|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 5, 2022 19:43:28 GMT
For as long as I can remember, I have always heard what is, to Westerners anyway, the crucial key passage in Humanae vitae, translated as:
"each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life"
However, in reading the transcript of HV from both the SSPX website (that just happened to be what I was reading), and the official Vatican website, the passage is rendered as:
"each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life"
The Latin is:
"quilibet matrimonii usus ad vitam humanam procreandam per se destinatus permaneat"
Based on my very limited self-taught understanding of Latin, and of "how Latin works", the second translation seems more literal than the first. I had never heard it translated this way before, in fact, quite frankly, I just relied on the English translation from the Daughters of St Paul, which is what we read in high school, and given the importance of it, I had committed that particular phrase to memory.
And I have then had to wonder, is "retaining its intrinsic relationship to procreation" just a hair's-breadth more nuanced than "remain open to transmission"? I'm not suggesting that there is any "wiggle room" --- though someone who were spoiling for something less than a total prohibition on ABC and sterilization might use it that way (I'm reminded here of how Father Andrew Greeley delighted in finding "nuances" in papal teaching, to which I would reply, we don't need "nuances", we need clear direction, we shouldn't have to sift the contents of an encyclical to try and understand it, the Pope is not a Delphic oracle) --- the remainder of HV makes it crystal-clear that ABC or sterilization is never admissible.
Does anybody else have any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 5, 2022 22:03:26 GMT
Here is a good article on the subject, in which the translation of the passage is addressed in a footnote:
I also stumbled upon this passage, which refers back to something I've been discussing recently on this forum, viz. the possible right of a victimized spouse (it would almost always have to be the wife, to think it could be the husband** is almost comical) to defend, if that's the word, oneself against a pregnancy that would come from what is, basically, marital rape:
There is a great deal of talk today about the liberation of woman. How could we fail to stress the liberating significance of the passage quoted for certain wives, victims of the sexual violence of husbands addicted to alcohol? Their passion drives them in the direction not of conjugal love but of a real "intra-conjugal rape", as we said elsewhere (1). The matrimonial contract is not an instrument of mutual slavery or of the subjection of one of the spouses to the other, but the loving alliance of two freedoms in view of their mutual and full liberation. We agree, therefore, with Fr Zalba's opinion (2): the duty of accepting procreation might cease to exist when the violence' of one of the spouses has forced the sexual act upon the other in a way contrary to the inalienable dignity of his person.
Good reading.
** - edited to add -- obviously the husband would not be "defending himself against a pregnancy", however, he would be defending himself against having to become a father against his will, such as if he knew he would not be able to support one more child, or simply had an irrational, possibly fanatical wife who is insisting upon another child when there are well-founded reasons for the husband to object. But a woman can use various forms of ABC surreptitiously, whereas a man pretty much has only one option, and that is impossible to hide.
|
|
|
|
Post by StellaMaris on Jan 6, 2022 1:30:29 GMT
For as long as I can remember, I have always heard what is, to Westerners anyway, the crucial key passage in Humanae vitae, translated as:
"each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life"
However, in reading the transcript of HV from both the SSPX website (that just happened to be what I was reading), and the official Vatican website, the passage is rendered as:
"each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life"
The Latin is:
"quilibet matrimonii usus ad vitam humanam procreandam per se destinatus permaneat"
Based on my very limited self-taught understanding of Latin, and of "how Latin works", the second translation seems more literal than the first. I had never heard it translated this way before, in fact, quite frankly, I just relied on the English translation from the Daughters of St Paul, which is what we read in high school, and given the importance of it, I had committed that particular phrase to memory.
And I have then had to wonder, is "retaining its intrinsic relationship to procreation" just a hair's-breadth more nuanced than "remain open to transmission"? I'm not suggesting that there is any "wiggle room" --- though someone who were spoiling for something less than a total prohibition on ABC and sterilization might use it that way (I'm reminded here of how Father Andrew Greeley delighted in finding "nuances" in papal teaching, to which I would reply, we don't need "nuances", we need clear direction, we shouldn't have to sift the contents of an encyclical to try and understand it, the Pope is not a Delphic oracle) --- the remainder of HV makes it crystal-clear that ABC or sterilization is never admissible.
Does anybody else have any thoughts on this?
Are you arguing against Natural Family Planning here? |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 6, 2022 1:55:27 GMT
Perhaps I am just being consummately thick this evening, but for the very life of me, I cannot see how in the world my comments above could have been taken as calling into question the legitimate use of natural family planning. I didn't even bring the subject up.
I have no issue with NFP when it is used for reasons that are consonant with the mind of the teaching magisterium of the Church. In a nutshell, if a couple can stand disinterestedly and sincerely before Almighty God and say that, at this time, they have grave, serious, proportionate, just, or well-founded reasons to use NFP, I am not even going to touch that.
I would, however, like to see more couples, who have the means and ability to do so, consider whether they might be called to "have one more", and likewise, I would like to see couples whose circumstances are precarious, especially if they have other children to provide for, to consider whether their families are, if God wills it, "complete". That is a decision that no one can make except the couple.
|
|
|
|
Post by StellaMaris on Jan 6, 2022 2:13:07 GMT
Perhaps I am just being consummately thick this evening, but for the very life of me, I cannot see how in the world my comments above could have been taken as calling into question the legitimate use of natural family planning. I didn't even bring the subject up.
If it's established that HV prohibits ABC and sterilization, what is the issue with interpreting one phrase? How can it be interpreted other than prohibiting ABC and sterilization? |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 6, 2022 2:38:28 GMT
I wouldn't interpret it any other way than as part of the larger discussion within HV of ABC and sterilization (where the latter is performed with the direct and willful intent of preventing conception, as opposed to surgery to remove a diseased organ). The Church's teaching could not be more clear. But someone who wants to try and find a salient, some "wiggle room" to suggest that the Church's prohibition is less than complete, might be able to take the "intrinsic relationship" part, and tease out of it a way to allow contraception in some cases ("try to" is probably a better way of putting it). The mistranslated "remain open to the transmission of life" is, to my mind, just a little stronger than the Latin.
Reading the whole document is helpful, rather than taking one poorly-translated passage in isolation. "Remain open to the transmission of life" was a very sloppy and imprecise translation of the Latin original. |
|
|
|
Post by StellaMaris on Jan 6, 2022 4:47:53 GMT
I wouldn't interpret it any other way than as part of the larger discussion within HV of ABC and sterilization (where the latter is performed with the direct and willful intent of preventing conception, as opposed to surgery to remove a diseased organ). The Church's teaching could not be more clear. But someone who wants to try and find a salient, some "wiggle room" to suggest that the Church's prohibition is less than complete, might be able to take the "intrinsic relationship" part, and tease out of it a way to allow contraception in some cases ("try to" is probably a better way of putting it). The mistranslated "remain open to the transmission of life" is, to my mind, just a little stronger than the Latin.
Reading the whole document is helpful, rather than taking one poorly-translated passage in isolation. "Remain open to the transmission of life" was a very sloppy and imprecise translation of the Latin original. Has this attempt at 'mistranslation' of the sentence ever happened? When the document makes itself abundantly clear that ABC and sterilization are prohibited what point would there be in trying to mess with a sentence to show otherwise? This seems like time wasting navel gazing. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 6, 2022 5:26:56 GMT
Until I saw this alternate, and far more correct, translation of the original Latin (which I had never looked at --- I had no reason to), I always just assumed that "remain open to the transmission of life" was a straight translation. It was not. I had never heard it translated any other way. So when I saw this, I was, quite frankly, a bit startled, as to my mind, it's just a little bit weaker than "remain open to the transmission of life". Yes, the remainder of HV leaves no room for doubt or interpretation, but I realize that this is a teaching that, at least in the affluent West, has not been widely or enthusiastically accepted, and someone wishing to "de-gut" HV, might attempt to say "this stops short of saying ABC is absolutely forbidden". It doesn't, but it is just oblique enough, that one might be able to distort it that way. "Remain open to the transmission of life" can't be distorted.
I don't think it's "navel gazing". In all my years of defending HV --- I am now into my fifth decade of doing so --- I've never heard this alternate translation, but if someone were to challenge it, I would want to be ready with a defense against misinterpretation of it.
I appreciate the good, charitable, intelligent discussion we have been able to have here.
|
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Jan 6, 2022 16:55:20 GMT
I am not sure why someobdy would consider the topic of the thread to be time wasting navel gazing to be so animated by it.
|
|
