's Day last week, was put together as an opportunity for women to share their stories of faith.

The event was live-streamed around the world from the Vatican's Casina Pio IV.

Topics discussed included: the need for the Church to practice what it preaches about full equality between men and women, to include women in every level of decision-making, and to use inclusive language in its worship.

The women expressed a desire for a fundamental rethink regarding how Church prelates and documents describe them, saying they are often pigeonholed as reflecting only the sensitive or tender half of humanity.

Continue reading

The book is about how to achieve real participation and engagement in liturgy.

People who want to find creative solutions to the tension between the needs of the their local church and the official liturgical books will find this book useful.

It is a resource for planning and leading liturgies in parishes and communities.

The authors hope to promote informed discussion and to support those who want to make adaptations and changes so that the liturgy will reflect the culture and people who celebrate it.

Themes include: Eucharist for our time & context; shared leadership & ministry in Eucharist, local spirituality and Eucharist, Eucharist that builds an inclusive church and, overcoming the tensions of planning & celebration.

The authors, Neil Darragh and Jo Ayers, well known in Catholic circles in New Zealand, bring together their experience of teaching liturgy at university and of many years membership of local liturgy committees. They provide differing perspectives and experiences of a layperson and a priest.

Accent is niche publisher that concentrates exclusively on publishing spirituality and theology from Aotearoa-New Zealand.

Accent's intention is to be a resource for people who want to talk about and search out mature responses to the major issues of Christian life in the 21^st Century.

Accent's publications are written by people who live Aotearoa New Zealand .

Accent is interested in establishing a dialogue with others who like them want to create a contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand spirituality.

Source

• Accent Publications
• Image: Pangeablog

Fr Sean McDonagh of Ireland's Association of Catholic priests said it was obvious from the language of the new missal that not a single woman had been consulted while it was being drawn up.

Critics say the new missal includes multiple uses of the use of man and meant to mean both men and women.

Fr McDonagh said it is regrettable priests had to fight a linguistic battle over inclusiveness when it should be taken for granted.

The first of many changes were introduced in Ireland last Sunday and despite criticism from priests, the Irish bishops have supported the new text.

The Irish Times reports reactions of the people to the new translation from Latin are mixed.

Sources

• Irish Times
• The Journal
• Catholic Living Today blog