How an incorrect translation of the synod report created chaos

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
Vatican City, Oct 15, 2014 / 11:17 am (CNA/EWTN News).- An incorrect translation into English of the original midterm report of the Synod on the Family may have spurred controversial interpretations of the document itself.

The document’s original version was written in Italian, which Pope Francis directed to be used as the official language of the synod. In prior synods the official language had been Latin, esteemed for its precision and lack of ambiguity.

The point of controversy occurs at paragraph 50 of the relatio. The Italian original, after praising the gifts and talents homosexuals may give to the Christian community, asked: “le nostre comunità sono in grado di esserlo accettando e valutando il loro orientamento sessuale, senza compromettere la dottrina cattolica su famiglia e matrimonio?”

In the English translation provided by the Vatican, this is rendered as: “Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”

The key word “valutando,” which has sparked controversy within the Church, was translated by the Vatican as “valuing.”

Italian’s “valutando” in fact means “evaluating,” and in this context would be better translated with “weighing” or “considering.”

The English translation, in contrast, suggests a valuing of the homosexual orientation, which could at least create confusion to those who are faithful to the teaching of the Church.

It must be said that the translation was not an “official” translation – the Vatican website notes at the top it is an “unofficial translation” – but it was the working translation delivered by the Holy See press office in order to help journalists who are not confident in Italian with their work.

However, until now only this “working translation” has been provided.

The document was first delivered in Italian, shortly before Cardinal Peter Erdo of Esztergom-Budapest, general rapporteur of the synod, was going to read it in front of the assembly. After about half an hour, the document was available in English, French, Spanish, and German translations, and delivered via a bulletin of the Holy See press office.

This timing suggested that the translation had been done in the very last moments. According to a Vatican source, Cardinal Erdo had to give the document to the General Secretariat for the Synod on Saturday, and the document had been polished until the very last moment, and was given back to Cardinal Erdo only late on Sunday.

That the text is not fully Cardinal Erdo’s may be suggested by the fact that “the post discussion relation is much shorter than the pre-discussion one,” as Archbishop Philip Tartaglia of Glasgow put it to CNA Oct. 15.

The excerpt on pastoral care of homosexuals has been addressed by critics during the discussion that followed the reading of the relatio on Monday.

The document raised the impression that the Church had changed her views concerning homosexuality.

Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stressed Oct. 13 that “pastoral care for homosexuals has always been part of the Church’s teaching, and the Church has never gotten rid of or dismissed homosexual from her pastoral programs.”

In fact, pastoral care for homosexuals is well described in a 1986 document, issued by Cardinal Mueller’s dicastery, “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.”

Bearing the signature of the then-prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and approved by St. John Paul II, the letter was delivered to bishops worldwide, providing instructions on how the clergy should respond to the claims of the LGBT community.

Far from being a document of condemnation, the document provided a nuanced response to the issue of homosexuality.

The document stressed that “it is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

Pastoral care for homosexuals was also addressed.

“We encourage the Bishops to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses,” the document read

But – the document added – “no authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.”

Likewise, “we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.”

The document also dealt with the spiritual life.

“An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.”



The incorrect translation of the synod’s relatio has led, among the other things, to think about an evaluation of homosexuality that has not indeed ever been part of the Church’s teaching.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/how-an-incorrect-translation-of-the-synod-report-created-chaos-24767/
 
Well, this is good to read:

"The point of controversy occurs at paragraph 50 of the relatio. The Italian original, after praising the gifts and talents homosexuals may give to the Christian community, asked: “le nostre comunità sono in grado di esserlo accettando e valutando il loro orientamento sessuale, senza compromettere la dottrina cattolica su famiglia e matrimonio?”

In the English translation provided by the Vatican, this is rendered as: “Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”

The key word “valutando,” which has sparked controversy within the Church, was translated by the Vatican as “valuing.”

Italian’s “valutando” in fact means “evaluating,” and in this context would be better translated with “weighing” or “considering.”

The English translation, in contrast, suggests a valuing of the homosexual orientation, which could at least create confusion to those who are faithful to the teaching of the Church."
 
This was not that hard to sniff out. I was not expecting a hardline document but even with my expectation of a “welcoming” sort of report, I could see that there was something out of order with that phraseology (“valuing…”). I pointed that out in the initial thread on this document, here on the forum (post 20).

If* I *could see that, why could the English translator not see it? Who did the English translation? That’s what I want to know. Like Father Z said, they must have known that the secular media would go bananas over it… And now it can only be walked back while being pelted with all sorts of rotten fruit from the “you hate gays” crowd.

Dan
 
Hm… why is practically everything translated incorrectly now and why are the bits that are most mistranslated the parts that are the juciest and most important?
 
I just ran this text via Google Translate:

le nostre comunità sono in grado di esserlo accettando e valutando il loro orientamento sessuale, senza compromettere la dottrina cattolica su famiglia e matrimonio?

translates to:

**our communities are able to be accepting and evaluating their sexual orientation without compromising the Catholic teaching on marriage and family?

This sounds a little bit closer to the Catechism.
 
This is all starting to sound more and more like what went on during Vatican II when Catholics took the word of whatever the New York Times reported until waiting for the official documents from the Vatican to be published. By the time these documents were published, many Catholics were off and running so far down the road armed with the “truth according to Xavier Rynne via the New York Times” that they were beyond being called back.
 
First, why don’t we all just wait for the final, official statement. Secondly, I don’t think latin is free from misinterpretation, the vatican needs to hire better translators.
 
This is all starting to sound more and more like what went on during Vatican II when Catholics took the word of whatever the New York Times reported until waiting for the official documents from the Vatican to be published. By the time these documents were published, many Catholics were off and running so far down the road armed with the “truth according to Xavier Rynne via the New York Times” that they were beyond being called back.
Which is why we need to control the message.

I don’t buy this “lets wait until…” wait until what? Damage has already begun, now we have to clean up. NCRegister realizes this.
 
Since Pope Francis took over the Chair of St. Peter there have been a lot of these “mistranslations” in the media. Cardinal Burke is right. The Holy Father needs to come out and take a stand on this.
 
Which is why we need to control the message.

I don’t buy this “lets wait until…” wait until what? Damage has already begun, now we have to clean up. NCRegister realizes this.
How can you control the message? You’re not even sure what’s being said.
 
It is hard to believe that everything is a mistranslation. Cardinals Burke and Pell, in their disagreement and defensive language, seem to confirm that the translations are actually all pretty accurate. If they weren’t accurate, they wouldn’t be asking for a “re-do.”
 
How can you control the message? You’re not even sure what’s being said.
We are sure of what the Church teaches. We are sure that the Pope can’t contradict revelation no matter how hard he tried or wanted to (saying this for principle not to say what Pope’s motivations or desires are). We are sure that there is confusion. We are sure of what people are taking away from this.

So we counter by saying what the Church says and saying it in ways that those who are opposed to what the Church teaches would take them off-guard. Insinuate that it is religious bigotry to say that it is wrong for the Church to teach what the Church teaches. Because that is language they understand and get. Yet because they are not used to hearing it from Catholics, it will put them in a difficult situation that is hard to argue against without looking like, yes, a bigot.
 
We are sure of what the Church teaches. We are sure that the Pope can’t contradict revelation no matter how hard he tried or wanted to (saying this for principle not to say what Pope’s motivations or desires are). We are sure that there is confusion. We are sure of what people are taking away from this.

So we counter by saying what the Church says and saying it in ways that those who are opposed to what the Church teaches would take them off-guard. Insinuate that it is religious bigotry to say that it is wrong for the Church to teach what the Church teaches. Because that is language they understand and get. Yet because they are not used to hearing it from Catholics, it will put them in a difficult situation that is hard to argue against without looking like, yes, a bigot.
They will counter it by calling you hateful. We have already been called that by those who wish to make the Church into their own image and likeness.
 
They will counter it by calling you hateful. We have already been called that by those who wish to make the Church into their own image and likeness.
Then call them hateful. Remember I am not saying to use this language in one-on-one conversations, just in articles, etc.
 
First, why don’t we all just wait for the final, official statement. Secondly, I don’t think latin is free from misinterpretation, the vatican needs to hire better translators.
But with Latin-vernacular translations, at least there is something in the past to compare to. This is basically unexplored territory for a synod and it’s setting up precedence for the future. A scary thought indeed amidst all the mutable languages, especially since a word like “gay” meant something different 40 years ago.
 
I just ran this text via Google Translate:
Google Translate doesn’t actually translate. It searches for the closest past translation of phrases and the like, which themselves might be faulty. It’s useful to perhaps get the gist but even that could be pushing it.
 
I’m not buying that the issue is mistranslation. Seems like whenever someone is unhappy with something said by the Pope or anyone in the hierarchy the first resort is that the media is lying, the second that it was a translation error. It usually turns out that what was reported is what was said.

In this instance there are two strong reasons not to think this is a translation issue. First, if it was merely a mistake, one of the many English speaking attendees would have probably said so. Second, changing “value” to something like “evaluating” doesn’t make sense in the context of the rest of the document.
 
Which is why we need to control the message.

I don’t buy this “lets wait until…” wait until what? Damage has already begun, now we have to clean up. NCRegister realizes this.
Dictators control messages as history has clearly shown. That’s not what you want. Perhaps the Vatican needs to get somebody who knows how to translate properly. This has been happening quite a bit since Pope Francis took over (as another poster said). It is either intentional or the person(s) doing the translations is/are incompetent.

As an aside, I am a former Roman Catholic and this conversation is going on in non-Roman Catholic churches. There needs to be some direction for all Christians on how to handle the LBGT folks. How to unconditionally love a person regardless of their particular sexual orientation and still communicate the truth of God’s word is the key.

Jesus loved unconditionally the adulteress who was going to be stoned), did not condemn her yet communicated truth and told her to go and sin no more. And there is a difference between someone actively living an LGBT lifestyle (or a heterosexual living in adultery) as opposed to someone who has an LGBT orientation but is trying to live out what scripture teaches on moral behavior. And there is a difference between LGBT folks who are non-believers but on a spiritual search versus LGBT folks who claim to be believers.

In first Corinthians, Paul took the entire church to task for allowing, condoning and celebrating immoral behavior of a man sleeping with his mother-in-law. It wasn’t until the man repented was he allowed back in. The truth can be uncomfortable, but it is still the truth.

The scripture says:

For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
(John 1:17-18 NKJV)

Therein lies the balancing act-- loving yet communicating truth.

God bless.
 
How many mistranslations can there be? This isn’t rocket science, can they not translate common languages like italian better than a 5 second google translate copy and paste? Maybe they really do mean whats reported, maybe some people are just using mistranslation as a coping mechanism when they hear things they don’t like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top