Ave, editor Prompti!*

I’m writing in response to Mr Kenny Leong’s article Latin: Reclaiming Our Heritage, which I quite enjoyed. An amateur explorer of languages myself, it was wonderful to know that other young Catholics share the same passion for church history and our “Mother Tongue”.

However, I’m uncomfortable with several assertions, namely: that Latin deserves to be the language of the Church because it is particularly “noble, majestic and non-vernacular” (Pope John XXIII’s words, not Kenny’s); that knowledge of Latin is on the decline because of “modernists” and, most egregiously, that people who can’t understand Latin don’t deserve to be called “Roman” Catholics.

First off, Latin wasn't chosen to become the language of the universal Church because it was more noble or graceful than “vernaculars”. As Kenny himself says, Latin became the Church’s tongue precisely because it was the vernacular of its day! Its key virtue today - immutability - came about only because the language fell out of everyday use in the 5th century and the words stopped evolving. While there is great merit in having a non-mutating language, I am pessimistic about its future, given that education in the Western classics (Latin and Greek) is on the wane.

This ties in with my second point, which is that wider global forces (and not just “modernist/progressive” Catholics) have pushed Latin into the linguistic background. True, Latin was Europe’s lingua franca of science, philosophy and politics all the way up to the 18th century, but this is no longer the case. An increasing proportion of Catholics (and priests) are of non-European origin and do not even have a cultural familiarity with Latin as their mother tongues are not descended from it. An African or Asian may have to learn English/French/Italian just to study at the seminary; how many more languages should he have to learn? As for wanting to conduct more of the Mass in the vernacular, could we not see that as the desire of priests and bishops for their congregations to understand the Mass better? It is not a matter of the laity wishing to “participate” more, but simply to comprehend.

In addition to this struggle between universality (catholicism) and local accessibility, there is one between tradition and modernity. Kenny’s disapproval seems to stem from a nostalgia for the pre-Vatican II solemnity of the Mass, but surely worship in the vernacular does not automatically deny it grace and transcendence? We have glorious and reverent hymns in English and Bahasa; and I’m pretty sure that I could translate some modern “warm fuzzy” hymn like Pass It On into Latin. I don’t think holiness is just a function of language.

Kenny quoted Pope Pius XII as writing that “The use of the Latin language prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine.”

However, it’s worth noting the full context (with my emphasis in bold):

The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. ... The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

Finally, I was discomfited that Kenny feels “we have almost lost our identity as Roman Catholics” if we don't know Latin. This reminds me of the perennial hot-button Mother Tongue debate in Parliament - if you don't speak Chinese, eat Chinese or dress Chinese, are you still Chinese? But we are “Roman” because we acknowledge the Pope in Rome as our spiritual leader, not because we speak Latin or wear sandals and togas. Our catechisms and papal encyclicals are available in a multitude of languages; as long as we have Latin as our immutable reference (and people to translate it), there is no real need for the vast majority of us to learn it.

I do love Latin - not just as an amateur linguist, but also out of appreciation for the language of the Church. I get a kick out of reading medieval manuscripts and feeling a sense of communion with the people down through the ages who’ve pored over the same text. And I personally share Kenny’s wish that more people would appreciate Latin. It’s just that I’m keenly aware that Latin is plummeting in popularity and feel that pressuring Catholics to learn it would be another “barrier to entry” into the Church. If we need a common tongue to unite the Church, should we insist upon it being one that so few are truly comfortable with? Would English be a more Catholic choice?

Benedicat tibi Dominus^,

Estella Young
Our Lady of Perpetual Succour Parish

*Hail, editor of The Prompt!
^God bless