Category: Religion

Pro Multis: What’s in a Word?

A seemingly minor piece of news may foretell a shift of emphasis in Catholic culture, as the Vatican has ruled that the formula for consecration of wine at Mass must be translated “for many” rather than “for all”. The traditional Roman liturgy, as well as all the ancient eastern liturgies, follows the Gospels in declaring that the blood of the New Covenant would be shed “for many, unto the remission of sins.” This move will please those traditionalists who have questioned the legitimacy and even the validity of the “for all” consecration used in many vernacular Masses, and it comes on the heel of rumors that the Pope will issue a universal indult for the practice of the traditional Roman liturgy.

This reaffirmation of tradition undermines two aspects of the “progressive” liturgical enterprise: historical criticism and linguistics. Modern liturgists have often rationalized their novelties as restorations of primitive Christianity, prior to the accretions of the medieval and Tridentine periods. This pseudo-traditionalism has all the credibility of a man who would honor his grandfather by disparaging his father, and more pertinently, it is often unsubstantiated by historical fact. In the case at hand, the advocates of the “for all” translation speculate that the original Aramaic word (conveniently lost to history) could have had this meaning, despite the fact that the Evangelists (including Aramaic-speaking Mark) render it in Greek as polloi, not pantes. Moreover, the context, “shed for you and for many, unto the remission of sins,” suggests restriction to those whose sins are remitted. As a matter of liturgical history, all the ancient rites of the east and west use “for many” in the consecration. In the face of this evidence, we can conclude that advocates of the erroneous translation are motivated less by the dictates of exegesis and historical criticism than by a favoritism for a more inclusive-sounding theology.

The Holy See is also insisting on a more literal rendering of the editio typica of the Roman liturgy, which is in Latin. Notwithstanding the speculations about Aramaic, the authoritative version of the Roman liturgy is in Latin, which renders the consecration formula, “pro multis.” All vernacular translations are supposed to be faithful to this edition, and no one can credibly argue that “for all” is an accurate translation of the Latin. It is not the task of the translator to second-guess the Latin version and return to the supposed original source in Aramaic, but only to translate the Latin as it reads. The current Roman liturgy is actually closer to the traditional liturgy than many English-speakers realize, owing to the distorted and paraphrased English translations. This effective usurpation of authority over the text of the Mass by liturgical translators can be expected to recede over the next few years.

Cardinal Arinze expressed the view that teaching how Christ’s sacrifice is intended “for all,” though effective only “for many,” is a subject for catechesis, not liturgy. This amounts to a refutation of any rationalistic, social engineering model of liturgy. The liturgical reform proposed before and during the Second Vatican Council was intended to renew some apostolic forms that had been lost through the centuries and eliminate some redundancies, but in a way that was respectful of received forms. Many of the reform generation, unfortunately, had insufficient reverence for tradition as such, and to some extent directed the liturgy away from the eternal God, and more toward the supposed “needs of the people,” evincing a profound failure to understand the basic function of liturgy and ritual. This well-intentioned, well-planned liturgy has never been as aesthetically endearing as the old, for the simple reason that culture cannot be synthesized. Like most “progressive” artifacts of the sixties and seventies, the liturgical aesthetic from that period already seems dated, so many churches have traded their aesthetic heritage in exchange for kitsch. The Vatican’s present inclination is to restore some of what was heedlessly discarded, so that the Church may engage modern culture, yet retain an authentic culture of its own.

Islam and Religious Violence

This month, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a fascinating discourse on the question of whether Hellenic rationality is essential or incidental to Christian religion. Philosophical and theological subtleties being unable to sustain the interest of our mass media, we have instead been delivered sensationalist reporting of the Pope’s citation of Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

The purpose of the citation was to show how the emperor’s “brusqueness which leaves us astounded” results from a conviction that God cannot act contrary to His essentially rational nature. The accuracy of the emperor’s assessment of Islam as a whole is immaterial to the Pope’s discourse, which immediately turns to a discussion of Hellenic rationality, not Islamic jihad. If journalists were more sophisticated, they might have faulted the Pope for asserting that Muslims do not require God to behave rationally, but here he is merely following noted Islamist Theodore Khoury and the medieval Muslim theologian Ibn Hazm.

Sooner than admit their own illiteracy, our demagogues have argued that Pope Benedict has been tactless in his choice of citation, if not ignorant and bigoted, as they fall back on kneejerk anticlericalism in place of library research on previous works of Ratzinger. The latter option would have revealed a much more nuanced, respectful approach to Islam than, say, your average journalist’s approach to Catholicism.

In absurd irony, many Muslims have turned to violence in response to the perceived accusation that Islam encourages violence. Mainstream Muslims have demanded an apology since, unlike their Christian counterparts, they are unaccustomed to having their religion publicly ridiculed. However, the tide is turning as even the president of Iran has acknowledged that the Pope’s comment was taken out of context, while our secular press continues to feign outrage on behalf of Muslims.

I would be disappointed if the secular media missed an opportunity to vent its rage against organized religion. Surely enough, the usual checklist is ticked off:

  • Failure to believe in secular liberalism or religious indifferentism is a sign of intellectual limitation or intolerance, no matter how erudite the speaker. That’s obvious, isn’t it?
  • Christians have been just as violent as Muslims, as evidenced by the Crusades. Tell that to the people of India, who suffered one of the worst genocides in history at the hands of the Muslims. The Crusades, as I have discussed at length, were motivated by a combination of secular and religious causes quite distinct from the rationale of an Islamic jihad, and were not an attempt to convert by the sword. “Conversions by the sword” were statistically insignificant to the spread of Christianity, to the chagrin of secular commentators who would like to insist no reasonable person would freely assent to this religion. In Islam, on the contrary, “conversion by the sword” was no aberration, but an explicit command of the prophet, and a key to the early success of Islam, though it later thrived on its own merits.
  • Religion in general causes violence. This takes extraordinary chutzpah, considering that we just emerged from the bloodiest century in human history, filled with atrocities committed by secular and atheistic regimes. There hasn’t been a religious war in the West since the Thirty Years’ War, yet secularist demagogues still invoke the specter of religious warfare to prove the evils of religion. If this anticlerical posture were motivated by courage rather than cowardice, perhaps they would just as forcefully reject the religions of money and the state, which have caused and continue to cause far more bloodshed than any religion of the supernatural.

The President of Iran Is Not Insane…

…just religious, which in the West amounts to the same thing. Taking a broader view of history, encompassing all the cultures that ever existed, the president of Iran is actually more “in the mainstream” than our secular liberal democratic culture, which is something of an oddity. To appreciate how extreme our secularism is, consider that George W. Bush is considered an extremely religious president, yet political circumstances prevent him from mentioning the name of Jesus Christ in his public pronouncements, whereas the “extremist” Muslim president of Iran can freely speak praise of Jesus, as he does in his recent letter to President Bush.

Ahmadinejad’s letter is fascinating to me for several reasons. First, the leader of an Islamic state is much more comfortable explicitly appealing to the teachings of Jesus and Moses than that of a majority Christian country. It is almost quaint how Muslims still speak to the West as though we were Christian, even as we take ever greater measures to banish Christianity from the public sphere. (The radical separation of church and state is the subject of another essay to be posted soon.) Ahmadinejad appeals not only to Christian mercy and concern for the poor, but also to the eventual reign of Christ on earth in the end times! The supposed radical antipathy between Christianity and Islam is defused not only by this shared belief in Christian millennialism, but by numerous quotes from the Koran expressing solidarity among monotheists.

Ahmadinejad points out the incompatibility of Christianity or human rights with the idea that it is acceptable to kill hundreds of innocent villagers because there are a few criminals among them (in apparent reference to Afghanistan), or to devastate a country (Iraq) on account of the mere possibility of WMDs. Few had greater reason to fear or hate Saddam Hussein than the Iranians, against whom Saddam waged a brutal and devastating war with the full support of the U.S. If anyone was threatened by Saddam’s WMDs, it would be Iran, against whom Saddam used chemical weapons in the late 80s, without facing any repercussions from the U.S. Yet Ahmadinejad does not let us forget that the pretext for war was finding WMD, not toppling Saddam.

Ahmadinejad also mentions the Iranian passenger airliner accidentally shot down by the U.S. in the eighties. The fact that this has become a historical footnote in the West is consistent with a latent belief in the inferior value of the life of foreigners, as expressed in the term “collateral damage,” which is never applied to American life.

Ahmadinejad can point to concrete examples of human rights abuses committed by the U.S. in recent years. It is unfortunate that this “rogue leader” can make such accusations and actually have the facts on his side, and we have only ourselves to blame.

Interestingly, the president backtracks on his statements of Holocaust denial, and assumes hypothetically that the Holocaust did happen. Nonetheless, this does not justify the forcible displacement of indigenous Arabs and numerous war crimes committed by Israel. His appeal to a referendum including all Palestinian Arabs and Jews is based on his confidence that Arabs would constitute a majority, and exposes the fundamentally non-democratic Israeli objective of requiring a permanent Jewish majority.

His treatment of the nuclear weapons issue is insubstantial, making standard arguments for the right to pursue peaceful technology, so Secretary Rice is somewhat justified in dismissing it as a basis for nuclear diplomacy, though there are many other points of rapprochement here that would be foolish to ignore.

Ahmadinejad refers to the past history of U.S.-supported military dictatorships in Latin America, and the West’s exploitation of the natural resources of Africa. A foreign policy motivated by economic self-interest often brings the U.S. in conflict with Christian principles and human rights.

Another thing fascinating to me is how even this “extremist” Muslim appeals to democracy and human rights as ideals. The superiority of democracy is not something that admits of rational demonstration, so it is remarkable that this idea should have such complete universal appeal, especially considering its past unpopularity. Admittedly, most of the world’s governments are in fact more or less oligarchic, but the fact that democracy is a universal ideal is still remarkable and merits explanation.

The last interesting point, misunderstood by some Western journalists, is the notion that “liberal democratic systems” have “failed”. Some have misquoted this as opposing democracy, but Ahmadinejad espouses democratic ideals throughout the letter. What he opposes is liberal democracy, which prohibits religion and other traditional cultural values from directly informing the political sphere. This reduces public policy to economics and social engineering, resulting in the amoral policies exhibited by the West in recent decades, as well as the breakdown of the family and civil society. This argument is debatable, of course, but the fact the Iranian president makes it shows a point of congruence with conservative cultural critics in the West. Intriguingly, he notes that “people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point — that is, the Almighty God.” The global resurgence of traditional monotheistic religion is cited as evidence of the failure of liberal democracy.

All in all, while the president does not make the case for his nuclear program, his appeal to the prophetic tradition reminds us of how we have willfully set aside our own religious and cultural traditions. The liberal democratic experiment of the last 200 years may have gone too far, corroding the traditional cultural institutions which made possible its success. While we may not turn to a Christian analogue of an Islamic Republic, we may wish to re-examine the separation of politics from religion, culture, and morality.