Paulist Press "New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law"

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/797537#Comment_797537

Fr. Tunink,

We'll be following up with Paulist soon and seeing where this stands.

Thanks for your interest.

Mark Nolette

I'll order this the first day it is available on pre-pub!

Average Joe

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/797811#Comment_797811

I'll order this the first day it is available on pre-pub!

Same here! [Y]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/798028#Comment_798028

For over a year now I've been working with one of the Verbum Staff (Preston Morrison) trying to get the "New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law," edited by John Beal and published by Paulist Press, available on Logos.

...

Those familiar with this title will more likely know it as "The Big Green Commentary" due to the fact that it is in fact green in color and is also more than three inches thick.

...

Hello Fr. Shawn. Thank you for your priesthood!

Also, welcome to the forums!

I was looking at reviews and comments on one of the on-line booksellers and the reviews are mixed regarding the "big green" commentary on Canon Law.

A well respected and public Catholic theologian, Rev Dr. John Trigillio, Jr. Ph.D, ThD. has some critical comments regarding the commentary in the 2000 edition.

Other, less notable reviewers have more positive comments on this 2002 edition.

I'm currently enrolled in a undergraduate class where the professor is using the MTF - Navarre as the preferred commentary.

Can you cut through some of the disparity for us?

MJ. Smith

A well respected and public Catholic theologian, Rev Dr. John Trigillio, Jr. Ph.D, ThD. has some critical comments regarding the commentary in the 2000 edition.

Reading his critique I was unimpressed as he as clearly had an agenda at least as much as he was accusing "the Green Book" of having an agenda. While it could be useful to have the Navarre commentary as well, the two canon lawyers I know would both consult Beal.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/798038#Comment_798038

... I was unimpressed as he as clearly had an agenda at least as much as he was accusing "the Green Book" of having an agenda. ...

Thanks, MJ.

Are you aware of any specific differences between "the Green Book" 2000 and "2002"?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/798028#Comment_798028

Steve,

I'm not sure what Fr. Trigillio would have written, but I will point out that the "Green" commentary is the work of many authors. You have to really consider the source sometimes when making use of this commentary. Most of it is very good. Anything written by Fr. Beal himself is reliable. However, there are some sections (I'm remembering some of the "opinions" offered in the Teaching Office material of Book 3) that are erroneous or at least not helpful. That said, every canon lawyer in America has this book on his shelf as a one-volume commentary.

As for the MTF version, I also have it and make use of it as well. As a smaller book, it is more limited in what it presents and wasn't written specifically with the American church in mind, but it is very good.

Of course the "gold standard" for canon law commentary in English would be the 8-volume "Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law," also published by MTF. If Logos could get that included...well now that would be something.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/798442#Comment_798442

Fr. Shawn,

Thanks for the reply and very helpful comments. [:)]

I wonder if Louis could help with the extended MTF Exegetical Commentary? Indeed, that would be something.

Average Joe

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/798442#Comment_798442

I'd like to see a lot of things from MTF in Verbum.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/797537#Comment_797537

Louis,

Any update on this?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/802911#Comment_802911

Hi Father,

We're still talking to Paulist, but with the changeover in personnel and some changes we're making internally to our acquisitions process, I don't have anything specific to report.

Improving our canon law offerings is important for us and I'm really hoping we can make this happen, but acquiring licenses from rights-holders is often not a straightforward process, so we usually don't make promises or release any information about it until we've actually sealed a deal. Sorry to disappoint you.

(In the meantime, it would be great to see canon law enthusiasts getting behind this and this.)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/803001#Comment_803001

Having now completed my canon law degree, I'm hoping that maybe there is also a "graduation date" in sight for this commentary. I just wanted to check to see so I could promote it here on campus before I take my leave.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/820451#Comment_820451

Bump

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/824310#Comment_824310

Sorry. I still don't have any news on this. I'm sorry to have to walk back what you heard from Preston last year, but as I said, acquiring rights can be a complicated process with sudden dead ends and reversals, so we usually avoid making any public comment until we have a deal in hand.

In addition, our strategy for pre-pubs has shifted in the last several months. We (that is, Faithlife, not just Verbum) are applying more careful scrutiny to what we pursue and post so that we can keep the pre-pub system efficient and profitable and avoid a repetition of the massive cancellation that we carried out earlier this year. The unfortunate reality is that, while this is an important text, it will be expensive to produce and has an audience that (at least for us right now) is relatively narrow. Even if we acquire a license, it would be a real challenge to get it through pre-pub. Like I said, canon law is an important field, and this is an important text (and it would be awesome in Verbum!). I'm hoping that, as we refine our strategy for expanding our offerings and as Verbum grows, we'll figure out a way to get it made, but in the current circumstances, it is difficult to make a strong business case for prioritizing it.

Mark Nolette

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/824429#Comment_824429

Sorry. I still don't have any news on this. I'm sorry to have to walk back what you heard from Preston last year, but as I said, acquiring rights can be a complicated process with sudden dead ends and reversals, so we usually avoid making any public comment until we have a deal in hand.

In addition, our strategy for pre-pubs has shifted in the last several months. We (that is, Faithlife, not just Verbum) are applying more careful scrutiny to what we pursue and post so that we can keep the pre-pub system efficient and profitable and avoid a repetition of the massive cancellation that we carried out earlier this year. The unfortunate reality is that, while this is an important text, it will be expensive to produce and has an audience that (at least for us right now) is relatively narrow. Even if we acquire a license, it would be a real challenge to get it through pre-pub. Like I said, canon law is an important field, and this is an important text (and it would be awesome in Verbum!). I'm hoping that, as we refine our strategy for expanding our offerings and as Verbum grows, we'll figure out a way to get it made, but in the current circumstances, it is difficult to make a strong business case for prioritizing it.

Then, the main difficulty must be the cost of licensing. FL is offering on Pre-Pub the 1917 Code and various commentaries on that Code which, although still very useful and important, would (in theory) have an even smaller audience than a good commentary on the 1983 Code would have. Not due to any deficiencies in the older texts; it's simply because the 1917 Code has been superseded by the 1983 Code.

Since canons are to be interpreted according to canonical tradition (among other means), the 1917 texts are still important. However, I also hope that FL can do a commentary on the 1983 Code, whether this one or another. I understand the need to prioritize FL's efforts and to turn a profit. Perhaps if enough people can offer this resource as a suggestion, FL will see that it is worthwhile doing. The next move may be ours - make the suggestion and encourage others to do so.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/825503#Comment_825503

Hey, Mark.

I think your summary is correct regarding the challenges of licensing and interest. All the other points you make are valid and useful. It seems that interest is the driver at this point. Interest is what we need to get this into production.

Gregory Lynne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/825503#Comment_825503

I'd much prefer the later, combined revised and enlarged edition of November 1957: A Practical Commentary On The Code of Canon Law; Woywod/Smith; New York City: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc./London: B. Herder; pp. 925.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/825626#Comment_825626

I agree that interest is key. However, I think that the lack of a commentary, particularly this commentary, is going to stall interest. There are other ways to get an electronic copy of just the Code. However, the real benefit of Logos is linking that text and commentaries together. Most priests, if they have one book on canon law on their shelf have this commentary. I think if you could add the New Commentary to the current bundle of the Code then this would create interest in a general audience. The big step forward would be to get the 1917 code available and allow thus allow all the footnotes in the current code to automatically pop up the 1917 reference. There is an audience here for canon law, but at least a commentary is going to be required to really get it going. I hope that the publishing negotiations will soon be fruitful in this area.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/835158#Comment_835158

The big step forward would be to get the 1917 code available and allow thus allow all the footnotes in the current code to automatically pop up the 1917 reference.

The 1917 code and Ed Peters' translation of it can be found in some of the new Verbum 7 packages. [:)]

Average Joe

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/841124#Comment_841124

The big step forward would be to get the 1917 code available and allow thus allow all the footnotes in the current code to automatically pop up the 1917 reference.

The 1917 code and Ed Peters' translation of it can be found in some of the new Verbum 7 packages.

Do you know if the resource is already available for those who buy those packages? It's still in pre-pub at the moment. Will it ship at a later date?

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/841135#Comment_841135

The big step forward would be to get the 1917 code available and allow thus allow all the footnotes in the current code to automatically pop up the 1917 reference.

The 1917 code and Ed Peters' translation of it can be found in some of the new Verbum 7 packages.

Do you know if the resource is already available for those who buy those packages? It's still in pre-pub at the moment. Will it ship at a later date?

Both resources are listed with asterisks indicating that they will ship at a later date.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/841139#Comment_841139

While it is true that the 1917 code is on pre-pub, it has been there at least since I placed my order on February 13, 2013. In other words, don't look for it any time soon unless people start to get behind it and order.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/841906#Comment_841906

I may be wrong, but I think that because its now part of an advertised Verbum base package, it's going to be developed sooner rather than later. In essence, Faithlife has made a commitment and is now selling a product that has that resource as a component. They probably want to avoid the hassles of pulling it out later and having to process refunds.

If I recall, in that past there has been similar resources that weren't ready at the specific time the base package was stood up and sold. But the resources came in a reasonable amount of time. I wish I could remember the example but it escapes me at the moment.

... that's my 2 cents ...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/841920#Comment_841920

I may be wrong, but I think that because its now part of an advertised Verbum base package, it's going to be developed sooner rather than later. In essence, Faithlife has made a commitment and is now selling a product that has that resource as a component. They probably want to avoid the hassles of pulling it out later and having to process refunds.

If I recall, in that past there has been similar resources that weren't ready at the specific time the base package was stood up and sold. But the resources came in a reasonable amount of time. I wish I could remember the example but it escapes me at the moment.

... that's my 2 cents ...

Correct. Work is already in progress, and we plan to ship it as soon as possible. (Note: We also need to go back and update the 1983 Code to add links to the 1917 Code. This work will take a little longer.)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/841927#Comment_841927

Louis, this is excellent news. Being being able to have the 1917 references in the 1983 code linked may be just the thing to start some canon lawyers checking out Logos. Well, that and the "New Commentary" :-).

P.S. I tried to compare Verbum 7 packages on the website, but it doesn't appear to be up yet.