Thou shalt not take my name in vain
Just so you know: the Benedict XVI is now a sacrosanct brand… Holy See declares unique copyright on Papal figure:
“‘Consequently, the use of anything referring directly to the person or office of the Supreme Pontiff… and/or the use of the title ‘Pontifical,’ must receive previous and express authorization from the Holy See,’ concluded the message released to the press.”
I think that means I may not refer to His Holiness without first asking His Holiness’ permission.
I think.
I’ll dispatch a letter post haste to ask permission to make this post.
I wonder what this means for the Pope Shenouda and Pope Michael?
Huw blogged this on December 19th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Tags: papists, pomposity, poposity | Category: other paths
Discussion: You came too late to this party
Share:
Tags: papists, pomposity, poposity | Category: other paths
Discussion: You came too late to this party
Share:
I think this is simply a copyright claim, not an absolute control claim. It is no different than a Hollywood actor asserting the right to exercise some control over the use of their image and name to promote activities which they have not approved.
International copyright law is fairly clear on some of those issues. It is also fairly clear on the ability to use someone’s image in a news, comedy, or satirical context. I doubt that the National Enquirer is in danger from this decree, for instance. But, it does mean that one cannot run a school and call it the Pope Benedict school without permission from the Vatican.
I did not see the article as being that inappropriate.
I agree with you in the way you describe it. It would be a good law. But I think the high-falutin language of the linked article from the CNA sounds a bit more like my blog post – Thou Shalt Not Take the Name of Benny Thy Pontif in Vain. (Mind you, I can’t find the original document on the Vatican website yet.) In the way the CNA describes it it is as if the Vatican wants to prevent bloggers from mentioning the Pope unless they have permission.
This seems like crazy shennanigans. What will this do about Jim Gaffigans pope jokes?!
I mentioned Pope Shenouda III when I saw this on Facebook. IIRC ‘Pope’ is not one of Benedict XVI’s official titles but a long-standing unofficial one. (It’s in the Roman Canon.) The Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria was the first to use it, and may be the only one to do so officially, and Rome has no problem with him using it today. (Ecumenically the two Popes are cordial.)
I think I understand what this legal stuff means: the Holy See doesn’t want shoddy or blasphemous merchandise associated with its Pope. A perfectly good reason, like your bishop probably rightly wouldn’t want pro-Iraq War stuff in his name.
The full text of the declaration is on the Vatican Information Service’s website. Took a while to find it. The Catholic News Agency did not link directly to it (as others have noted on BoingBoing). The intro to the declaration makes is clear what the context is – people using the Pope’s image or name or titles to imply endorsement “for ends and activities which have little or nothing to do with the Catholic Church.” I would take that to be what Fr Orthoduck is referring to.
But then the declaration goes right over the top saying, “Consequently, the use of anything referring directly to the person or office of the Supreme Pontiff (his name, his picture or his coat of arms), and/or the use of the title “Pontifical”, must receive previous and express authorization from the Holy See.”
That “anything referring directly to the person or office of the Supreme Pontiff (his name, his picture or his coat of arms) and/or” seems quite clear: It’s not just saying “Welcome to the Pontifical Blog” when you really mean something else. It seems to say you can’t say “Pope Benedict the 16th” without asking for permission first.