I'm not Catholic so I don't have a stake in this debate, but I'm not against retaining Latin.

...however if they want to do that, they should teach Latin to a useful level. I think that if Hebrew is the "Jewish international language", then it makes sense that Latin should be the "Catholic international language", and there should be no reason why learning Latin within the Catholic community is not as widespread as learning Hebrew in the Jewish community.

I am probably biased since I spent 4 years studying Latin in high school. I think the key is to teach it as if it were a living language, and require extensive writing in Latin, rather than simply translating classical texts from Latin to your language, as is usually done in Latin classes (as was done in my class as well).

T0dd:

Miland:
As to why Latin hasn't been replaced, the reasons (whether one agrees with them or not) were given by Pope John XXIII in his Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia.

I'm not so interested in why Esperanto hasn't been adopted as a liturgical language as in why it hasn't been adopted as a bureaucratic language. The Catholic Church has one of the largest global bureaucracies in the world.

Todd

Because the bureaucracy is by nature a bureaucracy and thus feels that keeping Latin (as a theory on paper, certainly not practiced sadly) is the bureaucratic thing to do!

Erinja:...however if they want to do that, they should teach Latin to a useful level. I think that if Hebrew is the "Jewish international language", then it makes sense that Latin should be the "Catholic international language", and there should be no reason why learning Latin within the Catholic community is not as widespread as learning Hebrew in the Jewish community.

I quite concur. Hebrew and Arabic work quite well as religious linguae francae, and there's no reason Latin can't. I think though that the "scientific" mentality of most in the west has killed Latin's chances off a bit, since most Catholic schools now learn Italian or something like that down here, since it's the living equivalent. Either way though, they should teach them one of the two

Slightly off topic - some latin courses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5UPjPrNbT0 (1st of a series)
Latin1: The Easy Way. - some pronunciation tips are overly zealous, e.g. "e" being guided as "ay", which for an Australian speaker would result in something hilarious.

Unlike Erinja though, my Latin is terrible at best and is more akin to some drunken, vulgar visigoth's Latin, so I can't say "hey, this is 100% spot on, flawless Latin as if spoken today people!", but hopefully it's all good.

Esperanto is a recognised liturgical language of the Catholic Church; I have the first edition of the Meslibro right beside me now and it's dated 1995. However, there are restrictions on its use. It may only be used when there is a congregation present comprised of people of varying native languages, but whose common language is Esperanto.

As for Latin, I agree with Erinja. Latin has to be taught in seminaries and houses of religious formation as a living language and not just a 'reading' language (where it's taught at all!). I belong to the 'Familia Sancti Hieronymi', which has that restoration as its raison d'e^tre.

The question of Latin for the WHOLE Catholic Church is a bigger issue. The Catholic Church is made up of a number of Rites, the largest of which is the Roman/Latin Rite. There are also Eastern Rites of the Church which have a Slavonic base, or Greek or Arabic or Aramaic. To be acquainted with most of theology in its original langages we all need Latin and Greek, but Latin as a beaurocratic language for the Eastern Rites somehow doesn't seem quite right to me.

An anecdote has come to mind. It is alleged (by whom?) that Cardinal Wyzinski said after the Second Vatican Council that Vatican I was held in Latin, Vatican II began in Latin and ended in many vernaculars, but Vatican III will be held in Esperanto.

FWIW

Looks like Miland beat me to the Radio Vatikana broadcasts. I have listened to them from time to time but find it rather dry and ave enjoyed other sources much more.

I suppose you are right that the Roman Catholic Church could benifit, but I'm not sure I see the need.
Other organizations that could benifit and make good sense to me:
* air traffic controllers and pilots, they must use English if it is international in nature (that is my understanding).
* The Olympics, what is more international setting is there and at what other event in the world are so many languages brought together at one time? All athletes communicating in a common language would be neat. How about a referee explainging rules to boxers before a match in EO? (Yes I know they already know the rules, but you get the point.)
* Space agencies, NASA goes into space with others from around the world and the astronaunts live for a hundred of days or so in space. I suspect they also train in the US or Russia, so they must know the local language, plus English when they go into space. It would be easier for astronaunts to communicate (or at least learn this common language, so they could communicate, than learning English)
I could care less who uses the language, and I do not have any idealalism behind my comments. Sed, sxajnas al mi ke, these would be a perfect fit for the language.

T0dd:Perhaps the best xample of an organization that could benefit immediately and extensively by adopting Esperanto is the Roman Catholic Church. It has to be in constant communication with diocesan priests and their staff in virtually every country on the planet. Although Latin was traditionally used for communication in the RC Church, and still is used for certain official documents, it isn't used much anymore for ordinary communication. The Church certainly knows about Esperanto, and even uses it a bit for public relations.

Why hasn't the RC Church adopted Esperanto as the obvious solution to its considerable linguistic challenges?

Todd

• 1

T0dd:

Miland:
As to why Latin hasn't been replaced, the reasons (whether one agrees with them or not) were given by Pope John XXIII in his Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia.

I'm not so interested in why Esperanto hasn't been adopted as a liturgical language as in why it hasn't been adopted as a bureaucratic language. The Catholic Church has one of the largest global bureaucracies in the world.

Todd

Like erinja, I have no dog in this fight, so it does not affect me immediately and personally. I read the papal document linked above (interesting; thanks), and I would say that half a century and an ecumenical council which opened things up to vernaculars have almost made it a dead letter. Nevertheless, an institution as international and as widespread as the Catholic Church might do well to have a common language if Latin may no longer serve. (When I took a Latin course several years ago, the professor claimed that in practice, most papal documents today are originally composed in some other European language such as English, German, or French and then back-translated into Latin for publication.)

Indeed, there are partisans who assert that Interlingua, which they characterize as a sort of modernized Latin, would be a good idea for the Catholic Church. (But then, Giussepe Peano's original Latino sine Flexione is even closer to Latin and, in my estimation, easier than Interlingua.) Nevertheless, despite my personal acquaintance with Interlingua -- I have written much more in it than in Esperanto -- I suggest that E-o might be a better choice than even I-gua.

Interlingua would certainly be an interesting choice. Body of existing literature wouldn't be an issue, since the main point would be communication with one another rather than consumption of "fun" literature.

But considering that major works of Catholicism were written in Latin, I feel like it's a shame to make the language that was the foundation of your religion for hundreds of years suddenly obsolete. And although Latin has a complicated grammar, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone to learn it well if they will be needing it for religious purposes (someone such as a priest who will be needing it to communicate with other priests). Those who learn it for the purpose of church communications will have a better ability to read their religious texts in the original language, which is also important for religious reasons. I feel that it's worth the effort, rather than picking a language like Esperanto or even Interlingua.

Latino sine Flexione (once again, coming from the fellow who speaks Latin like a drunken marauding visigoth) actually does look like a good successor to Latin (thanks Bartlett22183 for reminding me of that language!)

The problem is that I can imagine the pronunciation changing, then again if I remember correctly, and if Blueprints for Babel is correct, speakers of the language never really had a concensus on pronunciation just like Latin before classical pronunciation was pushed for. Knowing how the church likes their Latin pronounced, I can almost imagine mini-Italian being created .

And while Latino sine Flexione sounds pretty cool for those of us who are lazy drunken marauding visigoths and would allow greater understanding of Latin, I can imagine problems arising in understanding the original text and rhythm of poetry/music just as Modern English speakers might have problems with Chaucer's English.

That said, it's stupidly easy to figure out Latino sine Flexione since there's only a small number of rules needed to change from the Latin system to the Mini-Latin system.

Ah, also, fun note: While Esperanto has "farti", Latino sine Flexione has "fac" - I know it's coincidental, but sometimes I do wonder planlingvistoj plan these things haha!

ceigered:Latino sine Flexione has "fac" - I know it's coincidental, but sometimes I do wonder planlingvistoj plan these things haha!

Just that fac id means "do it" even in Classical Latin.