In Boston, Law became known as a stalwart of the conservative wing of the American Catholic church, and was a leader throughout the 1980s and 90s for a strong reassertion of traditional Catholic identity after a period of liberalization following the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Among other things, Law was one of the early proponents of the publication of an official catechism, meaning an official compendium of church teaching, which was eventually published under John Paul II in the early 1990s.Just in passing, how would Anglican syncretism promote "a strong reassertion of traditional Catholic identity"? But I'll let that go. Philip Lawler in The Faithful Departed covers Law's time in Boston and recounts episode after episode where Law betrayed "conservative" or "traditionalist" principles. I'm increasingly convinced that throughout his career, Law found it convenient to seem progressive or conservative in turn, but he betrayed either side whenever it suited him.
The visitor who's provided a great deal of personal perspective on Law has been anxious to point out Law's peculiar role in the translation of the John Paul II Catechism. We've already looked at Law's role in starting the project, and I've already asked whether it's a two-edged sword. If you can have an official catechism, doesn't that make it easier to hedge Church teaching, something we've already seen with the wording on capital punishment?
But my visitor thinks Law's role was actually subversive in other ways. The book Flawed Expectations: The Reception of the Catechism of the Catholic Church by Msgr Kenneth J Wrenn and Kenneth D Whitehead is available online, having gone out of print at Ignatius Press. Chapter 4 specifically addresses Law's role in the translation.
Cardinal Law, of course, had been highly instrumental at the 1985 Synod of Bishops in getting the whole project of a universal catechism launched in the first place; he had also served as a member of the Commission on the Catechism for the Universal Church. . . . Few deserved greater personal credit for the whole vast enterprise of the Catechism than Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston.The original draft of the Catechism was written in French. It was determined that a single translator from French to English would be used to maintain stylistic and lexicographical continuity. However, the translator chosen, Fr. Douglas Kent Clark, had connections with the Boston seminary, whose rector would review the draft, and with Law himself, with whom he'd discussed early versions of the Catechism. According to the Ignatius Press book's authors,
one of us, Msgr. Wrenn, came into possession of a copy of the Clark translation. After reading and studying this translation, and consulting with others about it, he became greatly disturbed since he found serious—and he thought obvious—deficiencies. He soon sought the assistance of another New York archdiocesan priest, also fluent in French, Fr. Gerald E. Murray, and the two of them spent many hours laboriously comparing the Clark translation with the original French text. It soon became abundantly clear that this English translation that had been submitted to Rome for approval fell far short of the standard required for the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Wrenn's and Whitehead's reservations were echoed at higher levels in the Vatican, and a number of confidential meetings ensued.
By the end of March 1993, however, further press accounts had surfaced that indicated that the meeting had in fact been highly critical of the translation, mostly, it seemed —but not entirely—because of the inclusive-language issue. One press account related that "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston that there was too much inclusive language", while another press account reported that "the Vatican has delayed publication of the English translation of the Roman Catholic Church's Universal Catechism, concerned that language used to assuage feminists could alter the text's theological meaning."Beyond that,
It should be further emphasized that the defects of the Clark translation were not limited to the question of inclusive language. The same Peter Hebblethwaite whom we have been quoting—mostly because he was the principal journalist who continued to write about the issue—had reported, following the February 1993 Rome meeting with Cardinal Law and Bishop Konstant, that only "some of the objections" to the translation went back to the inclusive language issue. Other objections were ascribed to what Hebblethwaite coyly styled "an ideology that dare not speak its name". . .Throughout the dispute, Law was on the side of Clark and his translation. However, Rome eventually turned to Archbishop of Hobart, Tasmania Eric D'Arcy to revise the key offending elements of the Clark translation. Law, however, supported the original Clark translation for as long as he could.
I'm increasingly convinced that it's a major mistake to regard Law as a traditionalist or a conservative force, and beyond that, it's a misinterpretation of the record to see Law's handling of the abuse crisis as an uncharacteristic blot on an otherwise commendable record.
