It's not usage of the CCC that is barred. It's FOR-PROFIT usage of the CCC that is barred. And even then you can receive permission to use it if the CCC wishes.
You are correct, Jeremy is wrong. But then again you went to law school. If you haven't gone to law school you will be quite surprised what the law means by the word "copyright."
The problem being that the Bishops don't really know what any person claiming to be a lay Catholic wants to do with it.
The Bible, unfortunately, has been misused and misinterpreted so many times that no one person claiming crazy stuff out of it can ever represent the Church.
However if I take the Catechism, with the blessing of the USCCB, and twist it to claim that abortion and gay marriage is ok, that represents every Catholic.
As I mentioned above, the USCCB could have issued a limited revocable license to the text, which would have assisted with that concern, and also delegated oversight to the local diocese
You don't know that. That is a theoretical possibility, but, judging by your interlocutor's response to your questions, it is likely that the possibility is foreclosed by the terms of the [purported] exclusive licensing agreement.
I.e. the USCCB may be prevented from sub-licensing agreements by the Vatican itself. That's probably it as that would be consistent with the historical opposition of the Vatican to power-sharing of any kind.
The Catholic Church doesn't have a problem with lay people reading the bible - in fact most Catholics would have one, and would be encouraged to read it. I don't see why the same would not apply to the Catechism. If people publish mistruths or misinterpretations, the Catholic Church could easily correct that, as they can (and do) when Catholics misinterpret the bible.
Here's a really simple solution, if your concern is that someone will confuse a project by someone like Damian with the views of the USCCB: require that a sublicensee using the catechism [such as Mr. Damian] attach to every publication involving the catechism a statement to the effect that "the views of the publisher are his and his alone. The USCCB takes no position as to whether what is published herein accurately represents the views of the USCCB or the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and does not endorse any statement made herein."
But they won't do even that. Total control is all they want.
You think they care about heresy? How many books and publications have I read or looked at that have the imprimatur of the Church, yet are full of heretical and ridiculous speculation and nonsense! And how many of them are themselves heretics? They have no concern for preserving the integrity of the faith, and they don't yet have the faintest idea how to evangelize anyone.
I don't recall Jesus demanding that His parables be copyrighted and that the Apostles needed explicit legal permission or licenses to spread the Gospel.
Use of the Catechism is the least if the worry's for the American Catholics. As you pointed out attendance is down, baptism is down and yet the USCCB "plays the fiddle as Rome burns." In a recent survey 70% of Catholics don't believe the Christ exists in the eucharist. That's a huge problem for UDCCB, play on okay on stupid as they come.
I’ve had conversations with this person myself and it simply doesn’t make sense. My understanding is that the Holy See screwed over the USCCB in the contracts which is messed up in its own right.
I've known a number of people who have tried to work with that office for permissions. I suspect there's some policy or contract behind it where the work involved in getting permission would be onerous, and they don't want to try to change that policy or agreement. In any event, very messed up indeed
I agree with both your analysis that the Vatican is likely the cause of this and your judgment that the Vatican's action is messed up. This stuff makes me hate the Vatican and frankly embarrassed to be Catholic. How do you explain this kind of thing to people in a way that makes Catholicism attractive? On what principle can you successfully defend it as opposed to just making some lame argument about the need to preserve the teaching of the faith from abuse [by people wanting to spread the faith!!!]?
"I knew that the above statement was simply false...."
Be careful of rash judgment. I do not think you can say that.
We have to interpret everything in the best possible light. It is clear that the contracts and guidelines have certain requirements for copyright permission (such as minimizing loss of legitimate income the USCCB stands to receive as licensee of the Catechism), and that those requirements, set in stone, made it impossible to grant permission in this case. One could debate the merits of those requirements, whatever they may be, but I think charity and justice forbid us to assume that the representative was lying.
Ummmm But Ms. USCCB gave you permission, you wanted more, so why doth you protest (too much, methinks)? You end with hierarchical hostility and a universal underscore which deserves in fullness of truth to be read together with our Creed (another poorly catechized magisterium) "...we believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church..." i.e. Our Roman Catholic Bishops matter! But reading your bi-line (disordered pun unintended) and your October crash reveals the Trojan-horse that is your blobg ...and more the poor choice of webmaster@newadvent.org for publishing.
Thank you, I did and you wrote, "If I simply link to the Catechism, I doubt they’ll actually go to the link and will just read the reflection instead, which would largely defeat the purpose of trying to get them to engage with and appreciate the actual text."
But seriously, I am so glad to see a law student posting on Catholicism.
As a law student and 3L you have already taken conlaw I and maybe conlaw II as well. You should have an understanding of the theory of the Constitution by now. In brief: we have a separation of powers, bc centralized power will result in a loss of liberty for, and tyrannical abuse of, the governed.
Personally, I subscribe to that theory. I'm a big fan of the Constitution.
Now, by contrast to the Constitution, here is the canon law of the Church on who holds the power:
Can. 391 §1. It is for the diocesan bishop to govern the particular church entrusted to him with legislative, executive, and judicial power according to the norm of law.
§2. The bishop exercises legislative power himself. He exercises executive power either personally or through vicars general or episcopal vicars according to the norm of law. He exercises judicial power either personally or through the judicial vicar and judges according to the norm of law.
See any problems? I do.
Problem no. 1: no separation of powers. All the powers of governance in a diocese are in ONE person. That means he can exercise power arbitrarily or tyrannically and there are no checks on the exercise of those powers. Thus, the faithful have no defense against abuses of power.
Problem no. 2: no accountability. The bishop rules over the faithful, and he serves until he is 75. His job is secure, as he will receive a pension when he retires. If his rule is negligent, he cannot be impeached or removed from office. And of course, he cannot be voted out. Thus, the faithful have no recourse in the case of a bishop they don't like.
That should give you an idea as to why our problems are "cyclical" as you put it. Better said, they are "recurring" and insoluble. And that they are so, is indicative of a systemic problem.
Lastly, if you consider that the theory of how a bishop governs was developed during the time of the Roman emperors, you can see why its theory is based largely on history--which changes--rather than on any immutable ecclesiology.
As a young Catholic guy in law school who obviously isn't afraid to think or speak publicly, maybe you should consider, as an avocation, revolutionizing the government of the Catholic Church. Copyright issues are small potatoes.
"We" don't elect the Pope. The College of Cardinals elect the Pope. The Papacy is only democratic in the sense that it is elective. But elective =/= democratic by definition.
In your view, what exactly--if anything--would be wrong with, for example, all priests in a diocese electing their own bishop for a limited term of service?
We are not living in the times of the apostles. There are different possibilities for choosing their successors. Before Popes were elected by Cardinals, they were chosen without being elected. There are instances were people have elected their own bishops. Until Pope Benedict XVI voluntarily stepped down, almost no one thought that a Pope stepping down--and thereby self-limiting his term of service--was a realistic or even legal possibility.
You have to be willing to think outside the box to realize that there is more than one possibility of doing Church governance. Refusing to learn from the mistakes of others--such as dictatorships, and other forms of unlimited power vested in single individuals--is foolish, in my opinion.
A politician is a person that is concerned with running secular society. A bishop runs the Church, so, in a real sense, yes, a bishop is really a politician of the Church. "Politician" is not an invective.
When you realize that bishops and secular politicians both exercise power over their respective jurisdictions, you should be concerned, if you are a reasonable person, with how any governing structure may foster abuse of power.
One thing that experience has taught humanity is that regular elections according to a rule of law are one of several important ways to limit the abuse of power. Another thing we have learned is that constitutionally separating different types of powers also helps prevent abuse.
Unless a particular ecclesiology which we must accept de fide as Catholics prevents us from re-thinking Church government [I am not aware that any such ecclesiology exists], then we should re-think Church government when we see that the failures of its present form are harming both Church members and the reputation of the Church in the world, and thereby impeding the proclamation of the gospel.
My take has always been that the Catechism is a money maker for each national Church body, they hold exclusive rights to all printed editions, and it is available on their website for reading, as well, for free, as for access in the United States and likewise free for any English speaker in the world with internet access.
Now, you did not mention how access to your planned site was to be done, but you mentioned "start-up", plus the prior mentioned efforts were clearly subscription, all to say there was going to be money coming in. If your site was going to be free access, you should have stated so plainly.
There IS free access to the Catechism on the USCCB site, and this all strikes me as folk sore they cannot make money on the USCCB property. I think your complaint about providing links is fairly lame. It all sounds rather entitled to me.
I wanted a copy at home so i did it the old fashioned way and bought one. And no computer required, no internet required, powered by sunshine if no electricity available.
Meanwhile, you act as if folk are being denied oxygen because you were not allowed to use someone else's property for own site traffic builder/money maker. And act as if your generation is simply incapable of reading or comprehending anything without guidance or electronic devices.
Thanks for this great article. My friends and I refer to the American Church as Catholic, Inc. It’s rather bewildering, actually, and I think Pope Francis gets it right when he speaks of the idolatry of money. That is the link between clericalism and the rest of the rot, including the horde of lawyers. I work for the church: I’ve never had a more infuriating or less humane employer. What does that say? But you are so right to continue your work. As you say, we ARE the Church.
"I’ve never had a more infuriating or less humane employer".
What do you expect working for an individual that holds, solely and in their entirety, all executive, legislative, and judicial powers in your diocese?
Don't blame the lawyers, they don't write the law. They just zealously represent their clients. Or rather I should say "client," singular..
For 18 months, our family dinner time has ended with reading a short passage from the CCC with commentary to make it accessible for our children (at least those old enough to understand). One thing I discovered is that the text is beautifully written (for the most part), but benefits tremendously from oral presentation (especially for younger listeners). I'm also a professional musician and lay apologist, and for months, I've been planning a podcast in which I accompany reading of the CCC with newly composed background music, and then provide commentary to draw out points for new Catholics and interested non-Catholic listeners. These are two populations that are not likely to take a deep dive into the Catechism, but might be drawn in by a new way of sharing its content. How frustrating to learn that this podcast might not see the light of day. That said, I just reviewed fair use (https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html), and certainly a creative or critical engagement of the text such as this might hold up in court as fair use. (Curious what Chris's take is on this position.) In any case, thanks for documenting your experience.
I would assume that the Baltimore Catechism still has copyright protection. It's not that old. Trent could be used, yes. Not sure how old the St. Pius X catechism is. Depending on age, it might or might not still have copyright protection.
the 1992 is the most complete catechism by far and directs the reader to other sources. the other catechisms are just Q and A with no real substantial information.
true, but there's been almost 500 years worth of weirdness in both the church and the world that makes it so outdated compared to the 1992 that it's best for historical and developmental uses rather than doctrinal or formative uses.
My Synod comment is "If we are called to defend the Faith on issues of abortion, homosexuality, trans ____, etc., how is the common catholic supposed to defend the Faith if it is not explained from the pulpit? Perhaps the answers could be found in the catechism.......
From what I understand, the USCCB has the exclusive rights to publish the English translation of the Catechism. The copyright to the original text, however, is held in Rome and is subject to Italian copyright laws. The USCCB does not have the authority or permission to grant usage rights to the text.
For example: St. Charles Boromeo Catholic Church in Picayune, Mississippi has a searchable, indexed version of The Second Edition English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on their website. The copyright permission is listed as:
Copyright permission for posting of the english translation of the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH on the Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site was granted by Amministrazione Del Patrimonio Della Sede Apostolica, case number 130389.
Flocknote/Matt Warner has been sending out Catechism in a Year daily emails for several years now. I know because I've been getting them in my inbox since October of 2012. In early 2013, they switched to the YouCat as a temporary workaround for the copyright issues, and then later got permission from the USCCB to directly use the text from the CCCC/Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and link to the full Catechism text (don't have enough time at the moment to dig around gmail to figure out when that switch happened).
Right. It distributes the text of the Compendium, but not of the Catechism itself. It couldn't get permission for the Catechism specifically, which is why it used YouCat and then the Compendium
It seems so absurd to me that they would not allow use of the CCC by Catholics. Surely you want people to hear and understand the Church's message?
It's not usage of the CCC that is barred. It's FOR-PROFIT usage of the CCC that is barred. And even then you can receive permission to use it if the CCC wishes.
Free dissemination of the Catechism is also barred. Both my project and the Catechism in a Year project were not granted permission by the USCCB
You are correct, Jeremy is wrong. But then again you went to law school. If you haven't gone to law school you will be quite surprised what the law means by the word "copyright."
The problem being that the Bishops don't really know what any person claiming to be a lay Catholic wants to do with it.
The Bible, unfortunately, has been misused and misinterpreted so many times that no one person claiming crazy stuff out of it can ever represent the Church.
However if I take the Catechism, with the blessing of the USCCB, and twist it to claim that abortion and gay marriage is ok, that represents every Catholic.
As I mentioned above, the USCCB could have issued a limited revocable license to the text, which would have assisted with that concern, and also delegated oversight to the local diocese
You don't know that. That is a theoretical possibility, but, judging by your interlocutor's response to your questions, it is likely that the possibility is foreclosed by the terms of the [purported] exclusive licensing agreement.
I.e. the USCCB may be prevented from sub-licensing agreements by the Vatican itself. That's probably it as that would be consistent with the historical opposition of the Vatican to power-sharing of any kind.
The Catholic Church doesn't have a problem with lay people reading the bible - in fact most Catholics would have one, and would be encouraged to read it. I don't see why the same would not apply to the Catechism. If people publish mistruths or misinterpretations, the Catholic Church could easily correct that, as they can (and do) when Catholics misinterpret the bible.
Here's a really simple solution, if your concern is that someone will confuse a project by someone like Damian with the views of the USCCB: require that a sublicensee using the catechism [such as Mr. Damian] attach to every publication involving the catechism a statement to the effect that "the views of the publisher are his and his alone. The USCCB takes no position as to whether what is published herein accurately represents the views of the USCCB or the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and does not endorse any statement made herein."
But they won't do even that. Total control is all they want.
You think they care about heresy? How many books and publications have I read or looked at that have the imprimatur of the Church, yet are full of heretical and ridiculous speculation and nonsense! And how many of them are themselves heretics? They have no concern for preserving the integrity of the faith, and they don't yet have the faintest idea how to evangelize anyone.
I don't recall Jesus demanding that His parables be copyrighted and that the Apostles needed explicit legal permission or licenses to spread the Gospel.
Use of the Catechism is the least if the worry's for the American Catholics. As you pointed out attendance is down, baptism is down and yet the USCCB "plays the fiddle as Rome burns." In a recent survey 70% of Catholics don't believe the Christ exists in the eucharist. That's a huge problem for UDCCB, play on okay on stupid as they come.
I’ve had conversations with this person myself and it simply doesn’t make sense. My understanding is that the Holy See screwed over the USCCB in the contracts which is messed up in its own right.
I've known a number of people who have tried to work with that office for permissions. I suspect there's some policy or contract behind it where the work involved in getting permission would be onerous, and they don't want to try to change that policy or agreement. In any event, very messed up indeed
I agree with both your analysis that the Vatican is likely the cause of this and your judgment that the Vatican's action is messed up. This stuff makes me hate the Vatican and frankly embarrassed to be Catholic. How do you explain this kind of thing to people in a way that makes Catholicism attractive? On what principle can you successfully defend it as opposed to just making some lame argument about the need to preserve the teaching of the faith from abuse [by people wanting to spread the faith!!!]?
Garibaldi was right. Vatican delenda est.
Is it helpful to boycott this project or is that not even putting a dent in the problem? I’d like to learn but I don’t want to promote shady tactics.
I'm not against Fr. Schmitz's project. It's a fine project. It's just frustrating that lay initiatives have not been able to move forward
"I knew that the above statement was simply false...."
Be careful of rash judgment. I do not think you can say that.
We have to interpret everything in the best possible light. It is clear that the contracts and guidelines have certain requirements for copyright permission (such as minimizing loss of legitimate income the USCCB stands to receive as licensee of the Catechism), and that those requirements, set in stone, made it impossible to grant permission in this case. One could debate the merits of those requirements, whatever they may be, but I think charity and justice forbid us to assume that the representative was lying.
In the Catholic world, you must be 'Schmitz'd' to get anywhere. Only a handful (or slightly more) have been 'anointed'.
I admire your tenacity.
Ummmm But Ms. USCCB gave you permission, you wanted more, so why doth you protest (too much, methinks)? You end with hierarchical hostility and a universal underscore which deserves in fullness of truth to be read together with our Creed (another poorly catechized magisterium) "...we believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church..." i.e. Our Roman Catholic Bishops matter! But reading your bi-line (disordered pun unintended) and your October crash reveals the Trojan-horse that is your blobg ...and more the poor choice of webmaster@newadvent.org for publishing.
I think you should re-read the piece. Permission was not given
Thank you, I did and you wrote, "If I simply link to the Catechism, I doubt they’ll actually go to the link and will just read the reflection instead, which would largely defeat the purpose of trying to get them to engage with and appreciate the actual text."
Your last name is Damian! Enough said.
But seriously, I am so glad to see a law student posting on Catholicism.
As a law student and 3L you have already taken conlaw I and maybe conlaw II as well. You should have an understanding of the theory of the Constitution by now. In brief: we have a separation of powers, bc centralized power will result in a loss of liberty for, and tyrannical abuse of, the governed.
Personally, I subscribe to that theory. I'm a big fan of the Constitution.
Now, by contrast to the Constitution, here is the canon law of the Church on who holds the power:
Can. 391 §1. It is for the diocesan bishop to govern the particular church entrusted to him with legislative, executive, and judicial power according to the norm of law.
§2. The bishop exercises legislative power himself. He exercises executive power either personally or through vicars general or episcopal vicars according to the norm of law. He exercises judicial power either personally or through the judicial vicar and judges according to the norm of law.
See any problems? I do.
Problem no. 1: no separation of powers. All the powers of governance in a diocese are in ONE person. That means he can exercise power arbitrarily or tyrannically and there are no checks on the exercise of those powers. Thus, the faithful have no defense against abuses of power.
Problem no. 2: no accountability. The bishop rules over the faithful, and he serves until he is 75. His job is secure, as he will receive a pension when he retires. If his rule is negligent, he cannot be impeached or removed from office. And of course, he cannot be voted out. Thus, the faithful have no recourse in the case of a bishop they don't like.
That should give you an idea as to why our problems are "cyclical" as you put it. Better said, they are "recurring" and insoluble. And that they are so, is indicative of a systemic problem.
Lastly, if you consider that the theory of how a bishop governs was developed during the time of the Roman emperors, you can see why its theory is based largely on history--which changes--rather than on any immutable ecclesiology.
As a young Catholic guy in law school who obviously isn't afraid to think or speak publicly, maybe you should consider, as an avocation, revolutionizing the government of the Catholic Church. Copyright issues are small potatoes.
The Church isn't a democracy.
We elect the Pope, don't we?
What does "democracy" mean to you?
"We" don't elect the Pope. The College of Cardinals elect the Pope. The Papacy is only democratic in the sense that it is elective. But elective =/= democratic by definition.
In your view, what exactly--if anything--would be wrong with, for example, all priests in a diocese electing their own bishop for a limited term of service?
Bishops are not politicans. They are the successors of the Apostles. The Apostles were called and did not have "limited terms of service".
We are not living in the times of the apostles. There are different possibilities for choosing their successors. Before Popes were elected by Cardinals, they were chosen without being elected. There are instances were people have elected their own bishops. Until Pope Benedict XVI voluntarily stepped down, almost no one thought that a Pope stepping down--and thereby self-limiting his term of service--was a realistic or even legal possibility.
You have to be willing to think outside the box to realize that there is more than one possibility of doing Church governance. Refusing to learn from the mistakes of others--such as dictatorships, and other forms of unlimited power vested in single individuals--is foolish, in my opinion.
A politician is a person that is concerned with running secular society. A bishop runs the Church, so, in a real sense, yes, a bishop is really a politician of the Church. "Politician" is not an invective.
When you realize that bishops and secular politicians both exercise power over their respective jurisdictions, you should be concerned, if you are a reasonable person, with how any governing structure may foster abuse of power.
One thing that experience has taught humanity is that regular elections according to a rule of law are one of several important ways to limit the abuse of power. Another thing we have learned is that constitutionally separating different types of powers also helps prevent abuse.
Unless a particular ecclesiology which we must accept de fide as Catholics prevents us from re-thinking Church government [I am not aware that any such ecclesiology exists], then we should re-think Church government when we see that the failures of its present form are harming both Church members and the reputation of the Church in the world, and thereby impeding the proclamation of the gospel.
My take has always been that the Catechism is a money maker for each national Church body, they hold exclusive rights to all printed editions, and it is available on their website for reading, as well, for free, as for access in the United States and likewise free for any English speaker in the world with internet access.
Now, you did not mention how access to your planned site was to be done, but you mentioned "start-up", plus the prior mentioned efforts were clearly subscription, all to say there was going to be money coming in. If your site was going to be free access, you should have stated so plainly.
There IS free access to the Catechism on the USCCB site, and this all strikes me as folk sore they cannot make money on the USCCB property. I think your complaint about providing links is fairly lame. It all sounds rather entitled to me.
I wanted a copy at home so i did it the old fashioned way and bought one. And no computer required, no internet required, powered by sunshine if no electricity available.
Meanwhile, you act as if folk are being denied oxygen because you were not allowed to use someone else's property for own site traffic builder/money maker. And act as if your generation is simply incapable of reading or comprehending anything without guidance or electronic devices.
If you read the piece, it should become clear that what we were goin to do was free
The catechism = "someone else's property." This is not an evangelical thought.
Thanks for this great article. My friends and I refer to the American Church as Catholic, Inc. It’s rather bewildering, actually, and I think Pope Francis gets it right when he speaks of the idolatry of money. That is the link between clericalism and the rest of the rot, including the horde of lawyers. I work for the church: I’ve never had a more infuriating or less humane employer. What does that say? But you are so right to continue your work. As you say, we ARE the Church.
"I’ve never had a more infuriating or less humane employer".
What do you expect working for an individual that holds, solely and in their entirety, all executive, legislative, and judicial powers in your diocese?
Don't blame the lawyers, they don't write the law. They just zealously represent their clients. Or rather I should say "client," singular..
For 18 months, our family dinner time has ended with reading a short passage from the CCC with commentary to make it accessible for our children (at least those old enough to understand). One thing I discovered is that the text is beautifully written (for the most part), but benefits tremendously from oral presentation (especially for younger listeners). I'm also a professional musician and lay apologist, and for months, I've been planning a podcast in which I accompany reading of the CCC with newly composed background music, and then provide commentary to draw out points for new Catholics and interested non-Catholic listeners. These are two populations that are not likely to take a deep dive into the Catechism, but might be drawn in by a new way of sharing its content. How frustrating to learn that this podcast might not see the light of day. That said, I just reviewed fair use (https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html), and certainly a creative or critical engagement of the text such as this might hold up in court as fair use. (Curious what Chris's take is on this position.) In any case, thanks for documenting your experience.
Why not just use an older catechism? The Catechism of St. Pius X, or the Baltimore Catechism, or the Catechism of Trent?
I would assume that the Baltimore Catechism still has copyright protection. It's not that old. Trent could be used, yes. Not sure how old the St. Pius X catechism is. Depending on age, it might or might not still have copyright protection.
the 1992 is the most complete catechism by far and directs the reader to other sources. the other catechisms are just Q and A with no real substantial information.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent is quite meaty and not at all in a Q&A format.
true, but there's been almost 500 years worth of weirdness in both the church and the world that makes it so outdated compared to the 1992 that it's best for historical and developmental uses rather than doctrinal or formative uses.
My Synod comment is "If we are called to defend the Faith on issues of abortion, homosexuality, trans ____, etc., how is the common catholic supposed to defend the Faith if it is not explained from the pulpit? Perhaps the answers could be found in the catechism.......
From what I understand, the USCCB has the exclusive rights to publish the English translation of the Catechism. The copyright to the original text, however, is held in Rome and is subject to Italian copyright laws. The USCCB does not have the authority or permission to grant usage rights to the text.
For example: St. Charles Boromeo Catholic Church in Picayune, Mississippi has a searchable, indexed version of The Second Edition English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on their website. The copyright permission is listed as:
Copyright permission for posting of the english translation of the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH on the Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site was granted by Amministrazione Del Patrimonio Della Sede Apostolica, case number 130389.
https://scborromeo2.org/catechism-of-the-catholic-church
Flocknote/Matt Warner has been sending out Catechism in a Year daily emails for several years now. I know because I've been getting them in my inbox since October of 2012. In early 2013, they switched to the YouCat as a temporary workaround for the copyright issues, and then later got permission from the USCCB to directly use the text from the CCCC/Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and link to the full Catechism text (don't have enough time at the moment to dig around gmail to figure out when that switch happened).
Right. It distributes the text of the Compendium, but not of the Catechism itself. It couldn't get permission for the Catechism specifically, which is why it used YouCat and then the Compendium