« Designing Churches | Main | Madonna and Child »

October 17, 2006



Yup. Right up there with them linking to the Legionnaires at their vocation link site:


[Vocation.com is the Legionnaires]

This would be fine *if* they linked to other religious orders but, well, they do not!

Why is that?

Jeff Miller

The USCCB also previously went after the Verbum Domini podcast which does the daily scripture readings. They have now said on the USCCB website that no podcasts can receive permission. So much for the new evangelism.

Ed Mechmann

Equally awful is the session sponsored by something called "Spiritus Christi Church", a schismatic group led by "Rev." Mary Ramerman (who went through a purported ordination in 1981), the former Catholic priest Jim Callan, and another woman who also went through a purported ordination and styles hereself "Rev."). This "church" came into being after Bishop Clark of Rochester was finally forced to take action against Ms. Ramerman and Mr. Callan, who were committing all the usual abuses at Corpus Christi Church -- blessing "gay marriages", allowing Ms. Ramerman to appear to concelebrate Mass, etc. Apostasy, schism and heresy, all under the same roof. Perfect for Call to Action.



That's idiotic. The Vocation.com site is linked in a set of general vocations links. Not to specific religious orders. Did you notice that. Further, the Vocation.com site links, on its own site, to religious orders of all kinds. It's a portal. The search engine it links to takes one, if interested, to any religious order in the US, "conservative" or "liberal." Yes, its LC, but here's the crucial difference (besides that stated above);

Let's see if you can grasp this:

linking to a vocations portal that links to many religious orders, run by a legitimate Roman Catholic religious group is not the same as linking to a group that will feature "ordained" women celebrating Eucharist on Sunday morning.

Yes. Just a little different. And really, if you can't see it - don't bother to answer me. It's just too painfully idiotic a conversation.


I hope and pray that this lot of bishops (or, as I read in a combox on another blog referring to the Anglicans, "squishops") is soon replaced by those who are loyal to Church teachings.


The USCCB gets royalties from permitted uses, doesn't it? What do they charge?


"Yes, its (sic) LC." Thanks for pointing it out again, Matt.

Yup. It's LC. And that's a problem for many since there are many religious orders who also link to other orders.

Again, why a link to this LC site?

And, Matt, why the name-calling about this to me...?


Re: the copyright issue

If the Douay-Rheims and other public domain Bible translations are so deficient, and if the newer translations and documents are so important and good, the USCCB should want to discourage use of public domain translations and encourage the use of recent approved ones. (Preferably by licensing them for free for non-commercial uses.)

So, obviously, the USCCB wants the US faithful to read only documents and translations from before 1923, and read everything else in Latin. They are all secretly ultratrads! :)


The USCCB... I bet if you asked the bishops individually, no one knows exactly who is responsible for thinking up the royalty policy.

The chicks... bet they live their lives and teach their daughters that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.



"The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) owns the copyright on the New American Bible translation. [snip] Royalty fees earned by licensing the text to companies who publish and sell Bibles help to provide funds for Scripture scholarship and other educational needs."


"Since May 19, 2002, the revised Lectionary, based on the New American Bible is the only English-language Lectionary that may be used at Mass in the dioceses of the United States, except for the current Lectionary for Masses with Children which remains in use."


Re: royalties

They don't charge podcasts anything, 'cause they won't license anything to us at all.... :)

This is another case where the USCCB policy seems susceptible to legal challenge. (I'm not a copyright lawyer and thus not real clear on the relationship between "mechanical license" and podcasts, or fair use and podcasts, but I suspect quite a few holes of Mack truck size.)
Obviously, none of the faithful are going to want to go to law against the bishops on this kind of stuff, as we don't want another Battle of Cul Dreimhne. So the USCCB are probably safe unless somebody outside the Church wants to make money or trouble.

But it's so pointless. Other national bishops' conferences actually want their lay faithful to be creative and spread the Word. Ours apparently has trouble with the "lay", "creative", and "spread" parts.

Oh, well. Someday in heaven, we'll look back on all this and laugh.


You wonder why they even bother with the calandar. There must be hundreds of Catholic events going on in November. They list just a few. It makes the national church look way less active than my local parish. Then of all the things they could pick they put Call to Action up there. It seems like a joke. Maybe the webmaster is checking to see if anyone is paying attention.



I cherish my disposable missalettes: the newsprint-quality paper, the easily torn covers, the frequently abstract ecumenical religious art on the covers, the genuflections to modern sensibilities in the colophon -- it's all so reassuring.

Of what, I have no idea.

But I'm sure the cost savings are being plowed into worthy causes, such as purchasing the latest spiritual "hits" from OCP's catalog.

Dale Price

Always Our Bureaucrats.

Jeff Tan

That CTA 2006 list of sessions is ... very disturbing.


A simple phone call to an appreciative Director of Communications should result in the removal of that listing from the website. (In the next few minutes, hopefully) Don't know how it got there but the two people I spoke with at the conference were both apalled and apologetic.


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.

We can at least be thankful that these women imposters are not pretending to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.



Great! With whom did you speak?

And, can you/we/I do the same for the LC link from the Vocations Department?



It's already been removed. I hope the bishops to which I forwarded it had the chance to see it before they took it down - so they know what and whom they're dealing with.


I have no desire to remove a solid vocations website from the USCCB site. Vocations.com does much good. In fact I'm subscribed to pray for vocations with that site. You might want to do the same. It is quite edifying. Those who have a prayer request regarding their vocation log on and the prayer is forwarded to those who have suscribed to offer prayers. I receive requests from all over the world, men and women who are discerning their vocation. I have the joy of praying for them by name. It is also humbling to see how many people the world over are in discernment! It is such a simple way to participate in fostering vocations! We can grumble all we want about the state of our Church but what positive steps are we taking to advance His mission?
Just my .02!


I'm really glad Amy picked up the Call to Action story, but I should correct the record by noting that this story was first posted yesterday on Fumare (www.fumare.blogspot.com).


I'm being a little too negative, I'm afraid. Disclosure of bias: I got stung by the copyright thing, and the USCCB folks didn't even bother to contact _me_ about it, contacting my host instead -- though my net-presence is not exactly hard to find. (Clearly, the work of folks clueless about or impatient with the ways of the Internet.)

So I should also say that I suspect a lot of the problem is that the blogosphere and podcasts are new, and are not well understood in USCCB circles. As more of the bishops and their staffs and their priests become more net-savvy (like Cardinal Sean), I suspect we will get a little more leeway on stuff like this. When podcasts become just another boring parish activity, for instance. :)

I would guess that the average podcaster is not someone versed in how to make one's way about the corridors of church leadership. I mean, I'd be thrilled to make my podcast more useful to some larger goal, and I certainly don't want to do anything to hamper the USCCB or anybody else helping to lead the Church. I would love, for example, to make podcasts of old theology stuff that was coming up in some college's curriculum. But the chances of anybody institutional noticing my podcast and asking me to do something useful to help is also pretty much nil.

Frankly, I'm a bit afraid to call notice to my efforts. Heck, I'm afraid to make CDs for my own parish's library, because I have a strong suspicion that somebody wouldn't like it. There's always somebody who resents anyone doing anything.

Though nobody but me ever uses our parish library, so it ought to be entirely safe! :)


vocations.com - diocese of joliet - no link 'cause USCCB would have to link to *all* diocesan sites. Is this who you are praying with, Maria? If so, great -- more power to you!

vocation.com - LC site - the *only* religious order with link from USCCB -- that's the problem. Are you praying with them -- great! But many would like to pray with other religious orders for an increase in vocations.

[Flash! Personally, I believe the mistake that Maria has made here with the plural: vocation.com vs. vocations.com is at the heart of the matter... But maybe not?]

And my question is: why this LC site?

And again to Maria: with whom did you speak at the USCCB to get link removed from calendar because I would like to pursue the removal of the LC link.

That's my $.02!

Dale Price

How are the LCs equivalent to people who have excommunicated themselves?



Would you be satisfied if the Bishops' site linked to other order-specific websites? I fail to see your concern with Vocation.com. While it may be run by the LC (is that the issue, that it's LC?), the site does come across as a more general portal (as others have noted). Plus, as Matt pointed out, the LCs aren't propogating falsities about the Catholic faith, so I remain curious about your initial objection. It seems personal. I'm not trying to be belligerent, just looking for further explanation. I find a HUGE difference between linking to CTA and the LCs.

Dale Price

I'm with Nerina. Instead, why not suggest to the USCCB webmaster to include links to the Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, Salesians, etc.?


Thanks for clarifying. I did mean Vocation.com (not plural) and I meant to add that it is a free subscription.
If you want to contact the bishops conference go ahead. I'll not stand in your way. But I'm sure not going to aid you because I think it is a worthy apostolate and I'm glad the bishops link to it.


What Nerina and Dale said.



Maybe the bishops' conference saw fit to direct seekers to the powerhouse of priestly vocations.


Nernia, not personal at all. Just believe the USCCB should be concerned that it is giving direct linking favor to one particular order, the LCs. I have no personal interest or stake in regards to CTA. My issue (as is Amy's, I suppose) is one of links in the USCCB site.

Although, comments like this "powerhouse of priestly vocations" is of concern to me as it is of concern to some dioceses in regards to the aggressive recruitment ways of the LC.

But mostly, it is quite unfair to many good and holy religious orders to not have a direct link from the USCCB vocation site.

Dale, your goal of including all is admirable, but do you realize how many this would be? Countless. And it would be a nightmare to monitor which is why they have the other order and vocation links there.

The question for me is: why the LC link? Why?

Again, Maria, with whom did you speak? I am curious because I would like to know about their linking policy from a human being. Any other suggestions?



Amy, just noted your new comments on the matter. I think the crux of the matter is here:

"for non-profit purposes, on the Web and so on"

What does that mean, is perhaps what the USCCB is unsure about? How quickly they have seen these non-profits (aren't many Catholic publishers non-profit?) grow into large entities and source of materials for Catholics?

Perhaps the Bishops, as they do in print, want to control what is happening on the Web? And don't you think they should just as they monitor your use of a prayer in a book?



Don't worry, I'll never direct any young man I know who thinks he has a priestly vocation to the USCCB's website.

c matt

hmm...I wonder if the USCCB copyright thing might be a blessing in disguise - the less USCCB documents are disseminated, probably the better.

Jordan Potter

I'm glad the USCCB has removed the CTA event from their calendar. I've met a few people from the USCCB, and I know they at least would not have been pleased to find out it had been put on the calendar (and of course there are others there who were happy about it, including the person who put it on the calendar).


"(and of course there are others there who were happy about it, including the person who put it on the calendar)."

But isn't that part of the problem - shouldn't they be taking steps to discipline/warn the person who put it on the calendar from USCCB? I don't think that is too harsh. It was a schismatic group event.


Thanks for your response, Brigid.


Do the Church a favor and email your bishops about this anyway. They should know what their 'employees' are doing.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)