Well, in the middle of orientation for my assignment with Booz Allen Hamilton, managed to squeeze in some time watching the USCCB discussion concerning the new Roman Missal english translation debate.

A few thoughts. You have to admire Bp. Trautman (Erie, PA). He kept his powder dry and his plan of attack hidden, saving his very last musket ball for the end.

He raised a motion that the bishops should see the Gray Book of the Antiphons, discuss it and vote on it.

Pretty parliamentary, really.

Background: Cardinal George, as President, had asked in the name of the Conference that the Holy See handle translation of the the antiphons. The Holy See agreed. Eventually, the Holy See sent a Gray book, but it was not distributed to the members.

Bp. Trautman, who said at one point he wasn’t aware of the Holy See’s Gray book, reacted to this departure from procedure saying that the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy requires that competent territorial authority has to approve translations. He calls this a doctrinal issue. I will return to that important point at the end.

Therefore Bp. Trautman put a motion on the floor for the bishops to insist that the ALL USCCB Latin bishops, as a conference, have the chance to work on and approve the Gray Book for Antiphons as produced by the Holy See (huh? Since when does the territorial conference have authority over the See of Peter...never mind..).

This was probably his Waterloo.

The bishops as a body rejected his motion.

Vote on Bishop Trautman’s motion: No=166; Yes=46 DEFEATED.

It remains to be seen how the bishops will eventually deal with this departure from regular procedure in the future.

Unlooked for players on the correct side of this battle were, wait for it...Archbp. Pilarcyk and Cardinal Mahony. They both suggested that, after Bp. Trautman’s motion was addressed, the body of bishops could simply ratify what Card. George had done acting as president of the USCCB in his dealings with the Holy See over the Gray Book for antiphons.

As it was, Bp. Trautman’s last-ditch move to delay the process was rejected by the other bishops. Then Archbp. Pilarczyk made the motion that the bishops let Rome handle the antiphons and the bishops approved the same overwhelmingly.

Vote to remand the antiphons to the CDW: No=20; Yes=194 PASSED

That seems to have been the last hurrah.

At the very moment when Card. George was to announce the results of the vote on Bp. Trautman’s motion, the TelecareTV coverage died...video froze and then went black as the audio died. So, I picked up a tweet from the Twitter feed of @usccbmedia. Thanks to them I learned what happened.

We didn’t learn it from TelecareTV, the second-rate video provider tasked with the coverage. I got it from Twitter.

It was a dramatic moment for more than one reason!

It is not quite time for a Te Deum, but this was a great step forward.

All during the presentation of the various elements for voting, Bp. Seratelli, head of the liturgy committee, reminded the bishops that this meeting, this November meeting, was – ACCORDING TO THE HOLY SEE – the last chance to vote on the English translation of the Missal. After this, the Holy See would take charge and handle the issues that remained open. It seems that the bishops took this to heart...a heart that was no doubt weary and flagging after all these years of delay, discussion, and politicking.

Going back to Bp. Trautman’s motion.

As this was going on I was reminded of what I read in the book that came out under the name of the former papal master ceremonies, Archbp. Piero Marini. He described in detail the workings of the committee (Consilium) that created the current normative Mass under the late Abp. Annibale Bugnini. Marini explained that the Consilium realized they were changing doctrine with the liturgical changes. An objective of Bugnini was to strip the Congregation for Rites of its power and redistribute it to territorial conferences. One of the knives he used was the question of who gets to approve liturgical translations, Rome or the local conferences?

This same dynamic and question returned at this meeting of the bishops, with Bp. Trautman playing the advocate of the old Bugnini/Marini objective.

But it is a sign of the times that the American bishops rejected that position and were content that the Holy See not only approve the translation of liturgical texts but, in the case of the antiphons, actually do the work.

You can see why Bp. Trautman was so intent on this and why he saw it as his last great chance.

But he is a sly one. Perhaps he will find a loaded pistol on the ground even as he abandons his discharged musket.

But, for what it's worth, as one who has vocally, both online since the 1980 and in person since the New Mass was imposed in English at the Easter Vigil in 1973 in the Diocese of Trenton, prayed that a decent translation would come out of the translation cabal (and, even then, with only 3 years of Latin in High School, thought there was something wrong with the 'dynamic equivalence' translation result), I can only be cheered by this turn of events and sudden influx of Clue on the part of our shepherds.

Deo gratias.

It's been almost 7 months that my first episode with a collapsed lung, and giving up smoking.

Smoke free for 7 months? And only gained 7 lbs. Another issue, but resolved surgically in July.

I feel pretty good. And I thank God for his limitless mercy and chance to suffer ills for his sake.

Life is pretty good right now. And He's granted me new insights into the role of suffering in His plan.

For all your prayers and concerns since then...please accept my deepest thanks.

for the triumph of Evil, is for good men to do nothing.

It's about our identity. Pope Benedict has written and spoken on this many times.

But, what happens when we become like besotted sheep...worried about our own comfort and listening to the blandishments of smooth-talking power-hungry autocrats? The following, reporting on the shameful European Union court decision:

By Nick Squires – Tue Nov 3, 4:00 am ET

Rome – Italians reacted with outrage on Tuesday after a European court ruled that displaying crucifixes in the country’s schools violated the principle of secular education.

Italy’s education minister condemned the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights, saying that the Christian cross was a symbol of the country’s Roman Catholic religion and cultural identity. [See what happens when you use courts, no matter how well-intentioned, to take matters out of the hands of the people and put them into the hands of unelected and unaccountable 'experts']

Mariastella Gelmini, a member of the conservative government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, argued that "no one, and certainly not an ideological European court, will succeed in erasing our identity," said

Other ministers said they were appalled by the ruling, calling it "absurd," "shameful" and "offensive."

Generations of Italian children have grown up studying in classrooms in which a wooden or metal crucifix looms above the blackboard. But Italy has been transformed in the past two decades from a country that exported migrants to one that has accepted around 4.5 million economic refugees and asylum seekers from Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia. [And here in the US...?????]

The influx of foreigners has led to deep-seated tensions, particularly with Roma gypsies from former Eastern bloc countries and Muslim immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East. [But, aren't they followers of a 'religion of peace'? I think not. Actions speak louder than words. And it's time to STOP listening to the words and taking into account their actions.]

Schools in Spain, France, and Britain have also debated whether crucifixes should be allowed in public schools. The landmark ruling could prompt a Europewide review of the use of religious symbols in state-run schools.

Europe losing its identity?

The decision was handed down by a panel of seven judges at the court in Strasbourg. They said that the display of crucifixes, which is common but not mandatory in Italian schools, violated the principle of secular education and might be intimidating for children from other faiths. [Tough. Take your veil off, then. That's offensive to me. What are you hiding?]

"The presence of the crucifix could be … disturbing for pupils who practiced other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities," the court said. "The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities… restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions," it added.

Crucifixes were an undeniable symbol of Catholicism, the court ruled, and as such were at odds with the principle of "educational pluralism." [The real nub of the problem. It's not that there's a crucifix that's visible, but the reminder of the existence of Catholicism that bothers those people.]

‘Moral damages’

The court upheld a complaint filed by Soile Lautsi, a Finnish woman who lives in Italy and has Italian citizenship, [She could go back to Finland?] who complained that her children had to attend a state school in a town near Venice which had crucifixes in every classroom.

The court awarded her €5,000 ($7,400 dollars) in "moral damages," which will have to be paid by the Italian government unless it is successful in an appeal. The judges stopped short of ordering authorities to remove crucifixes from all state-run schools, and the long-term implications of the ruling were unclear.

The judgment sparked anger in predominantly Catholic Italy, with ministers and the Catholic Church saying the crucifix was an integral part of Italy’s national identity.

Foreign minister Franco Frattini, speaking during a visit to Morocco, said it was an attack on Italy’s Christian identity and that the government would appeal the decision.

"At a time when we’re trying to bring religions closer together, this is a blow to Christianity," he said.

The agriculture minister Luca Zaia, a member of the anti-immigrant Northern League, a key ally in Mr Berlusconi’s bloc, called the judgment "shameful." Mario Baccini, a senator in Mr. Berlusconi’s People of Freedom party, said the court had "gone adrift in paganism."

The newly-elected head of the main opposition Democratic Party, Pierluigi Bersani, commented that the ruling lacked common sense. "I think a longstanding tradition like the crucifix can’t be offensive to anyone," he said.

Italian bishops protest

The powerful Italian Bishops Conference said in a statement that the ruling was based on a "biased and ideological view." The Vatican said it wanted to study the exact wording of the ruling before issuing a response.

Mrs. Lautsi first brought the case eight years ago when her two children went to a state school in the spa town of Abano Terme near Venice. She asked for them to be taken down but education authorities refused. She then spent several years fighting the decision through the Italian courts.

A court in the Veneto region where she lives rejected her arguments, prompting her to take the case to Strasbourg.

Happy Election Day
Remember, the other side is watching.

From the Creative Minority Report:

--
I've seen many polls that conclude that America is a "pro-life" nation. And that the number of self-identified pro-lifers is growing. I've even felt myself growing hopeful about the immediate future because of those poll numbers.

But after reading a story today I'm not sure I believe it.

UPI reports:

The number of babies with Down syndrome carried to term in the United States has declined to single digit percentages, officials say.

Approximately 92 percent of American women with prenatal diagnoses of Down syndrome babies chose abortion, Children's Hospital Boston pediatric geneticist Dr. Brian Skotko said.

Skotko is concerned whether myths or facts drive the decisions, ABC News reports. "I am concerned about mothers making that informed decision. Are they making it on facts and up-to-date information? Research suggests not, and that mothers get inaccurate, incomplete and sometimes offensive information," Skotko said.

Firstly, 92% is a heartbreaking number. Staggering.

Now, you can't argue reasonably that mothers with babies diagnosed in-utero with Down Syndrome is a completely random sample because mothers of Down Syndrome children tend to be over 30 and usually closer to 40 or older. But even allowing that it's just a slice of the population, it's still awful. In fact, awful doesn't begin to describe it.

But there's no reason to think that younger mothers would do better in that younger women tend to get more abortions than older women. So how do we reconcile polling which indicates that 50% of the country self identifies as pro-life while only 8% of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome are allowed to be born?

Now, you could have a number of people who know that aborting their child is wrong but the threat of a Down child is too much to bear and they have an abortion even though they know it's wrong and still believe it should be illegal. But that's almost worse than just thinking abortion is a morally neutral act. No matter what, it's certainly not indicative of a pro-life nation.

I think sometimes when it comes to abortion I become very focused on changing the laws. But I think we have a lot of hearts to change in this country or changing the laws won't really matter all that much.