Article 23

Books proscribed either by special Decrees or by these General Decrees, only those will be able to read and retain who have obtained opportune faculties from the Apostolic See, or from those to whom it has delegated its functions.

Universal necessity of having a faculty

95. 1. Since the article permits only those to read or retain proscribed books who have obtained a legitimate faculty, it makes the same faculty universally necessary.

From this necessity no grade is excepted: since Cardinals themselves obtain the faculty for themselves; nor doctrine or science, as P. Hilgers proves broadly.¹ To declare immune as many as, for example, excel in all sciences or in some, would be a matter full of danger and confusion, and alien from ecclesiastical tradition, while the obedience of the more learned is especially salutary to themselves and to others.

Nor should you argue from the moral security which those doctors enjoy. Even if we have conceded this, this remains: that the law is not taken away because its reason has ceased negatively in only a particular case.

Nor should you bring forward inconvenience. For as long as there is an opportunity of seeking permission, an inconvenience by which you would be excused from the law cannot be alleged.

Moral necessity excuses from the law in a particular case

2. Yet actual exceptions from the law, if at any time, from an assumed office, a moral necessity presses you to read some condemned work, seem able to be admitted even without any faculty having been sought, provided, as is clear, proximate danger of sin is avoided.² In this necessity there can be: a judge, an advocate in a forensic controversy; a person to whom specially, from article 27, it belongs to make denunciation, for denouncing a certain book; an ecclesiastical superior, for examining and reprobating this book; a writer of a Catholic newspaper, for responding promptly; a youth who, for hearing lectures which he lawfully attends, or for making an examination in a philosophical matter or in letters, is compelled to use uncorrected texts; and, according to Hollweck,³ probably also a professor of moral theology, insofar as it is necessary that he know in some manner obscene books, for which a faculty is not conceded. For in these cases the license of reading is contained in the faculty itself of exercising such an office; or the end of the law can be said to cease contrarily and there is place for epikeia. For it ceases contrarily, as Lugo explains diffusely,⁴ when the common good itself demands that the bond of the law be removed in a particular case. Moreover it is for the republic that pious and Catholic men not be prohibited from exercising offices and duties. Cf. Hollweck, Génicot.⁵

What of grave utility?

The end of the law also ceases contrarily if grave utility has demanded that you do something prohibited in itself, and there is no opportunity of approaching the superior for license. They give the case of a disputation with a heretic, if, in order to convert him, it is necessary for you to show contradiction in a heretical author, and you have hope of fruit. Laymann, cited place, tract 1, chapter 15, n. 5.

But the reason of attacking heretics in general does not suffice, since the opportunity of asking license is at hand, and the common good requires that you not dispense yourself by your own private judgment. Cf. Lugo, cited place, n. 66; Arndt, pp. 259, 260, n. 185.

¹ Der Index, pp. 47-59.

² Yet they will do better, if it can be done, to obtain license; indeed Pennacchi, n. 61, seems to require this.

³ Cited work, pp. 32, 33, note 1.

⁴ De Fide, distinction 21, nn. 63-66.

⁵ Hollweck, cited work, pp. 32, 33, note 1; Génicot, cited work, I, 452, 4.