Section — Vermeersch, On Forbidden Books
I. On Books or Writings Which Report New Supernatural Facts
Economy of the law
78. 1. Books or writings of this subject matter can in themselves have great merit; but lest the credulity of simple persons be deceived, or an occasion be given of deriding and contemning the Church, the Holy See prohibits supernatural facts1 from being incautiously published. Wherefore it simply condemns those relations, if, destitute of due approval, they are scattered among the people. Now let us declare the chief words of the article.
Which works are touched
2. Books or writings: therefore works of every size or form are included by this law, even, as it seems,2 if manuscripts, provided they are made public.
Example of publication by manuscript
Thus, for example, that manner concerning devotions is sometimes employed, if individuals who have received a copy are ordered to write it out five times and to hand it over to five persons, who are held by the same law of writing and handing over, and so on to infinity.
When they are judged to narrate. What of newspapers?
3. Which narrate: not incidentally, but so that a narration of this sort pertains to the subjects of the works. Cf. above, n. 74, 4.
For this reason we think that Catholic but profane newspapers can, as they have done up to now, report marvelous facts, healings, which for example may have happened in a Lourdes pilgrimage: especially if they pronounce nothing about the supernatural character of these things. Besides, this other reason also favors them: that a usage sufficiently obtains in our parts, by force of which, on account of the difficulty of "execution," as they say, articles which in themselves must be reviewed by ecclesiastical authority are dispensed from censure.3 Without a compelling reason, what we see commonly frequented is not to be reprobated.4
What are new apparitions, etc.?
4. New apparitions, revelations, etc.: therefore not those which are already everywhere praised in the Church. Thus, for example, the revelations of the Most Sacred Heart made to Blessed Margaret Mary, the Lourdes apparitions. Yet books of this sort will be subject to previous censure from article 41.
Therefore, from the end of the article, for new apparitions we seem to have to take not only those which have recently happened, but those which are new to readers, to hearers, insofar as they have not yet been received in the Church by formal decree or by usage. Wernz5 says, "not yet approved and published."
What is to publish?
5. If they are published. To publish is not only to communicate something with certain selected persons, even if they are sufficiently numerous, but to make it public,6 "to expose it for sale, or to scatter it among the people in whatever manner." Pennacchi.7
Which superiors give legitimate license?
6. Without the legitimate license of the Superiors of the Church. Who are these? Regularly, Bishops. If they look to causes of beatifications, etc., the license must be obtained from the Congregation of Sacred Rites. We preserve that disposition of prior law intact.8
1 Not rarely the very word miracle is used, by a certain broader usage, to designate a grace "which from some circumstance of time, place, or person bears before itself the appearance of a miracle." Benedict XIV, De Beatif. et Canoniz., book 4, part 1, chapter 1, n. 13. Yet in the same place he teaches that this grace is distinguished from a miracle. For although, some saint having been invoked, you have recovered sooner, for example, than you hoped, nevertheless you do not affirm formally that it is a miracle, unless you have denied that that effect can be attributed to any natural power, such as that of the remedies which you used.
2 Hollweck, Das Kirchl. Bücherverb., p. 35; Wernz, n. 111, note 67 (not very perspicuously on account of the added conditions); but against Génicot, Theol. mor., I, 454.
3 Göpfert, p. 321 d.
4 It is confirmed by Génicot, cited work, I, 453, 3; Hollweck, cited work, p. 44, note 3; Pennacchi, cited work, n. 51.
5 Cited place, n. 111, note 67.
6 Constitution, article 35.
7 Cited work, n. 38.
8 N. 47, cited place. And he cites the Constitution Supernae Maiestatis of Leo X, § 7.
The prior law having been proposed, it is asked whether it still has force or not
79. You will ask, what of the other prior law, or of the protestations prescribed by Urban VIII?
The juridic provision of the prior law regarded only those marvelous facts which were imputed to servants of God not yet beatified. Books of this sort were forbidden to be published unless approved and furnished with a double protestation.
Moreover, the same Pontiff Urban VIII, on June 5, 1631, had decreed that one who, in describing the life of a servant of God, called him Saint or Blessed, should append to the book the protestation "that in these things there is no authority from the Roman Church, but the faith is only with the author."1
Even now it happens that certain writers, led by a pious mind, wish to observe the decrees of Urban VIII; but when they do not know what precisely must be declared, they sometimes merely testify "that they understand matters as Urban VIII wishes."
But, from the general rule proposed above, n. 19, it is clearly perceived that protestations of this sort are now required by no law. There were, in the beginning, some who did not recognize this matter as sufficiently plain,2 but the opinion has now become common,3 and it is supported by a certain argument.
1 Cf. Benedict XIV, De Beatif. et Canon., book 3, chapter 12, nn. 2-4.
2 See in Nouv. Rev. Théol., t. 30, p. 109; Planchard, Revue Théol. Franc., cited place, n. 47; Pennacchi, Acta S. Sedis, cited place, n. 51, p. 223.
3 Génicot, cited work, I, 454, 3; Hollweck, Das Kirchl. Bücherverbot, pp. 33, 44, 52, 55; Ciolli, cited work, n. 35.