HE FORMER (2006-2014) managing editor for the Church Music Association of America—JEFFREY TUCKER—posted the following on 16 August 2025: “Among the many rotten scams in the world that merge greed and state power, the USCCB deserves to be called out and scorned for maintaining a strict copyright over its liturgical texts and music. Can you even imagine such a thing? Here we have what is essentially an industry purporting to represent a religion with universal reach enlisting state power to fine and punish anyone who would dare use their texts without the permission of the clerical elites in charge.” Is it possible Mr. Tucker has been following our series?
Theft Has Occurred • There’s no need to belabor what we’ve already said in Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation. It’s clearly immoral to make a profit selling mandatory Mass texts—the very Word of God—especially under the guise of various shell corporations. (The Mass texts are also indulgenced.) But we encourage Jeffrey Tucker to take a deeper look, from a legal perspective. The ‘translations’ over which the various shell corporations claim copyright aren’t eligible for copyright. They aren’t translations at all. The shell corporations have ‘pillaged’ or ‘borrowed’ or ‘stolen’ the work of others, especially original productions by Father Cuthbert Lattey (who taught Holy Scripture at Saint Bruno’s College in North Wales). Because it was using a fraudulent scheme, all that ‘profit’ must be given back someday, to satisfy the doctrine of restitution.
(1 of 4) Abbey Psalms & Canticles • Merely substituting a word here and there is insufficient to copyright something as “an original work.” Consider the so-called ABBEY PSALMS version of PSALM 103, verse 9, which seems lifted from the SAINT ANDREW MISSAL although they tinkered with it in inconsequential ways:
Abbey Psalms:
You set limits they might not pass,
lest they return to cover the earth.
Saint Andrew Missal:
You set a limit they may not pass,
nor shall they cover the earth again.
Next consider the ABBEY PSALMS version of PSALM 103, verse 6, which seems lifted from the Jerusalem Bible (by Dom Henry Wansbrough of Ampleforth Abbey), although the word “overtopping” seemed too sacral for their tastes:
Abbey Psalms:
You wrapped it with the depths like a cloak;
the waters stood higher than the mountains.
Jerusalem Bible:
You wrapped it with the deep as with a robe,
the waters overtopping the mountains.
Now consider the ABBEY PSALMS version of PSALM 75, which seems lifted from the SAINT ANDREW MISSAL and Dom Wansbrough’s Jerusalem Bible:
Abbey Psalms:
God is renowned in Judah;
in Israel his name is great.
His tent is set in Salem,
and his dwelling place in Zion.
Saint Andrew Missal + Jerusalem Bible:
God is renowned in Judah;
his name is great in Israel;
his tent is pitched in Salem,
his dwelling is in Sion.
Glance at a few more lines from PSALM 75, which appear stolen from the SAINT ANDREW MISSAL, although a few words were switched:
Abbey Psalms:
(12) Make vows to the Lord your God and fulfill them.
Let all around him pay tribute to the One who strikes terror.
Saint Andrew Missal:
(12) Make vows to the Lord your God and fulfill them;
let all round about him bring gifts to the terrible Lord.
Now consider the ABBEY PSALMS version of PSALM 103, verse 21, which seems lifted from the SAINT ANDREW MISSAL:
Abbey Psalms:
The young lions roar for their prey,
and seek their food from God.
Saint Andrew Missal:
Young lions roar for the prey
and seek their food from God.
Someone who’s gullible might object: “It isn’t identical because one version adds the where the other version has their.” But that isn’t how copyright works; changing a word here and there does not constitute an original translation.1 It’s difficult to imagine a judge who would rule the ABBEY PSALMS as a work eligible for proprietary protection. So why are the various shell corporations selling it for profit?
Often, the ABBEY PSALMS takes bits and pieces from multiple translations. Consider its 13th verse from PSALM 70:
Abbey Psalms:
Let them be put to shame and consumed,
those who seek my life.
Let them be covered with shame and confusion,
those who seek to harm me.
Saint Andrew + Father Lattey:
Let them be put to shame and consumed
who attack my life.
Let them be covered with reproach and confusion,
who seek to harm me.
How has this theft been allowed to continue for all these decades?
(2 of 4) Abbey Psalms & Canticles • Is the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES an excellent translation or is it deficient? In terms of the division of its strophes it’s undoubtably a vast improvement. The fair-minded will admit it’s a reasonably accurate translation, though it hardly manifests the vaunted “improvements” it was supposed to (from Hebrew manuscripts). Although not superb from a linguistic standpoint, one could do much worse. Perhaps the defining characteristic of the ABBEY PSALMS translation is its overwhelming blandness. It avoids language that’s colorful, bold, or memorable. It comes across as a translation tinkered with for half a century by a bureaucracy … which is exactly what happened.
(3 of 4) Abbey Psalms & Canticles • The so-called ABBEY PSALMS translation is virtually identical to the “Revised Grail” which the USCCB pretended was going to end up in the Lectionary someday—but never did. In 2008, a sordid deal had clandestinely been made with GIA PUBLICATIONS in which that private company (owned by a non-Christian family) would control the ‘rights’ to the mandatory psalter. Jeffrey Tucker of the Church Music Association of America exposed the matter on Shawn Tribe’s blog. Dr. Jerry Galipeau, Chief Publishing Officer for the J.S. Paluch Company and Vice President of World Library Publications, also expressed outrage that the Catholic Church’s mandatory PSALTER TRANSLATION would be sold for profit by a non-Christian corporation. Over the next decade, opposition to this shameful arrangement grew, and the USCCB—thanks to Jeffrey Tucker’s efforts—ended up purchasing the Revised-Grail and renaming it: “ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES.”
(4 of 4) Abbey Psalms & Canticles • The ABBEY PSALMS translation is virtually identical to the “Revised Grail,” but those who diligently compare them will notice infinitesimal modifications. Since we’ve been examining PSALM 103, consider verse 13:
Abbey Psalms:
From your dwelling you water the mountains;
Revised Grail:
From your dwelling you water the hills;
Did you notice the tiny change? The word “hills” became “mountains.” It’s an insignificant change because reputable translations use both “hills” and “mountains” … so why has the USCCB been playing these games for 60 years, switching back-and-forth endlessly? Some have suggested they keep tinkering like this to make it easier to enforce their copyrights. Now consider PSALM 103 verse 3:
Abbey Psalms:
On the waters, you lay the foundation for your dwelling.
Revised Grail:
On the waters, you establish your dwelling.
When it comes to PSALM 70, the entire psalm is virtually identical—but look carefully:
Abbey Psalms:
And all the day long my tongue
shall tell the tale of your justice,
for they are put to shame and disgraced,
those who sought to harm me.
Revised Grail:
And all the day long my tongue
shall tell the tale of your justice,
for they are put to shame and disgraced,
those who seek to harm me.
When it comes to PSALM 75, the entire psalm is virtually identical—but look carefully:
Abbey Psalms:
(v6) The stouthearted, despoiled, sank into slumber;
none of the soldiers could lift a hand.
(v11) For human rage only serves to praise you;
you surround yourself with the survivors of wrath.
Revised Grail:
(v6) The stouthearted, despoiled, slept in death;
none of the soldiers could lift a hand.
(v11) For the rage of man only serves to praise you;
you surround yourself with the survivors of wrath.
Who is responsible for such infinitesimal changes? The bishops conference never voted on changing “hills” to “mountains”—so who changed it? Some believe Dom Gregory Polan of CONCEPTION ABBEY made these infinitesimal changes, but that hasn’t been easy to verify. What specific criteria demanded that “hills” be changed to “mountains?” What specific criteria demanded that “seek” be changed to “sought?” For decades, the USCCB has been playing games with insignificant items, switching back and forth. Was it really worth it? What specifically have Catholics in the pews gained? Our research indicates there have been no fewer than six (6) distinct iterations of the Grail translation—what has been gained by all this tinkering? The people in the pews are the ones paying for all this, and they have a right to know.
More Tinkering • Believe it or not, small changes are being introduced the forthcoming version of Responsorial Psalms. For instance, the official version of the ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES has the following for PSALM 77 (used on the 18th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year B):
Abbey Psalms:
The things we have heard and understood,
the things our fathers have told us,
these we will not hide from their children
but will tell them to the next generation:
the glories of the Lord and his might,
and the marvelous deeds he has done.
The changes mysteriously introduced violate correct grammar (in our view):
So the ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES doesn’t even match itself!
The texts don’t alter themselves; somebody is modifying the texts. Who is doing this?
(1 of 2) Conclusions • We don’t wish to come across as sensationalist or dramatic, but it’s difficult to imagine how this situation could have been handled in a more shameful way. Imagine trying to memorize William Shakespeare if it changed every few years. It almost seems like the USCCB was intentionally trying to prevent the faithful from committing sacred scripture to memory! Going back to the 1960s, if the shell corporations had devoted even 5% of their efforts to adopting a uniform translation of the psalter (such as the version found in the Saint Andrew Missal) we wouldn’t be in this mess. But 100% of their efforts seem to have been dedicated to trying to make a profit by selling the mandatory texts of the Holy Mass—as well as making sure Catholics in the pews cannot memorize Sacred Scripture by their endless tinkering.
(2 of 2) Conclusions • The shell corporations claim they have translators “working” who need reimbursement—to the tune of a steady stream of millions of dollars. But stealing the hard work of others (such as Father Lattey) doesn’t take very long at all. Who specifically is working on these items? Since we’re the ones paying the bills, we must be allowed to see their timesheets: viz. how much time they spent “working” on each item, and who told them to do this. This is the very least we can demand: even a parking ticket has a date and time on it.
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.
Addendum: Loye Young writes on Facebook in response to this article: “I am a former practicing lawyer with experience in copyright law. Since I ceased practicing law, I have kept up with copyright law because I have been an operating system and software engineer. Mr. Tucker is completely correct. There are a number of copyright licenses that would protect the texts and authorship, while allowing the faithful to use the texts freely. One well-tested and widely-used source of such licenses is “Creative Commons,” which publishes customizable, enforceable licenses that are in wide use among publishers and authors. (See https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ ) There is also a more fundamental issue. USA copyright law allows the intended recipient of texts to use the texts in the manner intended and even to redistribute such texts to other intended recipients. Because liturgical texts, by their very nature, are provided to all the faithful, are intended and even required to be used by the faithful, and are freely available without charge on various websites, it is difficult to see how the faithful can ever (at least conceptually) be in violation of copyrights. To the best of my knowledge, however, no one has ever raised this argument in litigation in a way that would become part of published opinions. This is particularly interesting respecting encyclicals and other documents from popes, bishops, and their respective curias and chanceries. The documents are specifically addressed to and intended to be read by all faithful and even in some cases “to all people of good will.” So if you publish a document styled as a letter (the meaning of the word “encyclical”) and addressed to everyone, then no one can be in violation for copying and redistributing the texts (assuming there is no question of claiming authorship or altering the texts). Again, to the best of my knowledge, my argument is untested in the context of the Catholic church, which is unique in its claim to worldwide authority and scope.”
1 To see a truly original translation, take a look at the one produced by Monsignor Ronald Knox in the late 1940s.