(A calendar which, as a commenter notes, is fairly sparse in the first place)
Roman Catholic Women Priests Celebrate Eucharist
Roman Catholic Women Priests invite us to a Eucharistic liturgy in which women, equal and sacred symbols of the Roman Catholic Chuch, celebrate in an inclusive manner the Sacred Meal of Our Faith. They invite us to join them and “discover the future alive in the present.” Facilitating this liturgy will be six ordained R.C. Women Priests, pictured below: Bridget Mary Meehan of Global Ministries University; Eileen M. DiFranco of Philadelphia; Joan Clark Houk of Pittsburgh; Kathleen Strack Kunster, serving a small community in California; Regina Nicolosi of Red Wing, Minn., a nursing home chaplain; and Kathy Sullivan Vandenberg. There are also two ordained R.C. women deacons: Juanita Cordero, a liturgist, and Mary Ellen Robertson, a hospice chaplain. Sun., 7:45 AM (13.07)
Picky? Not really. Little things like this give a sense of an organization's general gestalt. Or at least part of the organization. (Nothing but praise here, for example, for the USCCB Respect Life Office).
In other USCCB issues, which I am trying to sort out, unsuccessfully, there are continued copyright conflicts over USCCB material. Noted, for example, at the Catholic Culture site.
We used to include many significant documents in our database from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, but not any more. 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.
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.
As I said, I'd like to know more of the story - and if there are any journos out there looking for a geeky, but interesting church story to be told - looking into the USCCB's direction in enforcing copyright claims regarding its own documents as well as the New American Bible would be intriguing. (and if you recall, the initials "CNS") There's a reason, aside from the translation quality questions, why most Catholic publishers don't use the NAB when doing Scripture citations in books. I'd be really interested in getting a sense of the whole picture, and what the USCCB's sense of its own mission here is, and the relationship to Matthew 28 and all.
Copyright is not unimportant, even of Church texts. There was a kerfuffle earlier this year about the Vatican re-enforcing its copyright policy, but the reasoning was clear - publishing houses were pulling the Pope's talks, packaging them, and selling them at a profit to themselves without paying any kind of fee to the Vatican. As much as it irritates me, when I write something, to have to go to ICEL to get permission (and no fee is involved - it's just permission, with you giving them information on how the citation is to be used) to use an English translation of a prayer - I consider it perfectly legitimate. Liturgical texts, as well - as much as I would like the various rites to be online, for example - you don't know what kind of floodgates it might open in terms of people appropriating the ritual texts of the Church and repackaging them with their own, er, amendations or whatnot.
But what is bothersome is what seems to be screws being put on people who want to use materials for non-profit purposes, on the Web and so on. As I said, from what I've read, I really can't determine the real situation and whole story, but I'd like to know more.