EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time.
Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts.
A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3
Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made.
The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
* PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART
—We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft.
Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following.
Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed.
To be continued.
ROBERT O’NEILL
Former associate of Monsignor
Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt
at Boys Town in Nebraska
JAMES ARNOLD
Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge
A convert to the Catholic Church, and
distant relative of J. H. Arnold
MARIA B.
Currently serves as a musician in the
Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte.
Those aware of the situation in
her diocese won’t be surprised she
chose to withhold her last name.
1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s.
2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal.
3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
