In my column in The Sunday Times (21/02/10) I wrote about the fears that are increasing in several parts of the Catholic Church that the process of reform embarked on by the Catholic Church since Vatican II will be put on the reverse mode.

One area where the battle lines have been drawn is the updating of the English translation of the Roman Missal. I will not repeat what I wrote last Sunday since it is easily available on-line.

However, I would like to comment about some statements attributed to Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Canberra who is chairing the commission responsible for a new translation.

According to reports released by Catholic World News the archbishop from down under said that the existing English translation of the Roman Missal has "serious problems theologically."

He also said that the new translation, which will be introduced next year, is more faithful both to the language of the Latin original and to the real guidance of Vatican II. He also says that the translation that has been in use for over 35 years introduced problems that reflect an improper understanding of the Vatican II directives.

Nothing was said of the fact that the present translation was made by experts, approved by bishops’ conferences and in turn approved by Vatican congregations. This was not only done when Vatican II was still fresh in everyone’s mind but was done by those who participated actively in the Conciliar movement of reform.

Now we are being told that those who produced the translations and approved them did not know their Latin well and were not theologically well equipped. The cherry on the cake is that we are told that they even misunderstood Vatican II! Some people have a more than normal amount of cheek, it seems.

The whole debate evidences more the adoption of a new a theological paradigm by these new translators than a question of the imperfect use of a Latin by the “ignoramuses” which did the translation that served the Church so well for the past thirty-five years.

Follow up to Bondi Plus

As expected, last Monday’s edition of Bondi Plus brought in a deluge of reactions. Different people express, quite naturally, different positions and appreciations of the situation and my comments during the programme. This is positive since people’s different reactions help one clarify one’s position.

I hope that the programme would prove to be one link in an ongoing discussion about the principles underlying the issues raised and also some of the allegations that were made. Whatever judgement one passes on Daphne’s style and motivations is of secondary importance compared to the main implications of her allegations and arguments.

Her allegations have to be taken in the context of sad and serious blemishes on our court system in the recent past. The jailing of two judges as well as the stories churned by the grapevine and repeated by very respectable persons together with the present allegations are putting further strain on people’s credibility in our courts and judiciary.

I still do not understand the silence of the mainstream media about all this. The mainstream media have a role to play: a role of investigation and commentary. This role is being abjectly abdicated.

I trust that the Commission for the Administration of Justice will take up the matter with the seriousness and gravity it deserves. The truth has to come out and the Commission has a most pivotal role to play to restore people’s credibility in our courts. This is also in the interest of those against whom allegations are being made.

On the other hand, I do understand the vile insinuations that some tried to throw in my regard in It-Torca and also in this blog. What better can one expect from those whose most treasured possessions is a pea sized brain?

For fairness sake, I would like to correct a statement I made during the programme. I said that I was informed that the European Court of Human Rights had, in one of its decisions, criticised Malta because a judge allegedly heard a case wherein the defence lawyer was his brother. I am informed that there was no such a decision by the Court but just a dissenting opinion which levelled this accusation.

A tragedy called death

"Death is always and under all circumstances a tragedy, for if it is not, then it means that life itself has become one."

This quote from Theodore Roosevelt brings to the fore the hard reality that not only the “tragic” deaths which hit the headlines, but also every death, is a tragedy.

The beginning of this week presented us with plenty of tragedies of the former type. The Monday papers gave us the news of the death of a twenty-year-old girl following a traffic accident. The murder in a Marsaxlokk stole the other headline.

The Monday newspapers were still on our dining tables when we heard of the tragic death of two men in the fireworks blast at Qormi. One was in his early 20s while the other one was aged around forty.

As a consequence we will now discuss the driving and young people as it seems that the young are particularly prone to such accidents. We will also heatedly discuss, once more, the pros and cons of firework factories. Then, after some time the debate will subside once more and life goes on as normal – for us the distant bystanders.

A murder is a tragedy of a different kind. Stories and rumours are spun around it. We were told that the dead person was shot and then stabbed. We are now being told that the accused was shot. We will leave the Courts to decide what was the sequence of events.

However for the relatives of these dead persons and for the relatives of all those who died this week, the death of their loved once is not just another news item. It is a personal tragedy. John Scalzi, in Old Man's War, (2005) rightly writes that “when you lose someone you love, you die too, and you wait around for your body to catch up.”

This is a statement truly well written!