If you are reading this blog, then you have probably already seen the awesome video of CNS reporter and fellow Catholic Terp, Jane McGrath, awesomely asking the definitely not-awesome Nancy Pelosi an awesome question about when Jesus would have acquired the right to life. Ms McGrath framed her question by asking at what moment when "The Word was made flesh" would it be protected -- alluding to Pelosi's prior comments about how much she loves "The Word."
Pelosi's slippery evasion was a weak reply. She said that everyone bows his head when they talk about the Word becoming flesh in Church, and that's where she wanted to restrict the conversation.
So much for carrying the spirit Eucharist out of the Mass.
Anyway, this exachange prompted Isabel to snoop around the missalette during one of the longer choir pieces this Sunday. She noticed that the Nicene creed (which we assumed was the part of Mass that Pelosi referred to) reads as follows:
For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man.
If this translation is read in the literal fashion of a college undergraduate (Isabel's metaphor), it might well be that Nancy Pelosi could excuse her ignorance. This translation, as structured, could suggest a chronological cause-and-effect. (Again, Isabel noticed this, not me.) By stating Christ was born first and became man second, it might sound as if there is an implied "then" statement. "He was born of the Virgin Mary, and then or therefore became man."
This is obviously a false interpretation, but it would be a fairly easy and natural mistake to make.
Shockingly enough, the Protestants actually seem to use a translation that would make things clearer for Pelosi.
From the The Lutheran Book of Worship, The Book of Common Prayer (Episcopal):
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
English Language Liturgical Commission translation:
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
The major difference here seems to be that Catholic translations use the verb "born" whereas Protestants use "incarnate." Unfortunately, I'm not the blogger to know which one is a more literal translation. The differences are great, however. In common use, "born" generally calls to mind the act of childbirth itself. This isn't necessarily the only meaning of "born", however. In a more archaic use, "born" is a past conjugation of "to bear" which is not necessarily restricted to the act of birthing itself. It can refer more widely to carrying an object or person, or, more figuratively, to enduring a hardship. For Christ to be "born of Mary" does not restrictively suggest only that he exited her body but that he was carried by her body. It implies the incarnation. Nor does the conjunction "and" necessarily imply sequential chronology. Rather, the prayer ought to be suggesting that the "power of the Holy Spirit" was responsible for two things a) Mary carrying Christ, and b) Christ becoming man. That one is mentioned before the other does not necessarily mean there must be a sequence (although it could be misconstrued so).
If I say, "The power of my singing gave me pleasure and caused suffering to others," this does not imply that others suffered because I experienced pleasure, but rather that the power of my singing caused both things simultaneously.
I have no idea if Pelosi was even thinking of the creed when she gave her answer, but our translation certainly doesn't make things as clear as it could...and I can imagine losing a debate with a literalist if I appealed to the Nicene Creed.
Comments