Last month, the owner of Riggins Rights Management, a company that represents the rights for the RSV, NRSV, and NRSVue translations, posted on the Fans of the NRSV Bible Facebook group to confirm that the National Council of Churches (NCC) has applied for an imprimatur on the NRSVue from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Here is a direct quote of the announcement:
The NCC has applied for the NRSVue imprimatur with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is just taking a long time with the USCCB as it goes through several committees.
Cindy Riggins, Riggins Rights Management
I also received confirmation from Friendship Press by email that their request for an imprimatur is currently in process.
This is likely to take time, but it sounds like the review process has begun.
I don’t really know the dynamics of the relationships between the groups involved, but to my simple mind wouldn’t it be more natural for the NCC to apply for an imprimatur from the catholic bishops of Canada ? The NRSV CE is approved for use in the liturgy there.
Speaking of the USCCB, does anyone have the latest estimated date that the next edition of the NAB will be published ?
It should be up for a vote by the entire UCCB in the 4th quarter of this year, where it will be forwarded to Rome for final approval, assuming the process goes smoothly I think it should be published probably the first week of Advent in 2025.
Honestly, I don’t think they have any choice in the matter. Other than the widespread use in academia, the Catholic Edition is the only version that sells.
NRSV remains in the top ten best-selling Bible translations, even as of this month, however:
https://christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/translations.php?id=
Along with the ESV and NLT, it is one of only three translations available in Catholic editions that even appear on those charts.
If you go into the specific edition, though, it’s the nrsv-CE. Only Catholic Bible on the list. From July 24
https://christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/bibles.php?id=0724
I wonder what Catholic publishers belong to the ECPA? That list only counts those publishers. I wonder how Word on Fire or Ascension in there?
Well, bingo. Makes an obvious case for why NCC should get a Catholic edition of the NRSVue. It’s their best market. I’m now more interested in having THAT than I am the Ignatius Study Bible.
Or the USCCB can decline their request for an imprimatur as the NRSVue text stands and therefore deny them that market, pending changes to the text. IMO, if the NRSVue can get an imprimatur, the USCCB should just make the Ordinariate happy and give the KJV an imprimatur.
Yes, but the majority of the sales and usage of the NRSV is in university Bible/and or religion classes, which is why sales peak in August/September when the new academic year starts. Yes, most mainline Protestant churches uses the NRSV in their liturgy, but those denominations are dying, and the people who attend them don’t tend to buy a lot of Bibles.
“but those denominations are dying”
Heh.
Or arguably they’re doing a better job of becoming the “smaller, poorer Church of the poor” than we are.
😉
I think he simply means they, the mainline Protestant churches, are losing ground to evangelicals. which unfortunately I think is true
Kyle,
No, I mean they are dying, they have lost nearly 60% of their membership since 1950, old churches are being sold off and turned into secular buildings, and they now have more funerals than baptisms, it is extremely doubtful that any of the classic “Seven Sisters” of the Mainline Protestants (the Episcopal Church, The Presbyterian Church of the USA, The American Baptist Church, The Evangelical Luthern Church in America, the United Church of Christ, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ, United Methodist Church) will still exist within 50 years.
Do these charts only track Protestant Bible sales or all Bible sales overall? It’s not hard to believe that no Catholic Bible cracks the top 10. But I am curious.
@Mark M.,
The “Liturgical Bible”, what you call the “next edition of the NAB”, will be published sometime in 2026-2027. A final marketing name has not been settled on, the editing of the New Testament and the revision of the Old Testament (or rather, further revision) is still ongoing.
It will not be published in 2025. “Biblical Catholic” is confused about the USCCB vote being held later this year. That vote is not on the entire new Bible, it is a vote for the LOTH 2nd Edition for those portions of the LOTH that contain scripture citations. It’s not a vote on the Bible project, just a vote on those portions used by the upcoming LOTH .
By the way, the LOTH 2nd Edition is on schedule to be published in 2026.
Neither the Bible or the new breviary will be published in 2025, though it is hoped that both projects will be finished by 4th Quarter of 2025.
It was announced as far back as 2011 that it would be released in 2025, there has been no announcement of a delay, you are just assuming there will be a delay announced in the future, but I see no evidence that you have any specialized or exclusive knowledge of this, nor do I see any evidence that the project will be voted down.
Almost the same schedule happened in 2010 and was published on Ash Wednesday in 2011. You seem to be assuming that the USCCB is going to vote it down and then it will have to be redone, if that happens it will surely be the result of gross incompetence, the relevant committees within the USCCB are no doubt fully on speed on what revisions are being made and there no reason to expect that they will be rejected either by the full UCCB or by the relevant offices in the Vatican.
I am very eager for the next update of NABRE and expect it to remove all oddities and errors such as Amen, I AM, and the various uncomfortable renderings and few inconsistencies in the study notes, and inconsistencies of OT vs NT in translation phrasing for using differing terms for same phrases. I have also written review listing those errors. Do you think they will fix them to make it smooth like NRSV/ESV overall?? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LWiP2-9WvKHBa4WPBCKreFzT_0H77eX6pgY05_tIgv4/
I hope the USCCB rejects the imprimatur request, though I doubt they will.
Why is that? I’ve found the NRSV to be both more smooth and more accurate than the NAB. Outside of the ESV I would say it would be a top contender to replace the NAB in the US.
Being more than happy with the current NRSV, I haven’t seen much reason to seek out the NRSV:UE, but I do agree that, at least in it’s original NRSV 1989 edition, I have much preferred it to the ESV, though I do also enjoy the ESV. But I do think that the thought that ANYTHING in the US is going to unseat the NAB in it’s various iterations in the US Church is likely a pipe dream. The USCCB has poured too much blood, sweat, and tears into the NAB project to ever let it die.
I’m just grateful that the UK bishops adopted the ESV for their lectionary text so that I have at least some hope of someday picking up modern Catholic liturgical materials (Daily Missals, LOTH, etc) that draw on the Tyndale translation family. For me, that’s more than enough.
The NRSV has been rejected by the Vatican repeatedly, and not merely rejected, but the Holy See even took the unprecedented step of doing a full, 180-degree reversal of its initial 1991 approval of the translation. In 1997, the Vatican released a series of guidelines for Bible translations which were clearly intended to be a veiled condemnation of the NRSV.
Among the guidelines?
“Accuracy is the most important thing” (so dynamic equivalence is simply unacceptable, only a literal translation is acceptable for liturgical use)
“The gender of the original languages must be preserved when a masculine pronoun is used in the original languages, it must be preserved in the translation” (no inclusive language)
“Singular pronouns must remain consistent” (so no turning singular pronouns “he/his” into plural pronouns “they/them” to avoid masculine language, something which the NRSV does frequently
“The Old Testament must be translated to make the Christological nature of the Old Testament clear” (so no neutering the messianic passages, and preservation of masculine pronouns in Christological passages like Psalm 1.1 is essential)
These guidelines and more were later incorporated in 2001 into Liturgiam Autenticum, and make liturgical use of the NRSV and similar translations impossible.
“
That’s probably the thing though. Getting an imprimatur probably has nothing to do with getting the nrsvue used in liturgy, and more just in getting the translation published and sales made. Unless Canada is looking to update. It does the NCC no good to have invested in creating the translation if no one is buying it.
This is an important distinction, there are many translations out there that have imprimaturs that will probably never be used in liturgy. Take the Catholic Book Publishing’s “New Catholic Version or New Catholic Bible” translation. I enjoy that translation very much, but I suspect it will never receive approval as a liturgical translation.
I didn’t say no one is buying the NRSV, I said that the vast majority of the sales are of the Catholic Edition (approved only for private use) and in academia for use in University courses in Bible/Religion classes for freshman, which is why NRSV sales always peak in August/September when the new academic year starts. It is not purchased by evangelicals or other Protestants for personal use.
I, in fact, first learned about the NRSV as a freshman in college when I took classes in Old Testament/New Testament and was required to purchase a copy of the Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV edition for use in the class, I was required to buy this because we were told that no other translation could be used. Academia likes the NRSV because it is the most “ecumenical” translation, acceptable to Protestants, Catholics, and Jews.
“The NRSV has been rejected by the Vatican repeatedly, and not merely rejected, but the Holy See even took the unprecedented step of doing a full, 180-degree reversal of its initial 1991 approval of the translation.”
Overstating the situation.
No. They haven’t.
They’re perfectly alright with it as a Bible.
They’ve just removed their approval for use in liturgy.
I mean, come on:
It’s quoted in the catechism.
Bishop Barron (hardly a bastion of Catholic progressivism) chose it for the Word on Fire series.
Canada even uses it for the lectionary.
The Vatican has no more “rejected” it than they have “rejected” any other catholic translation that’s not also approved for liturgy.
Are you saying only translations approved for liturgy are accepted as Catholic Bibles? If so, by that measure only the NABRE, the RSV-2CE, the JB, and the ESV would be “approved” translations.
No, I am not overstating the situation.
Shortly after its original publication, the Vatican issued approval of it. The USCCB issued a statement praising the NRSV and saying that “sensitivity to how it is perceived by the laity” is more important than the accuracy of the translation. And permission was sought to use the NRSV in the liturgy, the Canadian bishops did it anyway without even asking permission.
Then, when the New Catechism was published in French in 1992, work was immediately begun on an English translation. The original draft of the English translation would be “gender inclusive” and the NRSV would be the translation used in the Catechism.
Then Ratzinger intervened, the inclusive language was stripped from the English catechism, and the 1971 RSV was used instead of the NRSV or the NAB. (The NAB was not used because the 1986 NT and 1991 Psalms use inclusive language, unlike the RSV.)
On its original publication in 1994, many noticed that the Catechism uses the RSV and wondered why.
In 1997, the Vatican took three steps:
1. Issued translation guidelines which pretty much rule out the NRSV
2. Rejected the 1991 NAB lectionary proposed by the US, which is why the OT was revised yet again published in 2011
3. Gave the Canadian bishops provisional authorization to use the NRSV provided they revise the text to remove all the inclusive language, which was completed in 2007
Then, in 2001, the 1997 translation guidelines, which were designed to rule out the NRSV and similar inclusive language translations from the liturgy, were incorporated in Liturgicam Authenticum.
So, yes, the Church has declared on multiple occasions that the NRSV is unacceptable for use in the liturgy.
Still noting the discontinuity between my question and the answer that follows.
Biblical Catholic, in your quote above you talk about the NRSV being “rejected,” not just “rejected for liturgical use.” I’m asking about the former. Your reply below only addresses the latter… and then by imputation, suggests that the whole translation has been “rejected by the Vatican” for use by Catholics outside of liturgy.
You and I agree: lead by Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican withdrew its approval to use the NRSV in Catholic liturgy. No argument.
But your quote above seems to suggest something more: that the Vatican has withdrawn its approval for the NRSV as a Catholic Bible at all.
To my understanding, it’s still very much an approved catholic Bible. It still has an imprimatur, and is used by plenty of Catholic publishers and commentaries.
It’s just one of the MANY Catholic Bible translations approved for prayer and study that ISN’T approved for liturgy.
I hope they ask for a change to the translation and footnote of 1 Timothy 1:10 before granting the imprimatur.
In response to “Biblical Catholic”
Is the NRSVCE as a lectionary version then reconcilable to the NRSVCE used in the Word On Fire Bible since it’s a “Cathedral In Print”? Is the NRSVCE irreconcilable for bridging liturgical life and private reading. If say the NRSVCE is unsuitable then why is it quoted in both the USCCB Daily Catechism and employed in the Word On Fire Bible by (a prominent and influential) a Bishop like Robert Barron? The question really is whether the ecclesial ‘authority’ welcomes the NRSVCE for all-round use excluding specific liturgical contexts, and if so then the NRSVCE as used in the Word On Fire Bible is a testament to that. As an aside, would you consider the RNJB as a lectionary/liturgical translation in the same territory of gender inclusion as the NRSVCE or would you say it appropriately handles the gender inclusion problem—perhaps better than the RSV-tradition, and so perhaps Bishop Barron would be wise to take a look at it for use in his Word On Fire Bible volumes instead of the progressive mainline Protestant associated NRSV right?
The NRSV is approved for private use, but forbidden for use in the liturgy except in Canada and even there it is allowed because the Canadian bishops adopted it without authorization and Rome decided to accommodate them (rather than just declaring they were in schism imposing an interdict or excommunicating them all as probably would have been done in the Middle Ages) by allowing it but requiring them to remove all of the offensive things about the NRSV from the lectionary, a project which was completed in 2007.
You might have heard of the “Grail Psalms” and the “Revised Grail Psalms” What are these? These are translations of the Psalter that are required by Rome to “fix” numerous problematic transitions such as the NAB, The NRSV, and even the Jerusalem Bible. So even when a translation is approved for the liturgy, not necessarily the entire translation is approved, often edits have to be made to make it acceptable.
What is wrong with the Jerusalem Bible? In hundreds of places, it uses the divine name YHWH which is forbidden in the liturgy. Long before Christianity, the Jews stopped using or even writing the divine name out of respect, to avoid using the divine name in vain it was decided never to use it at all. The Septuagint substitutes the word “Kyrie” (Lord) for the divine name, the Masoretic text says “Adonai” (ig you watch The Chosen you might have noticed this is how the characters on that show refer to God) and the Vulgate uses “Dominus”, it has thus never been a Christian custom to utter the divine name in the liturgy, the casual use of the divine name in many modern Bible translation such as the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem (and earlier revisions of the Christian Standard Version) is at best irreverant.
That’s great feedback I appreciate it Bib Cat.
From some research I’ve heard others say that use of the divine name is not sacrilegious but rather incompletely or insufficiently embodies it’s meaning, such as that it should mean “I AM” or “The Eternal”… If the divine name is forbidden as you say, then what about “El Shaddai”? Does ‘almighty God’ perfectly exemplify the true meaning of El Shaddai (sufficiently)?
Besides this, with the issue of sacrilege out of the way, which MODERN translation out of these would you say best fits the needs of the Church? The narrow selection seems to be those who are perceived to include the Revised Grail Psalter or Abbey Psalter in upcoming editions or like the already complete RNJB. If the NABRE is going to be amended once more and will likely include the definitive Abbey Psalter (while it’s not yet published) it would seem an ‘annoying’ pursuit to try to memorize the current de facto official Catholic translation in the U.S—the NABRE. In my opinion the RNJB might be the best candidate for memorization as it is the most up-to-date and has liturgical substance (RGP); as for the NJB, older NAB—and the soon to be revised and rendered out of print NABRE like its predecessor, along with the increasing datedness of the DR and RSVCE, even with the NRSVCE to a lesser extent. These seem overshadowed or even, I argue, in a way, defunct with regard to the ecclesial demands of the Church right now.
A 2008 declaration by the Holy See declared the use of the divine name in the liturgy to be forbidden because it is offensive and goes against 2000 years of Christian tradition. Christians have never used the divine name; there are several reasons for this. To avoid using it in vain is one, Another is that there are no other Gods from whom God needs to be distinguished by a name, so in a sense, it is inappropriate for a monotheist to use a specific name for God as if needed to make it clear which God we are praying to, another reason is that God is not just the God of the Christians or the Jews or any specific people, but the God of everyone and everything.
Biblicatholic.
Wait a second, don’t forget that the divine name is there. What I mean is that yes, I agree the divine name should be left sacred and the low caps Lord is ideal and respects Jewish tradition as well, on the other hand let us not forget that the divine name has important significance in the Bible and the Jerusalem Bible was not being sacrilegious in the rendering of it that way, the DSS might even support this from what I’ve read. This proves that it is not forbidden to be read or understood, it’s just not liturgically acceptable. Considering this though, “El Shaddai” is also a unique name, also a lot of OT names use aspects of the divine name, these should not be ‘erased’ or treated like some tribal mentality but that they were rightful expressions of God in this context.
Not sacrilegious, irreverant.
Do you have a response concerning “El Shaddai”?
Irreverence and sacrilegious are different so I appreciate your distinction there.
Are you asking if it is suitable for liturgy or personal use? Sorry I just want to be clear as to what is being asked
The NRSVCE is by far the most quoted Bible in Catholic books that I’ve read. Is it a matter of utility that the NRSVCE is used because of its ubiquity or is the NRSV as a translation with substance the most “impeccable” according to the back flap? I heard a lot of talk about the RNJB on here, even though it’s more up to date than the NRSV, a good measure to qualify the NRSV in terms of innovation and “impeccable-ness” is how well it draws from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and where it’s more informed by the DSS than the RNJB?
I don’t know if you’re familiar with R. Grant Jones’ YouTube channel, but he compares different translations and editions of the bible. One of the aspects of translations that he compares is how often a translation departs from the Masoretic Text in favor of the DSS or ancient translations. The Revised New Jerusalem Bible sits halfway between the RSV-2ce and the NRSV on his continuum. So, it’s not nearly as beholden to the MT as the RSV or ESV, but not nearly as close to the LXX or DSS as the NABRE or NRSV.
Thank you, Father.
My friend has been telling me to get the RNJB because it is 30 years more up to date than the ubiquitous NRSVCE. Considering those who disparage it, it seems like it’s actually far more conservative than NRSV with regards to gender inclusivity and other aspects. I have the Word On Fire Bible but the NRSV is commonly seen as becoming old like its RSV counterpart. Is it a good idea to marry the two and read the RNJB as the primary text and utilize the Word On Fire commentary and artwork alone ignoring the NRSV within its pages?
The NRSV and RSV are both very accurate, and will serve you well. If you like the Word on Fire Bible, then you might consider–for consistency–sticking with the NRSV. That way, you can really “live” in a translation for a while and let the Word take root. Even where there are some questionable choices on gender-language in the NRSV, the footnotes always give you a more-literal rendering. And honestly, there are way better editions of the NRSV currently available, compared to the RNJB. But hey, St. Augustine said that, if you don’t read the original languages, read multiple translations so that you can get a well-rounded understanding of the text. You don’t have to limit yourself to only one!
Dear Fr. Jebediah
As far as I am aware.. The NRSVCE seems to be only available from Harper Collins via it’s imprint under Catholic Bible Press & its corresponding Protestant variant such as Zondervan and Thomas Nelson. With regard to substance most if not all of these are well-made it’s just they are either printed in China or South Korea—I tend to avoid Chinese made books. The WOF is an exceptional work and it is the best presentation of the NRSVCE as a Catholic book(s). I appreciate Tati’s point of the Revised New Jerusalem Bible with how it’s more up to date as a translation. Considering the two I find the NRSVCE to be refreshing but with the impeding changes to the ue it looks like the NRSV is more beholden to its owners rather than the Catholic Church whereas the RNJB seems to be beholden to its Catholic base… What do you think?
I found spelling and grammatical mistakes in the rnjb. It still seems rushed as that should never happen.
As I said, the NRSV is the “academics” Bible, the one used in universities. That is why it is widely quoted in academic works. Indeed, I have little doubt that the NRSV is quoted far more often than it is actually read. And the licensing fees from quotations are probably a bigger source of revenue than sales.
Kyle W,
I would like to know where you see these typos in the RNJB. Could you let me know the exact places this occurs?
I no longer have my copy, but these issues have been documented on this site.
I love this!!! The NRSVCE is the gold standard for the Scriptures (quoted) for a lot of Catholic book titles, it is used in the Catechism and serves as an update for the RSV2CE club.
My question is if the ue is this brand new thing, why is the WOF using the NRSVCE still and if it got approval would Bishop Barron transition to it? Are there strong reasons Catholics shouldn’t use it compared to the RNJB or something like an RSV2CE “onlyist”?
Anselm no.
The NRSVCE is being replaced except the CE that Harper makes, it’s largely exclusive to this publisher. Best Roger your hands on the newer scholarship from the RNJB or NABRE.
I don’t know if I would call it the gold standard. The rsv-2ce and nabre are usually what I see used in most publications. The nrsv has be controversial since its initial release. The updated edition seems to be a double down on some of criticisms. Feel free to search this site for more information.
Someone explain the Typos in each, the RNJB may be a better choice if it’s less controversial than the ueNRSV and its original version. The NRSV is thirty years old, time for a more attuned translation! RNJB it is!
The NRSVue is a great translation for eventual agnostics. It has the requisite appearance of a religious text, with key differences that feeds its readers all the worldly acceptance they’ve been waiting for.
A nice, secularized off-ramp of the faith. Truth be told though, I don’t think the cultural christians and their intellectual counterparts need the help.
I pray it will not be granted the Imprimatur– but if it does, then at least it will accelerate God’s response to his fallen people.
I personally think anyone who reads the NRSVue will encounter the Lord’s teaching and its contrast with the world quite vividly. Unfortunately, because of the ideologically-charged nature of some translation decisions, many faithful Christians are likely to dismiss it out of hand and never read it. But I would submit that reading the NRSVue will not draw anyone away from Jesus any more than other translations like the RSV and ESV. I share the concern many people have raised about the NRSVue’s rendering of 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. But those verses do not invalidate the entire translation, nor do they negate the gospel, which still is communicated by the NRSVue. If the vague, imprecise language in those verses are enough to invalidate the translation, the RSV and the NABRE should also be invalidated for translating the Greek “porneia” as “immorality”.
Marc, it’s not just the politics. The NRSVue removed “Son of God” from Mark 1:1. This leaves the other instances of “Son of God” in Mark, which are things the characters believe, not the narrator. The translators did on this on the sole basis that one manuscript was found in 2011 which didn’t have those words included. Reading into the motives of Bart Ehrman and other agnostics who pushed for this was saddening, to say the least.
I’m not a conservative, and I affirm the LGB lifestyle. But this was one change too far for me.
If I don’t honestly believe that the gospels say Jesus was the son of God, clearly and unambiguously, then I am not a Christian. That’s the end of it.
I certainly understand where you’re coming from. At the end of the day, this sounds like a text-critical conclusion by the NRSVue committee related to the specific manuscript evidence for Mark 1:1. I’ll be the first to admit that text criticism doesn’t strike me as impeccably reliable or precise (and I think it can be prone to circular reasoning). But the way I see it, a text-critical decision about a particular verse is much different than a systematic attempt to expunge theological concepts from scripture. My personal reaction is: whether Mark 1:1 specifically uses the title ‘Son of God’, the message that Jesus is the Son of God is still there in the rest of the gospel. But I hear where you’re coming from in distinguishing the voice of the narrator from the voice of the apostles and people who interacted with Jesus in the gospel.
A lot of the translation nuances are made clear with a good set of explanatory notes. Since the Didache Bible came out that has been my go-to edition for gifting to family and friends. Yes, it costs and extra $20 or so more than other nice gift editions but having the solid set of notes and apologetics to explain the true apostolic faith is priceless. When the Bible is read out of context, people will absolutely put their own spin and interpretation.
Good point. And regardless of which translation a person reads, there are all sorts of ways in which a personal interpretation of the text (without the guidance of the Church) can go off the rails.
I wonder how theologians go about reviewing a Bible translation for a nihil obstat and imprimatur without a set of explanatory notes. If the biblical text is read on its own without the Church, it can easily be interpreted in all sorts of ways that are contrary to the faith.
Mark that is a good question regarding approval. I think the short answer is that the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are no indication of fidelity to the source texts.
Have you seen the short article published by Ignatius Press: “Why the Ignatius Bible?” I bring this up because this edition is unique of Catholic editions from the KJV family. A short excerpt:
“…we wanted to publish an RSV Lectionary for the readings at Mass. However, when we sent the text to the Congregation for Divine Worship for approval, they decided to review the text word by word (even though it had full ecclesiastical approval).
Surprisingly to us, they found that, good as the RSV was, there were some improvements which would bring it into even more conformity with Catholic liturgical and patristic tradition. It took them over two years for the review, and the result was the Second Catholic Edition of the RSV. At the same time, influenced by their work on our Lectionary, the Congregation issued Liturgiam Authenticam (2001) which contained new norms for Bible translations.”
I wish that the CDW would have went even further in consideration of the Latin tradition, especially when it is a more precise rendering of the original language (such as translating “porneia” as “fornication.”)
What is more disappointing is how subsequent Catholic editions have not used the CDW renderings already made for the RSV-2CE and norms set forth by Liturgiam Authenticam. I believe the NCCCA rejected the request to bring the NRSV in to conformity with LA, perhaps there was a similar situation with Crossway and the ESV? The changes made for the ESV-CE were very minor. I’m just going off of memory here, but I think I could find the references if I dug back through the Catholic Bibles Blog posts!
Why don’t Catholic do something like appropriate the Geneva Bible and enhance it with modern textual criticism and manuscripts and offer an alternative to the KJV-NRSV-ESV; the Geneva Bible predates the KJV, it would almost make more sense for Catholics to take advantage of that as a template for a new translation, since this is not the case what then would be the closest thing to a Geneva-like Catholic translation of the Bible? Perhaps the JB?
Sounds like the douay rhiems to me!