The following is an article currently available on the Commonweal website; you can find it in its entirety here. What comes below is  intended to illustrate some of the bones of contention between the pro- and anti-crowds, along with my own opinions inserted á la Fr. Z-style fisking.

***

It Doesn’t Sing

THE TROUBLE WITH THE NEW ROMAN MISSAL

Beginning in Advent of this year, the language of the Mass will be very different. A new translation of the Roman Missal—the book of prayers used in the Mass—will be put into use in all Catholic churches in the English-speaking world. Some who have read the new prayers are pleased with the changes. Others are gravely concerned. [To say the least].

In recent months, priests in Ireland, Australia, the United States, and elsewhere have voiced objections, saying this translation is not what the church needs—and that it will be divisive. What is it about the new translation that has caused such an uproar?

We come to you, Father,

with praise and thanksgiving,

through Jesus Christ your Son.

Through him we ask you to accept and bless +

these gifts we offer you in sacrifice.

We offer them for your holy catholic Church….

So begins the first Eucharistic Prayer of the Roman Missal [the Roman Canon] as it has been prayed by English-speaking Catholics since 1973 [Notice a timeline has been established - "since 1973." Remember that. It'll be important later.] When the new Missal goes into effect in November, Catholics throughout the English-speaking world will hear these words instead:

To you, therefore, most merciful Father,

we make humble prayer and petition

through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord:

That you accept

and bless + these gifts, these offerings,

these holy and unblemished sacrifices

which we offer you firstly

for your holy Catholic Church.

The current translation is simple and direct. It follows the speech patterns and rhythms of contemporary spoken English [here one finds a very important point of argument about the new Missal. Should liturgical language be the same as contemporary spoken language?] It flows easily off the tongue. Its meaning is clear. The new translation, on the other hand, is mannered and complex. We arrive at the subject of the sentence only after we have heard the dative “to you”; the conjunction “therefore”; a superlative adjective “most merciful”; and a noun in apposition, “Father.” The new translation is wordy. In place of “these gifts,” we offer “these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices.” [I don't see a problem in describing the Eucharistic species in multiple words of praise.]

Having offered these gifts, offerings, holy and unblemished sacrifices firstly for the church, you might be thinking there is a secondly coming along in a paragraph or two. If so, you would be wrong. There is no secondly. So what does firstly mean in this context? It’s not clear that it means anything at all. [On the one hand, I get the point: start a list with #1, and you'd expect a #2. On the other hand, is it not clear that in this instance "firstly" means "primarily" or "with importance over all other things"?]

Different words, same prayer? Both are translations of the same Latin text, yet the results are quite different. Change the words and you change the prayer.

The Problem of Clarity

Clarity and intelligibility [another buzz word. Keep an eye on it.]were principles of liturgical renewal specifically named by the fathers of the Second Vatican Council in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Until 2001, those who translated liturgical texts into English placed a high priority on the council’s mandate for clarity and intelligibility. Those were essential guiding principles of liturgical reform, not secondary considerations.

Since the publication of the new Vatican instruction on translation Liturgiam authenticam in 2001, however, other principles are deemed more important. They include: the exact rendering of each word and expression of the Latin, the use of sacral vocabulary remote from ordinary speech, and reproduction of the syntax of the Latin original whenever possible. When a choice must be made, those principles trump the principles of clarity and intelligibility [when discussing matters of liturgy, this is ultimately the conflict: which set of principles comes first? In any case, I would argue that they aren't mutually exclusive. For some reason - and I say this without malice or trying to be snarky - this idea that elevated language that follows Latin syntax and usage is neither clear nor intelligible is rather odd. To me, this comes off as proponents of "clarity" and "intelligibility" deciding that they know exactly how intelligent most Catholics are, and slap them in the face for it]. The result has been, not surprisingly, a translation that is filled with expressions not easily understood by English speakers [All of them? Most of them? Some of them?]. It has resulted in prayers that are long-winded, pointlessly complex, hard to proclaim, and difficult to understand. [I'll halfway concede one point: yes, they are longer. One person's long-winded is another person's robust. I would defend complexity, which isn't pointless. The suggestion that they are "hard to proclaim" is insulting to priests and deacons, and "difficult to understand" is insulting to everyone. I understand them just fine. No, I'm not everyone, and we all approach the liturgy from different perspectives. But I don't understand how someone can decide that Catholics are too stupid to understand these prayers].

There are many places in the new translation where the words simply don’t make sense in English. On the First Sunday of Advent, we pray that we may “run forth with righteous deeds.” What does that mean? Many expressions sound pompous: “profit our conversion,” “the sacrifice of conciliation,” “an oblation pleasing to your almighty power.”

Some prayer texts are simply bewildering, such as this one from Preface VIII for Sundays in Ordinary Time:

For when your children were scattered afar by sin,

through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,

you gathered them again to yourself,

that a people, formed as one by the unity of the Trinity,

made the Body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit,

might, to the praise of your manifold wisdom,

be manifest as the Church.

What is the main point? It is hard to tell. We are wandering in a dense forest of theological and biblical allusions here. There are traps for the unwary, too. If the speaker is not careful to separate the first line from the second and join the second with the third, separating them from the first, he ends up suggesting that the Blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit are instrumental in scattering God’s children [I fully admit I do not know where she came up with that. The very first line reads "scattered afar by sin." What's confusing about that?"]. Even read well, this prayer will likely lose all but its best-educated and most highly attentive hearers. [Bingo. There you have it. "You'll lose the dumb and inattentive Catholics!"]

The new translation includes sentence fragments, odd locutions, opaque expressions, and redundancies. There are also historical oddities preserved for no good reason. Here is an example from Eucharistic Prayer I: “For them and all who are dear to them / we offer you this sacrifice of praise / or they offer it for themselves / and all who are dear to them….” Enrico Mazza, in his magisterial work The Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite, explains that this mid-eighth-century addition (“or they offer it for themselves…”) was originally a rubric, providing alternative wordings depending on whether those who requested the Mass were present or absent. The translators of the 1973 translation (and the 1998 version) spared us the useless puzzlement caused by such a text. The translators of the text we are about to receive did not. Why? Each word of the Latin had to be accounted for. [A fair criticism. If "or they offer it for themselves" is supposed to be a rubrical substitution, then no, it should not appear all the time. But I'm a guy with a laptop, and my word means little in the grand scheme of things.]

Not every passage Catholics will hear exhibits such strict adherence to the literal meaning of the Latin, however. In the second Eucharistic Prayer, the Latin text says quite clearly that we “stand in your presence.” The Latin word astare means to stand. It doesn’t mean anything else. The translation was changed by Vox Clara, the Vatican committee formed to advise the Holy See on the approval of liturgical texts. It was feared that use of the verb “to stand” would imply it is acceptable for the people to stand during the Eucharistic Prayer. (In fact, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal assumes that the common posture for the Eucharistic Prayer is standing, even though some individual bishops conferences have decreed otherwise.) The English now reads “be in your presence.” [Another fair criticism. Deviate from the Latin here, why not deviate elsewhere? A logical fallacy that could handicap proponents of the new Missal.]

Other changes introduced by Vox Clara lack evident rhyme or reason. For example, the Latin word profusis, which appears at the conclusion of every preface of the Easter Season, is translated as “overcome.” Profusis means “overflowing.” When the world is described as overflowing with paschal joys, as the 2008 translation had it, one imagines graceful scenes from Botticelli. When reference is made to being overcome, one imagines smelling salts. This is one of an estimated ten thousand changes Rome made in the Missal after the bishops approved the translation in 2008. [I'll agree the revision process after approval by bishops' conferences was shady - the whole translation itself is so contentious that the folks making these changes should have known it would cause an uproar. Another important thing to see here is this adversarial relationship implied by the dichotomy of "Rome" and "the bishops." The problem with such a created conflict is that all bishops receive their authority from Rome. All Catholics are deeply connected to Rome; without that connection, we wouldn't be Roman Catholics.]

The Problem of Length

The current translation is not without problems. At times it is simple to the point of banality. [On this point, we agree wholeheartedly] The richness of imagery and the theological depth of the Latin original does not always come through. The first retranslation of the Missal, which was approved by all the conferences of English-speaking bishops in 1998, addressed most of these problems quite effectively. Yet the Vatican judged that it did not go far enough. Now, with the 2010 translation, we have swung to the opposite extreme. The new translation is mired in long-winded complexity.

Overall, the length of the sentences in the new translation is staggering. The longest sentence of the Eucharistic Prayers has 82 words, the second longest, 72. All but one of the sentences in Eucharistic Prayer I are more than 40 words long. The current translation of that prayer has 18 sentences before the consecration. The new translation has 8.

The average number of words per sentence in the new Eucharistic Prayers is 35.4, compared to 20.6 at present—an increase of 78 percent. Are spoken texts in liturgy generally so wordy? Pope Benedict is not averse to using long, complex sentences. Yet his Ash Wednesday homily averaged 23.2 words per sentence. Certainly Scripture offers long sentences, especially in the writings of St. Paul. Yet the beloved eighth chapter of Paul’s Letter to the Romans has an average sentence length of only 27.38. This final example provides the closest comparison, yet the new Missal far surpasses it. [This whole paragraph doesn't really prove her point. "The Pope uses long sentences, but he also uses short ones. St. Paul used long sentences, but he also used short ones." OK?]

In texts for oral proclamation, the length of sentences matters. When reading a text on paper, one can go back and examine it again. Not so for spoken prayers, especially those spoken on one particular day of the liturgical year, rather than those repeated throughout the year or liturgical season. A collect such as this one, which follows the Isaiah 54 reading in the Easter Vigil, offers a good example of what the new translation will bring us:

Almighty, ever-living God,

surpass for the honor of your name

what you pledged to the patriarchs by reason of their faith

and through sacred adoption increase the children of your promise

so that what the saints of old never doubted would come to pass

your Church may now see in great part fulfilled.

That 53-word sentence makes sense if one has the leisure to study it and perhaps to draw a diagram. But the person in the pew does not have that luxury. She or he will hear this prayer once a year at most. [Very true. But if one hears the prayer and wants to know more, it can be found elsewhere for contemplation] An individual word or phrase may ring a bell. But the essential meaning of the prayer will be lost. As an act of oral communication, a text such as this cannot but fail for the vast majority of Catholics. Like so many of the newly translated prayers, it will come across as theo-babble, holy nonsense. [Says who, Ms. Ferrone?]

There are already formidable challenges to oral comprehension built into the pastoral situations in which the liturgy is celebrated. International priests make up 22 percent of the active diocesan priesthood in the United States today. Accented English can make even our current translation difficult to understand. Many parish communities include a significant number of people whose first language is not English. They will be asked to digest sentences that even native English speakers will have a hard time comprehending. Children and youth and those who are less educated will also be placed at a great disadvantage. [Hence priests have the pulpit, from which they can expound upon the texts. Although the suggestion that folks are too stupid is still reprehensible.]

[At this point in the article, there's a link to a "Timeline of the Roman Missal Crisis," which I think is a cheap shot.]

Some Texts Heard at Every Mass

Several texts that are a regular part of every Mass are going to change. Not all the changes will be for the worse. For example, in the preface dialogue (which appears at the beginning of the Eucharistic Prayer), the people will answer “It is right and just” in place of the familiar “It is right to give him thanks and praise.” The phrase “It is right and just” comes from a Roman acclamation of public approval. It entered the liturgy at an early date. It is crisp, and easily understood in English. Furthermore, many of the prefaces that follow it begin “It is truly right and just….” The rhetorical force of this construction is blunted if one removes “It is right and just.” [I thought we were supposed to be getting rid of extra words?] Its reintroduction also happily avoids the tangle over inclusive language, which has divided assemblies into some who say “right to give him thanks and praise” and others who say “right to give God thanks and praise.” [For the record, I'm all for "Him." Yes, God is above gender, blah blah blah. Jesus called God father. That seems pretty cut and dry to me.]

Despite such occasional bright spots, however, the overall picture is deeply discouraging. Here are a few examples.

And with your spirit

 This response will replace the familiar “And also with you.” The new text will remove a common element from the ecumenical consensus regarding liturgical texts. English-speaking Catholics, Protestants, and Anglicans have collaborated over the years to produce common liturgical texts as a way forward on the path to Christian unity [Ecumenism is a valuable goal, although to be honest I don't place much hope in it. Catholics don't want to be Protestants, and Protestants don't want to be Catholics. Why should we attempt to placate Protestants in our liturgy, any more than Protestants should try and please Catholics in theirs?]. The greeting “The Lord be with you / And also with you” is an example of one such shared liturgical text. Yet, our dialogue partners have been completely excluded from the making of this new translation [I think a fair rephrase of this sentence is "Yet, Protestants have been completely excluded from the making of Catholic liturgy." That's a problem...why? I've nothing against Protestants - they've got their faith and I have mine, and we can get along just fine with acknowledging that. But I'm fairly sure no Protestant I know would give a hoot about my contribution to their liturgy.]. “And with your spirit” exemplifies Rome’s decision to “go it alone.”

For you and for many

No longer will the Mass proclaim that Christ’s sacrifice was offered “for all, so that sins may be forgiven.” Rather, we will hear that it was offered “for many.” Much attention has been paid to this change (see “All In?” by Toan Joseph Do, Commonweal, December 19, 2008); we do not need to rehearse all the arguments here. Suffice it to say that this little phrase is what one might call a “false friend”—an expression you’re sure you understand, until you find out it means the opposite of what you were sure it meant. In normal English, many does not mean all. It means many. In the Mass, however, in our new sacral language, we have to remember that many means all. We can’t say Christ died for all, because that’s not what it says in the Latin. But we have to mean all because that is our Catholic theology. [Another fair point. See the Catechism, no. 605.]

Enter under my roof

When I first learned that the words of the Centurion were going to appear in the new translation, my expectations were positive. I remembered from my childhood this lovely acclamation: “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof. Speak but the word and my soul shall be healed.” I loved its poetry and rhythm. It sang.

Alas, the translation we are about to receive is clunky. “Enter under” doesn’t sing. It plods. It’s also not idiomatic English [and the language we use to address God in liturgy is supposed to be idiomatic? If we're using idiomatic English, I'd stroll in and say "hey bro, what's goin' on?]. One has to stop and puzzle over the idea that the Lord is entering something or someplace by means of passing under my roof [When you walk into a building, you're under the roof. Seems straightforward]. I’ve found that not a few Catholics have assumed that the word roof refers to “the roof of my mouth.” [A teachable moment for pastors. Ms. Ferrone's anecdotes are not enough to refute this point.]

He took the precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands

The new translation aims at creating a sacral language used only in church. The fact that a word is arcane or uncommon is no barrier to its usage. In fact, such words are sometimes preferred to those that have everyday usage. Thus the Latin word calix has been translated as “chalice,” rather than “cup.” The demand to translate every Latin word in the new translation has also resulted in the use of multiple adjectives. Yet English is especially effective when plain and unadorned. [But "it is truly right and just," right?] Multiple adjectives weaken a text rather than strengthen it. When adjectives pile up, the results seem stagy or false [Says who? If I tell my fiancee "I am so happy to be marrying a wonderful, beautiful, incredible woman," I find it hard to believe she'd be insulted that I used multiple adjectives]. English speakers are accustomed to hearing “When supper was ended, he took the cup.” [So since we're accustomed to it, it shouldn't change? Routine trumps everything else?] Such spare language is forceful. [Above, she said using an additional word made the sentence more forceful. I don't intend to split hairs, but that introduces a slippery slope.] The new translation, by comparison, is fussy.

An especially unfortunate effect is created in this instance because it transforms Jesus into a priest saying Mass in a church. A chalice is put into the hands of Jesus at the Last Supper. Of course chalice is a word never used in modern English except to describe our sacred vessel in the Mass. The holy hands of the priest at Mass, so much a staple of the mystique of ordination, provide the template for how to describe the hands of Jesus. [I genuinely don't believe the author is suggesting Jesus' hands weren't holy. I think she's blinded by something else.] This sort of language is jarringly anachronistic. It compromises Jesus’ historicity in order to exalt the clergy. [Oh, please. Let me get this straight. By referring to Christ's hands as "holy and venerable," we're placing undue emphasis on the clergy and denying some historical aspect of Jesus? Right...]

Because prayer engages the heart and the imagination, differences on the affective level are highly significant. The image of the assembly’s relationship to God and the emotional tone accompanying that relationship will not be the same come November. The old is marked by an attitude of reverence, joy, and trust. God is great and we are small, but the relationship is one of love. As a child might run to a parent with unaffected gladness, so we come into the presence of our God (“We come to you, Father…”).

Not anymore. Now we come before God as a suppliant might address a monarch, with flattery and self-abasement. Because we are sinners, it is necessary to ingratiate ourselves with him [Well, that's true. Just because we know God forgives sins doesn't mean we're supposed to ignore them. You tell people you love them even though they already know you do. You tell people you're sorry even if they know you're remorseful. We tell God we're sorry and are aware of our faults even though we know we'll be forgiven]. We do this by courtly address (“We make humble prayer before you”) [Yes, I'd say a human addressing the divine is a humble interaction]. This change is underlined in theConfiteor in the Penitential Act that takes place at the beginning of Mass. This moment will become an occasion to beat our breast and say “Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.”

All these dispositions—joyful trust, fear of the Lord, consciousness of sin—are part of the Christian life. But the dominant note will change. Will this change be welcomed? Or will it be greeted with incomprehension and confusion? [Just by those Catholics that Ms. Ferrone has judged to be too stupid for Mass.] The presumption that God prefers courtly language in prayer [So it's not presumption to say that God prefers different language?], a settled presumption of the Latin text, has had more than forty years to recede from public consciousness. [Enter what I said above about keeping 1973 in the back of your mind. This is an attempt to establish the argument "things have been like this for so long that we shouldn't really change them now." What about 1969? What about the new Mass back then that had everyone in an uproar? Why was it OK then and bad now?] Will its sudden reintroduction invite the faithful into more authentic worship,  or will it merely distance them from the God whom Scripture calls “my joy, my delight” (Ps. 43:4)?

Where is this new translation taking us? It is important to realize that negative responses to the new translation reflect both dismay at the wording of the text and disagreement with the principles that guided its production. Yet the conflict goes deeper than an argument over theories of translation. That the new translation of the Roman Missal should come to us replete with embarrassing gaffes, nonsensical passages, and a near-total lack of accountability is as clearly a symptom of the misuse of authority as it is the fault of the questionable set of translation principles enunciated in Liturgiam authenticam. Yet even the misuse of authority is not the root cause of the immense disquiet and even outrage that this translation has aroused. [Not even a nod at the folks who are happy with it.]

Beneath the words of the new translation, one senses a drive to minimize the practical effects of Vatican II [Maybe Ms. Ferrone does. As the article has established, she's happy speaking for everyone]. The reforms of Vatican II prized clarity and intelligibility in the liturgy; they gave priority to the work of ecumenism and evangelization; they respected the local work of bishops conferences; they invited aggiornamento and engagement with the world. This vital heritage is being eclipsed by another agenda. We are seeing a wooden loyalty to the Latin text at the price of clarity and intelligibility. We are seeing a retreat from advances already made in ecumenism. We are seeing the proper role of local bishops and bishops conferences increasingly taken over by the authorities in Rome. We are seeing the liturgy reimagined as an event taking place in some sacral space outside of our world [Catholics believe that the liturgy is literally an interaction with the divine, which is beyond this world. So yes, the liturgy is a sacral place outside our world, and thank God for that], rather than the beating heart of a world made new.

Yes, we can get used to the new translation of the Roman Missal. But we shouldn’t. The church can do better, and deserves better, than this. [Indeed it does. We are all humans, we all sin, we all make mistakes, and none of us are perfect, and so we will never be able to come up with anything that is sufficiently good for worshiping God. But we take a stab and it and give it our best - and I think God is pretty happy with that.]

As so many issues are, this measure is being introduced by one political party (in this case, Republicans) to the righteous indignation of the other (in this case, Democrats). Many Republicans say this is simple a step that will ensure that everyone only gets one vote; many Democrats say this is an attempt to bar certain people (particularly minorities on the lower end of the economic scale) from voting and attempting to guarantee a particular outcome.

There is no doubt in my mind that a large number of those people that opponents of this idea claim to be standing up for truly do not carry, or even have, official identification (be it a driver’s license or state-issue ID card). There are plenty of possible reasons for this. So there’s that.

Then there’s the common sense component of having identification to participate in an official government function. Why do ID holders carry them with them just about all the time now? Because they’re necessary on a weekly (and often daily) basis. There are so many transactions, events, and circumstances in which an ID is mandatory that it is more than a little disingenuous to suggest that requiring an ID on election day is too much to ask. For those on the lower end of the economic scale who do not have identification, it is only reasonable to ask why they can be expected to get to the poll but not get to an ID-issuing office. Furthermore, the flip side of the “it isn’t fair to make folks have IDs” coin is “you should be able to vote without having to prove you are who you say you are.”

To this, opponents will claim that it can often be difficult to gather the documentation necessary to get an ID (birth certificate, social security card, etc.). This, too, is understandable and true in many cases. But is opposition to requiring IDs the solution? No; the solution is to make the process financially free and as easy as possible so that everyone – regardless of income and socioeconomic standing – can have a state-issued photo ID. Such identification would also allow those people to expedite the process of obtaining government assistance, employment, banking, and even shopping in the case of tobacco and alcohol.

Another component of opposition is the apparently low level of voter fraud; one of Diane Rehm’s guests mentioned something like 6 convictions out of 221 suspected cases of voter fraud in a Kansas state election. To some, this is a problem so small that new legislation is not necessary to deal with it. Unfortunately it seems that voting is not something in which any degree of misrepresentation or fraud should be tolerated. Consider the admirable efforts of so many organizations to get people motivated to go vote around election time: the message is always “Yes, your one vote counts.” Does tolerating any number of fraudulent votes not fly in the face of such a message?

It would be naïve to suggest that no person in favor of this bill is trying to lock out certain voters. I’m sure this is the case for some of its proponents – and sadly so. An ill-conceived intent does not entirely eliminate the common sense of this idea, though: even if I were to outlaw, say, murder for my own selfish reasons, it would not diminish the prohibition’s merit.

So now we have a perfectly decent idea being ruined by party politics and the ideological soapboxing of politicians that people rarely trust.

*UPDATE* I just ran across this page at the National Conference of State Legislatures. If you scroll down to the “2011 Legislative Action” section, you will find a list of states who have considered or are considering changing the requirements for voters.

One of the more sinister components of this whole problem is something Ruse speculates may be “just a figment of my nasty imagination,” but which I suspect is more real: “Another possibility…is that the universities know precisely what is going on and acquiesce in the practice.  The tutor-stuffed, new students are rich, or at least their parents are.” In other words, schools know that these high school graduates probably can’t succeed at the same level in high school, but they accept and pass them on anyway to get the tuition and fee dollars rolling.

This got me thinking about my own time at the University of Louisville, and my (admittedly limited) interaction with undergraduate students. Most of my experience as a teacher was with freshmen students in a history course offered as one option in a general education requirement.  Many of these students did an excellent job getting to know details and facts – names, dates, and places they could do, and do well. But when it came to synthesizing real meaning, many (though not all) stumbled. Connections between events, apparent chains of cause and effect, and broader patterns seemed to be beyond what they conceived of as history. They could explain who, what when, where, and to some degree how, but why was often elusive.

The problem that I encountered was a real gap between high school graduation and college enrollment: it was apparent to me that these students saw those two things as educational equivalents, and that graduating high school automatically meant that one was ready for college. In many cases – and I know this to be the situation beyond my department – that simply isn’t true, and the expected knowledge and skill set of the college classroom was somewhere above that of the high school senior in this particular area. This is not to say that those students of which I speak are unintelligent or inarticulate – far from it – but there is a clear difference between high school and college, and many of the high schools around here simply aren’t preparing their graduates for college-level work. Unfortunately, for the student wanting to start and finish in four years, there just isn’t the time to make up the difference. It’s a sad (but generally true) situation that many students who go to community colleges – around here, places like JCC – and later transfer to state schools get a bad rap and are treated as intellectual inferiors. However, I think they probably do better than the unprepared high school graduate going straight to a university – they learn how to be college students before moving up to a bigger school, and are ready for the challenges they face when they get there.

Office Hours attendees sample B’Urban Trotter

The information on this fantastic beer – an oak-aged Double IPA – can be found here. And when it’s released, you will be able to find me here on many an evening.

Mayor’s Office Defends Fischer Flub on Public Safety Figures

“When asked if it was fair to compare the $500,000 given to the arts with hundreds of millions given to public safety, Fischer said figures presented by WFPL News Director Gabe Bullard were incorrect and closer to the $150,000 million mark.

Mayoral spokesman Chris Poynter says the mayor was talking about the money allocated to ‘public protection’ agencies such as Metro Corrections, Fire and EMS, which he says does not include Metro Police.

‘If you’re just talking about public protection—Fire, EMS, management, corrections—that’s $155 million in the city budget,” he says. “The Metro Police department budget is $148 million, so when you total those two it’s about $303 million.’”

***

Really? This is “the news”? I didn’t vote for Greg Fischer (can’t, as a Hoosier, and I don’t really know that much about the guy to begin with), but I’m willing to bet he’s intelligent enough to know he couldn’t slip in a wrong number intentionally – these budget documents are in the public domain, so it’d be an awfully stupid move to try and lie outright. He probably really did misspeak. Why WFPL thought this was news worthy of the morning rundown is beyond me – maybe it was a slow news day, or maybe they needed a scandalous package to carry the comment about the $500,000 allocated for “the arts.”

Many of the blogs I read approach their topics from a particular perspective, interpreting Catholicism along the lines of what is often perceived to be a conservative/liberal perspective (that’s a flawed way of looking at it, but it frames it in familiar terms). This isn’t a problem in itself – obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion – but a real problem arises when one viewpoint interacts with another. It has become increasingly apparent to me that many – not all, but many – blogs cater to a specific audience, and there is little real effort at engaging those who would disagree with the author. In my experience in the Catholic blogosphere, what usually happens is 1) blog author writes a post on some controversial topic; 2) regular blog readers chime in with comments that go something like “Good point, thanks for this, you’ve really crushed the opposition this time”; 3) a dissenting commenter offers their own contribution (rational, hysterical, or somewhere in between); 4) regular readers go on the defensive, piling on the dissenter like some schoolyard gang. This is of course an extreme generalization: at times, folks do interact nicely, disagreeing politely and sometimes even learning from each other. But this seems to be a very rare exception. Disagreements in the Catholic blogosphere often take the form of hurling ad hominem insults, degradations of faith, and assurances of “if you really believe that, you’re way beyond the pale.”

Is this a problem, though? Is it really all that bad that people get rather heated when discussing religion, especially through the medium of the Internet? In and of itself, no; in fact, the chance to really fight it out can be productive. The problem I’ve observed is that discussions quickly steer straight away from the subject at hand and get very nasty, very fast. Feelings obviously get hurt, people lash out at each other, and blog comment wars turn into an embarrassment – in many corners of public opinion, Catholics aren’t particularly welcome, and it doesn’t help when they try to metaphorically slaughter each other on the Internet. Strong opinions are not problematic on their own merit; what’s so troublesome is the instances in which blog readers and authors can’t express those strong opinions in anything approaching a civil manner. There is nothing wrong with ironclad convictions, but there is something wrong with responding with bile when those convictions are challenged.

Fortunately, most blog authors stay out of this sort of conflict. Quite a few bloggers openly discuss contentious matters, and this is good – concrete discussions on hard topics can be enlightening to a blog’s audience. Unfortunately it seems that many commenters are unable to abide by that old saying about keeping your mouth shut if you’ve got nothing nice to say. “I disagree with the author or such-and-such comment because of x” is a far cry from “I can’t believe I keep having to read this crap. No wonder the Church is in such bad shape, with people like you writing this garbage.” Really? Is that how people that are apparently believing Christians treat each other?

For some examples of what I’m talking about, check out the comment threads on some of the blogs I read. Father John Zuhlsdorf’s What Does the Prayer Really Say? features a solid stream of posts on liturgy, happenings in Rome, and detailed studies of particular prayers; while he gets just a wee bit snarky at times, it usually stays within the realm of healthy satire – biting humor that folks on the other side of theological debates won’t like. I’ve just started following the Pray Tell blog, and there are some real zingers to be found there (I often find myself disagreeing with the editors and authors there, but they do raise interesting questions that are good to think about). Father Dwight Longenecker (one of the most interesting Catholic bloggers out there, in my opinion) is not afraid to stir the pot, and some of his posts have initially annoyed me but led to fruitful thought later on – I usually end up realizing “Well. He’s right. Dammit.” Commenters seem to get very up in arms over some of his writings.

A few blogs that have good things to say and do it without offending anyone include the Mulier Fortis’s blog, Father Tim Finigan’s Hermeneutic of Continuity, and Father Ray Blake’s blog that covers some of his experiences as a parish priest in Brighton (a brave posting for any Catholic priest, I’d think). These folks typically have some insightful commentary, but offer it in a way that can’t really offend anyone that’s halfway mature. I can usually keep up on those blogs without expecting much in the way of arguing in the comments.

Ultimately, I think it’s important to recognize that the Internet – and all of the various ways of communicating via the Internet – represent an important moment in the history of evangelization. Never before have people been so connected (how many times has that been said through the centuries?), and blogs provide a way for people on one side of the globe to communicate with those on the other side. Too often, though, this real opportunity is squandered when folks can’t disagree politely – and that’s a real shame.

“But Benedict also last year became the first pope to visit Rome’s main synagogue since 1986, trying to smooth feathers on an annual “Day of Dialogue” with the Jewish community.”

Truly a historic effort, eh? “The first pope to visit that synagogue since 1986″ sounds rather grand, as though many had had the opportunity to visit prior to Benedict XVi’s trip, thus making his truly earthshattering.

Let’s do a quick Wikipedia search.

Papacy of John Paul II: 1978-2005

Papacy of Benedict XVI: 2005-current

Number of popes between John Paul II and Benedict XVI: 0

Now let’s reword CNN’s bit in a simpler, more direct manner – my changes in bold: “But Benedict also last year became the first pope to visit Rome’s main synagogue since the pope right before him, trying to smooth feathers on an annual “Day of Dialogue” with the Jewish community.”

I certainly wouldn’t want to discount the pope’s trip to the synagogue – I think it was a great and admirable move. But c’mon, CNN, you don’t need to make stories more epic than they already are. So yes, Benedict was the first pope to visit the synagogue since 1986, but let’s not pretend there were dozens of guys in the interim that passed up the opportunity.

Now, this from Entertainment Weekly: New edition of ‘Huckleberry Finn’ to lose the ‘N’ word

“The effort is spearheaded by Twain expert Alan Gribben, who says his PC-ified version is not an attempt to neuter the classic but rather to update it. ‘Race matters in these books,’ Gribben told PW. ‘It’s a matter of how you express that in the 21st century.’”

I’m not quite sure what Gibben is getting at here – it seems he wants to have his cake and eat it, too.  Indeed race does matter in Huckleberry Finn – but so, too, does contemporary perception of race. Changing the word from nigger to slave drastically reduces the impact Twain meant the word to have when he wrote it. Having children – yes, children – face that word so that an educator can explain what it meant, how it was used, and why it is happily banished from the lexicon of decent human beings is crucial to understanding American history. The word is there for a reason, and it needs to stay there – if only as a reminder of what must never happen again. To deny the unvarnished version of Huckleberry Finn to students is to deny part of America’s past. But then again, the American school system would never let that happen, would it?