I For One Welcome…

…our new missal translation, to debut in Advent of 2011. They will be very similar to the earliest translations of the Latin, which some of us learned and loved as children:

My memory of the Traditional Mass is cloudy and vague, and I suspect a bit romantic, but I recollect the first translations of the Novus Ordo very well; they were more exact, and more spiritually focused than what eventually followed. We easily learned our vernacular responses, which were pretty nice:

“The Lord be with you.”

“And with your spirit.”

“Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof; speak but the word, and my soul shall be healed.”

And then we learned them again:

“The Lord be with you.”

“And also with you.”

“Lord I am not worthy to receive you; but only say the word, and I shall be healed.”

Small differences brought significant changes in meaning, and we sensed it. The liturgy kept evolving, the emphases kept changing, and every reform and bizarre new experiment was described as being “in the spirit of Vatican II.”

Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, writing at the USCCB media blog notes:

The last major liturgical change was in the mid-Sixties, when Roman Catholics went from the Mass in Latin to Mass in the vernacular, with words and phrases common to our ears. For many, it was the first time they knew exactly what they and the priest were praying. While the Mass in English-speaking countries was essentially the same, the United States had one version, Great Britain another, Australia still another. Now we have a text that is the same for all the English-speaking nations. Seems appropriate as the world grows closer together.

We’ll also have language that is less commonplace, which will sound like church language, certainly not inappropriate given that this is for church. It’s not unusual for us to have different language styles in different parts of our lives. How we speak in the ballpark isn’t how we speak in the classroom or how we speak in oratory from a stage. Why not a different language style for church? Processing up to Communion isn’t sliding into home plate. “Give me five” on the basketball court isn’t the same as “Peace be with you” at Mass.

The USCCB has a very good site put together to get the faithful familiar with the newly-wrought prayers and responses.

Fr. James Martin has an excellent and clear piece at America.

There is a language-geek comparison chart
here

Don’t forget to check out the word of the day, which, sadly, is not “missal.”

Also writing:
“Some last-minute changes”
“A step backwards”
The new dismissal

O/T but noteworthy:
The Bible in the Public Square

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Lori

    A diction just for Church! What a tremendous idea! Do you suppose there’s any faint hope that we’ll be inspired towards better music that’s just for the Mass, dress and behavior more appropriate for the Mass? I must pray for those things to follow … I get so discouraged and annoyed at the flip-flops, sneakers, shorts, tank tops, sweats and T-shirts. C’mon, people, can’t you dress a little nicer for one hour of the week? OK, /rant

  • Annie

    I welcome it too! I am ashamed to say that until I read the new translation “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof” I had never even made the connection with the scriptural source of those words as having been spoken by the Roman centurion to Jesus. I think that this new translation is a wonderful teachable moment!

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com/ Bender

    Why is it that things like this always open the door to NEVER-ENDING complaints about how this is lousy and that is lousy?

    Here’s a challenge, to keep that open door from becoming a flood gate — how about folks simply say something nice about the “novus translations” and just stop there? That is, WITHOUT succumbing to the urge to also tell the world yet again how much they dislike the way other people are dressed, the music, Communion in the hand, the sign of peace, EMHCs, the fact that it is in English at all, and on and on and on and on and on.

    C’mon people, can’t we just worry about ourselves at Mass? Isn’t that enough, don’t we have enough imperfections ourselves without bitching about everyone else?

    ———–

    Small differences brought significant changes in meaning, and we sensed it. The liturgy kept evolving, the emphases kept changing

    And what will 90 percent of the people under the age of 45 or so think this time? For them, this will be a JARRING change.

    For those who are so enthusiastic, beyond these being more technically correct translations, could you explain to those 90 percent the theological meaning of the new translations? About what is meant by “with your spirit,” as opposed to simply “with you,” or what is meant by “under my roof,” as opposed to simply “receive you”?

    Believe it or not, most Catholics today have never known any other translation. What they pray at Mass is hardly the “new” Mass, which detractors like to call it. Rather, it is old. Maybe not old in Church-years, but old in the common understanding since it is the Mass they have prayed their entire lives, which is an eternity to most people. And, if there were destabilizing effects from the introduction of the present translations 40 years ago, don’t think that there won’t be destabilizing effects from these changes.

    Now, don’t get me wrong — I’m not dissenting against the Church here. Whatever the Church does is right. But if it is right now, then it was right then. No, what I dissent against is those who will use this occasion to put forward the implication that the Church — the Pope, the bishops, the priests, the faithful — were wrong 40 years ago with the present translations.

  • http://runswithangels.wordpress.com/ Bender’s Cheerleader

    Bender has a point – as always. These discussions usually do seem to devolve into a free-for-all about how awful the church has become.

    Since this (the new translation) is a reality, we’ll all just have to hang on and have faith that all will be right in the end. It’ll take some getting used to, but it will be okay.

    Bender, as far as any implications being proposed that the Church was wrong – I know of no one who can correct those errors as efficiently and eloquently as you, sir.

  • Lori

    Geez, Bender, chill. How often do I get on here just complaining about things? Not very. I am actually very happy about this change and I do think the new language, what I’ve seen of it, is beautiful and fitting. I meant what I said seriously – maybe the new language will cause us all to sit up and pay a bit more attention, maybe even treat the Mass as more of the special occasion that it deserves.

  • http://www.zazzle.com/shanasfo shana

    Why is it that things like this always open the door to NEVER-ENDING complaints about how this is lousy and that is lousy

    Because those ‘lousy’ things make one quite soul-weary, especially as the congregations seem to slide and slouch toward mediocrity Sunday after Sunday. The hope that things will get better all ’round is always there somewhere, but it is so normal to express the disappointment that is hasn’t yet to date. It is tiresome to read the same complaints, certainly, but very understandable.

    But if it is right now, then it was right then. No, what I dissent against is those who will use this occasion to put forward the implication that the Church — the Pope, the bishops, the priests, the faithful — were wrong 40 years ago with the present translations.

    It isn’t necessarily that it was ‘right’ as in ‘proper’. It wasn’t illicit and it wasn’t invalid, but perhaps it wasn’t well thought out, well planned and well executed. The long term consequences weren’t considered, of using more ‘street’ language and less liturgical language. One of ICEL translating priests has apologized for his part in the poor translation. The translations are clearly defective when one sees the Latin and the ICEL translations side by side; at times the entire meaning of a prayer is changed by the wording.

    They can’t be ‘right’ and ‘incorrect’ at the same time.

  • Jeff

    These corrections from Rome are long overdue; too many “liturgists” tinkered with the Latin translations for too long. And then the translations themselves were tinkered with over the years, and we ended up with bland and uninspiring language. Next on the list should be correction of the tinkering with the translations of the gospels. Every year, for example, “Hail, full of grace” changes to “Hail, o highly favored daughter” or something like it. One gets the sense that the apparently idle translators just can’t get enough of “discovering” the “real meaning” of verses that were beautiful and correct theologically to begin with.

    Latin is the official language of the Church, not English.

  • waltj

    I preferred the older translation as well. It had a certain poetry that the newer one lacked. Anchoress is right–I speak differently when I’m having a beer with my buddies than when I’m giving a presentation to the CEO. A slightly different (but still eminently understandable) language for Mass should be appropriate as well. And if the Mass has a slightly archaic feel to it, I see no difficulty with that, either. The Church has a long tradition, so why not honor it? Not everything has to be “latest and greatest”.

  • Anthony

    Living as I do in London these days, the language and service of the English Catholic church is very much influenced by high Anglican service. Makes sense as it seems most of the priests are former Anglo-Catholics who converted to Rome. The service uses a slightly different translation and they do seem to try and be more poetic than the American Catholic church.

    If you are in Chicago, I would suggest stoping in at St. John Cantius. They celebrate high Latin Mass, but they also celebrate an alternative version of the New Mass that I would attend sometimes on holy days (they were not my regular parish) that is a combination of Latin and vernacular.

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    Thanks for that USCCB site. That really is helpful. I guess some of the changes just sound awkward for now. The response “And also with you” seems smoother and more natural than “And with your spirit.” But if the latter is more traditional than fine. I will miss the mystery of faith:

    Christ has died,
    Christ is risen,
    Christ will come again.

    That had simple elegance (the parallel construction) that is unmatched by any of the new versions.

    The Nicean Creed also seems to be less smooth. “Visible,” “invisible,” “consubstantial,” “incarnate,” “in accordance with” “forward,” all diction choices that pick the more awkward, multi-syllabic word over the smoother and simpler. Obviously the translator was not poetically skilled. ;)

  • Steve Cavanaugh

    The only thing I didn’t like about the translations highlighted in the very nicely laid out chart at praytell is the line from the 2nd EP after the consecration which now (correctly) reads “stand in your presence and serve you.” I often hear this changed to “be in your presence and serve you,” because the priest (mistakenly) thinks the “we” that is the subject of that sentence is all the Christians assembled for that Mass. However, this phrase, in the original canon in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus reads:
    Therefore, remembering his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the chalice, giving thanks to you, who has made us worthy to stand before you and to serve as your priests.
    I.E., the “we” of this sentence are the bishops and the presbyters standing at the altar. (The AT, keep in mind, describes the Eucharist at an episcopal consecration, and therefore is a concelebrated Eucharist.) This common misapprehension of who the “we” is in this prayer will now be more or less permanently embedded in the consciousness of English-speaking Catholics.

  • vox borealis

    Manny, not to turn this into a liturgy wars comment thread, you have to understand that the new translation is not about coming up with new versions of the responses, but it is aimed at more accurately translating the Latin (the language that yes, even the new mass, is composed in originally). The Latin is the ur-text, and all vernacular versions are merely translations of the Latin.

    As for “Christ has died, Christ has risen..”…that was an adaptation specifically for the US (also adopted in Canada) that in no way whatsoever reproduces any of the options for the memorial acclamation in the Latin original. It is simply made up, not a translation in any meaningful sense.

    Moreover, it is (in my opinion) liturgically dubious (albeit theologically sound). All versions of the memorial acclamation are just that…acclamations. Hence, all three are addressed to Christ present on the altar after consecration: e.g. “…We proclaim YOUR death…”

    “Christ has died…” is not an acclamation in any meaningful sense, and indeed it is among the most egregious examples of the present English translation (especially the North American sub-versions) simply not adhering to the liturgical texts of the universal church.

    I for one am ecstatic *specifically* to see “Christ has died…” get the ax.

    As for some of your other observations: I far prefer “consubstantial” (a direct transliteration of the Latin consubstantialis, and a specific theological term) to the theologically imprecise “one in being.” I mean, seriously, have you ever asked yourself what that means, precisely?

    I could go on, but you get my point, I think.

    More generally, I am convinced that if more people knew just how much the current English translation deviates from the Latin, and, for that matter, from other vernacular translations (for example, did you know that in French ["et avec votre esprit"], Italian, and German [these I know for sure], the response is currently “and with your spirit”, a direct translation of the Latin “et cum spiritu tuo”?), the more eager everyone would be for it.

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    To Vox

    I wasn’t complaining, nor am I against the new language. If it’s more accurate so be it. I was just making observations. I am not a theologian, so I can’t speak to substance of the changes; I cannot read Latin, so i can’t speak to the accuracy of the translation. But I do know the English language fairly well. In terms of English language aesthetics, the new one does not seem as beautiful.

    “As for “Christ has died, Christ has risen..”…that was an adaptation specifically for the US (also adopted in Canada) that in no way whatsoever reproduces any of the options for the memorial acclamation in the Latin original.”

    May I ask why adherence to the Latin mass is so necessary? I’ve argued against against the Latin mass, I might as well argue against strict adherence to it. Christ did not speak in Latin, nor did the last supper contain the rites and readings we have now as part of the introductory rites and liturgy of the word. Those evolved in the first few centuries nof the church. Now I think those rites and liturgy of the word are proper and a good thing, but why so strict in preserving its language to the ultimate detail? Christ didn’t use that language. If you look at the liturgy from the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is different. There were differences between East and west even before the schism. The liturgy has evolved somewhat over time. What is so special about the Latin mass when Christ spoke in Aramaic and the original church spoke in Greek?

  • vox borealis

    Manny,

    Why is adherence to Latin important? Well, Roman Catholics do belong to the Latin Rite church, and the ur-text of the Mass—the universal prayer of the Church—is in Latin. If every vernacular version of the Mass does not adhere to the Latin original, then in effect there is no more universal prayer of the church. We are all saying our own prayer. Now, if that doesn’t bother you, fine. We are simply approaching things like liturgy from a completely different perspective.

    As for whether Christ spoke in Latin or not, that is a red herring, not relevant one bit. Likewise reference to the Eastern churches misses the point: in what language do eastern churches do liturgy? Do they use translations from Greek liturgical texts? If so, presumably it is expected that various translations adhere closely to the language of the original liturgical text.

  • Steve Colby

    Re: “The new dismissal”, and a trend toward the informal, I am reminded of Minnie Pearl’s dismissal, “We’re through playin’ now.”

  • vox borealis

    Manny,

    You wrote: “I am not a theologian, so I can’t speak to substance of the changes; I cannot read Latin, so i can’t speak to the accuracy of the translation. But I do know the English language fairly well. In terms of English language aesthetics, the new one does not seem as beautiful.”

    Ah, and here is the core issue. It is not surprising that you are not a theologian or do not know Latin…most of us do not. But you (and I) should care about *what* we pray, right? The liturgies of the Church are not merely a matter of aesthetics, but they also transmit the theological truths held by the Church. To take the example that I used, “One in being with the father” may be aesthetically pleasing to some (it is not to me, but that is a matter of taste), but the more important issue is that if it does not accurately render the Latin ur-text, then we faithful cannot be sure that what we are praying (reciting) is actually what the Church teaches.

    The Nicene Creed, of any part of the Mass, should be rendered as faithfully as possible to the original Latin, and it should be well understood by the faithful who proclaim it every Sunday as a statement of beliefs. That whole phrases have been left out of the current English translation, and (perhaps more seriously) that most faithful simply don’t even know what the Creed means, and perhaps even, even more serious, that the present translation *may* in its imprecision mislead those reciting it, only underscores the radical need for A] a superior and more accurate translation of the Mass, and B] the need for radically better catechesis.

  • Patrick B.

    Oh, Anchoress! I couldn’t help noticing the hint of satire in your headline …

    Simpsons

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    Vox – If strict adherence to something that itself evolved in the first four to six centuries is the objective, so be it. I don’t really think God listens to prayers any less that are not in perfect form.

    “One in being with the father” – I don’t see any difference in meaning from “consubstantial.”

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    To Vox again ;)

    “Why is adherence to Latin important? Well, Roman Catholics do belong to the Latin Rite church, and the ur-text of the Mass—the universal prayer of the Church—is in Latin. If every vernacular version of the Mass does not adhere to the Latin original, then in effect there is no more universal prayer of the church.”

    God speaks all languages. In fact I would say that Hebrew is God’s first language, Aramaic, second, Greek third, and Latin fourth. I hope and pray for one universal church, especially joining with the orthodox rites.

    “As for whether Christ spoke in Latin or not, that is a red herring, not relevant one bit.”

    I don’t think it’s a red herring. You are trying to maintain a conservatism that never had any justification. Eastern half of the empire did liturgy in Greek and western half did it in Latin, both the vernacular of their time and place.

  • vox borealis

    Manny:

    “I don’t really think God listens to prayers any less that are not in perfect form.”

    You cloud the issue again. It is not what God hears so much as what the faithful pray and how that shapes their own understanding of the faith.

    “You are trying to maintain a conservatism that never had any justification. Eastern half of the empire did liturgy in Greek and western half did it in Latin, both the vernacular of their time and place.”

    And you are promoting a form of primitivism that I reject: that Latin was the vernacular in the fourth century west, so it was OK then, but its use as a sacral (and universal in the west) language for the subsequent 1000+ years is somehow less valid.

    And you still completely sidestep the issue that I raise, which is that liturgy (especially of the Mass) is supposed to be universal prayer, not a hodgepodge of various translations of varying closeness to an original text.

    As for Hebrew being God’s first language, I don’t presume to know God’s linguistic history. But I do know that the language of Latin Rite churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, is Latin. I also know that the documents of the Second Vatican Council call for the preservation of Latin as the primary language of the Church and encourage the faithful to learn the responses of the ordinary of the mass in Latin (in fact, one of the reasons cited is to facilitate universal prayer…go figure). I know that the Missale Roman (that’s the Roman Missal) continues, in its now third edition, to be published in Latin first and then translated into various vernacular languages (which may, but not *must* be used). I know that the Vatican’s more recent documents on translation of Liturgical texts calls specifically for a closer adherence to the original Latin and implicitly rebuke translation decisions made in the heady 70s. I know that Canon law exhorts seminars to teach all seminarians Latin.

    So, yes, what language Christ spoke (and for all I know, he spoke Latin too) is a red herring. What matters in this issue is the Missale Romanum, which WAS written in Latin, and how to facilitate the faithful and clergy to pray the universal prayer of the Mass with the greatest adherence to those texts, in accordance with the documents of the Church.

    It’s that simple.

  • Jeff

    Superb explanation. Maintaining universality of belief and prayer across many different nations is of major importance. If you were going to try to undermine that kind of cohesion, creating a tower of babel of different languages would certainly help. I’m glad the pendulum is swinging back after the long silly season after VII.

  • http://millelacuna.wordpress.com Andrea

    Yay! I’m so excited for the new translation!

  • archangel

    As Anchoress pointed out, it really is not a “new” translation. It mostly is a return to the original translation direct from the Latin. The prayers are more tinged with the sacred and literal. A blessing to be sure.

    I would like to add that it is ONLY the AMERICAN/ENGLISH translation which seems to have been a problem. To my knowledge, the Spanish translation does not have the same issue of having been watered down over the years. or the French or even Vietnamese for that matter.

    I’ve been waiting for this translation for a ong time. And it comes out during Advent of 2011. The eve of 2012… ooohhhhh spooky!!???
    :)

  • AvantiBev

    Sr. Walsh as quoted from the posting above: “For many, it was the first time they knew exactly what they and the priest were praying.”

    I am utterly sick of this tired old yarn lumping us 50+ year olds all into apathetic and imbecilic pew sitters who had no idea what was being said at Holy Mass. (Interestingly, I hear this most often from Irish American Catholics.) Sister Walsh, I was a Roman from the moment of my conception. I was and am intensely interested in my Roman heritage and grateful for my Italian DNA. I studied my grandparent’s language (Italian) from age 15, classical Latin from age 14 (hat tip to Miss Brazowski, a great teacher) and from age 7, learned the Mass and most prayers in Church Latin.

    As an actress, I am equally interested in great English, uplifting verse, exalted poetic language. There is a difference between the English of Shakespeare and the King James Bible and that of air traffic controllers.

    Yes, Bender, one can criticize bad translations, pedestrian prose in prayers, dumbed down language in the various post-Vat II liturgies without being untrue to the Magisterium of the Church. We are Catholic human beings given our minds and sensibilities by God not robots manufactured to be programmed without thinking. St. Paul tells us to “test” things to see if they be “of the Spirit”. Shana is right; many of us were left soul-weary by what we experienced.

    But Deo Gratias thanks to Summorum Pontificum and the wonderful priests and choir at St. John Cantius in Chi town these wranglings over new translations are a moot point for me as 99% of the time I can worship at a High Latin Mass in that language that Sr. Walsh thinks I cannot understand. :-)

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    Vox, sorry I couldn’t continue earlier after you posted. One does have to work…lol. Let me reply now.

    Ok, let me be more specific and precise. I am not arguing against establishing one precise mass form for all of Catholicism. I am not arguing against a more precise recitation of Catholic dogma during mass. Take those off the table. I agree with the objectives.

    What I disagree is that Catholic dogma and form has not evolved over the centuries and that some “ideal” form of Catholic missal has existed from the beginning of Christianity and therefore it is an affront to sanctity to introduce any changes.

    I’m going to cite a number of Wikipedia on the history of the Roman missal, so I’ll post the links here: Latin Liturgical Rites and Pre-Tridentine Mass and Tridentine Mass. I think they make for interesting reading.

    But notice these facts:
    First:
    It is unclear when the language of the celebration changed from Greek to Latin. Pope Victor I (190–202), an African, may have been the first to use Latin in the liturgy in Rome. Others think Latin was finally adopted nearly a century later.[3] The change was probably gradual, with both languages being used for a while.[4]

    Second:
    Before the pontificate of Pope Gregory I (590–604), the Roman Mass rite underwent many changes, including a “complete recasting of the Canon” (a term that in this context means the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer), “… the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast”… the number of Scripture readings was reduced, the prayers of the faithful were omitted (leaving, however, the “Oremus” that once introduced them), the kiss of peace was moved to after the Consecration, and there was a growing tendency to vary, in reference to the feast or season, the prayers, the Preface, and even the Canon.

    Third:
    Pope Gregory I made a general revision of the liturgy of the Mass, “removing many things, changing a few, adding some,” as his biographer, John the Deacon, writes. He is credited with adding a phrase to the Eucharistic Prayer, and he placed the Lord’s Prayer immediately after the Canon, as he himself wrote.

    Fourth:
    Towards the end of the eighth century Charlemagne ordered the Roman rite of Mass to be used throughout his domains. However, some elements of the preceding Gallican rites were fused with it north of the Alps, and the resulting mixed rite was introduced into Rome under the influence of the emperors who succeeded Charlemagne. Gallican influence is responsible for the introduction into the Roman rite of dramatic and symbolic ceremonies such as the blessing of candles, ashes, palms, and much of the Holy Week ritual.

    Fifth:
    The recitation of the Credo (Nicene Creed) after the Gospel is attributed to the influence of Emperor Henry II (1002–1024). Gallican influence explains the practice of incensing persons, introduced in the eleventh or twelfth century; “before that time incense was burned only during processions (the entrance and Gospel procession).”[4] Private prayers for the priest to say before Communion were another novelty. About the thirteenth century, an elaborate ritual and additional prayers of French origin were added to the Offertory, at which the only prayer that the priest in earlier times said was the Secret; these prayers varied considerably until fixed by Pope Pius V in 1570.

    Sixth:
    The Roman Missal that Pope Pius V issued at the request of the Council of Trent, gradually established uniformity within the Latin Rite after a period that had witnessed regional variations in the choice of Epistles, Gospels, and prayers at the Offertory, the Communion, and the beginning and end of Mass. With the exception of a few dioceses and religious orders, the use of this Missal was made obligatory, giving rise to the 400-year period when the Roman-Rite Mass took the form now known as the Tridentine Mass.

    Seventh:
    Beginning in the late seventeenth century, France and neighbouring areas, such as Münster, Cologne and Trier in Germany, saw a flurry of independent missals published by bishops influenced by Jansenism and Gallicanism. This ended when Abbot Guéranger and others initiated in the nineteenth century a campaign to return to the Roman Missal.
    Pius V’s revision of the liturgy had as one of its declared aims the restoration of the Roman Missal “to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers”.[18] Due to the relatively limited resources available to his scholars, this aim was in fact not realised.[28]

    The first, second, third, and fifth facts speak to point that the liturgy was an evolving form where Latin was introduced in the west until somewhere between 200 and 300 AD. The second fact especially addresses the point that major revisions of the canon occurred. The fourth, sixth, and seventh facts address the point that it was not uncommon for variations in rites to be simultaneously in existence and that the Church did not frown on it. It was only after the Council of Trent that a discipline was attempted in order to repress Protestant theology from entering the missal.

    There has been nothing sacred about the form and language of the mass, other than Liturgy of the Eucharist. There is nothing wrong with variations across the various parts of the Church, though I think some uniformity is best.

    Vox, you said: “And you still completely sidestep the issue that I raise, which is that liturgy (especially of the Mass) is supposed to be universal prayer, not a hodgepodge of various translations of varying closeness to an original text.”

    I’m not skirting the issue at all. I don’t know if the liturgy is “supposed to be universal” but I can tell you that throughout history it has not been. And i don’t see how that has had any detrimental effects. Even this 40 year period where we have what you consider erroneous language, I don’t think the Church doctrine has changed. I don’t think just because we have been saying “one in Being with the Father” instead of “consubstantial” has changed anyone’s understanding of the trinity, or been responding “And also with you” has changed anyone’s understanding of Catholicism.

  • Pingback: Catholic News Headlines August 24, 2010 « Catholic News

  • Jeff

    Sr. Walsh has that terrible way of condescending to the “laity”, the lower class I guess in her mind. We need to be taught by her I guess. So wrong.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X