A newly promulgated liturgical book appears to be following a grammar/usage trend when it makes official use of “them” as a singular pronoun:
But not consistently: that is, it’s used that way in rubrics but not in the spoken liturgical text:
I wonder what process went into the decision: there were, after all, three bodies involved: ICEL, the USCCB, and the DDWDS. In addition, I wonder why they made a distinction between the two use situations (rubrics and liturgical text).
The new translation of the Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery Outside of Mass went into use Sept. 14.
A certain passage in Dignitas infinita, the recent document on human dignity, strikes me as phrased in a misleading way, and I wonder if anyone else is noticing this too. In paragraph 34, the Congregation Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith states that the Second Vatican Council
denounced ‘all offenses against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where individuals are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons.’”
The word that stands out to me is “deportation”. Is Dignitas trying to tell us that Vatican 2 denounced deportation in general?
That would be politically useful now, as it would seem to fit in with the frequent emphasis from Pope Francis about the rights of migrants, who are mentioned directly in paragraph 40 of Dignitas.
But I doubt that the Council meant to reject deportation broadly in Gaudium, since the Church has acknowledged the right of countries to regulate immigration:
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions…
and that implies a right for countries to refuse foreign nationals who don’t meet the juridical conditions.
But Gaudium et spes names “deportation” without any specifics. If it could not have meant deportation in general, it must have been referring to categories of deportation that readers at the time would recognize as abusive. What might those be?
Gaudium was promulgated at the height of the Cold War, in 1965. The deportations that drew the most attention then were probably the occasional expulsions of individual Soviet-bloc dissidents to the West, and there had also already been the expulsions committed by various empires for the sake of what we now call “ethnic cleansing”: that is, in the Ottoman Empire, the German Third Reich, and the Soviet Union: expulsions of millions of people, some deported outside the respective empires, some exiled internally to places where they were treated as cheap or even enslaved labor.
So 59 years ago the Council had good reason to list deportation as an insult to human dignity, in Gaudium et spes (in section 27, Latin deportationes). But now, when Abp. Fernandez incorporates the passage into Dignitas infinita, the bare, unexplained word may give present-day readers the false impression that an Ecumenical Council had broadly denounced normal governmental control of immigration as a grave moral offense. It would be a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, even though unintended.
Bishop Johannes Hendriks of the diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam has issued a statement in the wake of the CDF rejection of the alleged apparitions to Ida Peerdeman, from which the title “Lady of All Nations” was promoted. He writes that the title is, in itself, legitimate and can be used, but must not be treated as any sort of endorsement of the apparition claims.
The English text below was published on the diocesan web site. Where dates appear in numeric form in the text, the translation gives them in American format (month/day/year).
Clarification by the Bishop of Haarlem-Amsterdam regarding the Lady of All Nations
Having consulted the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and in accordance with it, I declare the following:
Through devotion to Mary, the Mother of All Nations, many faithful express their desire and their effort for the universal fraternity of mankind with the help and support of Mary’s intercession. “Mary is our Mother, she is the Mother of our peoples, she is the Mother of us all” (Francis, Homily of 12/12/2019) and she invites us to collaborate with God’s plan and His desire that we all are, and become always more, brothers and sisters (cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in veritate, n. 42).
Pope Francis writes in his Encyclical Letter Fratelli tutti: “For many Christians, this journey of fraternity also has a Mother, whose name is Mary. Having received this universal motherhood at the foot of the cross (cf. Jn 19:26), she cares not only for Jesus but also for ‘the rest of her children’ (cf. Rev 12:17). In the power of the risen Lord, she wants to give birth to a new world, where all of us are brothers and sisters, where there is room for all those whom our societies discard, where justice and peace are resplendent” (n. 278).
In this sense, the use of the title Lady of All Nations for Mary is in itself theologically acceptable. Prayer with Mary and through the intercession of Mary, Mother of our peoples, serves the growth of a more united world, in which everyone recognizes themselves as brothers and sisters, all created in the image of God, our common Father.
Nevertheless, the recognition of this title cannot be understood—not even implicitly—as the recognition of the supernaturality of some phenomena from which it seems to have come. In this sense, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirms the validity of the negative judgment on the supernaturality of the alleged “apparitions and revelations” to Ms. Ida Peerdeman approved by St. Paul VI on 04/05/1974 and published on 05/25/1974. This judgment implies that everybody is urged to cease any propagation concerning the alleged apparitions and revelations of the Lady of All Nations. Therefore, the use of the images and prayer cannot in any way be considered a recognition—not even implicitly—of the supernaturality of the events in question.
Regarding the mere title “Lady”, “Madonna” or “Mother of All Nations” the Congregation generally is not opposed to its use, provided that this is clearly separated from the recognition of the alleged apparitions. If the Virgin Mary is invoked under this title, pastors and faithful must ensure that all forms of this devotion refrain from any reference, even implicit, to alleged apparitions or revelations.
Haarlem, the 30th of December 2020
+ Johannes Hendriks Bishop of Haarlem-Amsterdam
Journalist David Murgia, on his web site ilsegnodigiona.com, has published a copy of the recent (July 20) letter about CDF’s position on the Amsterdam apparition case. The letter from the Apostolic Nuncio in Lebanon, addressed to the Maronite Patriarch, appears there, and here is my own English translation of the Italian text.
Apostolic Nunciature in Lebanon Harissa, July 20, 2020
Prot. N. 2353/20
Your Eminence,
in response to the request of Your Most Eminent Beatitude on what is the official position of the Church regarding devotion to the Virgin Mary “Our Lady of All Nations”, this Nunciature has requested clarifications from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The aforementioned Dicastery explained that the Notification published on May 25, 1974, available on its web page, remains valid.
In the declaration it is stated that, after appropriate study, there was found “no evidence of the supernatural nature of the apparitions.” Therefore the faithful are invited to “discontinue all forms of propaganda with regard to the alleged apparitions and revelations of ‘Our Lady of All Nations'”, and are exhorted “to express their devotion to the Most Holy Virgin, Queen of the Universe […] by forms of piety which are recognized and recommended by the Church.”
The letter of the same Congregation to the Philippines Episcopal Conference of May 20, 2005 does not contain anything that could lead to thinking that the judgment of the Congregation on the matter had changed.
Taking all of that into consideration, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is of the opinion that it is not suitable to contribute to the spread of devotion to Mary as “Our Lady of All Nations”.
Remaining at the disposal of Your Most Eminent Beatitude for any further information in this regard, may I take the occasion to confirm with a sense of deep veneration, I am
Your Beatitude’s most devoted
+ Joseph Spiteri Apostolic Nuncio
To: His Beatitude the Most Eminent Lord Cardinal Béchara Boutros Raï Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites Bkerké
The news agency I.Media is reporting that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has denied the alleged apparitions of the “Lady of All Peoples” in Amsterdam from 1945 to 1959. The story appeared in French on the Aleteia web site on September 15, and apparently the statement was given in July.
The piece in Aleteia reviews the story of the claimed apparitions and its varied treatment by past bishops, so it’s informative for people who haven’t followed the case before. The unnamed writer, though, does succumb to cliché a bit, when he or she mentions for the third time that CDF was once called the “Holy Office”. Apparently even Catholic news writers feel the compulsion to allude to the Inquisition!
I haven’t found an English version of the report on the net so far, so for the convenience of readers, here is my quick and unofficial translation of the text.
Some of the expressions used in regard to the evaluating the alleged apparitions do seem unclear, so I hope there will be a more complete public statement by CDF.
Based on a screenshot from the promotional site de-vrouwe.info
The Holy See rejects the apparitions of the Virgin to Ida Peerdeman
I.Media / September 15, 2020
“The apparitions of Amsterdam are false. The ‘Lady of All Peoples’ may not be venerated and the faithful must cease all promotion,” declared the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a document dated July 20, 2020 that has only now become public. After multiple decades of controversies, the fifty-six alleged apparitions of the Virgin Mary to Ida Peerdeman have been formally rejected by the Holy See.
Is the Peerdeman case at last closed? A young Dutch woman of the 20th century, Ida Peerdeman claimed to have witnessed, between 1945 and 1959, fifty-six apparitions of the Virgin under the name of “Lady of All Peoples”. These mystical revelations remained controversial until last July 20 when, at the request of Cardinal Bechara Boutros Rai, the Maronite Patriarch of Antioch, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), formerly called the “Holy Office”, clarified the position of the Holy See regarding the visions of Ida Peerdeman in a letter addressed to the prelate.
Although for some the Madonna that appeared to Ida Peerdeman presents many similarities to the Virgin who appeared to Catherine Labouré in 1830 (a globe below her feet, rays of light emanating from her down-turned hands), the former Holy Office confirmed a notification signed in 1974 that “considers that it is not appropriate to contribute to spreading the veneration of Mary as the ‘Lady of All Peoples’.”
The fifty-six pseudo-apparitions
According to the account given by the young Dutch woman, born on August 13, 1905 at Alkmaar (The Netherlands), the Virgin appeared to her for the first time on October 13, 1917, the day on which the Marian apparitions of Fatima came to completion with the famous episode of the “miracle of the sun”. The alleged seer, then twelve years old, reported that when she returned home in Amsterdam after a confession she saw a “luminous woman of exceptional beauty whom she immediately identified as the Virgin Mary.”
The first long apparition only took place on March 25, 1945, the Solemnity of the Annunciation. It was followed by fifty-six others until 1959. After some visions, the Virgin was said to have disclosed her name to Ida Peerdeman: “I am the Lady Mary, Mother of all the peoples.” She allegedly said she had been “sent by the Father and the Son to help humanity,” to announce the end of the war and warn the world of “degeneration, disasters, and war” and the danger of a third “worldwide catastrophe”.
There followed numerous predictions about political, economic, and social events of the 20th century: the Cold War, the dissolution of the USSR, the Korean War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the political chaos in Palestine and in the Near East, etc.
Starting in 1951, the Virgin reportedly showed Ida a vision of the Second Vatican Council, which was to take place a decade later. She allegedly confirmed the necessity of reforms and changes, and disciplinary changes that include the formation of priests and religious. She appeared to be particularly concerned for Rome and the Vatican, which were in danger according to her. Ida described one of the purported visions thus:
Now I notice that the Lady is holding her hand above the Pope and St. Peter’s. The Pope is seated, with his hands raised, and on his head is written ‘Fight.’ I see more and more fighting. Then suddenly I see soldiers wearing tall caps standing behind the Pope; they raise two fingers. Could this be a reference to freemasonry?
Ida Peerdeman, 1951
Controversies and recognitions
Traditionally, in the Catholic Church the task of judging the supernatural character of an apparition falls to the bishop of the diocese in which the apparition took place: in this case, the diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam. The difficulty of the Peerdeman affair resides in the fact that the successive prelates of the dioceses have rendered contradictory judgments.
The first, Mons. Johannes Huibers, bishop at the time of the apparitions, gave his permission (nihil obstat) to the title and to the prayer associated with the apparition. However on May 7, 1956, after having attentively examined the case of the claimed apparitions and revelations of “Our Lady of All Peoples”, the same bishop reviewed his decision. He declared that he had found “no proof of a supernatural character of the apparitions”.
On several occasions, in 1957, in 1972, and in 1974, the CDF confirmed the position of the Dutch bishop. Meanwhile afterward, on May 31, 1996, one of his successors, Mons. Hendrick Bomers, with the authorization of the CDF, authorized public veneration of the same Virgin, maintaining that the question of the supernatural character of the apparitions themselves had not been resolved. He reiterated his decision in a letter dated December 3, 1997.
On May 31, 2002, Mons. Jozef Marianus Punt, the following bishop, declared that the apparitions were of supernatural origin. Since then, the question remains of knowing whether Mons. Punt had the power to annul the decision of his predecessor, having given that the latter’s decision had been confirmed by the CDF. In an unpublished letter of July 2005, the CDF asked that the prayer associated with the apparition be modified, replacing the words “who once was Mary” with “the Holy Virgin Mary”. The supporters of the alleged apparitions concluded from this that the CDF had tacitly accepted the approval by Mons. Punt.
Is the Peerdeman case closed?
At the inquiry of the Lebanese cardinal, the former Holy Office recalled, in a letter signed last July 20, that the judgment of the Church remained the one published by the diocese of Amsterdam on May 25, 1974, in which it is said – after an appropriate study – that Ida Peerdeman “was not conscious of the supernatural character of the apparitions.” This is why, one reads in the letter from of the Vatican Nunciature, the faithful are urged to “cease all promotion of the purported apparitions and revelations of the Lady of All Peoples and are exhorted to express their devotion to the Most Holy Virgin, Queen of the Universe, under the forms that are recognized and recommended by the Church.”
