They are in fact God's words, Helen, AVZ, and chosenone. The deuterocanon is still the Canon.
Then why not call it canon?
We do. Deuterocanon means "second canon".
From the catechism:
IV. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE
120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.90 This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.91
The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi.
The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).
And whats the reason for calling some books "second canon"?
Google is your friend.
I thought it would be good to use the Catholic Encyclopedia instead:
First, it would be obviously unfair to require that the contents of this Sapiential book should come full up to the high moral standards of Christian ethics, or should equal in clearness and precision the dogmatic teachings embodied in the sacred writings of the New Testament or in the living tradition of the Church; all that can be reasonably expected of a book composed some time before the Christian Dispensation, is that it shall set forth substantially good, not perfect, doctrinal and ethical teaching.
So the book of Sirach not necessarily lives up to high moral Christian standards and ethics, and it is also not perfect.
Yet you say it is God's word?
Interesting quote, you had to work pretty hard to lift something that you thought would be controversial, something to attempt to prove your point.
The Wisdom books are written not to precisely outline doctrine or to be a full account of doctrine. They are useful everyday wisdom books which God intended us to have to help us in real life. That's not saying that the book of Sirach is "lesser than" or that we don't consider it the word of God and canonical.
It would have been more useful to read the Encyclopedia's entry on the canon. But that of course showed that the book of Sirach is indeed canonical. And it also gives the answer to the question of why it is called the deuterocanon. Not that you really wanted to know.
But even if the Encyclopedia were to say something that could be construed to suggest that the deuterocanon is equal to, the Encyclopedia is not even an official church document. The best place to go would be to read the dogmas of the council of Trent, which is an infallible dogmatic statement of what the canon of scripture is.
So many people think they know what Catholics believe better than Catholics who actually care about their faith, like me. It's kind of silly, but I think this thread has proven, in its responses, the truth of the Original Post, the verse from Sirach I quoted.