Final Relatio Synodi's Serious Errors

Yesterday LifeSiteNews published a piece in which Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the German Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that Pope Francis ordered the rejected paragraph on homosexuality to be published in the final SinNod report.  He is referring to the ones asking the Church to "learn to accept homosexual orientations".

Please see this link to the English translation of the final SinNod report; it is on the Vatican site.  I've read through this thing carefully; at least I think I did.  I do not see those paragraphs about "valuing the homosexual orientation" at all.  If I'm missing something, would a reader please be so kind as to cite the paragraph number?

It is quite possible that the heretical paragraphs are included in translations other than English. This example is not the only one in which the English translation differs from that of other translations.  Catholic Culture has an article stating that the Italian translation is quite different.  The difference is at the end of paragraph 4 of the introduction.  Notice that the English states "to discern how the Church and society can renew their commitment to the family."  Period.  However, the Italian version appends a significant phrase to the end of that sentence.  It reads "to the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman."  Rather telling, isn't it?  Catholic Culture, with tongue-in-cheek humor, quips that it's "an oversight".  Of course it isn't.  That was a deliberated omission, most likely done with the intention of muddying the true definition of marriage.  By the way - here's the Italian translation, again from the Vatican site.

Now here's the question of the hour.  Is there an English translation of the final "Relatio Synodi" that accurately reflects the original?  Obviously the one that's on the Vatican website leaves a lot to be desired.

Those Danged Dastardly Translators!

Bad little Italian-to-English translators in the Vatican offices!  Naughty!   It's all their fault, those meanines!  We can blame everything on them - and no one else!  Oh, by the way - who'd like to buy some Florida swamp lands?

That seems to be the gist of today's Vortex, which is really a snippet of the Mic'd Up program from a few days ago.  It probably is the case that there are some underhanded operatives within the Vatican communications apparatus who would like to spread confusion and will do so by sabotaging the English translations of the Holy Father's utterances.  Be that as it may, two questions immediately pop into mind:

1. How is it that the two previous pontiffs (Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II) didn't have nearly as much trouble getting their messages accurately translated into English?  Oh, there was that condom fluff-up a few years ago, but that was such an obvious failed-hit-job that we never heard of such issues again.
2. It's been a year now, and if the Holy Father isn't aware of the difficulty in getting his message translated into English, he's deliberately naive OR he welcomes the confusion.  What other explanation is there for not taking immediate measures to correct the English-translation difficulties? 

Some things the folks are saying in this video are so obvious that I'm surprised they are oblivious to their meaning.  For instance, at 4:00, they remark how the term "civil union" has a different meaning in Europe than in the English-speaking world.  Be that as it may - why, oh why, did the English translators choose that phrase?  They must have known how it would be interpreted, right? 

Then, right after that at 4:22, John Thavis remarks that no prior pope ever gave an interview to a journalist.  Well, gee-willikers!  Is it possible that the previous popes were onto something or perhaps just a tad more careful in making their messages plainly understood by all?  That's why there was "careful vetting": to ensure that the teaching of the Church was accurately presented and not reduced to a bunch of mishmash.

I am embedding only the summary of the Mic'd Up.  Here is a link to the entire thing; the "Francis Effect" is only one of several topics discussed.  In this longer version, Voris makes a good suggestion, if only in a "tongue in cheek" manner.  He suggests that some individual(s) in the English-translating office be fired.  Good idea!  Again, I look askance on the delay in remedying that sorry state of affairs in the Vatican.

Vortex Weighs In On English Translations Of The Pope's Words

In today's Vortex, Michael Voris points out that Pope Francis does not speak English.  Of course English is the predominant language of the Western world, especially in matters of commerce and economics.  Pointing to a particular phrase of the Holy Father's concerning trickle-down economics, he shows how the change of one word completely alters the meaning of the papal text.

At 5:50 he states that "there's something fishy about how the Pope's words are being translated and mistranslated and blown out of proportion when other things he says are being overlooked, downplayed or just ignored."  He points out that his enemies at the Vatican realize the Holy Father's problem with English and that they don't hesitate to put out deliberately skewed translations.

Of course there are those who will exploit the Pope's sloppily-presented words to their own ends.  That's all the more reason for the Pope to retain translators who will faithfully and accurately translate his various documents, etc into the various languages before the progressive main-stream media get their paws and start warping them to their hearts' content.  Yes there are indeed subversive elements at the Vatican.  I do have trouble believing that the Holy Father knows and trusts no one who will offer the necessary translation skills to the Holy Father.  For instance, is not Cardinal Burke still at the Vatican?

I cannot hold the Holy Father as being completely blameless here.  It is he who must take proactive control of the message he wishes to communicate.  If I were to utter something in a careless manner on this blog and many well-meaning people gleaned from my words a meaning I didn't intend, no doubt the blame for the misunderstanding would rest on my shoulders.  It is the responsibility of the communicator to make his/her message sufficiently clear for a reasonable person to understand.  It is not the sole responsibility of the audience to automatically understand the communicator's intent, particularly when the message is objectively garbled.

If Michael Voris and other good people see this problem, why not the Holy Father?  Voris also asks "Just what good is the Holy See Press Office and the clerics there charged with getting proper English translations out to the world when they continue to let their buffoonery, inadequacy, incompetence and idiocy and perhaps even malice rule the day?"  I don't think there's any "perhaps" about the malice.  Recall that this same Press Office didn't let any such gaffes out their door during the previous two pontificates.   I agree with Voris when he says that the Press Office must be cleaned out.  Why does the pope dally and dither about reforming that communications office?  At the end of the day, the buck stops at his desk.