Pages

Wednesday, 25 April 2007

A letter from ICEL

I have just read an email that was sent to me yesterday by Peter Finn, the Associate Executive Director of ICEL:
Subject:
ICEL2006 text of the Order of Mass
From:
"Peter Finn" <pfinn@eliturgy.org>
Date:
Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:27:05 -0400
To:

CC:
"Bruce Harbert" <bharbert@eliturgy.org>, "Bishop Arthur Roche" <etrusticiana@aol.com>

Dear Father Finigan:

It has come to our attention that the proposed translation (Gray Book) of the Order of Mass circulated in January 2006 by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy has been included on your blogspot (the-hermeneutic-of continuity.blogspot.com). This translation has been produced without the Commission's permission and in violation of the ICEL copyright. We ask therefore that the text be removed immediately from the site.

This proposed translation has been sent to the Conferences for their canonical vote and prepared after consideration of comments from Conferences of Bishops, the Vox clara Committee, and the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments on the ICEL February 2005 draft translation (Green Book).

The Bishops of the Commission are concerned that these texts not be released to the general public until the requisite votes have been taken and after the preparation of any additional revisions that may follow upon their vote and the recognitio issued by the Congregation to the Conferences. The Bishops of the Commission are especially concerned that these texts be introduced with sufficient catechetical materials intended to aid the reception of the new translation.

In light of these and other concerns, we ask for your kind cooperation in this matter and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,


Peter Finn
Associate Executive Director
International Commission on English in the Liturgy
1522 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-1202
Phone: 202-347-0800
FAX: 202-347-1839
PFinn@eliturgy.org
I have replied as follows:
Dear Mr Finn

Thank you for your email of yesterday evening (“ICEL2006 text of the Order of Mass”) which I have just read.

I obtained the text of the “Gray Book” draft of the new ICEL translation from the internet and I understand that it is widely available in South Africa. However, I note that ICEL wish to insist that my mirroring of this text is a violation of their copyright and I have removed the translation from my blog.

I am, of course aware that the text which I published is not the final version and I hope that I made this sufficiently clear. Several readers have made intelligent comments on my blog and elsewhere on the internet regarding the translation and I wish that ICEL were able to see the value of involving a wider group of people in consultation. The internet used with discernment is a most effective medium for obtaining fruitful discussion and it seems a pity that the process of producing a translation should exclude the many faithful English-speaking Catholics across the globe who would be glad to contribute their time and expertise free of charge in order to help in establishing the best translation possible for the texts of the Mass.

You say that the Bishops are “especially concerned” that the texts should not be introduced without sufficient catechetical materials that would aid the reception of the new translations. As a priest who has worked in parishes for 21 years, I find it difficult to understand this concern. The existing translations which Catholics are obliged to use every day present such severe shortcomings that they are in themselves a significant barrier to effective catechesis. I cannot see that any harm could come from publishing the draft texts. They have been a great encouragement to many faithful Catholics who have endured inaccurate, theologically impoverished translations of the texts of the Sacred Liturgy for over 30 years. Most Catholics will be immediately delighted with the new translation and amazed that the full richness of the texts of the Mass has been hidden from them for so long.

On the matter of copyright, I know that many good priests and lay people share my concern that the enforcement of copyright by ICEL over the past decades has not served the Church well. The restriction of publishing rights to one or two publishers has given rise to a monopoly with the result that only poorly produced books are available for priests to use in their parishes. The most recent Missal that I purchased for my parish needed to be reinforced with tape after only six weeks of use. The “deluxe” leather-bound “Book of the Chair” fell apart at the seams after a year or so of normal use.

There are many Catholics who would be willing to finance the production of good quality, beautifully produced Missals were it only possible to do so without falling foul of copyright restrictions. When the final text is given recognitio by the Congregation for Divine Worship, I sincerely hope that it will be made freely available on the internet in order that faithful Catholics can foster the production of worthy and dignified books for use in the Sacred Liturgy without unnecessary obstacles being placed in their way. Copyright for ecclesiastical texts is properly used if it prevents profiteering or the production of inaccurate copies. It is an abuse, surely, if it prevents good Catholics from providing excellent materials for our Liturgy.

Yours sincerely in Christ

Fr Timothy Finigan

cc.
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
Vox Clara
I have sent off the one to the CDW - does anyone have a postal address for Vox Clara or, failing that, an email address for Cardinal Pell?

Your comments on this post are, of course, welcome. (May I take this opportunity to remind readers of my advice on putting links in the combox.)

UPDATE - I have received a further message from Peter Finn in reply. Although it would not be sensible, I think, to continue posting our correspondence on this blog, I think it is important to say that his reply is a courteous and respectful response to the points that I raised. There are some issues which I would like to write about on this blog in due course.

64 comments:

Luke Gormally said...

Perhaps a direct email to Cardinal Pell of your response would be worthwhile.

Luke.

LL said...

Bravo!

HeartlandCatholic.com said...

Regarding the copyright question, to whom do liturgical text belong? Do they not belong to the entire Mystical Body by right? Does any subset of the Mystical Body have the moral right to apply copyright restrictions to liturgical texts? I can understand the desire to keep preliminary versions of text sub rosa for various pastoral reasons, but the final version? How does the claim of copyright not constitute an ecclesiastical abuse?

Mac McLernon said...

I was under the impression that copyright was to prevent text being scanned or photocopied, and didn't apply if you were typing the stuff out yourself...

...obviously not!

Anonymous said...

Bravissimo!

Andrew said...

They say traditionalists miss out on the fun... I can see what they miss out on now.

Bravo Fr. Tim - I doubt they'll listen. If your website is blocked in China (unlike the USCCB) then it may well be on the Index of prohibited Orthodox websites, that bishops forbid their flock to frequent.

Anonymous said...

For Archdiocesan enquiries, or to contact Cardinal George Pell
chancery@ado.syd.catholic.org.au

Hope this helps

God bless

Fr Terry

http://catholicanada.com

Mark said...

Thank-you for stating so clearly and succinctly what so many of us in parishes know to be the case. I thought it was the pre-Conciliar Church that was secret and oppressive and the post-Conciliar Church so open and transparent. Please circulate the ICEL request and your response as widely as possible.

Anonymous said...

Here is the email address for the Chancery of the Archdiocese of Sydney

chancery@ado.syd.catholic.org.au

Anonymous said...

father,

one can email the chancery of sydney archdiocese...i got a response from Archbishop Pell, as he was just then, through it.

google sydney archdiocese

i hope that is of use

in domino

a young catholic

Fr Ray Blake said...

Good for you, Fr Tim.

Anonymous said...

For Archdiocesan enquiries, or to contact Cardinal George Pell
chancery@ado.syd.catholic.org.au

Hope that helps

Fr. Erik Richtsteig said...

My brother in the priesthood,

I stand in awe of your response. Well done!

I believe MacM is right about the copyright.

fr from up north said...

who gives a ... about copywright,if Pius V had been able to thad argument we might have all have being saved alot of bother

Father Stephanos, O.S.B. said...

Vox Clara?

You might ask Fr. Z.

Hebdomadary said...

You might well have used the phrase, GET A LIFE!!! Or, try persecuting somebody who cares!! What childishness. Of couse the bishops are anxious that this OH SO COMPLICATED text NOT be implemented at all, but that they continue to waffel and prevaricate for the sake of their childish, outdated and discredited oecumenical agenda. What balderdash. We need alot fewer bishops in the church. And NO ICEL at all. Go get 'em, Padre. We'll back you.

anon said...

http://newmasstexts.blogspot.com/
Someone has put it up as blog which is very kind of them.

Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

Deat Pater,
As St. Paul said... fight the good fight. Know that you are in our prayers. You'll be in my Rosary

WWSTMD

What Would St. Thomas More Do?

Brian Michael Page said...

Good for you, Father.
BTW, here in the United States, the USCCB's infamous liturgy force, the BCL, forbids quoting directly from the New American Bible (the US Lectionary translation) for use in podcasts. This rule applies to laity and priests.

It turns out that my pastor, as well as your truly (his organist/music director) both fall in the category of podcasters.

Brian Noe, who podcasts his "Verbum Domini" podcasts, now uses RSV/Catholic edition for his shows.

BMP

Mara Joy said...

that is a lovely reply.
(not that my opinion means anything...)

Andrew said...

Great job, Father. Although I'm not sure how receptive the good people of ICEL are going to be to having their emails made public. =)
Perhaps's you'll get another email from them. I wonder how they got your email in the first place though.

I agree totally with your comments. The people have a right to have some consultative part in formulating the texts that they will be hearing and praying for years and years.

If they want some participatio actuosa here's some genuine participatio actuosa for them, letting people actually participate in formulating the texts themselves.

I've always wondered why the missals we ave are so poorly made and so ugly. Now I know =)

RC said...

Thank Heavens for Google's cache!

John said...

Don't tell the people!

Keep silent about an issue that concerns the faithful, from the US!

You would have though they had learnt their lesson.

Fr Tim Finigan said...

Thought I'd better check the comments box this morning!

Many thanks for all your kind and encouraging comments and to those who sent the email address for the Archdiocese of Sydney.

Anonymous said...

Very well written, Father.

Ditto the Handbook of Indulgences, from the Catholic Book Publishing Company, which in my experience is a rare book to find here. After St Pauls (London) told me that it takes months to order it in from the US, I managed to find one major Catholic bookseller in Ireland, who had one copy remaining on their shelves. It is also overpriced. And worst of all some of the prayers are reminiscent of sickly American poetry, the sort of thing that Snoopy would come up with (but that's ICEL's area). The one currently being sold is also not the most recently promulgated, which has yet to be translated from Latin, and as this is, as far as I know, a legislative text, one wonder's if it is fraudulant to continue to sell an out of date version of the enchiridion.

The Congregations really need to look at this problem of copyright, and escape from this gnostic mentality that ICEL have.

George said...

Haaaa!!!!!

It just seems so crackers to me! The Word of God no-less, subject to human copyright laws! Maybe they can look to sue the Holy Spirit for moving in such mysterious ways through the Blogosphere. Laughable!

How many 'requisite votes' behind closed doors do we need so that the faithful can at last hear the beauty of the 'real' Liturgy. Even a 'liturgical numbskull' like me could see from reading the new translation that it is a quantum leap forward over the current 'impoversished translations', that we have had to live with for the last 30+ years.

Again, with every due respect to our ICEL friends and the Bishops, yes every step has to be taken to protect the Sacred Liturgy from potential miss-translation or abuse, but the 2006 Order of the Mass under current discussion is as Fr Tim has already pointed out 'of great encouragement to many faithful Catholics'.

Peter and the rest of the Apostles were given a single mission by Our Blessed Lord 'Feed My Sheep', preach My Word to the ends of the earth. Jesus did not mention a word about copyright or voting about the content of what was to be taught!

bernadette said...

The ICELs copyright excuse does not stand up. As the preliminary translation has already been made widely available (mainly through the internet via many different websites/blogs), it can be successfully proved that it is already in the public domain and has been for several days and therefore is now effectively, by default, public property. The internet cannot be policed. That is one of its strengths and weaknesses. What they might think they mean is intellectual copyright theft. But they should know that if they want to prevent THAT, they needed to have sealed the translation(s) in an envelope addressed to themselves with a dated postmark on it, to remain unopened until a time of their choosing. Perhaps the ICEL folk need to seek further legal advice.

Mrs Jackie Parkes MJ said...

Go Fr Tim!

Francis said...

Fr. Tim,

I'd like to congratulate Google for their cache function too.

And I'd like to thank the person who devised the code for "file, save as HTML document" as well.

Paulinus said...

Well done, Fr Tim.

Could there be a correlation between the concern of the CBCE+W for bureaucratic niceties, protocol and copyright law (rather than the propagation of the Catholic Faith) and the decline in the practice of the Faith in this country? The job of a bishop is to ensure the proclamation of the Gospel in accordance with the Faith passed down to them from the Apostles - not the effective application of copyright law in order to protect Collins publishers.

Fr Tim Finigan said...

Mark (who sent a comment about another commenter)

I take your point but I would really rather not have this blog used for a personal attack, however justified you may feel it is.

Thomasso said...

Well done, Father. The ICEL response seems very silly and petulent.

But the real problem, I think, is that faithful Catholics no longer trust their bishops - and the sooner bishops wake up and smell the coffee the better.

We've had 40 years of tainted liturgy and 40 years of every conceivable excuse given not to put things right.

Now that the prospect of a decent translation is getting closer, the bishops (or maybe it's their well-paid advisers) are panicking. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall at the E&W bishops meeting in the rarified atmosphere of West Yorkshire this week.

I don't normally advocate going against the teaching authority of the Church, but in this case I hope some loose cannons among the clergy decide to take the law into their own hands and introduce the new translations. At worst it will be a venial sin - unlike the more
grave sins perpetuated by the continued use of the defective paraphrases we now have.

Know that many prayers are with you and others like you in this unfortunate battle.

Mark said...

Fr Tim,

I stand by what I have said; however I fully understand and accept your decision (Glad I downloaded a copy of the translation while it was still on the blog).

Anonymous said...

Andrew said
'The people have a right to have some consultative part in formulating the texts that they will be hearing and praying for years and years'.

Didn't Cardinal Newman think something along these lines. But, as stated by Andrew, this is clearly not true. The Church is no democracy, nor never will be. However, if a group of well informed critics like yourselves can, by widening the field of expertise, reduce the Curia's burden so as to ensure that they reach the best possible translation of the text in the least possible time before it is made final, then that is no bad thing.

In regard to your comment to Mark, if you have reservations about any comments made then wouldn't it be best to just leave them out, or attenuate what has been said by charitably stating what they are in a form of reply to the initial commentator, as you did with Mark.

Londiniensis said...

Many congratulations and thanks for raising these issues with the ICEL.

It has already been pointed out that the Gray Book text, either in toto or embedded in articles, is widely available on the internet and I'm not sure that the ICEL will be able to have all of these removed. Genies and bottles come to mind.

I am curious as to the basis upon which the Gray Book text is widely available in South Africa. Is the ICEL using South Africa as a "beta test" site (rather in the way that the UK government tries out potentially tricky laws in Scotland first)? Are they soliciting comments from clergy and laity in South Africa?

Perhaps the ICEL could be prevailed upon to make a virtue out of necessity - would they be at all receptive to receiving comments from laity worldwide (remembering that this could also be a two edged sword)?

Tom said...

As the preliminary translation has already been made widely available (mainly through the internet via many different websites/blogs), it can be successfully proved that it is already in the public domain and has been for several days and therefore is now effectively, by default, public property.

This is untrue.

Copyrighted works don't "effectively, by default" enter the public domain merely because pirated versions are available on the Internet "for several days."

If they did, then copyright would become effectively, by default, utterly meaningless.

lourdes said...

Thank you, Father. It is so heartening to know that there are priests out there fighting the good fight! I am so tired of those who view the masses as ignorant. If there is ignorance on the part of the faithful, a large part of it is due to the poor catechesis over the last 30+ years. I second the suggestion to contact Cardinal Pell.

CPKS said...

Many here have questioned the role that copyright plays in the context of the liturgy. Some have surmised that it might be to prevent mistranslations being circulated (a nightmarish prospect - particularly if the mistranslations seemed to have some sort of underlying pastoral or theological agenda). This is an ingenious argument, but it doesn't seem well borne out by recent history.

Fr Tim's (excellent) reply to the ICEL lawyer raises the point that if the translations were public on the Internet, then interested Catholics could contribute to the development of a better translation. Indeed, Catholics might become more aware of the issues involved. Unfortunately, however, I fear that this would have two undesirable consequences. First, we would be confronted by the unedifying spectacle of lay participation in things that intimately affect them (clearly contrary to the "spirit of Vatican II"). Second, critics might be able to allege that the resulting liturgy was the product of "organic development". The intelligent readers of this blog don't need me to explain how catastrophic that would be for the life of the English-speaking church.

Personally, I'm not too worried about the new translation. No, I'm now bracing myself for the "catechesis" that I'm going to need in order to be able to handle an accurate translation of a Latin text with which I've been familiar for forty years. Pray for me, dear brothers and sisters in Christ. This won't be easy for me.

Hebdomadary said...

Hi Father, this was my reply to the situation which I posted on the new blogsite that features the new mass texts. Whoever put it us is doing a favour to the faithful!

"You know what, I was able to read almost every word of that (speaking English as I have from almost my first words! - before that I gurgled alot and threw up occasionally) without having to use a dictionary.

It kind of makes one think that perhaps the ICEL would like to keep this under wraps for as long as possible, or something. Maybe there's an AGENDA there? Don't really approve of this kind of formalism?

Fortunately I don't take my cues from people like ICEL, so at mass I already loudly answer with "And with THY spirit", say "I Believe..." in the creed, and usually make the preface responses and others in Latin, whatever the language of the mass I'm attending. It just saves confusion, and keeps me from contributing to the already abysmal standard of American Catholic worship.

I heard a story the other day, about the first folk mass celebrated in my diocese. The woman who as a 16 year-old girl attended it told of how she and her class were taken as a group to "something special" at the cathedral. At the door nuns collected everyone's traditional missal and mantilla, never to return, though they weren't told that at the time (and hand missals weren't cheap and still aren't!), but she wouldn't give hers up. The nun tried to force it from her, but my friend held onto it tenaciously. Finally the nun gave up, and my friend recounted being told to come up and surround the altar, the singing of vernacular folk music, etc. She said, and I quote, "I felt as if I was being raped."

The abuse by the church in the United States isn't confined to pederasty. At least one generation has been psychologically traumatised and distinctly violated, and that violent trauma is being perpetuated by the very people who perpetuate that legacy under the guise of ICEL. Just check their attitued in this case.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for shining a light on the obstructive and pointless work of these faceless beurocrats. But they, too, shall pass, and their comic-book, throw-away version of Catholicism sense with them."

I would also like to point out here that the parents of that girl were FIERCE in their defense of their daughter. That's what it takes.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your courage Father.

Amette

Dom Christopher said...

A couple of months ago, Bishop Trautmann said that liturgical texts ought to "belong to the people." I thought that meant that this nonsense about copyrights was over.

Paul, South Midlands said...

Being very controversial here, quoting hebdomadry "The abuse by the church in the United States isn't confined to pederasty. At least one generation has been psychologically traumatised and distinctly violated, and that violent trauma is being perpetuated by the very people who perpetuate that legacy under the guise of ICEL. Just check their attitued in this case."

It does occur to me that in some respects both scandals are two sides of the same coin, and if the former scandal results in the church in the west being bankrupted, it would have the blessing that all the bureaucrats would be made redundant overnight and the good priests and bishops could get on with their job unimpeded.....faithful catholics would just have to dig deeper into our pockets to support them financially.

Anonymous said...

"At least one generation has been psychologically traumatised and distinctly violated, and that violent trauma is being perpetuated by the very people who perpetuate that legacy under the guise of ICEL"

This level of abuse continues in the seminaries. Unless you enter with a "protector" or patron or powerful, well connected parents, you are bullied by the system. It is satanic in some instances.

Anonymous said...

God bless you, Father!

I look forward to seeing what the Catholic Herald and the Daily Telegraph make of this!

bernadette said...

Tom - re copyright - this situation can be likened to a group of newspapers/broadcasters breaking an embargo, en masse. It would be impossible for the offended party to sue all of them, because the information is now "out there" and people have the autonomy to decide about it for themselves. Copy-right law with effect to the internet is also an evolving area of law(and ethics). No copyright law in this case has been broken (it could be successfully argued). But, correct that if it`s wrong.

Anonymous said...

" Mac McLernon said...
I was under the impression that copyright was to prevent text being scanned or photocopied, and didn't apply if you were typing the stuff out yourself..."

No I think it does cover you copying it by hand. This is particularly enforced with music scores where a handwritten score of a copyrighted piece photocopied for a choir could land them with a very large bill.

Also mapping. One of the little known secrets of mapping is that the maps have quite a lot of deliberate but subtle errors. Anyone copying it by any means whatsoever can be shown up to be infringing copyright by their unknowingly reproducing the error. [Ah so that is why the ICEL text still says "All" not "Many" :-)]

However as I understand it, you are still allowed to quote from such work. My reading is that you could say put in 20 quotes of the most changed parts of the Mass in an article without infringing copyright but copying the entire creed would probably be going too far.

However, were ICEL to start taking legal action against individual Catholics [as opposed to book publishers] for breach of copyright over the text of the Mass, my guess is that it would make the Church a laughing stock and expose the Church to such secular ridicule that the Vatican would have to promptly abolish ICEL to quash the scandal. You can just imagine the headlines..

Ttony said...

An honest mistake, as no copyright marks seemed to be present on the originals. (Has the tired PP of the Adur Valley been "rested" permanently, by the way?)

Peter Finn's communication is exquisite: you could have asked how an organisation which doesn't know how to spell "grey" could possibly have anything to say to English-speaking Catholics in the Commonwealth.

But then you're probably much holier than I am.

In your correspondence, please could you ask about the South African Use, as we might begin to call it? How licit is it?

Simon-Peter Vickers-Buckley said...

If the Catechetical materials are deficient, who is responsible for that? If the homilies are deficient, who is responsible for that? If the translation of the Mass is deficient, who is responsible for that? Well, according to one Joseph cardinal Ratzinger, symposium in Paris, January 16th, 1983..."Handing on the Faith" HE *knows* who has screwed up...different people, same mind.

These are the same people SoS Bertone spoke of last November:

>Italian journalist Gianni Cardinale, asked Bertone about atheists who may support the Pope on certain issues such as his stance on Islam. “If I can put it in a sound-bite,” Bertone said as translated by Vatican reporter John Allen, “the church doesn’t really worry about atheists, however devout, because they’re out of her spiritual jurisdiction, so to speak. Much more worrisome are those inside the church who work to distort its faith and moral principles, or who oppose the pope and his design for renewal of the church.”<

No one is fooled by this.

"At least one generation has been psychologically traumatised and distinctly violated, and that violent trauma is being perpetuated by the very people who perpetuate that legacy under the guise of ICEL"

Exactly. The root of this, is that they didn't want their fine work open to scrutiny by the great unwashed...and, at the same time, they didn't want us to see it in case it was essentially gutted during the process of review...and one can imagine why.

Go away ICEL you are as big a joke as the USCCB.

Thomasmore said...

Father Tim

Thank you for your response on this matter.

I always despair when people try to stifle debate!

As for profiteering , get after them we do not want a monopoly!

Fight the Good Fight, One Church, One Lord, One Christ; which has to be open to all, and not the few.

Keeping you in my prayers

God Bless

Anonymous said...

Bravo, Father!

However, even when this new text comes in there will be those of us who will insist in saying loudly those phrases of prayers for which there has been a standard English translation that has been knowm and loved by generations of Catholics across the world but which ICEL still insists on messing around with, such as in the Confiteor "I have sinned EXCEEDINGLY" not "greatly" and in the Creed "And WAS MADE MAN", not "became man". Such trivial messing about with well-loved phrases of prayers for compartiviely insignificant reasons serves only to alienate people.

Jordan Potter said...

Regarding the comment above about the USCCB not allowed people to quote the NAB in podcasts, I'd heard before, and I definitely applaud the USCCB's attempt to stop people from using that awful translation of the Bible. ;-)

Andreas said...

There is an implied assumption at work here: namely, that by hiding the draft translation no one knows the secret content of the original Latin. Guess what! Many of us can read and understand the Latin text for ourselves just fine.

Londiniensis said...

Many here are being very critical of the ICEL - but it was they who produced this superb draft in the first place.

Has the "unofficial" internet publication perhaps thrown an awkward spanner into tricky conversations with some recalcitrant bishops?
or
Was this a deliberate leak in order to demonstrate to said bishops the overwhelming support for the current draft from the man (and woman) in the pew?

Fr John Boyle said...

Consultation is all the rage now. Why will the episcopal conference not embrace it? Even the HFEA are running a consultation on hybrid and chimera embryos (see http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/1517.html). The episcopal conference likes to keep things to itself. This text should be made as widely available as possible. As another commentor said: thank goodness I downloaded a copy before you withdrew it! Well done!

As regards the catechesis argument, I think we should be given permission to use the new translation 'ad experimentum' as from now. What better way to prepare the faithful for the changes that will inevitably come. We can do the catechesis, trust us! (But do they?)

Anonymous said...

I applaud your wish to include the community of faith in the consultation process regarding the texts. I presume that means all valid theological starting points and not just those rooted to any specific groups would be supported

Anita Moore said...

I am, of course aware that the text which I published is not the final version and I hope that I made this sufficiently clear. Several readers have made intelligent comments on my blog and elsewhere on the internet regarding the translation and I wish that ICEL were able to see the value of involving a wider group of people in consultation. The internet used with discernment is a most effective medium for obtaining fruitful discussion and it seems a pity that the process of producing a translation should exclude the many faithful English-speaking Catholics across the globe who would be glad to contribute their time and expertise free of charge in order to help in establishing the best translation possible for the texts of the Mass.

Yaaaaaaaaay, Father! THIS -- not stepping on clerical turf -- is what the council fathers of Vatican II meant when they called for more active participation by the laity. Hooray for the actual teachings of Vatican II (as opposed to the "spirit" of Vatican II)!

Orthfully Catholic said...

Well Done Father Tim!

Orthfully Catholic backs you 100%!!!

Charles Curran said...

Right on, Tim!

Re ecclesiastical copyrights, especially of texts/works directed at us all,
I suggest we push for the use of Creative Commons copyright licences.

With a Creative Commons licence you (the author/work creator/licenser) keep your copyright but allow people to copy and distribute your work provided they give you credit -— and only on the conditions you specify (CC licence components).

So, for instance, a liturgical text might have its copyright licence set as by-nc-nd/3.0/:
@ Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licenser (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)
@ Noncommercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes
@ No Derivative Works: You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
That last component would only be applied as necessary.

* explanations of CC are based on text at http://creativecommons.org/.

Nicolas Bellord said...

As a Catholic my reaction to the idea of claiming copyright in sacred texts is one of shock. As a lawyer (not expert in copyright law) I wonder to what extent it is necessary. The idea behind copyright is that an author of an original work should be entitled to claim ownership and receive proper reward for his work for a certain time. I suppose ICEL can claim that a new English language version of the text is an original work and that they can therefore claim copyright. The question is really a moral one of to what extent they should restrict publication. I believe they should allow people to publish it on the internet and perhaps elsewhere provided it is not sold. If someone wants to sell it then it seems fair that ICEL should require a royalty sufficient to cover their costs of preparing the translation but no more. To require more smacks of simony? I would have thought ICEL's costs were fairly modest compared with the millions of missals that would eventually be sold and that therefore the royalty wouldbe very modest allowing a large number of publishing houses to publish it for different markets and with different qualities of bindings etc for rich and poor communities. Perhaps ICEL, their lawyers and/or their publishers could comment on this.

Londiniensis said...

The ICEL Copyright Policies can be read here. Perhaps someone with the relevant legal background could comment?

Fr. Stephen said...

When the new translation is finally "out", I hope Catholic Book Company will be "out" as well. I look forward to a dignified and beautiful translation in a dignified and beautiful edition - for a change. We have had nothing but ugly and banal in both the translation and in the so-called "art work" in the Sacramentary of 1970. Catholic Book Co. is consistently bad in their productions. Some one can certainly do better, please God.

Deacon Paul said...

Another significant consideration is the declining eye-sight of an ageing priesthood. In particular a number of priests now suffer from age related macular degeneration and require both large print and careful layout for ease of reading in public.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Thanks to londiniensis for providing the link to ICEL's terms and condition. I do not claim to have the relevant legal background and have only glanced through them. It does seem that prior to approval by the conference of bishops and the Apostolic See they are using copyright law to forbid ALL publication. Thereafter they are claiming royalties on publication for sale but not otherwise (although it is not entirely clear how far "otherwise" goes). They do say that the idea of the royalties is to recompense the authors etc but it does not seem to be necessarily limited to that. The question then is whether they should allow publication of drafts. Others here have discussed that.
The draft text is now in the public domain and my understanding (not expert) is that one can quote from any document in the public domain short passages for the purpose of discussion. It might be a good idea to acknowledge the source. Thus you could quote some new response and then discuss it. There is also, it seems to me (not an expert) that the question of originality does arise. If they produce a text of say the Lord's Prayer which is identical with what we learnt at our mother's knee then they cannot claim copyright. They sort of acknowledge this but say we should still acknowledge the source which I find a bit of a cheek.

Anonymous said...

Well.... maybe the Bishops will take Early Church Fathers' advice and prohibit heretics and schismatics from using the Bible completely. The Catholic Church wrote and compiled the Bible so shouldn't we have the copyright for it? So I wonder how the Baptists down the street would feel if the Church filed a lawsuit against them for using our Bible....

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...