Appendix: On the Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum

St. Alphonsus, Appendix de Prohib. libr.; ed. G., I, p. 253; VII, de Cens., n. 281; ed. G., IV, p. 419; Vermeersch, de Prohib. et Cens. libr. (ed. 4); Piat, in Nouv. Rev. Theol. vol. 30 sqq.; Van Coillie, Comment. in Const. Offic.; Lega, de Judiciis eccles., l. 2, tit. IX, c. II and III, vol. III; Boudinhon, in Canoniste contemp., XX; Gennari, in Monit. eccl., XXII; Pennacchi, in A. S. S., vol. 30; Wernz, Jus Decr., III, n. 95; Del Vecchio, Theol. mor., t. II, App. III; Hollweck, Das kirchl. Bücherverbot; Hilgers, Der Index; Sleumer, Index Romanus.

As we already admonished in the treatise de Fide, n. 452, the publication and reading of books, in our times, are governed by the Constitution Officiorum ac munerum, which Leo XIII promulgated on 25 Jan. 1897 (A. S. S., 29, p. 388), and by the Index of prohibited books, which the same Supreme Pontiff made public on 17 Sept. 1900. Our working-out will be concerned only with those things which in the Constitution bear more upon the moral matter.

We shall say nothing concerning the Constitution Sollicita et provida of Benedict XIV (not abrogated by our Constitution), since it pertains only to those to whom the burden is incumbent of examining books brought before the Holy See. But often, according as the argument will demand, we shall report those things which our Most Holy Lord Pius X, in the Motu proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, 1 Sept. 1910, commanded to be observed.

A few things are first to be said: 1. concerning the obligation of this Constitution Officiorum; 2. concerning the norms to be used in interpretation of the same; 3. concerning the force of prohibition.

I. The OBLIGATION is grave and universal. The reason of the first is because there is question of a grave matter, namely of guarding against danger to faith and morals. Yet smallness of matter can be given, whether as regards the edition, or as regards the reading or retention of prohibited books. As regards publishers, we wish it noted that they more easily avoid mortal sin, if they print or sell books... prohibited for this reason, because they lack due approval. The reason of the second is because the Legislator openly set forth his mind: "We have determined to issue General Decrees," he says in the preface, "...which Catholic men throughout the whole world may religiously obey." And to the question, "Whether the said Constitution has obligatory force also for regions of the British tongue, which some think enjoy a tacit dispensation?" the S. Congregation of the Index, 23 May 1898, responded: "Affirmatively." This response certainly must be extended to all regions (A. S. S., 30, p. 677).

IT IS ASKED. But are particular customs in force?

Resp. 1. That new customs can be introduced must not be doubted, provided there is question of legitimate custom, for example of newspapers not to be subjected to censure, which according to law would have to be subjected (cf. art. 13).

2. If there is question of particular customs existing before the Constitution, one must say: the legislator revoked many at least implicitly; for Leo XIII, as is to be seen in the preface of the Constitution, proposed a law aptly accommodated to the times, and substituted the same for the laws previously issued on this matter; whence he sanctioned by his new law only those mitigations introduced by custom which he wished to be observed. Therefore it was superfluous to make mention of them and it sufficed to say: let Catholic men throughout the whole world religiously obey... any contrary things whatever notwithstanding. Yet we would admit with Van Coillie (n. 7) that some secondary temperaments, which had already prevailed universally and which rather explain the new laws than remove them, are still in force. See what is to be said in art. 1, 7, 47.

II. The GENERAL NORMS OF INTERPRETATION of this Constitution must be determined accurately.

1. As regards the sense, it must carefully be observed that of themselves these Decrees alone are to be kept before one's eyes; yet the old Decrees can be recalled as a means of interpretation. Therefore those prescriptions which sound like ancient ones are to be interpreted in a similar way. But as regards those which differ from the prior Law, the manner of interpretation must be sought from the obvious sense of the words of the Constitution.

2. As regards the extension to be attributed to the General Decrees, the more common opinion holds that this Constitution must be interpreted strictly not only in penalties, but also in prohibitions. The reason is because Leo XIII testifies that he wished to make the Rules of the Index "somewhat milder, so plainly that to obey them, provided one is not of an evil disposition, cannot be grave and arduous." He declared the same in his Brief Romani Pontifices, the same is had in the preface of the Index; all which things indeed seem to demand a strict interpretation of the Constitution (Vermeersch, p. 22; Nouv. Rev. Theol., 36, p. 99).

III. The word PROHIBITION (and the words proscribe, condemn, interdict, reprobate sound the same) in its comprehension includes the reading, retention, printing, sale, giving or lending of a book, and finally any defense whatever of it. Cf. things already said n. 1316.

But if prohibition is considered in its extension, the diverse questions which can arise are to be solved.

1. A book being prohibited, the whole is prohibited, and not only the part which gave occasion for proscription; whence even leaves separated from the book are condemned. Yet, the pernicious part which was the cause of the prohibition having been removed (if this is established), the prohibition ceases (St. Alph., VII, 283). Hence, if a work is composed of several volumes, and it is established that in only one an error condemned is found, this volume being removed, the prescription of the work ceases by the very fact.

2. Prohibition of the prior volumes of some work does not hand down condemnation of the volumes which follow; nevertheless those are rightly held suspect, unless the repentance of the author is established.

3. Prohibition of all the works of some author does not now affect all writings of the author, but only those which either treat of religion, or, although they do not treat of it, nevertheless are proscribed by some general or special Decree. Besides, the clause: all works does not comprehend works issued after the Decree. Yet those are held suspect, as we said above; for prohibition in hatred of the author is today obsolete.

4. As regards works prior to the Constitution, the prohibition extends itself to them if they are condemned on account of intrinsic matter, or if they were proscribed on account of omitted extrinsic solemnity (for example the obtaining of legitimate license) which formerly was required.

5. The prohibition which refers to all love stories probably does not reach those of these stories which are reached neither by a singular nor by a general Decree. Cf. Hilgers, Der Index, p. 106; Ami du Cl., 1906, p. 1123. See, as regards all these things, the Preface of the Index itself; Vermeersch, o. c., p. 24 sqq.

From these things you conclude: a) Books, therefore, are not considered prohibited when concerning them it is said only: let them not be published without license (art. 17); or a similar expression is used (art. 16, 19).

b) The clause: until it is corrected regards only the manner, not the effect of prohibition.

Note. What comes under the name of book, little book, newspaper, sheet, to read, to retain, etc., we already said n. 1315, 1316.