Vox Clara meets in Rome

The Association of Catholic Priests in Ireland has posted the press release of the most recent meeting of Vox Clara, the commission that advises the Congregation for Divine Worship (the Vatican’s liturgy office) in its approval of English-language liturgical texts. Some interesting excerpts:

The members expressed their appreciation for the close collaboration of the Executive Secretaries of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy and the Vox Clara Committee which has greatly facilitated their common work. …

On the second morning of the meeting the Committee welcomed Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation and Archbishop Arthur Roche, Secretary of the same Congregation. On behalf of the members, Cardinal Pell welcomed Cardinal Sarah to his first meeting with the Vox Clara Committee. The Prefect in turn expressed his happiness in meeting with the Committee particularly in light of his recent meeting with Pope Francis. Cardinal Sarah reported that the Holy Father was quick to state that “Vox Clara must remain because its work is very precious for the English-speaking Conferences in the world. So tell them they must continue the work.”

The Prefect continued that he was “very glad to convey the encouragement of the Holy Father” and that he looked forward to working with the Vox Clara Committee in the years to come. …

Here’s an interesting factum: in the recently released 2015 Annuario Pontificio, the Vatican directory, Vox Clara is no longer listed as in previous years. And the Congregation for Divine Worship is the only congregation whose membership has not been confirmed by Francis. Why is this?

This raises questions about the recent press release. Is Pope Francis fully aware of what is going on with English-language worship? Or are words being put in his mouth? I have no way of knowing from where I sit.

awr

47 comments

  1. How well does Pope Francis know English? It may well be possible that he isn’t too invested or interested in the controversies that have surrounded the use of the English language in the Roman liturgy.

  2. View from the Pew
    Regarding: “Cardinal Sarah reported that the Holy Father was quick to state that “Vox Clara must remain because its work is very precious for the English-speaking Conferences in the world. So tell them they must continue the work.”
    – An interpretation of this would be that Archbishop Francis wants Vox Clara to fix any problems it created.
    – As an example: the bodies responsible for the review of consecrated women in the US would bring their tasks to an end — not unhappily.

  3. “Is Pope Francis fully aware of what is going on with English-language worship? Or are words being put in his mouth?”

    Vox Clara or whoever is calling the shots, seem good at putting words into people’s mouths. Quite abusive when you think about it.

  4. This is in line with what Cardinal Sarah has said in other places. Recently he sent a message to a reform of the reform conference in which he said the following:

    “When the Holy Father, Pope Francis, asked me to accept the ministry of Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, I asked: “Your Holiness, how do you want me to exercise this ministry? What do you want me to do as Prefect of this Congregation?” The Holy Father’s reply was clear. “I want you to continue to implement the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council,” he said, “and I want you to continue the good work in the liturgy begun by Pope Benedict XVI.”

    Avanti, indeed!

  5. I think the Pope’s visit to the US in September will provide him with an experience of the new text that might be informative. If many native English speakers have trouble with the revised translation, imagine how it will be for someone who is not fluent in English.

    1. @Bruce Janiga:

      How is it that there can be “native speakers” who (after 3.5 years and what should be at least 180 or so opportunities to recite the new translations) still have “trouble” with the new translations? Not to mention that they are in the Missalettes and can be read.

      This continued meme needs to be discontinued.

      1. @Chip Stalter:
        Chip,
        Reading along to make up for difficulty in a proclaimed text is not a good liturgical practice – nor is it very traditional!
        I don’t think we’re ready yet to discontinue the meme – we should try to find out whether it’s true or not. Some readers of this blog have no trouble with the text – and that too is data. But they can’t speak for non-native speakers. Nor can I. It’s still an open question, I would say.
        awr

      2. @Anthony Ruff, OSB:
        With respect Fr. Ruff, rarely are seen specific examples of what the laity has “trouble” with in the translation. About the only thing I’ve seen is mentioned is the word consubstantial, which has been used by english speaking countries outside the US since vernacular came into play, and “peace to people of goodwill”, which was used to avoid the use of the word “men”. We only hear of the vague and non-descript “trouble with the new translation” which to me sounds more like “we don’t like change”. Enough already.

        And yes, it’s not good liturgical practice to read what should be proclaimed, but we probably shouldn’t expand the discussion to good and bad liturgical practices- if only to reduce the length of the scrolling to read the comments 🙂

    2. @Bruce Janiga:

      Since the Holy Father is accustomed to using the Latin Ordinary of the Mass and the Italian translation (along with his native Spanish), I suspect that he will have no greater problems with our translation than he might with any other English text.

  6. If my seven year old can easily read the missal, both ordinary and propers, I wonder what went wrong with the education of those Priests who simply find themselves incapable of doing the same?

    1. @Todd Orbitz:
      People’s reading abilities, comfort in public speaking, ability to proclaim well before others varies widely, which has to do with many things and not just their education. It’s great that your seven-year-old can easily read the missal, especially since it’s at a higher reading level than first or second grade. But the experience of one gifted young person doesn’t cancel out other peoples’ realities.
      awr

  7. It would be interesting to hear the response of Fr Gerry O’Collins SJ to this report. After his recent letter in the Tablet (March 2015), outlining the urgent need for a revision of the text, it would appear that we just plough on regardless. Not one Bishop of the English hierarchy responded to his reasoned argument.
    Now this, and notification that the next meeting takes place in January 2016. No pressure then.

  8. @Anthony Ruff, OSB

    Respectfully, this deals directly with the education of a Priest. College, and then an additional five or seven years in the seminary, and they cannot read the Missal? Respectfully, this isn’t public speaking. This is reading something orally.

    Now, if you want to talk about public speaking, I would be fine with suggesting that about 75% of Priests probably need some real education in it, particularly with respect to their homilies. Rhetoric and oratics seem to no longer be taught to them.

    In any case, if the seminary is unsuccessful in being able to teach the seminarian how to say the words in the missal, I would suggest the seminarian is not suitable for ordination. Further to that, the seminary’s director is the one attesting at the ordination that the man is well formed and suitable to offer the Sacrifice – which includes an ability to read and pronounce the words.

    I honestly believe this IS a problem with the Priests’ education if they incapable of reading what my seven year old can — an my seven year old is no genius…. but he does understand what a dictionary is if he’s having a hard time with a word.

  9. What Todd does not seem to be grasping is that the problem is not with reading and comprehending the words of the texts, its about praying and proclaiming them. Interestingly, this doesnt seem to be a problem for priests and others who are sympathetic–even advocates–with the reform of the reform. These same individuals are also not sympatico with the ecclesiology or liturgiology of Vatican II. They wish to restore the special privileges of the clergy that distinguish them from the merely baptized. So if the prayers are structured in Latin syntax and more literal translations of the Latin texts it must be because priests are a cut above because of their traing. Sorry, but that’s the way I hear it and perceive it.

    1. @Fr. Jack Feehily:
      Thank you for this, Fr. Jack. I think you have identified a key point. But it is related to the deeper question of how we address God from the heart. As the Catechism says, it is the heart that prays. I liken the awkwardness of the new translation to foot-binding in ancient China. Some find it more beautiful because it interferes with nature to create something associated with the Imperial House. But very few people can run with bound feet — as we ought to run to God!

      1. @Rita Ferrone:
        Rita, can you please cite specific examples of the “awkwardnes”? I really want to understand which parts of the these ancient prayers you equate with the barbarism of footbinding. Such hyperbole…

      2. @Chip Stalter:
        Chip, yes, you are right, it’s hyperbolic, but there’s a point of analogy. I do feel we are “hobbled” by the translation, which some find so “beautiful.” Foot-binding, by the way, however objectionable on health grounds, is not aptly described as a barbarism. It was produced by a very high culture, and pursued only by the highest classes in an ancient, civilized society, which regarded the disfigurement of nature an affordable price in pursuit of a standard of beauty set by the Empress’s own naturally small feet. We don’t “naturally” pray in the sort of un-oral sentences and expressions that the Missal translation uses. They are didactic, plodding, with no discernible rhythm or poetry. I’d rather not try to proof text this with you. I would however like to say that the vast majority of priests surveyed, even those who approved of the Missal, found parts of it awkward and distracting, so I think I am not alone!

      3. @Chip Stalter:
        I live in a monastery with a wide range of people, from craftsmen and tradesmen (some call them the ‘truck monks’) to university profs. We’re weighted toward the latter, and probably have more doctorates proportionately than most communities. I’m not saying we’re any better, that’s just what we are.

        I regularly have monks say to me – highly literate and educated and cultured people with appreciation for classical music and poetry – that they object to the translation, that a particular prayer was really bad, that this or that is a clunker. They’re not opposed to change, but to change for the worse.

        Just this morning the celebrant – one of our very best – tripped on the collect because it ends with the short line “…and grant all that works for our good.” “Grant” is now used so frequently in a different way than this, and one doesn’t know at first whether “all” is an indirect object (grant [to] all) or a direct object (grant all [things]). It means the latter but it’s poorly written so that it requires undue remedial care in proclamation. It’s clumsy.

        Even blogger Fr. Dwight Longenecker, a vigorously orthodox priest, said in a moment of rare candor that this text sounds like an eighth grader trying to sound like Shakespeare. He later walked it back and supported the missal – but it’s interesting that he once blurted out this candid remark.

        The online Tablet poll some years ago was not a representative sample. But it did allows interesting correlation between responses. The results showed that the people most likely to like the new translation are those who like Latin Mass!

        I’m convinced that very few are defending this text on its own merits. Rather, it is a proxy for another battle about discontent with the reformed liturgy and all that has gone wrong in the Catholic Church.

        I sure wish we could debate the text on its own merits, and not as a cipher for the tired old liturgy battles and Vatican II battles.

        Pax,
        Fr. Anthony

  10. @Fr. Jack Feehily

    Without going beyond the issue at hand and addressing ridiculous clericalism, I do not understand why one cannot participate in “praying and proclaiming” these texts. Are they too hard? Do they insult you? Do you take the time to review them? Do you disagree with the language in them? What is it?

    Quite frankly, in all the parishes I have been to, the people have moved on. They are now beginning to put down the cards. They have internalized the new prayers (to the same extent that the average parishioner ever bothered to internalize the old ones). They just want to be able to go to Mass.

    Honestly, when it comes to clericalism, what I find exceedingly clericalist are the Priests who absolutely refuse to feed me with what the Church has transmitted. It really is just about them, their Sacrifice, not theirs and ours.

    What I see is selfishness.

  11. I was taught to pray in the manner of the Collects. That’s how I pray extempore. It’s very natural for me.

    1. @Gerry Davila:
      Sorry, but I don’t believe that you were “taught to pray in the manner of the Collects” and that is how you “pray extempore and it’s “very natural” for you.

      The new missal is in a style that really didn’t exist before 2011 – formal, clumsy, syntactically odd prayers with arbitrary shifting from one thing to another. Unless you were first taught to pray in 2011, I don’t see how your claim could be true.

      I could easily see that you were taught to pray in the language of, say, this or that preconciliar missal, or the Douai-Rheims bible in the 18th century Challoner revision, or Rite I from the 1979 BCP. Those are all classical texts in a consistent and well-done style. But that’s not what our new missal translation is.

      Pax,
      Fr. Anthony

  12. Chip and Todd, I am a native English speaker with 22 years of education in Catholic schools. I was reading aloud well before I got to kindergarten because I had a mother who read to me from the time I would sit still and listen. As a result, I can read words off a page as well as the next guy or gal.

    Praying the prayers of the mass, however, isn’t just about reading words printed on a page. As pastor, my great concern is about communicating to the people in the pews the truth that is contained in the prayers. What we have currently in the missal makes that communication difficult in a number of places and for a variety of reasons.

    The example I often cite is the collect for 15 Sun Ord Time. “O God, who show the light of your truth to those who go astray, so that they may return to the right path, give all who for the faith they profess are accounted Christians the grace to reject what is contrary to the name of Christ and to strive for all that does it honor. …” I find “…give all who for the faith they profess are accounted Christians…” both clumsy and awkward.

    Why not, “… give all who profess the Christian faith the grace to reject…” or “…give all who are Christian the grace to reject…”? The current translation is wordy and unnecessarily complex for a prayer that is meant to be heard and understood.

    Further, awkwardness is not merely a function of lung, lips, and tongue. It is awkward to read English sentences that rely heavily on Latin syntax because, it should go without saying, this is not the syntax that English speakers use or hear.

  13. The obtuseniks who see nothing wrong whatever with the new translations are the ones who lend comfort and support to Vox Clara. I do not think Francis is sufficiently versed in English to detect what is wrong with the new translations, so he probably trusts Pell and pals.

  14. Father Kavanaugh:

    This collect, of course, wass the third Sunday after Easter’s collect prior to the council. The consilium, found fit to edit it and move it to the 15th Sunday per annum.

    Quite frankly, it is one of my favorite collects. And, I often use it as an example of a fantastic translation. It is one that makes me very happy. I found the older translation clunky and dumbed down. Additionally, I found it insulting that clergy would assume that the prior translation is all the average layman could understand. I find it amazing that people continually support dumbing down our prayers.

    It really seems to me to be a clericalism of superiority when we are told we are too stupid to understand, internalize, or pray the prayers of the Church In the way they have been transmitted to us.

  15. Let me do a Beckmesser on this:

    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. Be pleased[*] to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her[*] throughout the whole world[*], together with your servant N. our Pope and N. our Bishop, and all those who, holding to the truth[*], hand on[*] the catholic and apostolic faith.

    Remember, Lord, your servants N. and N. and all gathered here, whose faith and devotion are known to you. For them, we offer you this sacrifice of praise or they offer it for themselves[*] and all who are dear to them[*], for the redemption of their souls[*], in hope of health[*] and well-being[*], and paying their homage[*] to you, the eternal[*] God, living and true.

    * In communion with those whose memory we venerate[*], especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph, her Spouse, your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, (James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude: Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian) and all your Saints: we ask that through their merits and prayers, in all things we may be defended by your protecting[*] help. (Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)

    ** Therefore, Lord, we pray: graciously accept this oblation[*] of our service[*], that[*] of your whole family; order our days in your peace, and command that we be delivered from eternal damnation and counted among the flock of those[*] you have chosen. (Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)

  16. Is “your protecting help” and improvement on “the help of your protection” — both are queasily lacking in any sense of English style — and they are typical of the linguistic morass the Vatican committee have been swimming in.

  17. Todd Orbitz, the previous translations of the preces (collect, prayer over the gifits, postcommunion) have NO relevance to this debate. They were never intended to be more than temporary stopgaps. They were superbly replaced in the 1998 text approved by all bishops and blocked, destructively and stupidly, by the Vatican. Your idea that the clergy are in favor of dumbing down is contradicted by the high theological quality of the 1998 translations. So please compare the collect you admire with the 1998 version of same.

  18. O Todd, who press the point of your view on those who judge otherwise, so that they may concur with your preferred rendering, give all who for the faith they profess are accounted Christians the space to reject language that is unhelpful to their clear understanding and to strive for all to be able somehow to worship in harmony.

  19. @Joe O’Leary

    Joe, considering I worked at the NCCB in 1998, and sat in on all the closed Administrative meetings, I am well aware of the debate surrounding the 1998 liturgical translations.

    Happily looking at the 1998 translation, I find it lacking in the proper structure and grammatical intentions of the Consilium — that preserved latin syntax found in the Gelasian Sacramentary, where both the Collect for the Sunday Pasch III in the 1570-1962 Rite and the 15th Sunday Per Annum Time emanate from.

    In particular, in considering the historicity of this Collect, and the fact that the Consilum chose to maintain the integrity of the latin dating from around 760 AD, this would suggest to me that in translating this collect, the intentions of the Consilum were to maintain the integrity and synatx of that particular prayer, albeit with some slight emendations.

  20. O Cathy, whom I have evidently “press”ed my point of view upon, I come to the foot of your throne and greatly give thanks for your wonderful wisdom having been shown to us through a glorious intervention of your right-minded thought process.

  21. I think it’s reasonable to assume that the Holy Father either isn’t very aware of the controversy in the English world over Vox Clara, or it just isn’t as high on his list of priorities as some other items are.

    As he is travelling soon to the US, perhaps there will be an opportunity for him to hear first-hand about the issues.

  22. Todd – I never said or even suggested that you or anyone else is stupid. That you read bad intention into what I have said makes it very difficult to carry on a necessary and, whether you like it or not, ongoing conversation with you.

    I stated, fairly clearly I thought, that “… give all who profess the Christian faith the grace to reject…” or “…give all who are Christian the grace to reject…” more clearly states, in terms of how Americans use and hear English, the meaning of the prayer.

    Translations of prayers are not, I suggest, and act of “transmission” as we commonly understand that term in the Church. The faith is transmitted, the doctrine of the faith is transmitted, the revealed truth of God is transmitted. But translations are not.

  23. @Cathy Wattebot
    @Todd Orbitz
    I am highly bemused (if somewhat befuddled) by the method you use to convey your thoughts in your comments to each other. Not unlike the orations being discussed, the style of which you emulate, I have tried to diagram your sentences in an attempt to understand them.

    As I read what you wrote, Cathy, you in part ask: “give all /…/ the space to reject language that is unhelpful /…/.” I do not take this to be in praise of Todd’s position, which I have understood as supportive of the current texts.

    Yet, Todd, you seem to understand Cathy as supporting your position and you reply that you “/…/ greatly give thanks for your wonderful wisdom having been shown to us through a glorious intervention of your right-minded thought process.”

    If I have intuited correctly your respective positions, and the resulting misunderstanding, does this not exemplify the problem that so many of us confront with these texts? On the other hand, if the misunderstanding is truly on my part, it still exemplifies that these bizarre and convoluted constructions, which are so alien to the English language, are not only unpleasant to hear and confusing to the mind but they fundamentally fail to clearly convey the message that the words are attempting to communicate.

    Finally, as I hope can be appreciated from this response, I am able to acquit myself intelligently in written composition. I would not appreciate being told I am either illiterate or under-educated simply because I find the texts difficult to grasp. I have, in fact, multiple graduate degrees. They too often are confusing and I find the need to repeatedly return to the written text and the need to work out the underlying meaning frustrating in the extreme.

  24. Father Kavanaugh:

    I think you are referring to this comment” “It really seems to me to be a clericalism of superiority when we are told we are too stupid to understand, internalize, or pray the prayers of the Church In the way they have been transmitted to us.

    I should clarify that I meant this with respect to many who take the position that the new translations are terrible. I did not mean to impute this to you specifically. You have my apology.

    I stand by my words though.

  25. Only when people come to understand that the primary problem is the lack of intelligiblity for those who are listening, without the benefit of a read-along text, will we make any progress in this debate.

    This translation has been prepared in order to convey accurate (ha!) belief and doctrine, as well as a certain 7th-century (or so) mindset. It has not been prepared in order to lead 21st-century people into prayer. Even the simple invitation “Let us pray” now comes across as still more verbiage when taken in conjunction with what follows. So sad.

  26. The fixation on translations is already a gruesome sign of how very far we are from being able to perform liturgically in a meaningful, living, creative, inspired way. We are starving rats quarreling over stale crumbs.

    “Joe, considering I worked at the NCCB in 1998, and sat in on all the closed Administrative meetings, I am well aware of the debate surrounding the 1998 liturgical translations.”

    Really? But how then can you ask such naive questions as this: “If my seven year old can easily read the missal, both ordinary and propers, I wonder what went wrong with the education of those Priests who simply find themselves incapable of doing the same?”

    Is this faux-naïveté or sarcasm? Likewise your remark about seminary education and your observation that the people have moved on, they just want to go to Mass.

    I recall when I challenged Archbishop Nichols about the new translations he replied that they sounded grand if properly recited (which is contradicted by the critiques of these translations by excellent celebrants as well as by linguistic and stylistic experts of all stripes — see Fr Ryan’s website). Fergus Kerr butted in, “Yes, Joe, if one reads it well won’t it sound fine?” or words to that effect — doubtless in a spirit of mischief. I said that beautiful elocution cannot improve bad grammar, diction, and style. Actually, it may highlight these defects.

    “I find it lacking in the proper structure and grammatical intentions of the Consilium — that preserved latin syntax found in the Gelasian Sacramentary” — Good God, is that what the faithful are to be fed with? I think it is shocking that such an anti-literary, anti-liturgical mentality is encouraged by the NCCB.

  27. Intelligibility for those who are listening? The idea that the average person in the pew has a problem with understanding where the intelligibility of the prayers, in my mind, is completely condescending.

    This approach is typical of the destructive clericalism that still exists in the church – and arrogance that consults the intelligence of the People of God . Additionally, and what is amazing, are the number of laypeople who have become involved in the Church who now participate in something very similar to thIS same destructive clericalism.

  28. Todd, you’re on a hiding to nothing.

    Your 7-year old sounds like a super-intelligent child prodigy. Doubtless he inherits his intelligence from his dad.

    But the fact is that most people in parishes are not like that. You and the Kid may have absolutely no difficulty in understanding every single word of the revised translation (although, if you had been following our detailed dissection of it here on Pray Tell a few years back I think you’d find that even you would have difficulties in some places), but the fact is that a good 95% of the population, if not 99%, are having problems with it. That includes intelligent, well-educated priests and bishops as well as intelligent, well-educated lay people.

    Those same intelligent, well-educated people, some of whom post here, find the translation clunky, stylistically hideous, unprayerful, obscure and indeed unworthy of the liturgy it is designed to serve. It has been produced in accordance with an ideology which is far from pastoral.

    Not to acknowledge that the people who find it seriously wanting are probably as well educated and intelligent as you and the Kid is simple snobbishness. Please come down off your high horse and rejoin the rest of us.

    1. @Paul Inwood:
      My son is not a prodigy. He’s an average kid. I have 7 of them, and one is probably close to a prodigy, but not my seven year old son.

      Since you are mentioning specific statistics (which I have not done), please provide me the sources for the 95% of the population are having problems with it. Also, please point me to the definition of the population. I would love to see the crosstabs on that one.

      Quite frankly, I think that statistic cannot be sourced.

      Furthermore, the snobbishness I see is in those who are so set in their views, they are unwilling to accept the decisions of the Church in this matter. They know best. They know what’s right for everyone, and what has been transmitted (and YES, translations are transmitted by the proper authority) can be ignored.

      It’s arrogance too.

  29. Mr. Orbitz: I find sarcasm a very poor ingredient to a civil discussion. I also find insult, such as you are wielding, to be a brutal bludgeon against dialogue.

    I have read this blog, and the comments it generates, for several years but this is actually only my third post. I post in support of the premise that there are indeed problems with the results of the most recent translation into English of the liturgy — because these problems are very deeply and profoundly experienced by real people, such as myself and many others, and denying that it is so does not make the problem less real. In fact, to dismissively do so is to add insult to injury.

    You accuse others of “destructive clericalism” and arrogance. It is the height of arrogance, sir, for you to tell me that the problems I (and quite obviously others, on this board and well beyond) are relating are either due to our stupidity, a lack of education, or, even more absurd, that the problems really do not exist at all because you and your child can read the missal (!) Such blithe dismissal on your part should well characterize the “destructive clericalism” you so heartily condemn in others.

    Relative to your post #41, there has indeed been an insult to intelligence…and it has been perpetrated by you against the intelligence of myself and several commenters to this discussion.

    I would say more…but, really, what is the use? It is purposeless in the face of such an attitude.

  30. @Rod Hall

    My sarcasm was in response to what I considered to be a ridiculous and insulting email from another member. Somehow I am responsible for responding to a provocation. OK, I’ll admit it. (But then again, if someone were to insult my mother I would punch them in the nose.) Simply responding to an insult in exactly the same way they did to me is simply defense of one’s person.

    With respect to my “accusations”, I accused no one specifically, though I did compare it to what I thought was a destructive clericalism and the clericalization of some of the laity.

    In no way did I suggest anyone here had a “lack of education”. I perused what may have gone wrong in the education of a Priest, specifically since they have someone attest to their education at ordination.

    In no way did I mean to insult your intelligence, and if you perceive that I did, I put forth a full apology.

    However, I stand by each and every word I have written. I think there are deeper reasons that people are so upset with the translation.

    I feel sorry that you think it’s purposeless to continue in dialogue. I find ongoing dialogue very invigorating. I wish you the best.

Comments are closed.