PANEL decisions

[Peter Jones]

This would only work if bishops could ban parishes from buying/using collections.

If you are of the opinion that Bishops can truly do this, I suggest you are straying towards the boundary of that fantasy land where cuckoos flit, with great charm, betwixt and between the dark, menacing cumulonimbi.

No Bishop has ever told his diocese what hymn books the parishes can and cannot buy. If a Bishop tried that, an aggrieved publisher would sue for the imposition (in civi law) of a restrictive trade practice.

[Southern Comfort]

It is only when a collection includes texts which need permission from ICEL than problems come into play and a whole collection – not just those texts – have to be approved as one particular publisher (possibly the one you refer to, but I cannot be sure) has discovered. Meanwhile, a less scrupulous publisher could simply plough ahead.

I am not saying that any publisher has yet done this, but if you possess a publishing contract from ICEL which allows you to publish, say, ICEL texts of items entitled Penitential Rite, Gloria, Sanctus, suite of Memorial Acclamations, Doxology, etc, from the Roman Missal, then you could say that you already have contract permission to publish those items, regardless of the actual texts, whether revised or original, to be found under those titles. Yes, it's a legal loophole.

If you don't think you need a fresh ICEL contract, then you won't be worrying about submitting anything to the Liturgy Office's Panel either.

[Nick Baty]

No Bishop has ever told his diocese what hymn books the parishes can and cannot buy. If a Bishop tried that, an aggrieved publisher would sue for the imposition (in civi law) of a restrictive trade practice.

Therefore, the only time a publisher would need a NO is when including texts (set/authorised) which require clearance from ICEL and, therefore, by the Panel. So when you say that "the Nihil Obstat is now a requirement for any collection of songs for the liturgy, whether such collections contain set texts or not" you might be not right, all depending, of course, on what you mean by a collection of songs for the Liturgy.

[Southern Comfort]

No Bishop has ever told his diocese what hymn books the parishes can and cannot buy. If a Bishop tried that, an aggrieved publisher would sue for the imposition (in civi law) of a restrictive trade practice.

And yet in the USA, where they have a much more stringent set of laws regarding restraint of free trade, a number of bishops have indeed told dioceses which Mass settings they may and may not use; and no writs have yet been issued. At least one English bishop has to all intents and purposes done the same.

And one English diocese is very clear about which hymn books it recommends, and which it does not recommend. That doesn't stop ignorant or wilful parish priests from doing their own thing, of course, and no bishop could or would ever do anything about that.

[Nick Baty]

Yes, it's a legal loophole. If you don't think you need a fresh ICEL contract, then you won't be worrying about submitting anything to the Liturgy Office's Panel either.

Would the word "think" hold up legally.
ICEL's publication policy includes:

A conference of bishops must approve an ICEL text for liturgical use before it may be published or distributed within the dioceses of its ecclesiastial jurisdiction, and this approval must be confirmed by the Apostolic See.

and

even after an ICEL text is formally approved by a conference of bishops and after the ICEL contract is executed, the publisher is bound by contract to observe the regulations established by the conference of bishops for the territory of its jurisdiction.

This does rather throw the ball back to Eccleston Square.

[Peter Jones]

Who is responsible for this scandalous situation that a well-meaning publisher cannot yet obtain a Nihil Obstat for a revised hymnal, four months after applying for it?
Don't the BCEW Dept of Christian Life and Worship staff understand the people's livelihoods are at stake here?

[Southern Comfort]

Who is responsible for this scandalous situation that a well-meaning publisher cannot yet obtain a Nihil Obstat for a revised hymnal, four months after applying for it?
Don't the BCEW Dept of Christian Life and Worship staff understand the people's livelihoods are at stake here?

I believe that no one person is responsible for any of the matters that have been discussed on this thread, and therefore all those concerned are unwittingly but de facto behaving in an irresponsible way.

[Peter Jones]

Therefore, the only time a publisher would need a NO is when including texts (set/authorised) which require clearance from ICEL and, therefore, by the Panel. So when you say that "the Nihil Obstat is now a requirement for any collection of songs for the liturgy, whether such collections contain set texts or not" you might be not right, all depending, of course, on what you mean by a collection of songs for the Liturgy.

I put it to you that should you ever undertake a course in propositional syllogistic logic, you would fail.

[Nick Baty]

Who issues Nihil Obstats? Does it have to go through the Dept of Christian Life and Worship or can it be done at local level? By a bishop or vicar general?

[NorthernTenor]

Who is responsible for this scandalous situation that a well-meaning publisher cannot yet obtain a Nihil Obstat for a revised hymnal, four months after applying for it?

The Bishop of Leeds. Others may have failed to properly exercise their delegated powers, but responsibility cannot be delegated.

[Peter Jones]

, and therefore all those concerned are unwittingly but de facto behaving in an irresponsible way.

Do you think they realise that? Do they not realise how much anger pervades the ether through their incompetence?

[NorthernTenor]

, and therefore all those concerned are unwittingly but de facto behaving in an irresponsible way.

Do you think they realise that? Do they not realise how much anger pervades the ether through their incompetence?

And the disrepute their actions (and failure of action) brings on the Bishops' Conference?

[Peter Jones]

.........if you possess a publishing contract from ICEL which allows you to publish, say, ICEL texts of items entitled Penitential Rite, Gloria, Sanctus, suite of Memorial Acclamations, Doxology, etc, from the Roman Missal...........

And there's nothing to stop a publisher distributing settings of public domain texts - Kyrie, Sanctus, Amen, Agnus - without reference to the panel.

[Nick Baty]

And there's nothing to stop a publisher distributing settings of public domain texts - Kyrie, Sanctus, Amen, Agnus - without reference to the panel.

Or without a Nihil Obstat!
But add in a new translation Gloria, and then the Panel can put the brakes on by pointing out that you've omitted the Memorial Acclamations.
btw, you've quoted Southern Comfort's words as mine!

[Peter Jones]

How on earth can any organisation set up a compulsory procedure X without setting up a mechanism whereby X is efficiently enacted?