I have appreciated your articles about English in the liturgy in recent months. While I was enrolled in a typical 12-year program studying for the priesthood in the '50s and '60s, I was required to study Latin for six years and Greek for three. After I left the seminary to pursue a calling to marriage and a career in education, I maintained interest in Latin and Greek because so many seminal documents of Christian theology and spirituality are written in these languages. In my professional library I keep seven lexicons of Greek and Latin, as well as Latin and Greek grammar textbooks.

Because I appreciate the Latin I was required to study in the seminary, I pray parts of the Divine Office daily in Latin. I purchased a four-volume Liturgia Horarum from Libreria Editrice Vaticana in 1994 since I had grave concerns over ICEL [mis]translations and because I wanted to offer prayers for priests who no longer prayed the Divine Office, for whatever reason, even though it was translated into English.

In the early '90s, I had begun to read criticisms about English translations. I got out my Latin and Greek versions of the sacred Scripture, and my lexicons and grammars, and saw that ICEL was mistranslating or paraphrasing where a more literal translation would have been completely acceptable to speakers of English “in the pews.” Hence, I am so pleased that the National Catholic Register is providing Catholics [in the clerical and lay ranks] with coverage about English versions of the Mass.

I should add, though, that the new lectionary also suffers from translation problems. For example, in the Gospels, in Greek and in Latin versions, there is no mention of Jesus being crucified with “revolutionaries,” as the newlectionary reads. The Greek and Latin words, as well as prior English versions such as the Revised Standard Version / Catholic Edition, indicate clearly that the other two crucified persons were “robbers.” Although calling one of the crucified “The Good Thief” is somewhat close, a “thief” is clearly different from a robber—but a “revolutionary” is not even close to the semantic features of the original Greek and Latin words.

If Scripture experts want to mention their views [based on information not contained in the sacred Scriptures] that these two men were revolutionaries, they should place their commentary in a footnote. But they should not change the wording of the sacred Scripture itself.

Few seminarians ordained in recent decades have engaged in Latin, Greek and Hebrew studies as Vatican II instructed. Hence it is vital that bishops and scholars who know classical Greek, Latin and Hebrew appoint commissions and translators who respect the integrity of the ancient and original languages.

The sacred Scriptures are absolutely essential and central to our Catholic faith. Our bishops, whom we Catholics love, respect and pray for, need to take greater responsibility for English translations of the Bible, the lectionary, the Mass and other official prayers of the Church—just as they need to take far greater responsibility for reforming seminary education and the moral and spiritual formation of priests in light of the recent sex scandals in the Church in America.

GERALD H. MARING, PH.D

Pullman, Washington

Succession Planning

I am a subscriber and assiduous cover-to-cover reader of the paper. I would like to point out that your Inbrief note “Dean Ratzinger and the Pope” (May 19-25) is somewhat erroneous.

First of all, Cardinal Bernardin Gantin lost the right to participate in the conclave when he turned 80 on May 8 but did not have to step down from the deanship of the College of Cardinals. Cardinal Ratzinger is still the sub-dean. Moreover, Cardinal Gantin (if he is still dean) will, upon the death of the Pope, notify all heads of state and cardinals and convoke them to the conclave. He will receive condolences from the heads of state and will also preside over concelebration of the Eucharist for the deceased Pope with all the members of the college. This is what Cardinal Carlo Confalonieri did twice in 1978.

SALVADOR MIRANDA

Miami, Florida

Roman Holiday

I enthusiastically applaud your comments in the editorial “The Summit's Lessons” (May 5-11), about eliminating homosexuality from the seminaries and not admitting more homosexuals, as this is too heavy a burden for them and will perpetuate the scandal we are enduring now. I do hope all of the bishops will come to that conclusion.

Unfortunately, our bishop, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, was quoted in the Washington Post as saying that, if a man has led a chaste life and he is homosexual, he should be given the chance to serve as a priest. I think the vast majority of the laity don't want to take that risk.

You opened your editorial by tweaking the media for its sensationalism in covering the scandals, and indeed the anti-Catholics in the media are enjoying the scandal. There is another side to this though; if the media didn't sensationalize the story, the cover-ups by the bishops would continue. Even after the hype was in full swing, we read a communiqué from the cardinals that indicated they would remove “notorious” and “serial” abusers, when everyone was expecting the “one strike and you're out” policy. Ironically, we have to thank the media for hyping the story because there was no movement by the bishops to clean up the mess before that.

It is time to admit that the Church is sustaining an even greater scandal, i.e., failure to provide the Church's teaching on sexual morality to the laity. Oh yes, the bishops write great words, but the words are not preached to the people and the vast majority don't read the bishops' writings. Also, we see Catholic entities providing honors to prominent promoters of abortion. Recently Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, received an award from Loyola University in New Orleans, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., recently spoke to Jesuit graduates at a Catholic church in Washington, D.C., on “The Challenge of Choosing Wisely.”

If a Catholic just attended church as required, he would certainly get the feeling that contraception and abortion are permissible, because the culture enthusiastically embraces them and the Church says nothing against them.

RICHARD A. RETTA

Rockville, Maryland

Pray for Priests

The world seems to be saying, “What hope is there in religion when those who we look to for guidance could be in worse shape than we?” It seems to be setting a bad precedent for all kinds of blasphemy and blatant disrespect for the Church. Suddenly, everyone thinks they have license to say any manner of evil against the Church—not only non-Catholics, but members of our own body!

Our faith is not to rest in the priesthood itself, but in Jesus Christ, who established it. This [crisis] is a call to faith, love and prayer for the Church and for our priests. It is a test of our commitment, for better or worse, and yes, up to death do us part. To the degree we value the Church and the sacraments, we will value and respect the priesthood, no matter what befalls it.

Our priests are there when we ourselves fall—they absolve our sins. They give us the precious Body and Blood of our Lord, without which we would be just another denomination, an empty church.

Yes, the accused have succumbed to temptation, which is unfortunate for all involved; however, it seems that because they are priests, no one thinks they deserve mercy. Folks, this is why Jesus came. His infinite mercy saves us from ourselves. Because we are human, it doesn't happen overnight, but salvation is always a process, if we cooperate with it.

Brothers and sisters, have faith, hope and love—Jesus has already overcome the world and he is rich in mercy for those who seek and trust in him. Let us stand by our brother priests, pray for them every day, offer them our hand of friendship, affirm and love them unconditionally, as our Savior did when he chose to die on the cross for them and for the whole world.

JACQUELINE STUTMANN

Langley Air Force Base, Virginia

Even the Ads Exhort

We look forward each week to your great newspaper. I read it from front to back, (or maybe from back to front) and devour every article.

It's so informative, and we read about things we'd never hear about elsewhere.

My main reason for writing is to ask if anyone ever comments on the ads. Specifically, the ads for religious orders, both for men and for women. They are so inspirational. Those young ladies look so happy and the young men do, too. What's more, it gives the lie to those who say that there aren't any more good religious orders, or that there just aren't any more good priests or nuns. We know better.

MARY WHITE

Villa Park, Illinois

Singles are Called to Celibacy

Many articles in both the secular and the religious press have discussed the discipline of priestly celibacy. The prevailing tone in the articles I have read tends to give the impression that celibacy is somehow unique to the priesthood. What needs to be kept in mind is that all single people, not just priests, are called to celibacy! For priests it is a lifelong, vowed commitment. However, single lay people (such as myself) are also called to celibacy for as long as they remain single, be that for just a few years until marriage or for a lifetime in the case of those who never marry. I believe that priestly celibacy is a treasure, and eliminating it (as some have been advocating) will solve nothing.

ARTHUR W. PETERSON

Richmond, California

Curtain Call for Celibacy

Your article “Celibacy Isn't the Problem—It's the Answer, Say Priests” (May 19-25) was wonderful.

Every Catholic needs to read it. This is an issue that even the strongest Catholics are struggling with.

Most know that changing the rules on celibacy is not the answer, put perhaps cannot articulate a good argument. This definitely helps.

Will you please make it available electronically?

I've got a few hundred people I'd like to send it to.

MARTY WALSH

Coppell, Texas

Editor's note: The article is posted on www.ncregister.com.