Section — Vermeersch, On Forbidden Books
I. On the Former Part
Who Ordinaries are
102. 1. Ordinaries here are those who rule a diocese or quasi-diocese by ordinary jurisdiction, or jurisdiction equated to ordinary. Diocesan Bishops, therefore, Apostolic Vicars in places of missions, Abbots Nullius, Capitular Vicars. But not Vicars General, unless from a special mandate, without which they cannot make laws. Regular superiors will provide for their subjects by more private and personal care.
Also as delegates. They are presumed to use delegated power
2. Also as delegates. And unless they say otherwise, they are presumed to use delegated power, because it is honorable and useful to them.
The force of the clause itself was declared before.1 Here its effects will immediately appear.
What works they can prohibit
3. Books and other writings, of whatever author they are, even an exempt one, in whatever place they have been published, indeed even approved. Therefore even if they have come forth at Rome with the permission of the Master of the Sacred Palace or of the Sacred Congregation of the Index.2
Yet it is sufficiently clear that a book approved by another Bishop, and much more by a Sacred Congregation, cannot prudently be prohibited without gravest reasons. Cf. Albitius,3 Arndt.4
What, if already prohibited by the Holy See?
You will ask whether a book proscribed by the Holy See can again be prohibited by the Bishop himself, or whether he ought to abstain from that cause.
There does not seem to be place for delegated power. Why would a delegate repeat what the Holy See did by itself? Concerning ordinary power a question could be moved similar to that which concerns reserved cases. For it is asked whether the Bishop can reserve to himself cases reserved by the Apostolic See. Several deny this,5 because the inferior must abstain from a cause which the Superior has made his own. And in the present case the force of the episcopal sentence would be this: that a pontifical faculty, such as is customarily conceded, would no longer be sufficient for permitting the reading of a book also prohibited by the Bishop.
Recent example
However that matter stands, the Cardinal Vicar of the City recently proscribed in this manner a certain work already placed in the Index on December 6, 1905. Yet he expressly declared that he was using his ordinary power and was directing the precept to persons subject to his jurisdiction.6
It seems sufficiently established to us that Regulars are not affected by a decree issued by this reason.
Harmful writings
4. Harmful. That is, those which certainly oppose faith, morals, or ecclesiastical discipline, or create certain danger. Where the crime is not manifest, or there can be doubt about the opportuneness of the condemnation itself, let the work rather be referred to the Holy See.
What if matters are controverted
Yet because by their authority they cannot settle controversies which the Church tolerates, therefore it is not lawful for Bishops to proscribe a book because it contains doctrine disapproved by them indeed, but which has neither been condemned, nor comes near to condemned doctrine, nor is thought scandalous.
But if the writer has used that injurious manner of writing, or one contrary to Christian charity, which Benedict XIV orders to be restrained, they can certainly mark the book on account of this cause. To use other words, they must observe the rules which were proposed to the Sacred Congregation of the Index.
If they are treated inopportunely?
But what if they judge a controversy, for example concerning probabilism, inopportune and pernicious in their diocese?
On account of inconvenience of this sort, a book does not seem able to be proscribed. But the Bishop can use his authority lest those subject to him handle these matters. And in an urgent case of warding off a grave evil, he can, from a certain presumed faculty of the Holy See, prohibit that book or controversy.7
What if a book is scarcely read in some diocese?
5. Published or diffused in their Diocese. Concerning works which are scarcely read in their diocese, there is no reason why Bishops should care. But the reason of proscription will already be present if they are made more certain that it will soon happen that the book is spread in their diocese. It is better and more efficacious to cut off the evil in the first root than to resist it after it has broken out. The Cardinal Vicar of the City went before by example, recently condemning a work which they were planning to spread in the City.
Proscription is not always efficacious, nor is it used everywhere
6. They should strive to proscribe and take from the hands of the faithful. Toward the end indicated by the final words, often another way besides simple proscription must be contended by, for example, pastoral exhortation, dealings with booksellers.
But not a few Bishops abstain from proscription as insufficiently efficacious. Certainly there are very many dioceses in which there is no episcopal edict touching certain books in species.
Books ought not to be handed over to the Ordinary; but destroyed or given to one having the faculty. Whether they can be restored to the owner?
7. By the Constitution Officiorum, there is no longer prescribed a handing over to the Ordinary, which even before was urged little. Arndt, pp. 238, 239.
Therefore prohibited books in themselves are to be destroyed or given to one having the faculty; nor can they in themselves be restored to an owner not having the faculty. Yet you will be excused by notable inconvenience: for example, of quarrels, blasphemies, etc., and also (a special reason being excluded) of grave sadness of a friend, of fear lest friendship be dissolved. Ballerini, on Gury, I, 241; Arndt, cited place; Berardi, De occasionariis, II, p. 248.
1 Cf. n. 64, p. 54. And this is well declared here by Ciolli, n. 67, although in n. 61 he defended an opinion contrary to ours concerning the exemption of Regulars.
2 Cf. Albitius, De inconstantia in fide, chapter 30, n. 166 and following.
3 Albitius, cited place.
4 Arndt, pp. 213, 214.
5 Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, t. 5, p. 427 and following, ed. 2, where they hold this as most certain, and add that episcopal reservation of a case also ceases by the fact that afterwards the Pope reserved the same to himself.
6 That decree has these things: "Since it is established to Us concerning the plan of publishing soon in this City of Rome the book whose title is La question biblique au XXe siècle, by Albert Houtin, Paris, Librairie E. Nourry, 14, Rue N. D. de Lorette, 1906: Having heard the opinion of certain learned men, by Our ordinary authority we proscribe the aforesaid book and declare it proscribed. And so let it be lawful for no one, of whatever grade and condition, subject to Our jurisdiction, to sell or read or retain the proscribed book under mortal guilt. Given at Rome, May 14, 1906. Peter Respighi, Cardinal Vicar. Francis Canon Faberi, Secretary."
7 This general right seems to belong to the Bishop of promptly meeting a certain and grave evil. Cf., for example, response of November 15, 1905, where, on account of special circumstances, an act contrary to the privilege of Regulars was approved. Cf. Periodica nostra, t. 2, n. 101, p. 57.