Is there an official Catholic version of the Bible that is public domain just like that KJV is? Also, is there a translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that is public domain? I want to post from these, but cannot due to copyright laws. Does anyone have a link to a site from which I can post directly?

Thanks and God bless!

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004

Answers

bump

-- bump (bump@bump.bump), February 07, 2004.

Emily,

If you go to the "Catholic" page (not recent answers) and scroll down to the bottom, there is an "online and offline resources" link. In that you'll see both links for the catechism and douay-rheims.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 07, 2004.

The NAB translation is at http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/

God Bless!

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 07, 2004.

The CCC is at http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 07, 2004.

Thanks for the NAB and CCC links, however, both of those are copyrighted and under US copyright law, they cannot be legally quoted in this forum. They can be linked to, however.

What I am seeking are sites that offer the Bible and CCC in *public domain* meaning that I would not have to break the copyright laws to post from them. This is how the KJV is, and perhaps some Douay Rheims. However, in searching as Frank advised, I found *many* Douay Rheims versions that stated they were both under copyright. I only found one Bible and one CCC (both at the same site) that said nothing about being copyrighted. This leaves me suspicious that perhaps the site neglected to legitimately include that copyright information, since the numerous other sites I check all said that both of those were copyrighted. The site also had poor layout IMO.

I expected as much from Protestantism, who have no central authority. The fact that there are numerous Protestant Bible translations and none are public domain except the KJV (simply because it's so old, no one can claim it) always bothered me so much. It appears as if many, many people are trying to profit off of God's Word, which is contrary to 2 Cor 2:17. But why oh why, if the Catholic Church wants people to be able to freely receive God's Word and the gospel, why would they not make an official version of the CCC and Bible public domain, so that anyone can use and quote from it? I do not want to believe that they are simply trying to exploit people and profit from it.

If anyone has a link to a *public domain* Bible or CCC please share it with me.

Thanks and God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.

I beleive the Kign James actually still is Copywrited tot he Crown, it just sint placed under legal restrictions. IE, the owners of the copyright do not mind you quoteing the text.

That said, I beleive all Bible versions are copyrighted for their own protection. I grant you, soem are doen so for profit, but some are copyrighted to prevent unscrupulpou peipel form copyrighting the mateiral.

IE, lets pretend I made a translation fo the Bible, lets cal it "The New Path" translation.(Please dont look for it on any shelves, its a fictional translation , as best of my knowledge, and I certainly didnt make any that bare this name in case the title is real.)

Now, suppose I dont copyright this mateiral. Later, someone else decides to steakl my matieal and cpuright it. They acutally CAN, anf hten profit form my work while forbifing others to use it.(Except as a Fair Use clause, in which quotatiosn form books can be used.)

Many copyright holders refuse to allow free us f their Bibles, such as the CEV, the NIV, the Livign Bible, the Mesage, ect... nonetheless they permit up to 500 words beign wuoted, provided these do not constitute a whole book, or up to 50% of a book. I disagree withthis policy.

The Kking Jmaes, however, was encouraged to be copied, and no resitctiosn where placed upon the mateiral, allowign anyone with a press to make as many copies as they like. Indeed, it was encoruaged to help wihtthe cause of this particular translation, which was ot grant everyone a good, reliable english translation in the contemporary language of three day. Theirfore, no syipulations for use where rendered.

I do not know anythign baothte Copyrights of the NAB, or even the DR, but I do knpow that their is reaosn for copyrights, the real queastion is do the copyright holders allow free use of their mateirals, and if not what ar ehte stipulations?

Currently in the US, you are allowed, however, to quote form any book, even if copyrighted, under the fairt use clause, which allows samples to be displayed for reerence, so long as the material is cited to its origional source, an does not contain the fullness of any given peortion.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 07, 2004.

Zarove said: That said, I beleive all Bible versions are copyrighted for their own protection. I grant you, soem are doen so for profit, but some are copyrighted to prevent unscrupulpou peipel form copyrighting the mateiral.

Thanks for the info - I was not aware of this. But if something is officially made "public domain", doesn't that mean that no one can copyright it? (eg. I heard that the song _Amazing Grace_ fits this category).

Many copyright holders refuse to allow free us f their Bibles, such as the CEV, the NIV, the Livign Bible, the Mesage, ect... nonetheless they permit up to 500 words beign wuoted, provided these do not constitute a whole book, or up to 50% of a book. I disagree withthis policy.

Me too. Why not just let people use the entire thing for free, without exception?

The Kking Jmaes, however, was encouraged to be copied, and no resitctiosn where placed upon the mateiral, allowign anyone with a press to make as many copies as they like. . .Theirfore, no syipulations for use where rendered.

Very admirable indeed.

Thanks so much for your help. I was not aware of any of this I thought a copyright was exactly that - a copy right.

I would still like to find a Catholic Bible and CCC that are public domain if anyone knows of one.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.

Hi Emily,

Zarove is right. You may quote freely from any Bible and the CCC as long as you give the reference. This does not violate copyright laws. The problem comes in when someone wants to, for example, download the entire text of the Bible translation or CCC and print it out for their own profit (such as selling it or providing it to an entire class in a university). Catholic.com gives a good description of what they consider fair use of information from any of their tracts. I think following the same rules for the CCC or a Bible translation would be reasonable under the copyright laws.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 07, 2004.

Emily said, But why oh why, if the Catholic Church wants people to be able to freely receive God's Word and the gospel, why would they not make an official version of the CCC and Bible public domain, so that anyone can use and quote from it?

I think this is what they've done with the links I provided. Just provide the reference when you quote. A violation of copyright law would be doing what I explained in my previous post. Printing and selling for your monetary gain and trying to cheat the publisher out of making a fair living.

God bless!

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 07, 2004.

Public DOmain and Copyright laws work as follows.

If a material passe sinto Public SDomain, it may be freely expressed or used by anyone, and cna no longer be copyrighted. Howevedr, this happens after 50 to 100 years ( Dependign on location) after the passing of the Copyright holder.

IE, if I copyright a book, then die, and am the sole bcopyright holder, then, 50 years after my death ( Or 100, in some areas) the mateiral will. fall into pyblic domain.Likewise, if I dotn renew the Copyright, what I wirte will fall int public domain eventually.

However, if my family inherits the copyright, then they may renew the copyright so long as they exist.

Another Bible that si cipyrighted is the Joseph Smith translation, for instance. Smith's Bible "translation" ( A rework of the KJV to support Mormon Theolpgy) was not copyrighted in his lifetime, but rather the Reorginised Church of Jesus Chrfist of MLatter Day saints, the Missuri Branch of his CHurch, optaiend the Manuscript form his widow, emma, and procceeded to copyright it and mass prodice it.

The CHurch ( Now called the ommunity of Christ) wons the copyright, and thus, untl the Church as an orginisation ceases to exist, the copyright is held by them as a corporation woudl hold a Logi, such as Nike.

Should the Church cease to exist, then in 50 years, the Bible of Josph Smith woudl become public Domain.

Likewise, if I publish a Book, and do not pass the copyright to my family or a friend or company, then 50 years after my death ( Or 100, in some areas) it falls into public domain.

But if I do pass it on, the copyright can be renewed, indefinatley, until the family line either doesnt renew it, or else it ceases to exist.

Now, I am also aware that eventually the copyright laws woudl ceas tobe effective shoudl it exceed a certain limit, btu that limit I am uncertain on... I am well eno cnfident howeve rto asume that after 1000 years, anythign will be Public Domain.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 07, 2004.

Andy is right, Emily, copyright laws do not prohibit one from quoting from the book or material, but simply preclude one from "publishing" the material as their own.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 07, 2004.

Jmj

Hi, Emily.
I believe that you are a bit overly concerned about this matter. Let me explain.

First, it will be impossible for you to find a "public domain" copy of the CCC. It was just published for the very first time in 1992 (in French), so it is still under copyright. Second, I believe that there are copyrights on 20th-century Catholic editions of the Bible.

Now having said that, I feel sure that the authors of the CCC and translators of the Bible versions would not only NOT object to their being quoted here (in moderate fashion), but would be pleased to see that we are putting these works to good use.

Finally, you are mistaken to think that it is unlawful to copy-and-paste passages from those books here at the forum. In copyright law, there is something called "fair use provisions." I am not a lawyer, so I am not going to try to explain these provisions, except to say that I understand that they give people like us (and book reviewers, people in the media, authors of other books, etc.) permission to quote short passages without getting the author's/translator's written permission.

Perhaps you have heard of the apologetics organization started by Karl Keating -- "Catholic Answers, Inc."? At CAI's Internet site, there is a "Permissions Guidelines" page, on which one can find the following:
"Quotation -- Individuals are permitted to make brief quotations from the material on this site, in keeping with the 'fair use' provisions of copyright law."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 07, 2004.

John said:I believe that you are a bit overly concerned about this matter.

Perhaps, but I want to do what's right and abide by the law. I am just trying to figure out what that is. Many people say that downloading/copying music that is copyrighted is ok just because many other people do it and it's easy. But I still believe that is wrong. Same thing here - I don't want to copy something that is not permitted.

I feel sure that the authors of the CCC and translators of the Bible versions would not only NOT object to their being quoted here (in moderate fashion), but would be pleased to see that we are putting these works to good use.

Thanks John and everyone for your help. However, this does not appear to be the case. At this website for the NAB, it says at the bottom:

All rights reserved. Neither this work nor any part of it may be reproduced, distributed, performed or displayed in any medium, including electronic or digital, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

On Bible Gateway, it says of the copyrighted texts: These Scriptures have been made available on the Internet for your personal use only. Any other use including, but not limited to, copying or re-posting the Scripture on the Internet is prohibited.

On this site about the NIV, it says that for personal, non-commercial use individuals may quote 50 verses, not exceeding 5% of a book, and churches or non-profit educational instituations may quote 500 verses, not exceeding 25% of a book.

These terms do not sound very open to me. Personal, non-commercial use does not seem to apply to a public internet forum, because that is not personal. Whereas it might for a personal, individual email or something. Thank you for your help. I guess we live in a sick society when even Christians must make limitations on what we can quote from God's Word. I mean, I think if anyone should have the copyright, it should be God!

God bless, and pray for our world.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.

Yet anopther of the several reasons why I stick to the King James,not to make this a Kign James thread.

Emily, I will yry to finsd a reprodicable Bible translation for you that isnt "The Infirior King James" if you woudl like, but i the mean time, why not merely quote form either the AV 1611, or else the Douay Rheims, which I am sure at this point is either Piblic Domain r lese has exceedingly light restrictions.

( Or else everyone can elarn Hebrew and Greek, the origional Manuscripts cannot be copyrighted.)

Hoeever, as I, and John, both cited, their is such a thing as a fair use clause. This allows Book reviewers, public forums ( Such as this one) and even whole orginisations to quote passages form a copyrighted text, provided the citation is given for reference, and provided that the citation include the name of the Book you got the material form, and in soem cases the author.(In the case of Bibles, this is unnnessisary, just name the book.)

For instance, the Nrw Kign James Bibel is copyrighted, however, I can quote form it. Here is how.

I quote form the Epistle of James.CHapter 5.(Selected at random.)

James 5 1 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! 2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days. 4 Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. 5 You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you. -(New King James.)

See, I added in parenthasis the name of the book.

This is allowed, even thought he work is copyrighted, under the fair use clause. I am permitted, as are you, in reproducign the text, so long as I give gcretid to the copyright holders, and do niot attempt to profit form the work at hand. ( I cant anyway, this si a net forum.)

Even if I where a newsreporter, quoting it in a review, I could get by with it, as one MUST alow some citatiosn in a reveiwed sunject. ( Hence anyone on a web site can quote DOZENS of versions and tell how they all came form satan, and get by with it, because he is not reprodicign these verses and claimign authorship, nor distributign these verses as his own intellectual property.)

So long as I dotn claim the ownership of the mateiral, or try to exploit the mateiral for personal profit, I may quote a reaosnable amount of the mateiral, dispite the disclaimers on the pages of the book itsself. (Even th dread " No part of this work may be reprodiced" standard can be overruled under fair use laws.)

However, I thik that Bible translations should, by their definition, be free of restirction. Though I am all for copyrights ( Even the Kign James has one, as I said) I belive it is the moral duty of any agency that owns the copyright, be they individual, CHurch, or corperation, to allow free distribution of said work.

This is another plus of the Kign James Bible, which may be reprodiced freely, without fail, and without fear. even though it too is under protection ( Meanign I cannot claim ownership of said property.)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 07, 2004.

It has always bothered me that you have to pay for any kind of Bible study material in the Catholic Church--I always thought that materials should be paid for out of the collection money. The Bible should be available for the cost of printing it, period, if that. I always thought that part of what made the Scientologists a business rather than a religion was that EVERYTHING cost money, and it was not cheap. I still think they were always set up to be a business, by the way.

I might add that both our local library sale and the Salvation Army GIVES away any Bibles they receive as donations. And of course we have the Gideons to thank for the Bibles you find in hotel rooms, and those free small ones that the military personnel receive, as well as those that patient men standing on street corners hand out to high school students. Yes, it's KJV, but to me that is better than having no Bible to refer to at all.

People should be able to get a free, approved Catholic version of the Bible--there is no excuse not to make one available. The Catholic Church could ALWAYS put it in the public domain, with the proviso that one quoting from or producing it in its entirety not alter it in any way and include the copyright notice. I see that statement all over the place, and especially on the web.

I might add that what is actually being copyrighted when Bibles come out are the translations, footnotes, etc. How many times have you seen the same book repackaged at a higher price with only perhaps a new introduction--it's for the money, plain and simple.

I think some of you are innocently confusing "copyright" with "authorized version" or "approved version" Copyright has to do with the rights to reproduce for money, not with whether it means the particular Bible (in this example) is the one approved by the Vatican for Catholics to use.

Surely the oldest approved Catholic translations of the Bible should by now be in the public domain, by any standard.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 07, 2004.

HT, whats so wrogn withthe KJV?

That said, I agree with most of what you aid, but Copyrights are NOT deisgend only to make money.As a Proffessional writer, I know. Its also to prevent others form later claiming the intellectual property as theirs.

But other than that, I htiunk all Bibles should be made freely available.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 07, 2004.

I might add that even if someone copyrights material and allows it to be used free in the public domain they could still prosecute someone else for SELLING it (as in Zarove's example) because the original copyright holder still retains the right of control as to how that material is used, and the seller would in fact be violating the restrictions placed by the original copyright holder.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 07, 2004.

Zarove said: what's so wrong with the KJV?

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with using it, of course. I love the fact that it is public domain and I can quote from it freely without having to worry about breaking copyright laws. HOWEVER, there are three reasons why I want to find an alternative.

1. It is not approved by the Catholic Church as an official version. This is problematic IMO, because if I believe that the Church interprets the Bible, it should be an accurate version, because there is much interpretation involved in the translation process.

2. This is a Catholic forum, and thus I think it would be best for all to use a Catholic version here if possible. All Catholics should agree on the reliability of an approved Catholic Bible, and it will enhance our discussion of issues, especially in relation to the CCC's interpretation of certain passages that may contain a Protestant slant in non-Catholic versions.

3. Some of the language in older versions such as the KJV has become outdated, causing the text to mean something different in modern language than it did at the time it was translated. For personal use, that's ok if I am willing to go look up word origins in the Oxford English Dictionary or something. But for quick reference in a forum such as this to help someone else or to prove a point I am trying to make, it is much more helpful and convenient to post the text of a modern translation, so that everyone understands what I'm trying to say. It would be like Zarove joked that everyone should learn Greek or Hebrew - of course we can't expect that. I could do that on my own, just like I could learn to read the KJV and understand the original context on my own, but I can't expect all those reading my posts to do that.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.

Zarove,

When I was talking about copyrighting for money, I refer mainly to the truly detestable practice (usually by writers of college textbooks), where 99% of the book is the same, except for one chapter or an introduction, or a new color cover, yet that somehow makes an older edition obsolete. The new edition, of course, sells for more money, and the bookstores almost immediately remove the cheaper editions from the shelves.... I have no problems with original copyrights, honest.

I agree, the purpose of copyright is hopefully to establish the rightful owner of some material (but that doesn't always happen either--look at all the suits over screenplays, for example). Everything is actually copyrighted at the moment of its creation, but it is the REGISTERING of the copyright that confers any rights on the copyright holder, but you know that.

If you're Catholic, the KJV is not the "approved" version--I attach no judgement call on that, I wasn't there when it was translated, so how can I make any statements as to its accuracy? That is all I meant by that statement, didn't mean to offend you at all. Personally, I have no problems with the KJV Bible, especially compared to some of new modern Catholic translations--I much prefer the older language.

The Word of God should be free to all, and the Catholic Church should lead the way in this.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 07, 2004.

GT said:The Word of God should be free to all, and the Catholic Church should lead the way in this.

I agree wholeheartedly, GT. This is something that has bothered me for years about most Bible translations. (Although it could be justified to pay a small fee for printing costs, etc.) But what about a charitable organization that could make the Bibles inexpensively, or available for free, say upon Catholic baptism or confirmation to those who want it? Hmm, perhaps I've found my calling, lol! Maybe if I become a nun, I could start/join an order with this goal in mind. What do you think - is this feasible? Would the Church allow it?

Ooh, I just thought of something. If the Catholic Church started doing this, maybe we would see more converts to Catholicism when people see the generosity of Christians. This would be a stark contrast to many of the Protestant translations, and perhaps they would give in and start making God's Word more available too! Oh Lord Jesus, help us!

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.

Actualy many Protestant orginisations do give away the Bible. The Gideons for example. For that matter, offshoot religious intities like the Mormons offer free Bibles upon requeast. U happened upon their mailing list once, and optained boht a free Book of Mormon and a free Holy Bible.

Many groups do give away Bibles.But another group woudl be nice

What I woudl like , tougvhing on the King James issue and accuracy, woudl be a new King James, as it where ( Not referencing the New Kign Jsmes of Thomas Nelson.)

A literal translation f the origional manusctipts emloying th ebest scholars of the day, to be authorised for use in any and all churches, free form doctorinal bias, or as free as possible, in plain yet majestic language. A formal equivolancy.

Yp it all off with allowign free distribution and use of the text, and automaticaly you have repeated the Kign James Bible, only in modern english, correcting the errors of the former ( At leats we hope) and acailable to anyone wishing to publish, quote form, or optain it.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 07, 2004.

Zarove, I was referring to certain dominant Protestant Bible publishers (which will remain unnamed because I think most people will know to whom I am referring - and if not, imagine) that seem to have the monopoly on Bible versions, and hold onto it very tightly with strict regulations about their use. Sorry, I should have been more clear.

You are correct that there are wonderful groups who do give away the Bible (eg. the Gideons), but this is often in older versions that are difficult to understand, for the new Christian/non-Christian especially. Either that or the version is somewhat obsolete because it is not used in churches (due to the translation monopoly) and people are not familiar with it, so it can be hard to follow along reading when someone is preaching or whatever. I want a Bible that is accessible to the common person, even with not much education but a desire to know God better.

God bless and thanks for setting me straight once again :)

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.

Emily

Do not worry about the copyright of the Bible. I know when I am writing essays for class I only have to site the book, chapter and verse. The actual Bible doesn't matter, espicially since the book is way older than copyright laws. So just site that when you post. Also with the CCC just site that it is the CCC and where in the CCC and you are fine. You only break the law when you post it and say that it is your words and not the CCCs. This is more appropriatly called plagarism. So just site and you are fine.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

Emily, I disagree with you about modern versions being better. Every time you modernize, you reinterpret, in a way, and that can be good or bad. Many of us grew up reading about "the good thief" who was forgiven by Christ at the Crucifixion, well, now the "thief" is a "revolutionary", which is a WHOLE different thing altogether.

I would rather see an old Bible with footnotes (or say a separate supplement you can get), than a modern version which just doesn't sound like a Bible anymore. It's hard to explain, but modern versions seem to have a lack of respect about them, and I don't know why.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 08, 2004.

This was the thread I was referring to with "the good thief".

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AkIW

You shouldn't have to go out and get a new Bible every year because there is a new translation out.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 08, 2004.

Hi, Emily.
You responded to me by saying, "Thanks John ... However, this does not appear to be the case. At this website for the NAB, it says at the bottom: 'All rights reserved. Neither this work nor any part of it may be reproduced, distributed, performed or displayed in any medium, including electronic or digital, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.'"

As you surely know, Emily, you cannot believe everything you read in the newspaper. Similarly, you cannot take literally everything you read in such comments as the above -- in books, at sites, etc.. The fact is that, by placing a text out in public view, the "owners" of the text cannot totally forbid people to "reproduce" or "display" "any part of it." They can say that they forbid it, but they cannot actually forbid it. Writers/publishers make broad statements like that to avoid detrimental, large-scale quoting/plagiarism that would cost them money or fail to give credit where due.

As I said last time (and as reflected at the Catholic Answers, Inc., site), the law permits people to quote small pieces of text from published (paper or digital) materials. I agree with what someone else said -- that there ought to be an attribution of the source (something I usually forget to do when quoting Bible verses). I used to remember to put "[RSV]" at the end of my quotations from the Revised Standard Version, and this conversation gives me a good incentive to begin doing that again.

I'm afraid that I don't agree with what you said about the NIV ("Personal, non-commercial use does not seem to apply to a public internet forum, because that is not personal"). In my opinion, our use here is "personal," because we are private individuals sharing with acquaintances in a not-for-profit manner.

If you still think that it would bother your conscience to copy from the CCC or from a modern Catholic Bible, you may want to speak to a lawyer about what CAI called "the fair use provisions of copyright law."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 09, 2004.

GT I agree wholly. The tgorubk is, however, we live in a "New"society. Alwsys lookign for a new interpretation, a new way to translate, a new look.

The same issue, in a way, i addressed on a few other threads where peopel think the Chruch itsself shoudl Modrnise.

The prtoblem is that their are only so many ways you ca in translate a passage. The theif was always a theif, but at one point the translators, wishign to make their version unique (Rather than wisign to mak their version accurate) supplanted the word theif for revolutionary, thus giving their Bible a Novel interpetation.

This, of course, is a flaw. They are attemptign to translate the Bible base don a desire to make a distinvtive translation, not an axcurat eone. This is another resaosn why I clign to the pld ones myself.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 09, 2004.

John, it almost sounds as if you're saying anyone who puts material out on the Internet is SOL (Sadly, Out of Luck) if someone else quotes it, plagarizes it, whatever, in other words, too bad, so sad, that's the nature of the internet, expect it.

The copyright laws allow you to place whatever restrictions you, as copyright holder, wish to in regards to use, including "fair use". The usual standard with fair use is that you cannot quote so much as to deprive the copyright holder of income by in effect discouraging someone from buying the book. What percentage is kind of up to interpretation--I have read many books where only 10% was essential, the rest could be thrown away. If someone quoted only that 10% of the info that was the "meat" of the book, you could effectively discourage someone from buying that book at all.

It is ENFORCING those laws that is the problem. Unlike personal injury cases, there is very little money in copyright law. The only copyright holders who can afford to make people "cease and desist" are people like Disney, who can afford lawyers (who are on retainer anyway) to hound infringers. Most people cannot afford that level of legal representation for single cases, and the money to be gained is not worth the exhorbitant legal fees. It does not make the infringement any less wrong, it just means that they can't afford to fight for their rights. Usually what happens with internet infringing is that the copyright holder threatens legal action to the service provider of the website infringing, by explaining that the material is copyrighted, and for the service to please remove it immediately. But who knows how many have downloaded the information when it was up there? The damage is done, and can get worse....

"I'm afraid that I don't agree with what you said about the NIV ("Personal, non- commercial use does not seem to apply to a public internet forum, because that is not personal"). In my opinion, our use here is "personal," because we are private individuals sharing with acquaintances in a not-for-profit manner."

This is not a private forum by any means--anyone can access this site. We're not talking about some private email ring here.

The question is why isn't there a free, totally in the public domain Catholic Bible?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 09, 2004.

Jmj
Hello, GT.

You wrote: "John, it almost sounds as if you're saying anyone who puts material out on the Internet is SOL (Sadly, Out of Luck) if someone else quotes it, plagarizes it, whatever, in other words, too bad, so sad, that's the nature of the internet, expect it."

GT, I'm shocked that you accused me of stating that plagiarism is OK. Please re-read my previous posts to see that I never hinted at such a thing! To the contrary, I stated that, when one quotes (in accordance with "fair use"), one should give attribution to the author (if known). Speaking of "fair use," please fairly use what I wrote!

Other than that error on your part, I do agree with your understanding of what I wrote, but I completely reject the connotations you attached to it. For example, I don't consider being quoted fairly as being "SOL."

And I don't consider being quoted fairly as "too bad, so sad." Quite the contrary! My belief is that a writer ought to want to be quoted -- and without remuneration whenever possible. You must have missed it, two weeks ago, when I told someone (who hoped to have my permission to quote something I once posted here): "No one needs my permission to copy what I have posted in the past. I don't consider it my property. I give it away freely."

You wrote: "The copyright laws allow you to place whatever restrictions you, as copyright holder, wish to in regards to use, including 'fair use.'"

I doubt that you are right -- at least I sincerely hope you are wrong -- to say that an author can totally forbid every other human being from quoting even one phrase from his printed works or Internet pages. I have repeatedly heard that courts permit limited quoting (with attribution).

You asked: "The question is why isn't there a free, totally in the public domain Catholic Bible?"

Actually there is one. It least, it states on its "license" page: "The text of this on-line Bible is believed to be in the public domain." I am speaking of this copy of the Douay-Rheims Version (with Challoner Revisions) of the Catholic Bible. [Two other interesting Douay-Rheims sites are here (basic) and here (with "built-in" concordance).

Now suppose you alter your question to read, "The question is why isn't there a free, totally-in-the-public-domain recently published Catholic Bible (e.g., NAB, JB, RSV-CE)?"
My answer would have to be "greed." The translators and publishers (or their heirs?) still apparently want the royalties -- even decades after initial publication.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 10, 2004.

John, that's why I wrote, "almost" when I prefaced my remarks about your comments, because I wasn't sure.....

Thank you for clarifying what you said, although what I thought you were saying is that because of the nature of the internet, even though it is wrong, you have to sadly expect that it will happen, despite one's best efforts to put copyrights in and so forth.

No, I don't consider being quoted fairly a violation of copyright, generally, except where the brief quote is the "important" part of the work, and quoting that one portion could effectively kill any market for the work. Like I said, I have read more than one book where much of it was filler around perhaps ONE good idea, which if you go by word count would be an infinitesimal part of the book, but if you look at it from content, it is the significant portion of the book. This is where "fair use" can be interpreted in any number of ways. I agree that a writer wants to be quoted (and of course being credited as the author) in order to perhaps advertise his work to a larger audience.

Actually, it was Emily who was searching for a more modern version of a Catholic Church-approved Bible. I don't mind older versions, and thank you for the links. What I am saying is that the Church COULD commission a modern translation as a "work for hire", pay those people once, and copyright it to the public domain immediately.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 10, 2004.

John's right as far as Copyrights are concerned, and GT Is ight as far as the new Bible translation.

As to Copyrights, they woirk as follows.

A Copyright holder has the right to place ristrictiosn upon a given work, however, this restirction cannot include common phrases ( Such as I canot copyright "Hey , you,") nor can it constitute the elemenation of fair use for reviewers and customers.

Normally, this means that one cannot reproduce a whole given body of work, but one can however discuss a given body of work, or uote form it, without legal concern, so long as disclaimers or references are made. Take a look at Batman, for instance. Many companies and fans build websites dedicated ot Batman. Almost all fo them have the sort of disclaimer namign the owner of the Copyright and claimign no possession of the mateiral, and that they are not for ptrofit. Normally, this is all it takes to post information, suhc as the hisotry fo the Batman franchise and story, chafecter information, ect.

However, the Vopyright holder can, and often does, hold back on this, as is evidenced byt he particulaarly ill thoguht out revent Star Trek fiasco, when the Holders fo he franchise ( Berman and Braga, namley) saught to elemenate all unofficial Trek Fansites a coupel years vack. ( For no reason relaly othe rhtan they wished all trek fans to use only the official site.) The COurts rules however that most sites had not violated the Copyrights and where well wothin Fair use. Not reproducign entire works.

As to Bibles, toy may quote form any version, so long as you post a refrence.

Such as the below, which is a random verse form the Basic english Bible.

1 This is what the Lord has said: The doorway of the inner square looking to the east is to be shut on the six working days; but on the Sabbath it is to be open, and at the time of the new moon it is to be open. -Ezekiel, Chapter 14, Verse 1. Basic English Bible.

Nom, in the above example, I quoted only a part of the work, not the entiure work, and likewise, gave the refernece in the citation, thus makign it fair use. Had I quoted the entire book of Ezekiel, then I owudl be infringing on copyright laws. Likewise, had I not placed the disclaimer on the verse, this woudl be a violation ( Though such a minor one that no one woudl care)

But legally, as per fair use clause, I can quote the mateiral.

Now, as to HT, I beleive that their shoudl be a few new translations, all done like the King James, in that the Copyright Holders place NO restrictions upon the given material, and allow fre distribution and reprodiction of the translations.

This way, the word of God is not merely made for Portfit, but offered freely. I would that theis was no Copyright at sall, but this cannot be, for the sake of protectign the work.

But oen can offer it as Public Domain. ( Juts as the US COnstitution always was.)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 10, 2004.

Actually, Zarove, what's happened with common phrases is that they are now being trademarked (Idiot's Guide, x for Dummies, etc.). The Star Trek case you mentioned was a big deal, as most of that stuff is actually trademarked, not copyrighted. The ST novel I am looking at at the moment has a little "r" in a circle, not a "c" in a circle, and it notes in the front of the book that Paramount Pictures owns it, not Berman et al.

Sure, you can discuss and review using short passages, but you still have to be careful in how you do it. If a reviewer says "all you need out of this book is the following two sentences", and quotes them, and it's the truth, an author might have a case about that depriving him of income.

However, bringing it back to the original question, while online links are nice, I still would prefer a printed Bible.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 10, 2004.

There is the Net Bible, which is copyrighted but has VERY loose regulations. I'm pretty sure that in all cases, it is completely legal to post on the internet anywhere, any amount. This is essentially like the KJV in regulations. Unfortunately, I do not believe it is a version that is authorized by the Catholic Church. I don't know if it exists in print.

Check it out here: http://www.netbible.com/netbible/

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 10, 2004.

Here is another Douay-Rheims Bible, Challoner Revision of 1899. This is probably about the most "modern" we are going to get in the public domain. There is no copyright and never can be on it. Zarove was kind enough to find it for me when I asked for a Catholic Bible in public domain.

About: http://www.christianisrael.com/douay/about.htm Bible: http://www.christianisrael.com/douay/index2.htm

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 10, 2004.

Quickly noticed problems with www.netbible.com -----

1. It does not have the Church's imprimatur, as is required to be called a "Catholic Bible."

2. It would not be approved by the Church, because it is lacking some books -- and maybe for other reasons. A section (mislabeled as "Deuterocanonical Apochrypha") is missing several of the deuterocanonical books. (Wouldn't want anyone reading about praying for the souls of the dead, now would we?)

3. Luke 1:28 is not suitably translated, and the footnote for it makes things worse. The footnotes for Genesis 38 fail to explain that Onan's sin was contraception.

-- (online@book.review), February 11, 2004.

Emily

There should be no problem whatsoever with you using small quotes from Bibles. It's common practise and perfectly legal to do so. It's advisable to give credit to the source you've used if you're reproducing it in print. If you're quoting verbally then it's sufficient to quote the Scripture passage. This is accepted behaviour, and is done all the time for Religious Education and by priests delivering talks etc.

God bless

Sara

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), February 11, 2004.

Emily,

If I might ask, what do you intend to DO with the Bible that would worry you so about someone prosecuting you for copyright violations? IMO no judge in the U.S. would even accept a case of someone quoting a paragraph out of a Bible (if refereneced properly). What would the loss be? How would this be in violation of "fair use"? More to the point, which church that holds the copyright is going to NOT want people to discuss the Bible? Could you imagine the headline the New York Times would print on your lawsuit? "Catholic church refuses to let Emily quote a line from the Bible, sues her for every cent she's got"!

Just not going to happen, and on a more salient level, Jesus said give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, give to the Lord what's His (paraphrased) ;-) . Spread the Word first, worry about everything else later.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 11, 2004.

online book review said: Quickly noticed problems with www.netbible.com...

Thanks, but I didn't claim that it was authorized by the Catholic Church. In fact, I said Unfortunately, I do not believe it is a version that is authorized by the Catholic Church. I was just providing the link as a resource if anyone was interested, just FYI.

Thanks for the analysis, tho. I never noticed that before, that Onan's sin in Gen. 38 was contraception. You probably won't see that in many Protestant Bible footnotes!

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 11, 2004.

Sara and Frank,

Thanks for your concern. I would rather be on the safe side and not have to worry about looking into all the copyright law details and whether I posted one sentence too much, or anything. I just prefer to use something that is public domain if it is available. Using copyrighted material would make me worried that I did something wrong, regardless of whether they sued me. I just want to be free from those worries. I still haven't found a Catechism of the Catholic Church that I can use... maybe I will just use links to a site.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 11, 2004.

Jmj

Hi, Emily.
Here are a few suggestions for links to the CCC ...

(1) If you want to send someone to a specific single paragraph number, use this as your template:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/N.htm ---- where the "N" is a 1-to-4-digit paragraph number from 1 to 2865.
Example: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2218.htm
[Notice the first link at the bottom of the page, allowing the reader to get the context by entering the CCC.]

(2) If you want someone to look at several paragraphs, you can give him the paragraph numbers and make a link to the following page, which has 2865 links!!! ... http://www.scborromeo.org/c cc/para/

(3) If you want to send someone to a part, section, or chapter of the CCC, first go to the following page to find that section and get a URL to it (by clicking on the title at right, not on the paragraph numbers at left): http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 12, 2004.

Does anyone know of a website with the CCC that has footnotes or some other notation showing verses in the Bible that support certain statements in the Catechism? I am looking specifically for verses that support paragraph 405 where is says that human nature is not totally corrupt. Thanks and God bless!

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 18, 2004.

Jmj

Hi, Emily.
The only footnotes for the CCC are the official ones. If you go to this page, you should read not just article 405 but also 406. The footnotes do not point to scriptural verses, but to parts of the documents of the Councils of Orange and Trent. If you really want to delve more deeply into this -- to get at any underlying scriptures -- you may have to read those older conciliar documents and/or the works of Catholic philosophers/theologians, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Keep in mind, though, that "sola scriptura" is "out," and Scripture-plus-Tradition is "in," so we cannot expect to find prooftexts for every Catholic doctrine.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 19, 2004.

John said: you may have to read those older conciliar documents

Does anyone know where I can find these? I am not so much interested in reading all of Augustine or Aquinas, but just this issue of total/partial depravity.

John said: Keep in mind, though, that "sola scriptura" is "out," and Scripture-plus-Tradition is "in," so we cannot expect to find prooftexts for every Catholic doctrine

Sure, but try telling that to a Protestant. A Calvinist friend has challenged me to find proof in Scripture that supports the idea that man is not completely corrupt, and I don't know where to start looking. She provided some texts already to support her view. (See this thread, where I discuss it more).

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 20, 2004.

One thing I wish was that the Liturgy of the Hours wasn't copyrighted. I have a dream to create a better online-version of Liturgy of the Hours than liturgyhours.org--which omits the Psalm prayers and uses the short versions of all the readings.

I suppose that if I did do that, and not make it public, I could offer it to liturgyhours.org as a replacement for their PDF files, since they already have rights to copy and distribute.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 21, 2004.

Jmj

Hi, Emily. I have some good news for you (and everyone).

Last time, I mentioned that you may need to go to the documents of the Councils of Trent and Orange to check for underlying scriptural support of what is stated in CCC 405 and 406 against the false belief in the total corruption of human nature. You asked for a way to get to those documents. While it may be possible to get to them on the Internet, I have something different to offer you instead right now ...

If you use the Knights of Columbus's CCC site, not only are the footnote citations given, but each one is a hyperlink in itself -- to a page wherein you can read the actual text !!!
Here is a link to the search-engine page for the K-of-C's CCC, and here is an example of a linked footnote-text page -- possibly one that will help you with the specific matter that is on your mind right now. That is the text at the "DS #" mentioned in CCC footnote 297.

By the way, I am very well aware of what you meant when you told me, above, "Sure, but try telling that to a Protestant." I have told that to many a Protestant, and I will keep telling it to them, because it is the truth. As a Catholic, I do not have a responsibility to produce proof-texts for everything I believe. As a Catholic, I do not believe doctrines because the Bible teaches them, but because the Church teaches them. (And I know that what the Church teaches never contradicts the Bible.) Accepting this may be a "hump" that you need to get over yet, in your continuing journey into the Church. Protestants need to be gently reminded, sometimes over and over, that the Church preceded (and wrote) the New Testament -- so she knows exactly what it means, and she has always taught things that were not explicitly written therein.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 22, 2004.

John, thanks for the KofC link. However, I was looking specifically for a Scripture reference to support the statement in CCC #405 that human nature has not been totally corrupted. I searched around on that site and read footnotes 295, 296, and 297, none of which addressed this issue. However, this will be a good resource for future reference, so thanks for the recommendation.

John said: As a Catholic, I do not have a responsibility to produce proof-texts for everything I believe.

Ok, granted that you don't need them for everything you believe. But I doubt you will gain many Protestant converts into the Catholic faith simply by telling them to look to the authority of the Catholic Church. The point is that they don't even acknowledge that the Catholic Church has any authority. So first you must prove to them from Scripture (eg. Peter as Rock, church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, etc.) and real life examples (how do you solve conflicts among believers, or how do you prevent greedy leaders from dragging ignorant victims into heresy or cults, etc.) that they need the Church's authority.

We need to meet people where they are at and show them the truth in a way that they can understand. Saint Paul did this in Acts 17:23,28 when speaking to the Athenians. He told about the "Unknown God" to whom they built an altar, and he quoted some of their own poets to prove his point about the truth of God.

John said: As a Catholic, I do not believe doctrines because the Bible teaches them, but because the Church teaches them. (And I know that what the Church teaches never contradicts the Bible.) Accepting this may be a "hump" that you need to get over yet, in your continuing journey into the Church.

Thanks, John. I do not need to get over this "hump" of believing the teaching of the Church. If and when I do join, it will be at the point when I can fully accept this. At this point, I believe that if the Catholic Church is what she claims and seems to be, then her teachings must be true.

HOWEVER, that said, I will never give up my love of the Word of God, especially knowing the fact that it is God-breathed, and useful for teaching ... righteousness, leaving me thoroughly equipped for good works (1 Tim 3:16-17). I will also continue to use it for ministry to other Christians and in the hope that Protestants will come to a knowledge of the true Church.

John said: Protestants need to be gently reminded, sometimes over and over, that the Church preceded (and wrote) the New Testament -- so she knows exactly what it means, and she has always taught things that were not explicitly written therein.

I agree. Well said.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 25, 2004.

Jmj

Hi, Emily.
You wrote: "I was looking specifically for a Scripture reference to support the statement in CCC #405 that human nature has not been totally corrupted. I searched around on that site and read footnotes 295, 296, and 297, none of which addressed this issue."

That's interesting, my friend. I brought this (KofC footnote-text links) to your attention especially because I thought that one of those footnotes really did address this issue, at least indirectly! I am copying, below, part of the text of the old document that is behind footnote 297 (from the Council of Trent), and I will highlight the Scripture verses that I believe support the teaching that "human nature has not been totally corrupted":

If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which is one in origin and transmitted to all is in each one as his own by propagation, not by imitation, is taken away either by the forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, "made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption" [I Cor. 1:30]; or if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied to adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism, rightly administered in the form of the Church: let him be anathema. "For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. . ." [Acts 4:12]. Whence that word: "Behold the lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sins of the world" [John 1:29], And that other: "As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ" [Gal. 3:27]. ... If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema. For in those who are born again, God hates nothing, because "there is no condemnation, to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death" [Rom. 6:4], who do not "walk according to the flesh" [Rom. 8:1], but putting off "the old man" and putting on the "new, who is created according to God" [Eph. 4:12 ff., Col. 3:9 ff.], are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved sons of God, "heirs indeed of God, but co-heirs with Christ" [Rom. 8:17], so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy Synod confesses and perceives that there remains in the baptized concupiscence of an inclination, although this is left to be wrestled with, it cannot harm those who do not consent, but manfully resist by the grace of Jesus Christ. Nay, indeed, "he who shall have striven lawfully, shall be crowned" [II Tim. 2:5].

Emily, it is my contention that each of the highlighted texts from scripture are incompatible with a contention that "human nature has been totally corrupted." I believe that, if you explain these verses with care, you can profitably use them in discussions with people who have been misled.

The text above partially quotes 1 Cor 1:30 (mentioning sanctification), but the whole verse adds another helpful element: "It is due to him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption [NAB] ..." If we are "in Christ Jesus," it is impossible for our nature to be totally corrupted. Then there are the various passages in which St. Paul refers to the Church as the "Body of Christ" (with the Lord as the head of the Body). If we are this "Body," our nature cannot possibly be totally corrupted. Also, we are called adopted children of God, but God would not adopt someone whose nature is totally corrupted.

You wrote to me, "Ok, granted that you don't need [proof-texts] for everything you believe."

I hope that you will some day be able to "grant" that, while they are often very helpful, we "don't [really] need them for" anything we "believe." For a very long time, in many places -- and even today in some places -- people have become Christian even without having a Bible in their hands. Jesus commanded the Apostles to go and teach all nations, not to write. We can share God's truth even without the written Word.

You continued: "But I doubt you will gain many Protestant converts into the Catholic faith simply by telling them to look to the authority of the Catholic Church."

I have never "gain[ed any] Protestant converts". I can't do that. The Holy Spirit and the other person's free will are the key elements. I can only provide a bit of information and persuasion.

You continued: "The point is that they don't even acknowledge that the Catholic Church has any authority. So first you must prove to them from Scripture (eg. Peter as Rock, church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, etc.) and real life examples (how do you solve conflicts among believers, or how do you prevent greedy leaders from dragging ignorant victims into heresy or cults, etc.) that they need the Church's authority."

I don't agree with you that one "must prove" it "to them from Scripture." Why? Because no Protestant anywhere has any reason to trust what Scripture says, except for the fact that the Catholic Church tells him/her that it is God's written word. [St. Augustine wrote, "I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." ] Do you see what I am getting at -- avoiding "circular reasoning"?

I do agree with your point that we need to try to persuade [not "prove to"] them by "real life examples," and I would add also the use of history and logic (how a good God would reveal himself and keep in existence an infallible body to teach the truth about him and his Son). My opinion is that most non-Catholics need to be persuaded of the authority of the Church from outside the Bible, after which they will believe what the Church teaches the Bible means.

Emily, you wrote: "I do not need to get over this 'hump' of believing the teaching of the Church. If and when I do join, it will be at the point when I can fully accept this. At this point, I believe that if the Catholic Church is what she claims and seems to be, then her teachings must be true."

Just checking ... did you mean to say, "I do need to get over this 'hump'" or "I do not need ..."?

Finally, you wrote: "... I will never give up my love of the Word of God, especially knowing the fact that it is God-breathed, and useful for teaching ... righteousness, leaving me thoroughly equipped for good works (1 Tim 3:16-17). I will also continue to use it for ministry to other Christians and in the hope that Protestants will come to a knowledge of the true Church."

Excellent! I hope that I didn't say anything (in the previous post or in this one) that led you to believe that I feel differently from you about the Bible. I have only been trying to point out that it cannot stand on its own, but needs Sacred Tradition and the Church's authoritative Magisterium to accompany it. I thought it was neat that you wrote, "I will never give up my love of the Word of God," since the "Word of God" has two fonts -- Scripture and Tradition.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 26, 2004.

John said: If we are this "Body [of Christ]," our nature cannot possibly be totally corrupted. Also, we are called adopted children of God, but God would not adopt someone whose nature is totally corrupted.

I think perhaps there was a miscommunication issue here. The Calvinist view is that human nature is totally corrupted until God intervenes and elects someone to salvation. Then, they say, the person is in Christ, and therefore no longer totally corrupted because of Christ's sacrifice for our sins. I am trying to prove wrong the fact that Calvinists believe that humans are so corrupt in their sin (as non-Christians), that they cannot reach out to God (free will, although they say we still have free will) for salvation. God simply chooses to save them, and offers them grace, faith, and repentance, all as an unmerited gift. In the Calvinist view, there is nothing non-Christians can do to reach out to God, because of their corruption in sin.

As for the passage you provided above, I thank you for your comments and efforts. However, all of the Bible verses listed could be merely talking about people who are already Christians, so this would prove nothing against the Calvinist view of total depravity.

John said: no Protestant anywhere has any reason to trust what Scripture says, except for the fact that the Catholic Church tells him/her that it is God's written word. [St. Augustine wrote, "I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." ] Do you see what I am getting at -- avoiding "circular reasoning"?

Yes, I see it, but they don't, and I know because I was there once. But this is the very issue that got me wondering about Catholicism in the first place. My mom was studying Catholicism at the time, and suddenly I realized that they had authority to affirm the Bible. But when I brought this up to a Protestant friend, she showed me some verses in the Bible about how God will preserve His Word. So I agreed and asked her how God does that? She said we can't know, except that He will use any means necessary (I guess this means that the Catholics served as agents in preserving it in spite of being wrong about other stuff, in her view?). Calvinist and famous author R.C. Sproul said that the Bible is a "fallible collection of infallible books." If that's the best Protestants can do, and they settle for that, it saddens me.

John said: My opinion is that most non-Catholics need to be persuaded of the authority of the Church from outside the Bible, after which they will believe what the Church teaches the Bible means.

On what are you basing this opinion? In my own life, when my mom showed me verses that seemed to favor Catholicism and explained some of the doctrines in light of the Bible, I started to see it. I did not begin believing simply because anyone told me that the Catholic Church has authority. If they had, I would have felt sorry for them in their deceived state (or so I thought).

Instead, it was in a literature class (with a Protestant professor!) who told us that all literature is biased (by the perspective of the writer or reader), so we must read it with that in mind. This made perfect sense to me, and I accepted it. I don't think my professor meant for this rule to apply to Scripture, as she never addressed the issue. But as I was writing this idea in my essay, I realized that Protestants treat the Bible as being in a different category - the Word of God, not of men. But how could I know this is true? How could I know that every part of my Bible is actually God's Word and not on the same level as biased literature? How could I know, for that matter, whether the books the Catholics accept are part of the Bible?

John said: I thought it was neat that you wrote, "I will never give up my love of the Word of God," since the "Word of God" has two fonts -- Scripture and Tradition.

I know this is true. While in the context I was referring to the Bible, especially since 1 Tim. 3:16-17 talks about "Scripture" specifically, it was a good coincidence.

Thanks and God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 26, 2004.

Hi, Emily. I was planning not to post again, but since you directed some comments to me (and clarified a misunderstanding), I thought I should say something more.

You wrote: "The Calvinist view is that human nature is totally corrupted until God intervenes and elects someone to salvation."

You are right. I was indeed misunderstanding the point you were trying to make. I mistakenly thought that you were referring to a different Protestant error (perhaps held by some Lutherans?) -- in which even a baptized person, free of the deadliest effects of original sin, is nonetheless corrupt (a hill of dung) covered by the grace of God (a layer of snow). My comments (and the verses I highlighted) were intended to combat that error.

Now that I understand what you mean, I would say this ...

Let's take another look at part of CCC 405: "... original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it ..."

Your desire is to know if the Bible supports the Catholic teaching that, even before Baptism (which overcomes original sin and bestows sanctifying grace), our "human nature has not been totally corrupted." All right. Adam and Eve, made in the image and likeness of God, lived in Paradise in a state of "original justice" -- as close a union with God as was possible -- "totally UNcorrupted," if I may turn the phrase around.

Ask yourself the question, "Did their sin cause them to go from 'totally uncorrupted' to 'totally corrupted.'" My intuition says, "It could not be so." The image and likeness of God could not become "totally corrupted" by one sin. Then, turning away from intuition to the reality of events, I see that Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden. But if they were "totally corrupt," they would have been useless, and God would have annihilated them. But they were not useless, and they were not annihilated. Instead, they were still deeply loved -- in an act of God that would have been incompatible with his divinity, if the object of his love were "totally corrupt." I conclude that, while there was great damage done to Adam and Eve, it was not a "total corruption."

And if not even Adam and Eve were totally corrupt, how much the less their descendants? Here I would offer, as scriptural support, the following words from Ezekiel 18: "Yet you say, `Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?' When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, ... the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. [RSV]"

Thus, we are not personally guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve, who themselves were not totally corrupt. Rather than inheriting personal guilt, we inherit the deprivations that Adam and Eve suffered -- loss of sanctifying grace, darkened intellect, weakened will, etc.. As babies, we have neither personal guilt for original sin nor any capability of committing personal sin, so it makes no sense to say that our nature is "totally corrupt." Wounded, yes. Corrupt, no.

Emily, you wrote: "I am trying to prove wrong the [Calvinist belief] that humans are so corrupt in their sin (as non-Christians), that they cannot reach out to God ... for salvation. God simply chooses to save them, and offers them grace, faith, and repentance, all as an unmerited gift. In the Calvinist view, there is nothing non- Christians can do to reach out to God, because of their corruption in sin.

My background in theology is not profound enough to reply to this fully. However, I do believe that this much is true in Catholic doctrine: God's will is that all people be saved, not just some limited "elect" individuals. Therefore, he somehow offers to each person an opportunity of salvation. As "an unmerited gift," he offers something called "prevenient grace" [Latin "preveniens" = coming before (justification)] -- i.e., something that begins to invite us to move us in the right direction, but without forcing us. Without prevenient grace, we would not even seek to be saved through our own power, by "reaching out to God." But after prevenient grace, many of us do express a free-will "yes" and "reach out to God."

Here is a segment of St. Thomas Aquinas's masterpiece, the "Summa Theologiae:"
"As grace is divided into operating and cooperating, with regard to its diverse effects, so also is it divided into prevenient and subsequent, howsoever we consider grace. Now there are five effects of grace in us: of these, the first is, to heal the soul; the second, to desire good; the third, to carry into effect the good proposed; the fourth, to persevere in good; the fifth, to reach glory. And hence grace, inasmuch as it causes the first effect in us, is called 'prevenient' with respect to the second, and inasmuch as it causes the second, it is called 'subsequent' with respect to the first effect. And as one effect is posterior to this effect, and prior to that, so may grace be called 'prevenient' and 'subsequent' on account of the same effect viewed relatively to divers others. And this is what Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia xxxi): 'It is prevenient, inasmuch as it heals, and subsequent, inasmuch as, being healed, we are strengthened; it is prevenient, inasmuch as we are called, and subsequent, inasmuch as we are glorified.'"

You wrote: "Calvinist and famous author R.C. Sproul said that the Bible is a 'fallible collection of infallible books.' If that's the best Protestants can do, and they settle for that, it saddens me."

Yes, I have heard that statement by Sproul before, and I could only shake my head at the illogicality of it. As one apologist, John D'Arcy put it, "If you don't know for sure all the books in the Bible are from God [because the canonizing Church is 'fallible'], how can you know that any one [book] is from God? In proving the inspiration of Scripture, it is only logical that Christ gave His Church infallible teaching authority to decide which books are inspired."

After I said that my "opinion is that most non-Catholics need to be persuaded of the authority of the Church from outside the Bible," you replied:
"On what are you basing this opinion?"

I'm basing it on my contact (via reading and hearing) of hundreds of conversion stories, in which people, time and again (though admittedly not everyone), came to realize that the key factor in accepting the Church is a realization of its authority -- an authority that is needed, but is lacking everywhere else in Christianity. Although you then went on to speak of what your mother showed you in the Bible (favoring Catholic doctrine), you then seemed to prove my point through your anecdote about the literature class. It was there that you asked yourself, "How could I know that every part of my Bible is actually God's Word and not on the same level as biased literature? How could I know, for that matter, whether the books the Catholics accept are part of the Bible?" The only answer is, you "could ... know" these things only through the authoritative teaching of the Christ's Church.

God bless you (and farewell).
John

-- (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 26, 2004.