We generally avoid using terms like "official" when describing something that is, by definition or nature, already official. Neophyte editors like to mention a bishop being "officially installed" to his diocese, or a document being "officially promulgated". In reality, this is a WP:PEACOCK term that is intended to lend an air of cachet unnecessarily to the thing in question. Now to the issue at hand: documents by the Holy See are copyrighted. There was actually a case when Pope Francis released Lumen fidei and a popular apologist converted its format and re-shared it for eBook users. He was immediately beset by copyright claims from the USCCB. So you see, there is no "unofficial" translation of a modern copyrighted Church document that is legal and quotable here. The situation is, of course, very different for historical publications where there are indeed no "official" translations at all, and a plethora of independent, even scholarly ones. In those cases, we can of course refer to the translator by name or the specific publication in order to distinguish it for the reader. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 20:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
We generally avoid using terms like "official" when describing something that is, by definition or nature, already official. Neophyte editors like to mention a bishop being "officially installed" to his diocese, or a document being "officially promulgated". In reality, this is a WP:PEACOCK term that is intended to lend an air of cachet unnecessarily to the thing in question. Now to the issue at hand: documents by the Holy See are copyrighted. There was actually a case when Pope Francis released Lumen fidei and a popular apologist converted its format and re-shared it for eBook users. He was immediately beset by copyright claims from the USCCB. So you see, there is no "unofficial" translation of a modern copyrighted Church document that is legal and quotable here. The situation is, of course, very different for historical publications where there are indeed no "official" translations at all, and a plethora of independent, even scholarly ones. In those cases, we can of course refer to the translator by name or the specific publication in order to distinguish it for the reader. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 20:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)