Thank you so much for running this piece. It is an extremely important issue, and I hope this piece at least starts the debate by shedding light on the existence of the problem.

Just this morning I received a note from a monk who has been setting ICEL texts for decades. He keeps his music in his desk because he is afraid that he is violating copyright. In an earlier time, he would be heralded as a holy artist. Today, he fears even letting others know what he is doing.

This must stop.

I've long had this same problem. As a composer of liturgical music myself, it's confusing to even navigate the maze that is "Fair Use" surrounding the texts of the Mass, nevermind actually paying to use them.

As to the Lectionary, didn't Christ say something like "Go out to all the world and spread the Gospel; make sure you pay for it first."

Thnk you, indeed! Yes, they have, with cooperation of publishers, turned Sacred Text into a business. In my opinion, they churn the texts and the translations so that they create a steady stream of outdated materials that must be replaced. It's a disgrace.

I've many times watched the shocking bureaucracy of our Bishops Conferences on EWTN. The Conferences are shocking for many reasons. In one instance one Bishop stood up and admitted he had never been properly taught a particular doctrine of the Church.

But this constant nit picking on the sacred texts; this destruction of the beautiful until now it almost sounds like we are exchanging business memos with God is the most shocking to me.

I hope they wake up and put and end to it.

"Fair Trade" chocolate, coffee, palms...

Why not "Fair Trade" music?

I think these texts ought to be in the public domain. It should be possible to take the text and publish beautiful copies with beautiful illustrations; it should be possible to find the universally accepted text in MANY forms of print.

The only down side I see is that once anyone is publishing, then there will need to be a watch-dog group to publish lists of those texts which have been tampered with by people with political axes to grind.

As a scholar, I don't use the "official" text of the Bible because I dislike the translation. I do like a couple of the other translations and these I use in my own studies.

I'd also like to see the public domain include really good translations of the official prayers done by someone other than the ICEL.

Unity of liturgy is important, but if it is unity in lame duck translations that fails to bring out the joy and beauty of the original text--what good is that? It only leads to people in the pews thinking that liturgy is bland and worth nothing in their lives.

I think bringing the new translations of official texts into the public domain after a year or two of publication by the "official" publishers would be a good thing and make the books more affordable for everyone.

The notion that this is simony doesn't seem correct. The use to which private individuals and publishers might put the texts can hardly be considered indispensable to Catholics. The texts are already in the hands of the Church's ministers from whom Catholics receive the sacraments and the interior graces which they communicate. By the same logic, the music industry is guilty of simony itself for selling the hymnals to parishes. They ought to be given away.

As for the copyright issue, certainly it constrains the creativity of the Catholic music industry. To my mind, given the banality, and downright stupidity, of some music, I can't see the downside to a regulated proccess, especially with the big music houses. Recently OCP advertised an acclamation that went "Alleluia, ch ch, Alleluia, ch ch." God save us from such juvenile creativity!

It is unfortunate, and I hope it changes. But anyone, anywhere there is a local Catholic Church, can go to Church and take part in the liturgy for no charge. Thus I think the charge of simony is inaccurate.

Mightn't it be wise for the Church to keep the copyright, but be much more liberal in their allowance of free use? This would provide them a legal option for instances of gross abuse of the texts. But also, don't copyrights expire and automatically enter the domain of free use? How will they manage to keep these copyrights over the course of decades and centuries? Thanks for the interesting article.

The point is that the Church is charging people for the right to use the indulgenced texts themselves, meaning that a price is being put on a ritual language that is in fact infinitely reproduceable in the service of the faith. If someone creates a song or a book, including ICEL, that can be sold, sure. It is the source texts themselves that are an issue.

All the more reason to just use Latin.

What scares me more is the news that Conception Abbey sold their Psalter to GIA. I had thought the Conception Abbey Grail Psalter was supposed to be, among other things, non-PC. GIA treats the word "he" like it's profanity.

If it isn't simony, it's pretty close. These texts should definitely be in the public domain.

Are missalettes really necessary for the Mass? Doesn't the purchase of them constitute a moral hazard, in that it provides profit to ICEL, and now to GIA, and encourages them to maintain the copyright? What would happen if churches "just said no" to copyright materials?

A Copyright offers protection.

The Church can't copy right a crucifix.

...And so it can end up in a jar or urine.

Can you imagein what all the lovers of the Catholic Church could do with our Mass?

No thank-you.

Some things deserve more protection than others.

Ed, you are confused. The imprimatur offers protection. Copyright is a civil tool that offers only the prospect of royalties. It has the reverse effect of what you mention, as I point out in my article. The copyright has encouraged people to use something other than the official texts.

Think think!

(Wherein I reveal my youth and ignorance, and welcome correction...)

Seriously, resurrect the practice of using these three tools. What was so deficient about them in the pre-ICEL era? Or was it an exclusively Roman Catholic thing that needed to be jettisoned in the name of ecumenism? (I'm foggy on the origins of ICEL, but I believe that may have been one reason for its formation.)

In addition to the protection afforded to the texts, the faith, and the faithful, these tools hold accountable the clergy that sign their names whenever they use them. The current setup invites those who ought to be responsible parties (individual bishops) to hide behind a faceless entity, be it the USCCB or those to whom it outsources (like ICEL).

With the nihil obstat-imprimi potest-imprimatur setup, if a bishop lets something slip, then it's the responsibility of that particular bishop. With the current system, it seems like it's the fault of the entire body of bishops; therefore, it's no individual bishop's fault -- it's everybody's problem, therefore it's nobody's problem.

Friends, why aren't we writing to our bishops conference? It's time that we start making this travesty public. Every Catholic has the right to RESPECTFULLY indicate his or her thoughts on a public matter to his or her bishop.

It's clear that many of our US bishops are not technology people. So let's inform them. Let's get to writing paper letters - not emails - to our bishops asking them to consider revising this policy. Let's get a grass roots effort going. The only way things will change is if we spread the word.

If it goes into the coffers of Holy Mother Church, than I say pay for it and oppose tooth and nail those who want freebies.

" Catholic Groups Face Probe on Catechism Price
Justice Dept. Investigating Possible Antitrust Violation
By Jerry Knight
Washington Post Staff Writer
SATURDAY, JUNE 11, 1994

The new catechism of the Catholic Church, the official manual of the church's teachings, says it is a sin "to manipulate the price of goods"—a violation of the seventh commandment's prohibition against stealing.
But a former Justice Department antitrust lawer contends that the church itself and 15 book publishers have conspired to fix the price of the new catechism---a violation of federal antitrust law
As the result of a formal complaint by Michael Kirk-Duggan, the Justice Department's antitrust division has launched a preliminary investigation of possible price fixing by the U.S. Catholic Conference and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Washington-based church agency that published the book.
Kirk-Duggan, a retired University of Texas law professor who lives in Durham, N.C., describes himself as a "practicing Catholic" and holds degrees from three Catholic institutions, including Georgetown University. The new catechism, which is to be issued later this month, is the first complete revision of the Catholic religious manual since the Council of Trent convened in 1566 to review church doctrine in response to the Protestant Reformation. For the last 100 years, U.S. Catholics have used a condensed version of that work known as the Baltimore Catechism, after the home of the bishop who developed it.
In contracting with publishers to produce the 803-page book, the Catholic Conference set minimum selling prices, prohibited imports from Canada, where it sells for a lower price, and required that publishers must buy hard—cover versions in order to get the more popular soft-cover edition, said Kirk-Duggan.
“It's price-fixing, sure as God made little green apples," he said.
Kirk-Duggan doesn't understand how the new catechism is published, responded Monsignor Francis Maniscalco, spokesman for the Conference of Bishops.
"This is unrestraint of trade," he said. "We could have produced all copies ourselves" and set the price. "Instead of doing that, we opened it to all responsible publishers, so we could get the catechism out as widely as possible."
The "publishers" did not actually print the new catechism. Because the text and format must conform to requirements set by the Vatican, the Conference of Bishops prints the books and sells them to the publishers, who are free to offer discounts, said Maniscalco.
Kirk-Duggan said he carefully followed the years of political and theological debate that led to production of the new catechism. When publication plans for the new version were announced, he said he was stunned to read that the Conference had contracted with 15 publishers to produce the book in paperback versions selling for $19.95 and hardcovers costing $29.95.
He said the church had contracted for the book to sell for the same price in Canada, where the lower value of the Canadian dollar meant the paperback could be purchased for the equivalent of about $15 in U.S. currency. The Canadian publishers, however, were not allowed to export their books to the United States, a violation of U.S. antitrust laws, he said.
Setting standard prices for the book "is a more serious violation, criminal in nature." he said. "If the publishers agreed among themselves or with the Catholic bishops that they will sell copies at uniform prices or uniform discounts, that's horizontal prices fixing, That's what people go to jail for."
Kirk-Duggan said the Conference also appeared to violate antitrust laws by requiring publishers to provide both hard- and soft-cover versions. "That's an illegal tie-in sale," he said.
Justice Department officials—as usual in such cases—refused to say whether an investigation is underway. One government antitrust expert, however, said Kirk-Duggan is "very knowledgeable" about price fixing cases."

Bruce noted that "hymnals should be given away" if this were the case. Not so... one is not MANDATED to use this hymnal or that hymnal, ar any hymnal at all. But we are mandated to use the Missal texts at Mass. And this actually makes Jeffrey's point. If the USCCB publishes a Missal, that specific book is copyrighted. But not the text... just the specific publication of it. Why should there not be competing publications (some with more attractive covers, others with heavier paper, etc.. it just doesn't make sense.

There are so many things on my list to write the USCCB about before this (valid) issue, that I can't count them. In my diocese, the Church's teachings are not adequately taught re: homosexuality (i.e., Courage paradigm), the Poorest of the Poor (ie, the unborn...per B16 last spring) and other basic precepts of the Catechism. Until we can get these foundational issues straight locally, I can't invest time & energy on this. When you're up to your neck in alligators...

In sum: You cannot say mass in English without paying ICEL. You don't want to pay ICEL? You go find another language. Simony.

Perhaps what we need is a simple fundamental rule (perhaps in Canon Law) that corresponds to one found in US copyright law. As the law stands, any document produced by the US government or any of its agencies is in the public domain. I believe that this even include the work product of any federal employee (such as memos, reports, etc...). It cannot be copyright at the time of publication, and no private distributor can add a copyright to it. So, if you produce a commentary on the tax code, you can copyright only those parts that you create but not the code itself. Other countries, unfortunately, do not do this with government documents.

I understand that there might be a desire to control the distribution or format of the liturgical materials. There might be a concern to ensure that papal encyclicals are not revised to suit our whims, or whatever other mischief people might get up to. As an academic, I am concerned about having access to verifiably accurate texts, but this can be done by making everything available through authorized websites in various formats. Unauthorized publication might be permitted, but this does not mean that it is encouraged.

Some of the open licenses used by open source software could be used as another model. As an alternative to copyright, a licensing system which does not require prior approval but carries binding restrictions on use could be a solution.

Well, never put anything past our good Bishops, anything for a buck! It just smells to high heaven.

...if it goes in the coffers of Holy Mother Church, who cares? It supports our Church....again, we have people comparing us to the Protesters...why? Our Church could use the money, and I don't begrudge them it...This system provides jobs and revenue for the Church and many people...I don't see an issue with this at all.

I'm not sure this is simony but it is a very serious problem. It is also complex and difficult to communicate. We need some good clear headlines here. Here's a try: "ICEL Money Changers Turn Mass Into Profit Center". Any other ideas out there?

It's the old Rheims/Challoner translation, yes, but there is no copyright or royalty attached to it. Given the smackdowns leveled on bloggers in the past, I shy away from posting the NAB version even though I theoretically could cite fair use in doing so.

Here's the NAB link for those interested: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians9.htm#v16

1) A similar problem exists with the Liturgy of the Hours. Clerics are obliged by Canon Law to pray this Liturgy but, to obtain approved versions, even electronic with zero publishing expense, copyright costs are imposed. Consequently, no one has yet dared to offer the Liturgy of the Hours, for free, full text, in the internet, that is in English. You can find it in Italian for free at www.maranatha.it because the Conferenza Episcopale Italiana has not imposed copyright restrictions on their approved transalations.

2) Comment 10 above recommends using Latin to get around the problem. Not so easy. Libreria Editrice Vaticana has a copyright on the Mass text and the Liturgy of the Hours, so, any free and complete distribution risks civil litigation. Consequently, there are now "private and personal" distributions in a "blackmarket" that is now flourishing among pious priests who want to be able to pray the Liturgy of the Hours while reading from a computer, handheld, or cell phone.

3) One bright spot, at least sort of: the new iPhone application, which is low cost but not for free and offers liturgical texts in at least some languages. I don't know the details.

4) Since one is praying for a particular publication of a copyrighted text and not for a spiritual good, this does not constitute simony, neither morally or canonically. But still it does inhibit effective distribution for better evangelization. Protection of source under a legal figure such as the licenses offered by Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/) could offer guarantees that others would not make money off of the Church's text while facilitating distribution.

I always thought simony meant charging money for the administration of the sacraments or attempting to buy the sacraments. It is not clear that charging money for liturgical texts would actually be simony, regardless of whether it would be right or wrong.

Besides, putting the texts into the public domain is not the only possible solution. Might it not be sufficient to request that the fair use terms be expanded for the liturgical texts and the Revised Grail Psalter, specifying the ways in which it would be needful to expand those terms?

Without copyright a heretic could publish in the Church's name and deceive people into thinking this is Church teaching. Imprimur Maters and the like are not sufficient safe guards when you have occult religious syncretists like the "Church Universal and triumphant" who have already co-opted the Catholic name. Likewise, schismatics like the "old Catholics" would also have a field day without copyright and trademarks.

Hello, Fr. Humphries,

I agree with what you wrote, but I do believe in e-mails rather than sending paper letters. You know as well as I do, that most Bishops don't open the mail that they get. It is done by either the Bishop's secretary or the chancelor of the diocese.

Most bishops, however, open their own e-mail. So if we want to inform them, then don't clutter up their desks with paper---e-mail them---and let them know how you feel about this.

it's in the public domain. Same case for works published abroad, if it was published before 1923, it's in the public domain, and there is no copyright protection for it. So if you want to fix your problem, find a Missal and Liturgy of the Hours and so on published before 1923. You can put them into electronic form, republish them, send them to the Gutenberg Project, all to your hearts' content, and not have to pay a penny to anyone. If you get a cease and desist letter from anyone, tell them to check the law at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15t.html#termination "Works published before January 1, 1923, have fallen into the public domain".

To be fair, there's always the Church of Scientology...

Dude,

Try the Rosary. Not only is it free, it pays dividends. And, if you have 10 fingers you don't even need to purchase one. You would have less time to dig up non-issues like your 'simony' cry. You'd make your Blessed Mother happy, too.

This issue of simony would all be meaningful and profound if there really were a God. Otherwise, we're talking the same issue as every other bit of music and text. Don't go for special pleading: it's an invalid argument.