<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:series="http://unfoldingneurons.com/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gray-area physical reproduction of copyrighted ritual texts and attendant royalty issues</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cantemusdomino.net/2009/04/20/gray-area-physical-reproduction-of-copyrighted-ritual-texts-and-attendant-royalty-issues/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cantemusdomino.net/2009/04/20/gray-area-physical-reproduction-of-copyrighted-ritual-texts-and-attendant-royalty-issues/</link>
	<description>“...combines a wide range of information with a certain charming, existential angst.” — Dr. Peter Jeffery, Princeton University</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:22:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Carleigh Bedell</title>
		<link>http://www.cantemusdomino.net/2009/04/20/gray-area-physical-reproduction-of-copyrighted-ritual-texts-and-attendant-royalty-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-3735</link>
		<dc:creator>Carleigh Bedell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:15:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cantemusdomino.net/?p=1623#comment-3735</guid>
		<description>A rhetorical question of sorts:  How can the ICEL OWN the language of Mass?  Why does the Church tolerate that?   Does it protect the sacredness of the texts to have ownership of them?  This has bothered me for some time, and I see the logic from a commercial standpoint, but spiritually, it seems to me that any notion of ownership of the sacred, even for what appear to be good reasons is treading a little closer to blasphemy than we all ought to be comfortable with.  These are not words as words, they are the words by which the sacred annointed of God enter into the mystery of holiness and learn from Divine scriptures about God.

It&#039;s a strange dichotomy to me---sacred words/commercial interest.   The concern over legal rights to use the sacred words in composed music for profit is an additional layer of &quot;why are we doing this in the first place?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A rhetorical question of sorts:  How can the ICEL OWN the language of Mass?  Why does the Church tolerate that?   Does it protect the sacredness of the texts to have ownership of them?  This has bothered me for some time, and I see the logic from a commercial standpoint, but spiritually, it seems to me that any notion of ownership of the sacred, even for what appear to be good reasons is treading a little closer to blasphemy than we all ought to be comfortable with.  These are not words as words, they are the words by which the sacred annointed of God enter into the mystery of holiness and learn from Divine scriptures about God.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a strange dichotomy to me&#8212;sacred words/commercial interest.   The concern over legal rights to use the sacred words in composed music for profit is an additional layer of &#8220;why are we doing this in the first place?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
