The USCCB: Criminalizing the Use of Church Documents

[bones_IV]

I don’t understand this and it makes no sense.

catholicculture.org/blog/blog.cfm

“Many organizations, including Trinity Communications, have received letters from the USCCB listing the unauthorized documents displayed on their web sites, and requesting immediate removal. USCCB staff actually track this stuff down. Clearly this is within the USCCB’s rights under copyright law, but just as clearly it is a short-sighted policy which significantly limits the circulation of episcopal documents. If other web sites were allowed to post them, these documents would be substantially more widely read among the Catholic faithful.”

“The USCCB’s policy is a throwback to an era of limited communication and jealous guarding of insider secrets.”

What do you think?

 

[Walking_Home]

This is indeed disturbing. To hide information from the people----for what reason.

 

[Cristiano]

I have a problem linking to the blog. But let me share a few thoughts and assumptions.
I believe that the Church wants her documents to be known and understood, including through the use of the Vatican and USCCB web sites.
I assume that the Vatican and USCCB allow linking to their web sites through the use of URLs.
I assume that there is a vested interested in preserving the integrity of the documents and in showing the updated ones.
The elimination of duplicates of copyrighted material from unapproved web sites would ensure that there are no innocent or malicious modifications to the original documents, and so the faithfuls do not have to worry about the true origin of the documents.
It would also allow to find other complementary documents that would better explain the Church position on a specific topic, without anyone else putting words in her mouth.

 

[bones_IV]

I have a problem linking to the blog. But let me share a few thoughts and assumptions.
I believe that the Church wants her documents to be known and understood, including through the use of the Vatican and USCCB web sites.
I assume that the Vatican and USCCB allow linking to their web sites through the use of URLs.
I assume that there is a vested interested in preserving the integrity of the documents and in showing the updated ones.
The elimination of duplicates of copyrighted material from unapproved web sites would ensure that there are no innocent or malicious modifications to the original documents, and so the faithfuls do not have to worry about the true origin of the documents.
It would also allow to find other complementary documents that would better explain the Church position on a specific topic, without anyone else putting words in her mouth.

How about this though, from the blog:

“The USCCB goes after web sites which make use of USCCB documents, threatening legal action for copyright violations. This policy is in marked contrast to that of the Vatican, which enforces copyrights only to prevent others from releasing advance copies of documents before their official promulgation dates.”

 

[KathleenElsie]

I like the Vatican’s way.

People in the USA are way toooo worried about things like this. The USCCB is no exception.

But, to be charitable, it might be to make sure that the information is actually what was written and no changes have been made.

 

[Chickamauga]

USCCB staff actually track this stuff down.

Sounds like they have WAY too much free time on their hands.

 

[vudster]

Please remember, these documents and websites cost money to produce. The USCCB is entitled to fair compensation and the pirating of protected material can even be sinful. Frankly, there may be a better way to accomplish the goal of reducing fraudulent uses of such matter but, as has already been said, the USCCB is well within its rights.

 

[Orionthehunter]

How many times on this forum have we been directed to a web site that supposedly was quoting a papal or church document only to find out that certain edits had been done which slightly changed the meaning of what was said? I know that I have had it happen to me right here on CAF.

The result is that we Catholics end up defending wording that is not actually what the Church teaches or we become victims to believe in a falsity.

In this age where digital photographs can be doctored slightly (or significantly as in putting the head of the President in a pornographic situation) and we have become accustomed to assuming that every quote with a Pope’s name after it is an accurate quotation, it is more than understandable that the USCCB has taken this approach. In fact, upon reflection, my bigger question is why didn’t they do it earlier. (But of course, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt )

The Church has taken similar steps with regard to written material through the use of the Imprimatur (Imprimatur is Latin for “let it be printed.” When a Roman Catholic bishop grants his imprimatur to a printed work, he assures the reader that nothing therein is contrary to Catholic faith or morals. This imprimatur is not given lightly; only after a thorough review process.). Essentially, this effort is an attempt to give Catholics an assurance that what they are reading is actually Church Teaching.

With regard to Trinity’s frustration, I understand where they are coming from. They intend no harm and are a good source of information. But they aren’t authorized authentic teachers like the Bishop’s office (this is not a slam of Trinity). But the fact remains that not everybody is of such good character who might provide this information. Additionally, Trinity could be infiltrated by someone who purposely or inadvertently could make a change to the document. Frankly, it is easier and better protection to be diligent that direct sources be the only sources and not have to continually be checking every single internet source that is providing these documents.

Having authorized Catholic sources like the Vatican or USCCB as the only source is a protection for us all. After time, just as we came to understand to look for the Imprimatur before considering a document as authentic, we will learn to only reference authorized sources for Church documents.

 

[Bins]

When I first read this article my first impression was that it made the USCCB come off as very cold, almost a bit secretive like they had an agenda, which is not the impression of Catholicism I would want being conveyed to possible converters. I’m not a big fan of the USCCB from the beginning though, so I suppose my opinion could be a bit bias. After some further thought though, I had to admit as unfortunate as it is, this diligence on the USCCB’s behalf is necessary. There are to many people out there anxiously waiting to seize upon every possible ambiguous phrasing or terminology of a Catholic document, just to prove the fraudulence of the church. Whether this document was distorted innocently, or whether it was altered in a calculating manner, and then passed off as authentic to convey many mistruths about the Catholic Church, there is just to much potential for transgression, unless this copyright caution is implemented. It’s unfortunate and a shame that an honest resource like Trinity Communications can not be used as a tool to provide the public with Catholic documents, but I guess that is the predicament in which society today has placed itself. Until there is a way to assure that no altered documents will be passed off as authentic, I guess I am going to have to reluctantly understand the USCCB’s diligence.

 

[bones_IV]

You should see what Gerry Augistinus has to say.

closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2006/10/usccb-against-spreading-word.html

Even Mark Shea is furious about this. I think we should protest and email the USCCB myself, but that’s just me.

 

[bones_IV]

Here’ another blog that I think is worth reading.

dwmblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/usccb-permissions-office.html

 

[bones_IV]

I like the Vatican’s way.

People in the USA are way toooo worried about things like this. The USCCB is no exception.

But, to be charitable, it might be to make sure that the information is actually what was written and no changes have been made.

Vatican documents seem to be fine to use, just don’t go to the usccb website. The usccb’s documents are indeciferable nonsense anyway. I just don’t see the logic behind this. It seems that those behind the bishop’s council’s policies are a little slow to grasp the benefits of “open-source” media. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to stop using the NAB translation. That’s ok by me, we can use the RSV-2nd Catholic Edition, instead. . The staff at the USCCB might be seeing some handwriting on the wall that indicates that they might not be long for the gravy train. Therefore, they want to make things a little more proprietary so some of those functions that they now perform get sold off to private companies in sweetheart deals that will make them look self-supporting in the short run.

What the Archdiocese of St Paul-Minneapolis did here makes no sense. What in the world does the USCCB think they are accomplishing by attempting to alleviate Global Warming when the debate is still on as to whether or not it even exists?

startribune.com/462/story/743157.html

There are several people at the USCCB who could decrease global warming by shutting their mouth to prevent the hot air from excaping. Just my opinion.

 

[puzzleannie]

USCCB, and the Vatican, must insist upon their copyright protection in this way. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing preventing any website from displaying these materials, and editing or amending them. Sites that wish their users to have access can subscribe to links like everyone else.

 

[Digitonomy]

The other consideration which I haven’t seen mentioned is when there are edits done by the USCCB to previously issued documents. Rather than have people bandy about a USCCB document from say 1995 which has since been amended, if the only such document available is the amended version from 2004, there is much less room for misunderstanding of rules or positions by people who are not well-versed in those issues.

 

[bones_IV]

USCCB, and the Vatican, must insist upon their copyright protection in this way. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing preventing any website from displaying these materials, and editing or amending them. Sites that wish their users to have access can subscribe to links like everyone else.

Only translation allowed at Mass is the NAB. I think that we should have priests calling to Rome asking for use of the Catholic RSV Lectionary at Mass. The USCCB – far different from the individual bishops – is a scandal. Period. Last time I checked Catholic teaching, God wrote the Holy Scriptures, not the USCCB. The claim they make is that they supposedly are protecting their copyright. Are they not teachers of the Church? Yes. Are they authors? No. I think there is a large lack of leadership in the USCCB from where I stand. What they are doing is a violation of God’s eternal copyright to His Holy Scriptures by tampering with them and forming their own creative translation that fits their dissenting agenda. That’s how I feel about it.

 

[bones_IV]

Look at this.

closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2006/10/cartoon-on-usccb.html

 

[rpp]

If the USCCB does not allow a web-site to make a direct link to an article, then their position is not defensible. I understand the need to prtotect important documents from electronic changes, but I think a more reasonable policy would be one similar to Vatican’s

Some have said that they are within their legal right to do this. Well, I do not think that is a very good argument. It is legal to do many things but that does not make it either wise or right. It is legal for people to carry guns, even concealed guns, in many states. Does that mean it is okay for a nun to have one under her habit? Somehow I don’t think St. Therese of Liseaux would think so.

I would expect this behavior from an organization crawling with little bureaucrats protecting their petty fiefdoms. Is that what the office of the USCCB has become?

 

[Ray_Marshall]

The Vatican gives its documents away and doesn’t worry about changes. And they have ten times as many as the USCCB.

The USCCB also gives its documents away for free. If someone wanted to alter a document to misrepresent the Church, they could do it by getting that document from the USCCB.

So there is no copyright protection.

The USCCB knows that there are many people who would like to reduce it in size. They may be trying to figure out a way to start charging for their documents so they don’t have to cut staff.

 

[Digitonomy]

Last time I checked Catholic teaching, God wrote the Holy Scriptures

Scriptures were written by Paul, Mark, Luke, etc. While they were inspired by God, if it were God himself doing the writing, I suspect he would have been a little more clear, had a little less contradiction and repetition, and avoided some of the stumbling, awkward verbiage we see on occasion in scripture.

 

[Digitonomy]

The Vatican gives its documents away and doesn’t worry about changes.

This does not appear to be strictly true.

A Milanese publishing house that had issued an anthology containing 30 lines from Pope Benedict’s speech to the conclave that elected him and an extract from his enthronement speech is reported to have been sent a bill for €15,000 (£10,000). This was made up of 15 per cent of the cover price of each copy sold plus “legal expenses” of €3,500…

Publishers will have to negotiate a levy of between 3 per cent and 5 per cent of the cover price of any book or publication “containing the Pope’s words”. Those who infringe the copyright face legal action and a higher levy of 15 per cent.
Source