Monday, March 22, 2010

Website in Medjugorje presents distorted translation of Abp D'Errico's address on new commission

EDIT: APRIL 5, 2010:
Update on translation variations of Abp D'Errico's interview regarding the Medjugorje commission





Final Update:  A literal translation was provided to me of the two sentences in question by a native Croatian.  What I had previously has been replaced with this translation.  Notes no longer needed have been cleaned up to allow readers to focus on that portion of the text which is problematic.  In the interest of transparency, here is a snapshot at freezepage of my post prior to the cleanup)

This will have to hold until we see if my request to the Apostolic Nuncio in BiH yields an official translation, which could take time.



None of what I have seen thus far, takes away from the fact that words were added by medjugorje.hr which convey a different meaning than what Abp D'Errico stated.  
 

It takes only two sentences, mistranslated to include words not said by Archbishop Allessandro D'Errico when the Papal Nuncio addressed the people of Bosnia & Herzegovina with regards to the new Medjugorje commission, to change the meaning of what he was saying.

His Excellency would be disappointed to learn how a pair of sentences, made into one, came across to English speaking readers as a result of the fabrication that was made.  I think he will want to look it over and perhaps check translations of his address into other langauges showing up on Medjugorje.hr. and copied to perhaps dozens of other sites. 

In this part of the address, he began talking about how the Holy Father understood well about the phenomenon of Medjugorje from his many years at the CDF. What follows are two sentences in Croatian (I am separating them clarity):
Zna za velika dobra koje se čine na ovome području od strane svećenika, redovnika, franjevaca, laika.
A druge strane pita se kako dolaze tako suprotstavljene informacije o tome fenomenu.

Update at 1:15pm March 23, 2010 - below in blue is a literal translation provided to me by a native Croatian.  It supercedes my own working translation which contained an error in "a druge strane", but was NOT the central problem.


Literal Translation
He knows about great deeds which are done in this territory by the priests, religious, franciscans, lay people.


On the other side he asks himself how come there are such opposed information about that phenomenon.


How did Medjugorje.hr translate it?

He is aware of huge amount of positive and good influence of local priests, religious, Franciscans, lay people, and therefore, it is very difficult for him to perceive that there can be so many opposing information about the same matter.

HUH?

Here are the problems:

  1. Two sentences were unncessarily blended into one (we will set aside the other embellishments found in the first part).
  2. There is no way to derive the words: "it is very difficult for him to percieve...." from the original two Croatian sentences. 
  3. There is no way to derive, "that there can be so many opposing information abou the same matter"
Number (2) is a complete fabrication.  Words were put into the Archbishop's mouth by someone other than himself.  This caused the beginning of a change to what he was articulating. 

Number (3) is a manipulation which cannot be made without the fabrication (2). It is made in such a way as to make it look like the Holy Father can't understand why anyone would oppose Medjugorje!

This is an injustice to Archbishop D'Errico, and to the unsuspecting Medjugorje devotees who are being fed bad information straight from the main Medjugorje website.

I would invite the many sources using this translation to edit what they are showing, because what is being propogated on the web are words which do not belong to Archbishop D'Errico.

Unsuspecting Medjugorje devotees were misled

The devotees of Medjugorje in the english speaking world have been duped by a false translation which altered the intended message by the Apostolic Nuncio.  Here are examples of reactions:

Wow! This seems hugely important. It shows the Holy Father is well disposed towards Medjugorje (as was his predecessor) despite the campaign of disinformation by the detractors ... (Source: post by "Totus Tuus" Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:43 am)


The Pope ain’t stupid. He knows a good tree when he sees one. (same source: post by "bluecross": Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:14 pm)

Paul Baylis makes my point perfectly in his blogpost about this news when he isolates the fabricated part of the translation.  In part, he writes:

The speech made the pertinent remark:

it is very difficult for him [Pope Benedict] to perceive that there can be so many opposing information about the same matter
Here is a headline which reacts to this fabricated sentence:
Pope Benedict XVI Already Positive on Medjugorje Apparition Site? (I am using my Freezepage version here, as well)
I have already made efforts to reach Archbishop D'Errico to share with him what readers are getting in the English translation provided by official website of the Medjugorje phenomenon.  I would encourage others to do the same.  Feel free to send him a link to this post.  I do not have an international calling card,  otherwise I would call his office.  Perhaps some of my European readers can help in this regard.

It would be nice if we could have an approved, or official, translation.  I'm working on it!

Related Links:

Readers may be interested in another recent post: 
Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

39 comments:

Vincenzo said...

An industry that would put words into the mouth of the Blessed Virgin Mary wouldn't think twice about doing the same to the Archbishop or the Holy Father.

James said...

Diane, if you pursue the truth, you should not hold anything back. And while the part of the translation you mention looks flawed, indeed, it is still beyond doubt that the Nuncio passes on some very views of Medjugorje held by Pope Benedict XVI. These you leave aside, so here they are, this time via Google Translate which is not perfect but was used to check this part of the Croatian version into English:

"From personal experience, every time I met the Holy Father (he) had a great interest in the matter of Medjugorje, a question which is addressed from the very beginning when he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is a matter (for) which he feels responsible as the supreme head of the Church to impose a clear message. The Holy Father personally well known to me is often said (he is) - well acquainted with the whole phenomenon. Aware of the great good that can make in this area by the priests, friars, the laity. The other asks how come so conflicting information about the phenomenon".

- - -

You also mention there are more than one possible translation of the part you particularly address:

(1) "And others ask how come there is such conflicting [or, "opposing"] information about this phenomenon".

(2) "A druge strane...." could also be translated to mean, "And the other side..."

"...COULD also be translated", you say. Nonetheless you go on to conclude:

"This make sense. He acknowledges the two poles".

This we cannot conclude. You cannot, I cannot, and...maybe no one can, indeed. I do not know if you know this, but a Croatian word may have as many as five different meanings in English. Therefore it alsways takes a really skilled translator to translate from Croatian into any other language - not only here, but always.

Therefore none of us (who do not have Croatian as a mother's tongue) can tell for sure what is being said here. And therefore you ought to remove your hard-and-fast conclusion "This makes sense. He (the Pope) acknowledges the two poles".

Otherwise you - who accuse medjugorje.hr for putting words into the mouth of the Apostolic Nuncio - runs a great risk of....putting words into the mouth of the Pope. :)

I wouldn't like that if it was me.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

James,

The fact that I did not overload the post with what came before the fabricated sentence or after, is not an indicator that I was trying to hide anything. Otherwise, I would not have provided links so that people could easily read the rest of the translation.

While I have a serious problem with the fabricated sentence, I did not see anything earth shattering about the rest of the translation, so that part, I left for people to read in the link.

I especially felt comforted by the fact that the Holy Father wants to send a clear message. But, I did not mention this because the post was about a fabricated sentence.

With regards to "conflicting" verses "opposing", I was giving some benefit of the doubt to the translator, based on what I was seeing in my dictionary (and through some online translation tools), but the overall meaning was still the same.

Opposing information and conflicting information is pretty much the same thing - in the sense that the there is information which is not in agreement.

Further, as one side has a singular focus on the good fruits, the other side is scratching it's head at this conflicting information.

I think His Excellency captured it well (when presented as he actually said it).

He did not tip his hand in any direction, but merely acknowledged both sides.

The Medjugorje.hr translation, with the added words and distortion which wouldn't be possible without the added words, gave the impression that the Holy Father could not perceive how so many could be against Medjugorje.

That's the real story here.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Back to James,

I see you were saying that one could not say that "A druge strane" could mean "And the ohter side".

My Croatian Dictionry (Langenscheidt) says with regards to "stran|a" (root) is "side". It also points out that when used in conjuction with "a druge" means "on the other hand".

Whether we say "on the other hand" which is a common expression for "on the other side" makes no difference.

Once again, setting aside any minor nuances in my translation (or even other parts of theirs), the translation given required putting words into the mouth of Abp D'Errico that he did not say.

James said...

Diane, you do not address what I am saying: You take for granted that the Pope (according to the Nuncio) acknowledge "the other side", that is: the opponents.

This you cannot do because of the phenomenon I told you about, a Croatian word being able to have as many as five distinct meanings in English.

And...even though you focus on the flawed translation, you should still acknowledge the un-disputedly positive words about the Pope having followed Medjugorje closely since his time as CDF's Prefect etc.

Also you may ask yourself: Given that Benedict XVI has followed Medjugorje "closely" since the 80's, and given that we know (from his own private letters as well as dozens of other sources) that John Paul II, too, also followed Medjugorje closely - why didn't the Vatican ever take a single step to shut down Medjugorje?

I'll answer the question though it's very obvious:

Because both Popes always knew that these apparitions are real.

S. said...

James,
Honestly? Have you ever read any of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI writings? If you have, what in any of them would ever lead you to believe that he would support this nonsense? All I see in what you quoted is that he has concerns, but there is no evidence of his support of it. I see plenty more evidence in his writings to suggest he would consider this whole thing to be ridiculous. I suspect his only concern now is how to extract the faithful from it without losing them and tearing them apart. Kind of like removing a cancerous tumor attached to the eye without destroying the person's ability to see. Except this is much more serious because it concerns peoples' souls.

Let's imagine the Church makes a negative judgement. Like in the book "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis, someone who refuses to accept the negative judgement dies and even then refuses to give up their belief in the Gospa. Jesus comes to them and says, "no, that's not my mother. She did not say those things. You were fooled. Please leave it behind and come with me." Will those who still believe give it up and choose Jesus or will they cling to it and choose their own desires instead? I hope not, but to me, this is the greatest danger that we face. Something to think about.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

James said: Diane, you do not address what I am saying: You take for granted that the Pope (according to the Nuncio) acknowledge "the other side", that is: the opponents.

Based on the translation given to me by email, still pending publication until I get answers on a few minor points, I have updated my post with regards to "the other side".

And, I have acknowledged, that it is the other side, as in the opposition, but rather, the Holy Father reflecting "on the other hand".

There is still no way to derive:

"and therefore, it is very difficult for him to perceive that there can be so many opposing information about the same matter"

from:

"A druge strane pita se kako dolaze tako suprotstavljene informacije o tome fenomenu"

"A druge strane pita se" means: "On the other hand, he asks himself..."

It's the last half of that sentence which is the target of my post and the addition of the words "difficulty perceiving".

James says: Also you may ask yourself: Given that Benedict XVI has followed Medjugorje "closely" since the 80's, and given that we know (from his own private letters as well as dozens of other sources) that John Paul II, too, also followed Medjugorje closely - why didn't the Vatican ever take a single step to shut down Medjugorje?

We know what Pope Benedict has said about the private letters:

"On April 19, 1998, the publisher of the Schwarzer Brief sent documentation on Medjugorje to Cardinal Ratzinger, including 14 quotes from various Medjugorje books by people like Ren Laurentin and Bishop Paulo Hnilica, in which the impression was given that the pope and Cardinal Ratzinger had repeatedly recognized the authenticity of the apparitions. In response Cardinal Ratzinger wrote on July 22, 1998:

Thank you for sending the Claus Peter Clausen's memo. He is well known to me as the publisher of the Schwatzer Brief. I can only say in response that the quotes endorsing Medjugorje which have been attributed to me and the Holy Father have been made up out of thin air.


It's also interesting to note that you are willing to accept correspondence which then Cardinal Ratzinger refuted, but are unwilling to accept the words of Bishop Ratko Peric who stated publicly in his interview with Crkva na Kamenu (Cnak):

Cnak: Some newspapers have written that this Pope visited Medjugorje incognito while he was a Cardinal and that he is preparing to recognize Medjugorje as a shrine, etc. Did you touch upon this topic?


Bishop: We did and I wrote to and spoke with the Holy Father on it. He only laughed surprisingly. Regarding the events of Medjugorje our position is well known: not a single proof exists that these events concern supernatural apparitions and revelations. Therefore from the Church’s perspective no pilgrimages are allowed which would attribute any authenticity to these alleged apparitions. The Holy Father told me: we at the Congregation always asked ourselves how can any believer accept as authentic, apparitions that occur every day and for so many years? Are they still occurring every day? I responded: Every day, Holy Father, to one of them in Boston, to another near Milano and still another in Krehin Gradac (Herzegovina), and everything is done under the protocol of “apparitions of Medjugorje”. Up till now there have been about 35,000 “apparitions” and there is no end in sight!

James said...

Diane, I am not talking about John Paul II's "second-hand quotes" on Medjugorje that were passed on from the bishops and priests who heard him express this support of Medjugorje (more than 20 such quotes exist).

No. I am talking about the Pope's own letters, bearing his personaal hand-written signature, to Polish friends of his. They are re-printed in Denis Nolan's book Medjugorje And The Church, and they show without a shadow of doubt that John Paul II was a firm believer of Medjugorje and saw the apparitions as a very important sign and a big hope for mankind.

Forget Clausen, forget Schwarze Brief. That belongs to the post. Now we have the Pope's own LETTERS as testimonies of his support of Medjugorje.

And...forget Bishop Peric, too. Most likely Medjugorje is soon no longer a part of his diocese. Secondly, his reliability in this case disappeared a long time ago. He has not even spoken to the visionaries whom he nonetheless accuses of lying to the world. Whatever he might think about the apparitions, the visionaries still have a right to his fatherly, apostolic care. Instead of giving them that he slandered them and falsely accused them to the whole world without having ever spoken to them.

Now, exactly how Christian is that...?

observer2 said...

Another generic (online) translation from the original (without the blood sweat and tears of desperately trying to find some other way out of the seemingly established norm for this translation):

The Holy Father personally well known to me is often said - well acquainted with the whole phenomenon. Aware of the great good that can make in this area by the priests, friars, the laity. The other asks how come so conflicting information about the phenomenon.

If nothing else here we must see the emphasis on just what the Holy Father, so personally familiar for years with the phenomena, IS aware of - "the great good". Following that statement is only a question - then how come the conflicting information? It does not state that the Holy Father is in the same way "aware" of any basis for that. And one could say that the mention of the priests, friars, and laity of the region is not for nothing - esp. with the accompanying acknowledgement of "great good" in reference to them for their benefit.

Nick said...

Cardinal Ratzinger already addressed the so-called words attributed to him and Venerable Pope John Paul II about Medjugorje. He said neither he nor the late Pope ever spoke them.

So basically all the people who are now saying Ratzinger or John Paul II support Medjugorje are intentionally giving into lies, whereby they themselves participate in the lies, making them guilty of the sin of lying and so liars. They have let lies quiet their consciences. Only God can save these poor souls.

Tominellay said...

Diane has the sense of the original. The use of the conjunction "a" instead of "i" is a giveaway to the meaning of the second sentence. D'Errico would have said "i" to mean "and". Instead he said "a", which means "but". In Croatian one uses "i" to link things that are alike, and "a" to link contrasting things. The second sentence is correctly translated "But on the other hand
he asks himself how come there's such contrary information about the phenomenon?"

observer2 said...

So basically all the people who are now saying Ratzinger or John Paul II support Medjugorje are intentionally giving into lies,

No, there are back up letters and witnesses to such statements .... unless you here are calling a whole slew of good, holy Cardinals, Bishops, priests, religious and upstanding community faithful "liars". Is that what you are "intentionally" doing here yourself??

Stop the gossip and stop the name calling or someone just might get the idea that this place is a promoter of spurious comments.

observer2 said...

If you have, what in any of them would ever lead you to believe that he would support this nonsense?

The fact that HE was the one who owned the responsibility for taking the sole authority away from the local bishop when he marched into the Church with his negative assessment. As they say, actions speak louder than words - esp. when words must be hidden due to the present study of an ongoing event.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

ALL: Please take note of the updated translation offered from a native Croatian.

A message has been delivered to the Nuncio's office with a request for an official translation. This could take a while.

Note to Tominellay: Please go ahead and repost your explanation.

Tominellay said...

Thanks, Diane.
"Pita se" is reflexive...In the context of the archbishop's two sentences, "pita se" is best translated "he asks himself". This comes from my language teacher, a Croatian priest who is fluent in eight languages.

The rendering "...and therefore, it is very difficult for him to perceive..." is no translation at all, and the publisher should be ashamed!

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

It's come to my attention that some readers are misunderstanding where the problem lies because of my earlier highlighting, once again, of "a druge strane".

That is not the issue and was originally misunderstood by me. This was corrected as noted in the main body of the post.

AT ISSUE is the INVENTION of words not said by Abp D'Errico, starting with:

"....it is difficult to perceive"


Without the addition or fabrication of these words, one cannot manipulate what comes next:

"...that there can be so many opposing information about the same matter."

It's easy to see how Medjugorje devotees could take the combination of the fabricated first part, blended with the manipulted second part of the sentence, and construe it in such a way as to read:

"Hey - the Holy Father can't perceive why so many would oppose Medjugorje".

That is how it comes across and comment examples and post titles I see around the web (some of them quoted here) show that it was taken this way.

Über Medjugorje promoter, Paul Baylis, actually isolated the fabricated & manipulated part on it's own before making his diatribe against the bishop and others who have raised legitimate objections (I only know some of the persons he refers to, like Mark Waterinckx, and Baylis is way off base). The link to his post is in the body of mine.

James said...

Diane, the case is solved: This is all a matter of the phenomenon I told you about yesterday – that a Croatian word can have as many as five different meanings when translated into another language. This is not about deliberate fraud on behalf of Medjugorje’s information office. This is about the fact that Croatian, unlike English and other languages, is not what we could call an exact language.

How can I tell this for sure? Because of an experiment: A Google translation of the five available different translations (as provided by Medjugorje’s information office) have all been translated with Google Translate. As you see below, the Italian to English result comes up with the same translation as the one you object to (”…difficult to understand”). Behold:

From Italian to English:
He is aware of the great and positive influence of local priests, religious, of Franciscans of the laity, and consequently he is difficult to understand how there can be many conflicting information on the same subject.

Croatian to English:
Aware of the great good that can make in this area by the priests, friars, the laity. The other asks how come so conflicting information about the phenomenon.

German to English:
It is well known to him the many good, which is being done by priests, religious orders, Franciscans and lay people. And since then, one wonders about the source of such information to the contrary on this phenomenon.

French to English:
The Holy Father knows well the phenomenon of Medjugorje and he has repeated many times. It recognizes the great good done by the priests, nuns, Franciscan lay and wondered why there is much conflicting information on this phenomenon.

Spanish to English:
The Holy Father knows well the whole phenomenon, and often told me how well he knew. It is known the great good that is done here by the priests, religious, Franciscan laity. And then wonders how come you so conflicting information on this phenomenon.

The English translation as presented on the Medjugorje parish website:

Holy Father is very much familiar with Medjugorje phenomenon; he even mentioned that to me personally. He is aware of huge amount of positive and good influence of local priests, religious, Franciscans, lay people, and therefore, it is very difficult for him to perceive that there can be so many opposing information about the same matter.

So in various languages the nuncio’s questionable words have been translated into:

1. consequently he is difficult to understand (consequently he finds it difficult to understand...
2. The other asks how come so conflicting information about the phenomenon... (on the other hand he asks why so much conflicting information)
3. and wondered why there is much conflicting information...
4. and then wonders how come you so conflicting information... (wonders how you come to have much conflicting information)

And so, a synthesis of the translations could be: Benedict XVI is very well aware of the Medjugorje phenomenon and of the great good done by priests, nuns, Franciscans and laity. And so he wonders (in two translations ”has difficulty understanding”) why there is so much conflicting information.

This is about slightly different words chosen for each of the original translations from Croatian. These differences shine forth when you translate all the translations into the same language. You would see the same thing happening if you repeated the experiment with many, many sentences chosen at random and translated from Croatian into a number of other languages.

I am sorry, Diane, but this is not a story. If you’d like to protect your intellectual honesty, you ought to remove it alltogether.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Dear James,

Thank you for posting this here so that I could address it. I can understand how you can come to the conclusion that you have, but we must ask ourselves a simple question: From what language were the German, Italian, Spanish and French translated?

I am aware of your quest for truth. This we should all seek.

I can tell you this much about the information you provide....

I had done considerable research at Medjugorje.hr yesterday using google translations on the various langauges.

English was the first language after the Croatian version to be released. After that, followed the German, then the French, Spanish and Italian.

Of all the translations, the French is closest to the original Croatian, and I believe the Spanish is, as well. I observed this yesterday.

I also observed yesterday, that both the Italian (the archbishop's native tongue) and the German, appear to be translations from the fabricated and manipulated English version, not direct from the Croatian.

I do not understand the need to combine the two sentences into one.

In the English we ask: Where does, "it is difficult to perceive" originate? There is absolutely no way to derive this from the Croatian.

Similarly, with the German we must ask, where does, "wonders about the source" originate?

The Croatian is very clear when translated literally: "On the other side he asks himself how come there are such opposed information about that phenomenon."

Abp D'Errico reflects upon two thoughts of the Holy Father, so this makes sense. That is also why it is broken up into two sentences.

There is nothing questioning the source of the conflicting or opposed information in the Croatian original, just like there is nothing in the Croatian suggesting the Holy Father finds it "difficult to perceive" that there could be conflicting or perceived information.

The matter is now in the hands of the Apostolic Nuncio in Bosnia & Herzegovina. We will let him take the time he needs to fully discern the matter. He, as the author of the address, will know better than anyone what is true.

Continue to seek the truth James!

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

I would ask all who read this post and find themselves puzzled by the invention of words in Abp D'Errico's address by Medjugorje.hr one question:

Why would Medjugorje.hr feel a need to put words into the mouth of the Archbishop that he did not say which gave the impression that the Holy Father could not understand how people could oppose Medjugorje?

This too is a fruit.

observer2 said...

Medjugorje Commission... first session underway - will end on Friday

that was quick!

MARKAN said...

MARKAN
I am a Croat, living in Austria. The similar problem with the translation we have here with the German translation. E.g. the Medjugorje-propagating Web-site "kath.net" rejected my corrective comment to their article: http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=26095

MARKAN said...

Diane, maybe I can help you a little bit also with your croatian-english problem, even my english is not so good. I am living in Austria, but I am a native Croat from Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In fact, there is also a problem with the croatian text of the D'Ericco enterview, where we can read:"A druge strane" - in Croatian that means nothing.
But "Sa druge strane" means "On the other hand". Also "A sa druge strane" means the same, where the "A" you can read as the conjunction "But".

Nick said...

Medjugorje Commission... first session underway - will end on Friday

that was quick!


Please provided sources.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Nick,

I knew about it earlier today, but could not post on it as I was not home.

See here on first commission meeting.

Paul Baylis said...

Well, this is patently laughable and just shows you the depth and extent of the hatred of anti-Medjugorje devotees to stain anything positive on the subject of Medjugorje.

Regardless of any teeny error in translation, the meaning is exactly the same and clear enough for anyone to understand. Most of all, the general tone of the speech was very supportive of Medjugorje and the comments should all be read in this light.

Sorry, I'd like to say "nice try", but it wasn't.

Wesley Falcao said...

It's sad to hear that people maliciously do such things (mistranslation).

observer2 said...

"maliciously"???? that term came from YOUR stream of consciousness, no one else's - so own it and stop projecting upon others. shame! You're beinning to use Alinsky tactics - isolate persons and defame them.

And so far we've learned nothing different here from those going through the high wire exercises of straining gnats and swallowing camels!!

Rev. Philip Morris said...

Dear Diane, Everything you post about Medjugorje is ALWAYS negative. You sound like a "woman scorned" and keep looking for the slightest problem or mistranslation of a word or two to "hang your hat on." You and the Vatican Commission need prayer in the discernment process. I'm sure that when Medjugorje is declared a Shrine (which would be the only thing the commission can do at this point in time) you will find something wrong once again with what was written or try to find "some dirt" in the background of one of the members. Let the commission do it's work. . .they don't need your input.

Tominellay said...

What an obnoxious comment that was! You should beg Diane's pardon...

Two Cents said...

"Rev. Philip Morris" does not speak at all like a priest.

I doubt that he is a priest.

In fact, it should be known, that posing as a priest could be objectively grave matter, meaning potentially mortal sin.

RC said...

There are some web pages referring to "Rev. Philip Morris", but so far they all seem to be Protestants or dead.

I also doubt that a priest would post personal insults like this. On the other hand, it's typical of some Medjugorje zealots to attack the messenger.

Patrick Coffin said...

Maybe....a rep from Big Tobacco, which is a major industry in Medjugorje. Think about it. For the record, I'm just kidding. Lighten up, folks.

Swaliq said...

Diane,

Your working assumption is that the Archbishop gave his remarks in Croatian, and that the Croatian was "deceptively" tranlated into English); however, my understanding is that the Archbishop's remarks were made IN ITALIAN (he is Italian, after all). So, why are you parsing the Croatian when the English is derived from the Italian instead?

Have you looked into what the original language really was? Do you have the original text?? If not, why not?? Who is really being misled here - the Medjugorje.hr website's readers or yours? Have you taken steps to notify Patrick Madrid (and his readers) that they have been similarly mislead (deceived?) and that you have falsely accused the Medjugorje.hr site of deception??

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

Swaliq:

You probably got that information from this thread at the Medjugorje Forum where someone named "anima" said [note for readers "TD" is Te Deum"]:

"...I will just tell you that the Archbishop spoke in Italian .. oral translation was provided there at the bishop's conference... Croatian version is just a transcript whit [sic] what I call "usual mistakes and faults" of such work. I guess radio Mir should have published the transcript in Italian so that TD really has something to compare or whatever. ... ....comparing from cro[atian] is ridiculous as one can see immediately it is a transcript of oral translation which was not prepared in written form ...
Thus only transcript in Italian would be original to compare with..."


A couple of points I want to make after reading what "anima" writes:

1)This is great news! Then all we need is for Radio MIR to upload the audio for everyone to hear what Archbishop D'Errico said. Surely they recorded this session so they could work on the transcriptions of the Italian which was orated by the Archbishop, right? And, the oral translations into Croatian provided would also be on the recording to help with transcription, right?

I have native Italian readers who undoubtedly be willing to help us compare the Italian text with the Italian audio. Since "usual mistakes and faults" do happen, unintentionally, we need to understand whether the one transcribing the Italian was correct, or the one transcribing the oral Croatian was correct because the two are not in harmony with one another.

2) When I went to Medjugorje.hr in the evening (Detroit time) of March 22, 2010, I had found only the Croatian. (I checked all other tabs at the site, most especially the Italian tab). I found the German and French uploaded before I went to bed that night, and the Italian was still not there. It was sometime the next day (here in Detroit) when the Italian was made available on medjugorje.hr.

3) Archbishop Pietro Sambi, Papal Nuncio here in the US, does not address people in Italian when speaking to Americans. Is it any surprise that, in addition to point (2), I would assume that Abp D'Errico would speak to Croatians in their native tongue as opposed to Italian, especially in the absence of any Italian text on medjugorje.hr when I first checked?

4) The point remains: There is a significant variance, which conveys an entirely different meaning between the Croatian, and what is seen in Italian, German, and English (not sure about the French).

Perhaps "anima" can ask Radio MIR to upload the audio for us to assist in clearing up this transcription/translation misunderstanding. Will you please make this request of her? I cannot participate at the Medjugorje Forums because I do not support the phenomena and those who raise questions of a critical nature find themselves banned.

RC said...

I wouldn't be surprised if the conversation were in Italian.

If the interviewer knows enough Italian, and perhaps if the diplomat is not very strong in Croatian -- which would not be surprising -- then why not use a language that will make it easy for the Archbishop to express himself?

It would be great to obtain the original Italian text and audio. Then it will be easier for more of us to get the Archbishop's message more clearly.

As to whether the apparently erroneous translation was deliberate or just a mistake -- who knows? I wouldn't assume a deliberate fabrication, when perhaps it may just be a case of lack of skill in the translator. Admittedly, the translator might have been engaged in some wishful thinking, wanting to present things favorably to his point of view. But assigning fault is not important: let's look to get an accurate account of what was said.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

RC said: I wouldn't be surprised if the conversation were in Italian.

If the interviewer knows enough Italian, and perhaps if the diplomat is not very strong in Croatian -- which would not be surprising -- then why not use a language that will make it easy for the Archbishop to express himself?



Perhaps I was misunderstood.

I was not surprised that the Archbishop would speak in Italian.

Some assume that I was suppose to know that the Archbishop spoke in Italian when the Italian text was nearly the last to be uploaded (a day after the Croatian).

Why would I assume that he spoke Italian in light of the fact that Italian was not offered until the next day.

I agree there could be an error that is not intentional. Nonetheless, there is enough of a difference between what we see in the Croatian, and the other langauges, that would best be settled with an upload of the actual audio.

I'm interested in knowing what the Archbishop really said.

Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said...

I made a claim above about the Medjugorje Forum banning people who raise critical points and questions. Here it is in their guidelines:

Also another guideline for posting on the Medjugorje Forum is having a belief in Medjugorje.

No one here wishes to debate Medjugorje's authenticity. We've done that before, and it gets nowhere. There are other forums where you can do that, but this is not one of them.

If your posts do not follow this guideline that we've had for many years, unfortunately your post will be deleted and/or you will be banned from the forum.

Timothy said...

Diane,

In the spirit of transparency, you should acknowledge or disclose that Fr. Pavich who recently commented on your translations is a strong opponent to the Medjugorje phenomenon. While that shouldn't make a difference regarding translations, it would have carried more weight if you had obtained validation from a neutral party.

Thanks ...

Two Cents said...

So, while Fr. Pavich was supportive of the apparitions he was considered "neutral" enough to translate bulletins and newsletters in Medjugorje, but since he is now skeptical, his translations are not trustworthy?

Please!