« Church, State and France | Main | Hmmm »
October 26, 2005
Whassup, Ignatius?
Basic Books has acquired rights to the Pope's next book:
Basic Books announced today that they have acquired the world English rights to Without Roots: Europe, Relativism, Christianity, Islam, written by Pope Benedict XVI. The translation of this Italian bestseller will mark the first time since his election to the papacy that his writing will appear in English. The book, acquired from Italian publisher Mondadori, is scheduled for release on Feb. 1, 2006, according to Elizabeth Maguire, vice president and publisher at Basic Books.
“Before his election to the papacy, Benedict XVI published many serious theological works with publishers who concentrated on the religious market,” Maguire said in a press release today. “However, because Without Roots grapples with the most pressing spiritual and political issues of our day, we were keen to bring it to a wider trade audience. We're honored that we were able to convince the authors and their Italian publisher that the book is a perfect fit with the Basic list, which aims to bring serious ideas into the public arena.”
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8349496be69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Whassup, Ignatius?:
Comments
It's unfortunate that Ignatius didn't get the rights... I wonder if Basic outbid Ignatius.
Posted by: T. Chan at Oct 26, 2005 1:06:43 PM
Sounds like Basic just outbid Ignatius (either that or Ignatius passed on it, which I'd find hard to believe).
I have a question about Papal royalties, advances, etc: Are they paid to the Vatican or to the Pope personally? If the latter, are there any limits on how he may use or dispose of such funds, either during his life or at death? Just curious how persoanl papal wealth and book income is handled.
Posted by: Dennis at Oct 26, 2005 2:28:06 PM
What is wrong with this? I would like to see more secular publishers publish religious works. Maybe more people would actually read them. I love Ignatius, but I am sure many non-religious people see a religious publisher and associate it with a corner culture. "Liberal" or "conservative", religious publishers preach to the choir.
Posted by: Mark R at Oct 26, 2005 3:07:02 PM
Like St. Paul said, the important thing is that Christ is being preached, whether from good or bad motives. (PHil 1:15-18)
Posted by: Sr. Lorraine at Oct 26, 2005 3:18:58 PM
Or Ignatius is out of favor with Rome, for reasons that have been discussed on Mark Shea's blog and on Disputations: supporting enterprises of detraction...
Posted by: KevinK at Oct 26, 2005 5:49:01 PM
I think, the Pope owns his own property unless he is a religious. In that case, see Can. 705-707 discussing the administration and ownership of goods of religious who become bishops, there are a bunch of possibilities.
Posted by: Samuel J. Howard at Oct 26, 2005 7:46:53 PM
The Pope's property. I thought he didn't get a salary. Recall too, when John Paul II's testament was made public, how the material possessions were dismissed in a sentence. I wonder if he's in a category of his own.
At some point I read that Libreria Editrice Vaticana had all the rights to the Pope's works? Maybe I misread.
Posted by: Gashwin at Oct 26, 2005 9:07:43 PM
The Pope didn't previously get a salary. We won't know about Benedict till he publishes the accounts next.
My guess is that, given export controls and the like, when Pope John Paul II left communist Poland to attend the conclave he brought very little with him. Ratzinger on the other hand probably has a bank account and we know he had substantial personal property (e.g. the library).
Posted by: Samuel J. Howard at Oct 26, 2005 10:21:21 PM
I don't know about Vatican policy about books, but the author can send the proceeds to whomever they want. My parents wrote a book, and 100% of the proceeds have gone to charity. So I'd imagine that, whatever the policy, that was JPII's arrangement.
But if there is a policy regarding publications by Popes, taht would answer Amy's question: perhaps any pre-existing contracts that Cdl. Ratzinger had were cancelled upon his ascending the Chair of Peter.
Posted by: JC at Oct 26, 2005 11:37:47 PM
Ignatius Press "supporting enterprises of detraction"? What does that mean exactly? I couldn't find the blog references discussing this, and haven't heard of any problems with Ignatius from a doctrinal or theological standpoint.
Posted by: Dennis at Oct 27, 2005 1:42:55 AM
"were cancelled upon his ascending the Chair of Peter."
I don't think California commercial law has a "made Pope clause" and I can't imagine Cdl. Ratzinger as having been so presumptive to write one into his contracts.
Posted by: Samuel J. Howard at Oct 27, 2005 9:23:49 AM
Sorry, but I'll set the record straight on WITHOUT ROOTS and Ignatius Press, since I am the one who wrote the Italian publisher waiving any right to publish the book in English.
Ignatius wasn't "outbid." There was no "bidding" involved. For reasons I can't go into but which have to do with certain inefficiencies and a mix up in a country that shall remain unnamed (it surrounds Vatican City), Ignatius Press was asked to take a pass on the book, notwithstanding our ongoing relationship with B 16. Since we already have half a dozen other B 16 projects in the works, we did as we were asked.
The Basic Books press release states: "The translation of this Italian bestseller will mark the first time since his election to the papacy that his writing will appear in English."
That's false and I have contacted Basic Books and told them it is false. What's more, they should have known it to be false. (Besides, WITHOUT ROOTS isn't going to be released until Feb 1, 2006, so how could Basic Books know that no other book would be released before their book?)
PILGRIM FELLOWSHIP OF FAITH was released in May, after B 16's election. It was written before the election, but then so was WITHOUT ROOTS.
ON THE WAY TO JESUS CHRIST was published at the beginning of this month. THE LEGACY OF JOHN PAUL II is coming out now.
So it's just false to say that WITHOUT ROOTS is the first book published by B 16 in English since his election. Ain't so.
I contacted Basic Books to set the record straight and their VP for publicity told me that Basic Books will change its advertising of the book. Great.
Basic's press release says:
"'Before his election to the papacy, Benedict XVI published many serious theological works with publishers who concentrated on the religious market,' Maguire said in a press release today. 'However, because Without Roots grapples with the most pressing spiritual and political issues of our day, we were keen to bring it to a wider trade audience.'"
Let's see if Basic Books runs a full page ad in the New York Times, as Ignatius Press did. It's a load of nonsense that Basic Books will get B 16's WITHOUT ROOTS to a wider audience than Ignatius Press is getting ON THE WAY TO JESUS CHRIST and THE LEGACY OF JOHN PAUL II, not to mention the forthcoming GOD'S REVOLUTION.
Getting the book out to a wide audience had nothing to do with why Basic is publishing it, rather than Ignatius Press.
This is what you get for playing nice? Well, anyway, we did the right thing.
From Kevin K above there is this:
"Or Ignatius is out of favor with Rome, for reasons that have been discussed on Mark Shea's blog and on Disputations: supporting enterprises of detraction..."
What is that about? I see some discussion of CWN's Diogenes, but his comments are CWN's, not Ignatius Press's. CWN is not owned or operated by Ignatius Press, although Phil Lawler is the editor of CWN and until this month was editor of CWR. A "Diogenes" also writes for CWR, but he doesn't engage in detraction there and he isn't necessarily the Diogenes of CWN, anyway.
Yes, Ignatius Press runs ads on CWN, but then we run ads lots of places. I hope that doesn't mean we endorse everything anyone or everyone says in those places.
So I'm still at a loss to understand the comment.
In any event, that's the story on WITHOUT ROOTS.
Posted by: Mark Brumley at Oct 27, 2005 6:31:23 PM
I'm sorry, Mark Brumley, but I'm very confused about your comments. When New Oxford Review had its tussle with Ave Maria and Fr. Fessio, didn't Ignatius Press pull its ads, as well as those for Catholic World Report, from the magazine? Were they lying about the connection between Catholic World Report and Ignatius Press?
It seemed to me a dubious claim that Ignatius Press didn't own Catholic World Report, so I went and looked it up.
I did a domain name search for www.catholicworldreport.com, and guess what came up for their information?
Owner: Guadalupe Associates (same owner as Ignatius Press)
Address: 2515 McAllister, San Francisco (same address as Ignatius Press)
Administrative Contact: Fr. Joseph Fessio (!!!), at Ignatius Press (!!!), email contact jdfsj@ignatius.com
Am I missing something here?
Posted by: KevinK at Oct 28, 2005 1:49:34 AM
Apparently, you *are* missing something, since, as you can see from my post, I referred to CWN not being owned by Ignatius Press. CWN. Not CWR.
CWR *is* owned by Ignatius Press, but not CWN.
Just so we're clear: CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT, not CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS, is owned by Ignatius Press.
Posted by: Mark Brumley at Oct 28, 2005 9:40:46 AM
I'm sorry, this is a cynical bit of logic, Mark Brumley. You're saying that though "Catholic World Report" and "Catholic World News" share the same editorial content, the same editor (until a month ago), and a columnist with an identical pseudonym (and whose content is often identical in the print and internet versions), Ignatius Press has no responsibility for the content of "Catholic World News"?
I think that's called a distinction without difference, but then again, you're the one with the Jesuit boss--perhaps you can ask him...
Posted by: KevinK at Oct 28, 2005 11:30:58 AM
Kevin:
This discussion seems to be going nowhere. You seem unable or unwilling to state accurately what I have said.
Having made a mistake about Ignatius Press, CWN and CWR, you don't say, "I'm sorry. I misread your statement. I was mistaken." You just move on.
Phil Lawler is responsible for CWN. It's his. In that capacity, he doesn't work for Ignatius Press. (Indeed, no longer works for Ignatius Press in any capacity, but that's an aside.)
Ignatius Press doesn't own CWN. It doesn't operate CWN. It doesn't tell Phil Lawler what to run there or what not to run there. The "editorial content" that has been "shared" is the content found in the archive issues of CWR at CWN site, which Phil asked Ignatius Press to allow him to archive there for CWR's benefit (to help generate subscriptions to CWR, and I assume for CWN's benefit as well).
Re: Diogenes, if something written by "Diogenes" that appears in CWR also appears at CWN, then the author, not Ignatius Press, has allowed CWN to reprint it. (Ignatius Press doesn't own the CWR pieces attributed to "Diogenes"; the author or authors of the piece(s) does/do.)
Ignatius Press doesn't tell Phil what to run by "Diogenes" or by anybody else. Ignatius Press has no control over what Phil runs on CWN.
This discussion was started by the statement:
"Or Ignatius is out of favor with Rome, for reasons that have been discussed on Mark Shea's blog and on Disputations: supporting enterprises of detraction..."
To which I said, "What is that about? I see some discussion of CWN's Diogenes, but his comments are CWN's, not Ignatius Press's."
The distinction I have made between the magazine Ignatius Press owns and, ultimately, controls (CWR)--with all due respect to the editor's judgment--and a news service Ignatius Press neither owns nor controls (CWN) is not "a distinction without a difference." It involves such an obvious difference (owning/not owning, controlling/not controlling) that even someone without a "Jesuit boss" should be able to grasp it.
Posted by: Mark Brumley at Oct 28, 2005 2:18:07 PM
Mark Brumley,
I seem to have made you very angry, and apologize for that. I still find your distinction a rather arbitrary one, though, because the CWN navigation bar links to Catholic World Report as if it were an integral part of the website.
I also find rather incredible the notion that Phil Lawler, employed by Ignatius Press, was given Catholic World Report's entire archives for his personal use simply to "generate subscriptions for CWR". In fact, Catholic World News is the primary online presence of Catholic World Report, and simply to note someone else "owns" it, then to claim innocence of its rather vicious tone, is either exceedingly naive or deeply duplicitous on the part of Ignatius Press.
Posted by: KevinK at Oct 28, 2005 3:58:37 PM
Kevin: I'm not sure why you think I'm "very angry", unless its because I said that you seem unwilling or unable to state accurately what I said or because I expressed the view that this discussion seems to be going nowhere.
In any event you may find it "incredible" that Phil Lawler, who owns and operates his own online news service, would be allowed to use for CWR promotional purposes CWR material. But that's the way it is.
You can put a bad interpretation on what I said, and characterize it however you like, if you choose to do so, but that doesn't change anything.
Indeed, you may also find it "incredible" that for years Ignatius Press allowed catholic.net to archive back issues of CWR, HPR, CATHOLIC DOSSIER, and THE CATHOLIC FAITH magazines online for free. But it did. In fact, you can still find them. For example: http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/cwr2.html.
I'm done conversing with you, Kevin. I don't think it serves anyone to continue. If I'm exceedingly naive or deeply duplicitous or both, you'll just have to pray for me. And I'll pray for you.
Posted by: Mark Brumley at Oct 28, 2005 5:25:01 PM
Mark Brumley,
I just wish you would answer my question: if Catholic World Report and Catholic World News are unrelated, why did they have the same editor, same content, and same columnist for years on end? Why is it that the only place one can read a recent Catholic World Report article online is at Catholic World News, if they are unrelated?
I would feel bad if you were done conversing with me when you hadn't even answered these basic questions.
Posted by: KevinK at Oct 28, 2005 7:48:36 PM
In the absence of your response, Mark Brumley, I suppose I'll have to take as the most pertinent testimony that of Pope Benedict, who has chosen a new and different English-language publisher for his books. Ignatius Press, like you its employee, just ain't quite Catholic enough for our Pope!
Posted by: KevinK at Nov 2, 2005 1:54:18 AM
