HIS IS THE SECOND installment in a series called: “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation.” We have the audacity to hope our series will persuade priests and bishops to fix this scandalous situation, which has been festering for 50+ years. One reason this outrageous state of affairs has perdured is owing to its subject matter, which is mind-numbingly boring to most Catholics. Another reason it has ‘flown under the radar’ is because to expose it makes one feel dirty. Lutherans, Anglicans, or Pentecostals might take delight in giving the Catholic Church a black eye; but we are loyal Catholics. We recoil from pointing out the ‘human’ side of Holy Mother Church. Indeed, we selected this venue (CORPUS CHRISTI WATERSHED) since no one can doubt their constant—almost obsessive—dedication to providing positive resources for Catholics, freely offered to all.
(1 of 2) Control Over Texts • Today, we will discuss the matter of control. When our discussion ends, please don’t expect to understand fully, because the situation is virtually impenetrable. One must understand that for half a century a number of shell corporations have claimed (falsely, as we saw) to ‘own’ the indulgenced and mandatory texts of the Roman Catholic Mass. But why were numerous shell corporations devised? Wouldn’t just one be sufficient? The answer is: not for their purposes. When a publisher wishes to reproduce the Church’s mandatory texts, multiple shell corporations allow a type of ‘passing the buck’ that never ends. One entity will say, “I will only grant permission for the text we claim copyright over once you get permission from three other corporations.” Predictably, immense confusion results from such Mickey Mouse games.
This Coming Sunday • Consider the Responsorial Psalm for this coming Sunday, 3 August 2025, which is the 18th Sunday in Ordinary Time (Year C). In 1969, the ORDO LECTIONUM assigned Psalm 94, and the 1970 English version of the Lectionary had no difficulty translating it:
* PDF Download • Responsorial Psalm (1970 Version)
——We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance creating this PDF file.
1981 Modification • On 21 January 1981, the Congregation for Divine Worship made a change. (No explanation was given for this change, as far as we can tell.) Now isn’t the time to explain why a new edition of the Lectionary was issued in 1981, although we would note in passing its claim: “[This 1981 edition] gives all scripture references according to the New Vulgate translation.” That seems to be a false statement, as the psalter numbering is identical to the 1969 edition. In any event, for the 18th Sunday in Ordinary Time (Year C), the Congregation for Divine Worship eliminated Psalm 94 and instead assigned Psalm 89, as you can see:
* PDF Download • Changing Ps. 94 to Ps. 89
——We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance creating this PDF file.
Shell Corporation Translation • Translating the refrain is hardly rocket science. Catholics in the United Kingdom had no difficulty whatsoever translating it. (Notice they also label Psalm 94 as an “Alternative Responsorial Psalm.”) But when it comes to the American shell corporations which claim to ‘own’ the Bible, they butchered the refrain:
* PDF Download • ERRONEOUS TRANSLATION
——We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance creating this PDF file.
Notice how the 1991 American Lectionary ends up with a REFRAIN from a completely different psalm. This error has perdured for 34 years. Yet we have been assured (for many decades) that the USCCB shell corporations must make a profit from selling the sacred texts because “the People of God deserve the liturgy in its integrity.” Showing great insolence, they insist upon the following verbiage:
The copyright allows the owner to
protect the integrity of the text
so that individuals may not introduce
changes without permission.
The shell corporations have assiduously avoided using a Creative Commons copyright. Can we not draw conclusions from this?
Legal Threats • When companies attempt to print the Mass texts—which are indulgenced and mandated—the people running the various shell corporations (who claim to ‘own’ these texts) behave in a reprehensible manner. They cause endless delays, even trying to exert control over texts which have resided in the public domain for centuries. We’ve already examined how they falsely claim copyright over certain texts.1 As if such actions weren’t sordid enough, they then pretend to control public domain texts. By what authority can they control such texts? But all companies must acquiesce; very few can afford to take such matters to court. With great brazenness, the various shell corporations make this claim:
No portion of this text may be
reproduced by any means without
permission in writing from the
copyright owner.
They claim such restrictions even apply to worship leaflets, bulletins, and broadcasting. However, these shell corporations refuse to provide a royalty ‘chart’ to those who make inquiries. But shouldn’t the rates be the same for everyone? Why are they kept secret?
(2 of 2) Control Over Texts • When it comes to the Responsorial Psalm, one corporation claims to own the psalm itself while a different corporation (!) claims to own the refrains. Such arrangements make it easy for the ‘owners’ of these texts to exert control over publishers. Now, let’s go deeper. Considers three statements from the USCCB:
37. The arrangement or selection of liturgical texts must not result in the suppression of alternatives and options for the congregation (or for the celebrant and other ministers, as applicable). […] The publisher does not have the authority to make unilateral selection of liturgical texts among the options available.
4. From the approved liturgical books to the simplest participation aids, publications should provide the greatest possible diversity and options, as expected by the liturgical reform. No publication should limit, directly or indirectly, the breadth of choice open to the priest and other ministers, the leaders of song, parish and community worship committees, or others who participate in planning liturgical celebration.
Discriminatory Practices • These statements (reaffirmed by the USCCB as recently as 23 April 2009) are not enforced in an even-handed way. A small cadre at the corporate office in Washington DC decides which options can be used—even for texts their offices don’t claim to own—and anyone who doesn’t comply is threatened with legal action. Numerous options are allowed by the GIRM (General Instruction for the Roman Missal): options in the GRADUALE ROMANUM; options in the GRADUALE SIMPLEX; other metrical collections; seasonal psalms; seasonal refrains; etc. But those fully legitimate options make no difference to the various shell corporations who only care about control. Furthermore, special ‘favors’ or ‘permissions’ or ‘exceptions’ are given to various corporations while others are denied. With impunity, contradictory statements are made in writing to different parties regarding what constitutes a ‘participation aid’ and what does not. If this seems insignificant, consider that hymnals and missals can easily require half a decade to produce, to say nothing of the enormous costs of offset printing. Throughout our series, we will be providing specific examples of unfair treatment by these shell corporations … treatment both egregious and brazen.
(1 of 2) Conclusions • To claim copyright falsely is bad enough. To make millions of dollars each year selling (!) indulgenced and mandatory Mass texts—the very Word of God—is even worse. But to exert control over public domain texts can only be described as “adding insult injury.”
A Vatican document (INTER ŒCUMENICI) explicitly said that liturgical books “shall contain besides the vernacular version the Latin text as well.” Would an embarrassing error like the one discussed earlier have persisted for 34 years if the shell corporations had followed that injunction? Certainly not! Furthermore, were all bishops who (supposedly) serve on the Committee on Divine Worship made aware of errors like this? Were any of them told? More importantly, were those bishops informed that publishers wishing to correct such errors were being threatened with legal action?
(2 of 2) Conclusions • There’s an old saying: “Personnel is policy.” For decades, we’ve been told about a forthcoming Lectionary which will be imposed upon the United States. Who is in charge of this project? What specific criteria are they using?
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 At some point, all that lucre—their ‘profits’—will have to be given back, because it was obtained fraudulently, according to the doctrine of restitution.
