E WERE NOTIFIED last week that Monsignor Andrew Wadsworth, ICEL’s executive director from 2009-2023, added several unsolicited but welcome public messages about our series: “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation.” Wadsworth’s scholarship is respected and his priestly reputation is pristine. Below, we explore the assertions he made publicly. On 21 August 2025, Wadsworth said the “principal reason for the copyrighting of the liturgical text [is] to ensure everyone uses the same officially approved text.” His pronouncement is difficult to accept, since bishops already have authority to tell their priests which books they must pray from. It’s false to claim such a thing can only happen if shell corporations are allowed to make a (never-ending) profit by selling the mandatory Mass texts. If a particular mentality demands copyright, why not use Creative Commons?
Monsignor Wadsworth’s next statement (screenshot) is worth quoting in full:
The production of liturgical texts, their translation, and the process of their authorization and approval all costs money, and the copyright fees are only charged when people are making money from the sale of their publication, and at a maximum 10% of the retail price of the publication, such a fee is a modest recompense.
First Problem • That statement is inaccurate. We know of at least four (4) shell corporations which have been ‘selling’ texts they don’t own for 60+ years. They claim ownership in perpetuity over all use: transmission, broadcast, sharing, and so forth. Even when they grant ‘permission’ to someone to place a recorded Mass on YOUTUBE, they reserve the right to compel that person (later on) to remove the video for any reason or for no reason at all. Furthermore, the policies aren’t enforced fairly. We’ve been sent documentation stretching all the way back to 2009 wherein special ‘favors’ are given to certain entities but not others.1
Second Problem • Let’s explore further the assertion made by Monsignor Wadsworth that the translation of liturgical texts “costs money.” Let’s consider PSALM 17, in a translation sold for a profit by certain shell corporations since 1970. [This has not ceased, even now.] Except for a single word, the ‘translation’ being sold is verbatim identical to the Confraternity translation produced a few years after World War II:
* PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART
—We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
Questions which suggest themselves:
(a) Who changed that one word in 1970? What is his name?
(b) Over the last sixty years, how much has that person been paid?
(c) Since only one word was changed, the other 99% of that psalm did not belong to the shell corporations. When will all that money (fraudulently gained) be given back?
That’s just one psalm, but it’s estimated the shell corporations bring in (perhaps) $16 million per year, and this has continued unabated for 60+ years. The ‘profit’ comes directly from the pockets of the people sitting in the pews, and we respectfully demand that all royalties—going back to 1970—be immediately made public. There must be accountability.
More Of The Same • As we’ve mentioned throughout our series, the so-called ABBEY PSALMS & CANTICLES seems pirated from various sources. The USCCB recently purchased this ‘translation’ from a non-Christian private company. It was purchased using the faithful’s money (without their knowledge or consent). Consider a few lines from PSALM 17, which were taken almost verbatim from the Confraternity translation produced 15 years before the Second Vatican Council:
Abbey Psalms:
(7) In my anguish I called to the Lord;
I cried to my God for help.
From his temple he heard my voice;
my cry to him reached his ears.
1940s confraternity Translation:
(7) In my distress I called upon the Lord
and cried out to my God;
From his temple he heard my voice,
and my cry to him reached his ears.
Conclusions • Copyright laws were intended to protect things like television shows, books, original poems, inventions, and musical compositions. If a company spends millions of dollars making a movie, it would clearly be unjust to steal it and make it available on one’s YOUTUBE channel.
On the other hand, when it comes to pirating a translation, changing a single word, and then forcing Catholics to pay for it every time they want to assist at Mass—how can Monsignor Wadsworth defend this? Moreover, the shell corporations claim ownership in perpetuity (!) with regard to whether ‘their’ property can be shared on YOUTUBE, and under what circumstances it can be shared. Is anyone willing to defend this shameful arrangement? One reason we chose this outlet is that it receives millions of visits from all over the world. Is even one reader willing to defend these shell corporations forcing unsuspecting Catholics to purchase (over and over again) ‘translations’ plagiarized from others’ sweat and toil? Again we demand to know: “Who specifically is behind all this?” The bishops with whom we speak claim virtually nothing is shared with them until it’s time to vote at the November meetings.
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 Astoundingly, the shell corporation don’t disclose their ‘profit’ scale or rates to inquirers. Why on earth have these rates not been made public after 60+ years? But when asked, the shell corporations stubbornly refuse to disclose that information. Such secrecy comes across as shady. The rates should be the same for everyone. The various guidelines, such as this one, are changed with such frequency—and so filled with contradictory statements—one knowledgeable person described them as “a moving target.”
