699. On the law itself. 1. All the precepts of the Church which concerning the reading and publication of books still have force today are contained in the recently issued constitution Officiorum ac munerum and in the Index of Prohibited Books published by command of this constitution: for all laws and statutes formerly issued on this matter having been abrogated, only the decrees which are contained in this constitution and in the Index have the force of law.¹

a. There is indeed also another constitution treating of bad books, namely Sollicita et provida of Benedict XIV (July 9, 1753), which by the will of the supreme pontiff still retains its force; but since this Benedictine constitution establishes only norms to be followed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index and by the Holy Office in examining and proscribing books, the constitution Officiorum and the Index contain all the universal laws now in force concerning this matter.

b. Therefore the prescriptions of Urban VIII concerning the narration of miracles and concerning the title Saint or Blessed attributed to servants of God have also been abrogated; wherefore the protestations which previously had to be prefixed to lives of saints or blessed can now be omitted.

c. The twofold excommunication which concerning prohibited books is found in the Bull Apostolicae sedis (1. 2, IV. 5) is indeed abrogated by this constitution; nevertheless in the future it still has force, because both are restored in this constitution (n. 47, 48).

2. The obligation of the precepts and prohibitions of this constitution in grave matter is grave: for the end of the law, of warding off from the faithful the danger which threatens faith and morals from the reading of bad books, is grave, and the law itself contributes greatly to obtaining this end. The same is further gathered from the grave penalties added.

Therefore both precepts grave in themselves in light matter, and some lighter precepts of this constitution because of smallness of matter, oblige only under light obligation. Thus a book which is prohibited because of the matter which it treats is judged prohibited under grave obligation; but a book in itself either not at all or not very dangerous, which is prohibited because of lack of approval, is ordinarily not judged prohibited under grave obligation.

3. This constitution is universal, affecting all the faithful of the whole world: for thus it is found in the preface of the constitution itself: let Catholics throughout the whole world religiously obey these general decrees; and in n. 45 it is said: Books condemned by the Apostolic See are to be held prohibited everywhere among the nations. Therefore by these words the controversy concerning the obligation of the Index has been removed.²

Therefore universal custom contrary to this constitution, if anywhere it was legitimate, has certainly been removed by this constitution. Whether legitimate particular customs also have been abrogated, authors do not agree. It seems one must assent to those who judge all customs, even particular ones, abrogated: for although a derogatory clause is not expressly contained in the constitution itself, nevertheless the will of the legislator to introduce a uniform discipline concerning this matter among all Catholics of the whole world is established.³

4. Not only the penalties but also the prohibitions which this constitution contains are of strict interpretation: for they bear before themselves all the marks which make a law odious. Moreover the ancient laws, according to the mind of the legislator, have been made somewhat milder by this constitution, in such a way indeed that to obey them cannot be grave and difficult;⁴ but only a strict interpretation corresponds to this end.

Nor is the argument worth anything that they were issued in favor of faith: for all laws favor either faith or morals, but they favor them by restricting liberty and inducing fault and penalty.

5. The prohibitions of this constitution which forbid books because of the matter which they treat comprehend also books previously published, because they bring the same danger to readers as books to be published afterwards; but those which prohibit books because of lack of approval do not extend to books previously published: for since in this case the law affects a human action, the principle holds: law does not act retroactively.

¹ Constitution Officiorum ac munerum of Leo XIII, Jan. 25, 1897.

² Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Index, May 23, 1898.

³ Cf. Wernz, n. 110, note 46; contra Vermeersch, n. 21.

⁴ Cf. Preface of the constitution Officiorum ac munerum.

700. What matter is grave. a. As regards the publication of a book, he ordinarily commits grave sin who publishes a book prohibited for this reason, that it is bad and its reading harmful: for he can induce indefinitely many persons into danger of spiritual damage. But if the book is prohibited for this reason, that it lacks due approval, grave sin can more easily be absent.

b. As regards reading, he commits grave sin who reads a notable part of a prohibited book; but in a book (or part of a book) truly dangerous either because of the matter which it treats or because of the mode of treating it, three or four pages constitute a notable part; but in a book, or rather in a part of a book, which it is established is not gravely dangerous, about thirty pages (if the book is of small format, sixty) constitute a notable part.

The opinion of the ancients concerning this matter was almost this: that a few lines suffice for grave matter if an error against faith is contained there, and that a few pages constitute grave matter if indifferent matter is treated in them.¹ Grave matter is to be determined from this principle: matter which of itself or ordinarily induces grave danger for the reader is grave, although accidentally in a particular case it brings greater or lesser danger; from which principle, considering the circumstances of our time and the reason of the recent constitution, the norm set forth above seems to follow.

c. As regards retention, he commits grave sin who retains a prohibited book beyond a month. Yet if someone retains a prohibited book from a reasonable cause, for example until the license arrives or until he has found an opportunity of handing the book over to someone having the faculty, he is not to be condemned of sin, although he retains it longer, but not notably beyond a month: for within this time the license sought or the occasion awaited can easily be present.

¹ Cf. Lugo, De fide, disp. 21, n. 85; St. Alphonsus, l. 7, n. 284, 292.

701. What is understood by the name of book. By the name of book is understood a writing which consists of some bulk and unity of object and is printed in type. What is signified by the name of book must be taken from the manner of speaking received today; but today a writing is not called a book unless it is distinguished by these marks.

a. Some bulk. What bulk is required that a writing can be called a book must be drawn from common use; yet so that some norm may be had, it can be said that a writing composed in the form of a book or an entire treatise and consisting of ten complete sheets, that is, 160 pages, is signified by the name of book.

a. This opinion, by which by the name of book only a writing consisting of some bulk is signified, is confirmed besides by a twofold argument. For from the declaration of the Church, those who read newspapers defending heresy do not incur the excommunication inflicted on those reading prohibited books.¹ Then this constitution itself distinguishes between books and writings of lesser bulk, since it expressly names journals, papers, fascicles, etc., wherever it intends also to comprehend these by its decrees.

b. Wherefore by the name of book are not comprehended newspapers, flying sheets, letters, speeches, small fascicles, nor sheets separated from a prohibited book.

b. Unity of object; wherefore small fascicles of diverse object bound into one volume are not books, nor are newspapers or journals collected into one volume; but the unity of object which is required for constituting a book is not lacking in periodical publications which are destined to compose one volume. Wherefore both individual fascicles of a periodical publication (provided they consist of the required bulk) and a volume composed of several fascicles of this kind constitute a book.²

Therefore by the name of book are not comprehended anthologies or chrestomathies which contain parts taken from prohibited works, and therefore they are not prohibited unless either from the whole character of the collection they are opposed to faith or good morals, or the prohibited parts are so great that either individually or all together (to which the purpose of the collection seems to give sufficient unity) they grow to the quantity of a book.

c. Printed in type. In antiquity indeed, namely before the art of typography was invented, a manuscript work was called a book; but today in common use books are distinguished from manuscripts. Moreover because manuscripts are spread with more difficulty and less danger of perversion threatens from them, it is at least probable that manuscripts are not comprehended by the name of book.

Therefore those decrees in which there is discussion of books alone are not to be extended to booklets and writings of such slight bulk that they are not judged books, nor to manuscripts or to writings printed lithographically.

¹ Holy Office, Apr. 27, 1880.

² The Holy Office, Jan. 13, 1892, declared that the censure imposed on those reading books of heretics is incurred by those "who knowingly read periodical publications bound into fascicles."

702. By the term "to prohibit," in ecclesiastical use three actions are directly forbidden: to publish, to read, and to retain a book.¹

a. They are said to publish a book who see to it that a book is made public, and therefore stand forth as the primary and principal cause of its publication: namely, the author who wrote the work, if however he handed it over for this end, that it be published; the printer, who undertakes the work to be printed; and the publisher, who sees to the circulation of the printed work.

Not rarely the printer is distinct from the publisher; in which case the printer belongs to those who cooperate proximately with the publisher, and this for the most part formally, although he can also cooperate only materially.

b. They are said to read a book who, scanning the book with their own eyes, themselves understand the things written.

Therefore they are not said to read who hear another reading, nor those who recite something from a book by memory, nor those who, scanning the book with their own eyes, do not understand the things which they read because of ignorance of the language. He who hears another reading, whom he himself induced to read by prayers or command, truly reads morally, namely through another. Nevertheless according to the probable opinion of St. Alphonsus (n. 292), he is not numbered among readers, because the law must be restricted to those reading physically.

c. They are said to retain a book who keep a book, whether their own or another's, with themselves, or, ownership being retained, deposit it with another, unless the latter has the faculty of reading and retaining prohibited books and keeps the book until the one handing it over obtains the faculty of reading.

a. It is not lawful even for him to retain a book who does not understand it because of ignorance of the language.

b. The keeper of a library is not said to retain books, because he does not preserve them in his own house, nor in his own room, nor in his own name.

c. A bookbinder who binds prohibited books must be said to retain them; yet if he binds them for one having the faculty of reading, he is excused by epikeia; if he binds them for one not having the faculty of reading, one must investigate whether he has a proportionately grave excusing reason.

d. He who has a prohibited book must either destroy it, or hand it over to one having the faculty of retaining, or obtain for himself the faculty of retaining it.

¹ Cf. D'Annibale, Summula Theologiae moralis, 5th ed. (Rome: Desclee, 1908), III, n. 143.

703. On a prohibited book. a. The whole book is prohibited, not only the part which contains the error or brings danger to the reader; yet if this part is removed in any way whatever so that it cannot be read, the prohibition ceases.¹

Therefore not even the harmless parts of a prohibited book can licitly be read, even if someone proposes to omit the part which had given occasion to the prohibition, because, considering the character of men, the danger threatens that those who have once begun to read another part may also read the prohibited part. Hence it also happens that when the part which had given occasion to the prohibition has been removed, the prohibition of the book ceases, because every danger of reading the harmful part ceases.

b. If a prohibited work consists of several tomes, all are prohibited if they treat of the same argument and one indivisible; only the tome which contains the error or dangerous part is prohibited if the diverse tomes treat of a diverse argument, or indeed of the same but divisible argument, as universal history is, for example, because in this case the diverse tomes are judged to be several diverse books.²

c. A new edition of that book is also prohibited, however much amended it may be, unless permission to publish has been obtained from the Sacred Congregation of the Index (n. 31), as also its translation, into whatever language it may be turned (n. 45).

A compendium of a prohibited work is not a new edition of the same work, but must be considered as a new work distinct from the former.

d. If all the works of some author are prohibited, a. those works which treat of religion are judged prohibited; but of those which do not treat of religion, only those which are forbidden either by a special or by a general decree; b. works of the same author published afterwards are indeed not prohibited, but are to be presumed prohibited by a general decree; for which reason they cannot be read licitly unless it is established that they are prohibited by no decree; c. the prohibition seems to be understood of books alone, not likewise of writings of lesser bulk, unless by reason of matter these also are prohibited by a general decree.

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 283.

² Lugo, De fide, disp. 20, sect. 2, n. 9.

704. On the author and mode of prohibition. 1. Books are prohibited by the Holy See for the universal Church:

a. through apostolic letters; b. through the Sacred Congregation of the Index, from which most prohibitions proceed; c. through the Holy Office, which, as the supreme tribunal of faith and morals, sometimes exercises the office of prohibiting books.

2. Books are prohibited by ordinaries for their own diocese and by regular prelates for their own subjects.

a. Ordinaries are warned that they themselves should proscribe harmful writings published in their own diocese (even if by exempt persons) or spread there (even if published elsewhere), but that those which require a more subtle examination they should refer to the Holy See (n. 21, 29).

b. Prohibitions of bishops do not affect exempt regulars, whether bishops act by ordinary power or as delegates of the Holy See.¹

3. Considered as to mode, books are prohibited either by general decrees (kinds of books) or by special decrees (individual books). All books prohibited by name are inserted into the Index of Prohibited Books with the express name of the author, if he is known, and the title of the book.

The Index of Prohibited Books, which the supreme pontiff in this very constitution commands to be reviewed most diligently and, after review, published (Preface), appeared at Rome from the Vatican Press; and Leo XIII, through the brief Romani pontifices (Sept. 27, 1900), commanded it to be published and to be observed by all everywhere.

¹ Vermeersch, n. 6 ter.

705. On the faculty of reading and retaining. Because the law or prohibition is universal, the necessity of obtaining license to read a prohibited book is also wholly universal, so that neither hierarchical degree (the cardinalate) nor the singular learning of the reader exempts from this law. Nevertheless necessity or great utility of reading a prohibited book excuses from observance of the law, at least where an occasion of seeking license is not available.

1. Who can give it.

a. A general faculty of reading and retaining books prohibited by the Holy See can be given (n. 24):

a. by the Sacred Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office for the whole world; b. by the Master of the Sacred Palace for the City only.

b. A special faculty, that is, "for individual books and in urgent cases only," can be granted (n. 25):

a. by bishops and their vicars general;

b. by prelates possessing quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. Of this kind are nuncios, apostolic vicars, capitular vicars, and superiors of regulars: abbots general, provincials, and probably also local superiors (guardians, priors, unless they are subject to an abbot, rectors).

Since this power is quasi-ordinary, namely one which belongs by law to bishops and prelates having quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, they can also delegate it to others.¹

c. The faculty of reading and retaining books prohibited by ordinaries is given:

a. by the ordinaries themselves; b. by those to whom the ordinaries have given delegated power for this.

2. How it is to be interpreted.

a. Those who have the faculty of reading and retaining books prohibited by the Holy See do not by that fact also have the faculty of reading and retaining books and newspapers proscribed by ordinaries, "unless in the apostolic indult power has expressly been given of reading and retaining books condemned by anyone whatsoever" (n. 26).

b. He who has the faculty of reading prohibited books by that very fact can also read journals, papers, and periodical booklets (newspapers) which are prohibited by this constitution (n. 21): for the lesser is contained in the greater, but not conversely.

c. He who received this faculty from the Holy See can use it everywhere; the same must likewise be said of a faculty received from the ordinary: for since this dispensation is a personal privilege, the contrary opinion of some lacks foundation.

Question Second. On the Publication of Books

In this place are gathered the decrees which refer to printers and booksellers.

¹ Besides this faculty, bishops (and superiors of regulars) have another specially delegated to them by the Holy See, which nevertheless is bounded by several limits: for ordinarily they can grant only to priests (the bishops of Germany also to laymen) a general license of reading and retaining prohibited books, "excepting, however, works treating expressly of obscene things and against religion." But the faculty granted by force of this constitution suffers no exceptions, since, when a just cause exists, they can permit any book to any one of their subjects. By the clause treating expressly against religion are prohibited books which act against the whole of religion, both revealed and natural. Therefore books which attack revealed religion but leave natural religion intact are not excepted by this clause. Cf. Konings-Putzer, Commentarium in facultates apost., 3rd ed. (New York: Benziger, 1898), n. 157.

706. To printers it is prescribed: a. That they not dare to publish again a book proscribed by the Apostolic See unless license has first been obtained from the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and the conditions prescribed by it have been observed, if indeed from a grave cause such a book seems to be published again (n. 31).

There are some who not without merit judge that here there is discussion only of books prohibited by special decrees and listed in the Index.

b. That they not publish any writing which needs ecclesiastical approval without approval.

c. That no book which needs ecclesiastical approval be printed unless it bears before it the name and surname both of the author and of the publisher, the place and year of printing and publication, unless the ordinary, for just causes, has given license to conceal the author's name (n. 43).

a. Therefore books which do not need ecclesiastical censure can be published without the name of the author, without the place and year of printing and publication. And since the decree speaks only of books, writings which do not reach the bulk of a book, and even periodical publications, as it seems, can be published without the author's name.

b. If there is question of publishing a translation, this precept seems to be satisfied whether the name of the author or of the translator is placed before the work.

c. The ordinary who can grant license either of suppressing the author's name or of publishing a book under an assumed name is the ordinary who grants the book's approval.

d. That they not undertake to print a new edition of an approved work or a translation into another language without new approval (n. 44).

An article excerpted from a periodical publication is not judged a new edition, and therefore does not need new approval;¹ but a book composed from several articles and published is judged a new edition and therefore needs new approval.

e. That a book not be published without the approval of the ordinary of such place, and, if there is question of regulars, without the approval of the superiors of the order and of the ordinary of such place (n. 36), to be printed at the beginning or at the end of the work (n. 40).

Authors do not agree whether the approval obtained must be printed in authentic form in the very words in which it was granted, or whether it suffices to indicate it only in general words. Gennari, Hollweck, Schneider hold the former opinion; Pennachi, Vermeersch, Genicot, Dilgskron, Gopfert adhere to the latter, because the words of the constitution do not expressly require that, because this is sufficient for obtaining the end of the law, and because usage interprets the law in this way.

¹ Sacred Congregation of the Index, May 23, 1898.

707. To booksellers it is prescribed: a. That they not sell, lend, or retain books treating expressly of obscene things (n. 46).

Yet books which can licitly be read and retained are also licitly sold; wherefore classical books treating expressly of shameful things can be sold to those to whom the reading of them is granted (n. 10).

b. That they not have other prohibited books for sale unless they have obtained license from the Sacred Congregation of the Index through the ordinary (n. 46).

c. That they not sell a prohibited book to anyone unless they can prudently judge that it is legitimately sought by the buyer (n. 46).

In order that prohibited books can be licitly sold, it is not necessary that the bookseller question each buyer seeking a prohibited book concerning his license to read it; but it suffices that, taking account of the book and the buyer, it does not appear with moral certitude that he lacks license to read it. Under the same conditions the bookseller can also procure for one seeking it a book which he does not have for sale.

Note. 1. The sale of a bad book of whatever kind (whether it happens in a shop, in the streets, or by auction) is prohibited by these things not only by the law of nature but also by positive law. Yet license can be obtained of retaining prohibited books and selling them in any manner, except books treating expressly of obscene things.

2. Those selling writings or periodical papers prohibited by ecclesiastical law cooperate by their own action toward evil. Now this action is wholly illicit if the book or paper is altogether bad, as pornographic or plainly impious writings are; but the remaining prohibited writings or papers can be sold from a proportionately grave cause. Sellers of this kind must be warned, however, that they also have good newspapers for sale and offer them to buyers.