Like many Catholics who lead busy lives, I don’t have the time needed to acquire an in-depth grasp of all the issues surrounding the new missal translation. I do skim the commentary of select websites to get the gist of legitimate criticisms, but I need more than isolated examples to condemn an entire enterprise.

I was eager therefore to attend my archdiocese’s presentation on the new translation, the first of many scheduled, held last week at a parish in a suburb west of Boston. The presenters were Fr. Brian Mahoney, a parish pastor and instructor of liturgy at St. John’s Seminary, and Fr. Jonathan Gaspar, secretary to Cardinal O’Malley and director of the Office for Divine Worship. Both are young, bright, engaging, and not the least bit dismissive of criticism being levied against the new translation; they just happen to believe that when all is said and done, the good far outweighs the bad. They seem to be the right guys to front such a potentially divisive issue.

Perhaps because it was St. Patrick’s Day - and remember we’re talking Boston - only twenty people showed up, suggesting as well there just isn’t a lot of interest at this stage of the game. (I’m told an earlier independent presentation at the Paulist Center in downtown Boston by WLP’s Jerry Galipeau attracted a much larger turnout.)

During the first half, Fr. Mahoney addressed the history of our current translation and gave reasons why it is now inadequate. He stressed that at the time of the implementation of the vernacular liturgy most Catholics were unfamiliar with the scriptural references of the original Latin prayers so much was deleted in order to insure immediate understanding. After nearly a half-century of exposure to Scripture, however, that rationale no longer seems justified. As examples, Mahoney compared the currently used and forthcoming translations of two ancient (pre-Tridentine) Advent collects. The reception among attendees was mixed. While some felt the new translations were richer in meaning and more poetic, others questioned the wisdom of employing complex language in the modern era. (My wife, ever the English teacher, gave a spirited defense of the subordinate clause as a tool to aid comprehension, but I’m not sure she won over the skeptics.)

During the second half Fr. Gaspar dealt with the practicalities of implementation and I’ll only relay what he had to say about music. Most importantly, he recommended that parishes not invest in expensive musical resources for at least a year or two since it will take that long to determine the best of the new Mass settings. He added that since the new missal will have music in it those chants should be learned first! To demonstrate, he sang the third memorial acclamation and then had everyone repeat it. They nailed it on the first try.

Whether Gaspar’s advice about the missal chants will be heeded is another matter. Most parish personnel have unconsciously come to accept the major music publishers as official entities and thus will be swayed by marketing already underway. I am also concerned whether our diocesan priests, whose median age approaches that of retirement, will demonstrate the enthusiasm and change of habit the implementation requires. To win people over, these new translations need to be prayed with conviction.

Despite these reservations, I left the meeting feeling optimistic, if for no other reason than that people will be required to examine anew the meaning of what they say and do at Mass. But like many, I am still apprehensive about the implementation and reception of the new missal. As events unfold during these next six months, it would be instructive if CMAA members report what is happening in their locales – not so much what one thinks “should” happen (why preach to the choir?), but what actually is taking place.