Section — Vermeersch, On Forbidden Books
II. Applications or Particular Cases
Which books prior to the Constitution are proscribed by the General Decrees
28. 1. On books published before the present law. The matter of a law of itself is not a past act.1 Therefore sanctions which prohibit books of a certain kind because some solemnity, for example of seeking approval, prescribed to be observed by the publisher, has been omitted, affect only books which are published after this Constitution has been promulgated.2 Certainly the new precaution will perhaps have been most prudently prescribed. But even dangerous subjects, of sacred instruction for example, could have been treated in a most useful way, and this in books which lack positive approval. Therefore danger is not a sufficient reason for extending the prohibition to past things, unless the Legislator has expressly declared this.3 What of the fact that the Legislator himself seems to join the prohibition of such books with the precept given to the publisher, as in article 20, or to employ words which look to future times, as in article 13: if they are published. Moreover, the precept could not have been violated before it was enacted; and if the Legislator had wished to proscribe books previously published, he could have said: if they are published or have been published.
Nevertheless, except the case in which books were already forbidden by a similar prohibition of the superior law now in force. I say, a prohibition now in force; for several sanctions had been greatly tempered by usage.
But a prohibition which does not follow upon a neglected solemnity, but rests upon an intrinsic reason, also affects books prior to this Constitution. For here there is no precept imposed upon the author, ignorance of which can be alleged. Nor, in proscribing a book, is the writer's mind or intention considered; but the book itself, as it lies there, is pronounced harmful and prohibited.4 Moreover, each one publishes a work at his own risk, and he cannot prevent the Church from consulting the safety of the faithful by its Decrees, whether general or special. Besides, special decrees are always and necessarily later than at least the first edition, so that of themselves they regard a past act of publishing.
For this reason, a book which defends propositions afterwards proscribed as heretical is to be assimilated to a book which defends heresies already proscribed.
1 Suarez, De Legibus, book 3, chapter 4.
2 So also Hollweck, Das kirchliche Bücherverbot, pp. 16, 17; Monitore Ecclesiastico, X, 2, p. 116; Ciolli, op. cit., n. 36.
3 Against Wernz, n. 110, V.
4 Therefore no mark is of itself imposed upon the writer, nor does justice require that he be able to set forth his reasons. Nevertheless, if the matter concerns a Catholic man who is distinguished by some reputation, and the work seems to be such that "with the things needing removal removed, it is recognized that it can come forth into public," Benedict XIV provided for his fair defense. For unless the writer himself is permitted to defend his own cause personally, a defender is appointed for him ex officio by the Sacred Congregation. Constitution Sollicita ac provida.
A prohibited book is prohibited as a whole. Separated parts
29. 2. Objective extension of a special prohibition. a) A book which is prohibited is prohibited as a whole, and not only the part which gave occasion to the proscription. Nevertheless, when this part has been separated (if it is established what part it is), by cutting it out, sealing it up, or obliterating it, the prohibition probably ceases.1
On a work which consists of several volumes, or a periodical booklet of several fascicles
b) When the first volume or earlier volumes of some work have been condemned, if others are afterwards printed, these are not strictly marked by that special decree, to which they are later, but they are to be held as suspect unless the author has proved that he has corrected himself. Cf. above, n. 17, e, where we learned both these things from the Preface of the Index itself.
The same is to be said of fascicles of a periodical booklet which are later than its proscription.
But if the work, when it is condemned, has already grown into several volumes, and it is established that the cause of the prohibition is found in one only, Sanchez2 denies that the others are prohibited, because they seem to be several books. Suarez does not admit that unless they are of diverse subject matter.3 Commonly they hold the doctrine of Lugo,4 who resolves the question from this point: whether or not the subject matter admits division. Thus, for example, in a universal history, a volume narrating ancient history is so distinguished from a volume destined for the description of the Middle Ages that they are, as it were, several works.
Yet in either case, if you remove the volume in which the error is contained, you separate the part which gave occasion to the proscription; and therefore, unless you wish to deny the opinion just recited here under a), the prohibition of the remaining volumes probably ceases.
New editions and versions
c) The proscription affects all editions and versions of the work which have been made before the decree, unless it is expressly provided otherwise in the Index. (Cf. the Preface of the Index.)
d) A new edition of the same book, even corrected, in whatever language it is made, is prohibited unless faculty has been granted by the Sacred Congregation of the Index (art. 31). This holds even if you refute the errors by notes, or if it was proscribed not absolutely, but with the added mention "until it is corrected."
Nevertheless, except books of authors whom they call classics, and which expressly treat or teach lascivious matters. For these, when well expurgated, are permitted to be handed over to children (art. 10).
Properly speaking, however, this is not an exception. For the books which article 31 forbids to be published again because they have been proscribed by the Holy See seem to be only those which are prohibited by a special decree of the Index, not by a general rule. So Cardinal Gennari and Palmieri on this article.
1 St. Alphonsus, book 7, n. 283; D'Annibale, III, 141; B. P., op. cit., n. 14. The response of the Holy Office, July 26, 1848 (Collectanea Prop. Fidei, n. 1883), is by no means an obstacle, contrary to what Piat asserts, Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 30, p. 58. For the matter there concerns translations of the New Testament which were already proscribed for this reason, that they had been made by non-Catholics. This defect is not removed by taking away the errors.
2 In Decalogum, book II, chapter 10, n. 36.
3 De Fide, disp. 20, sect. 2, n. 9.
4 De Fide, disp. 21, n. 62.
What of compendia
30. e) Nevertheless, you do not publish a work anew by the fact that you have written a compendium of the work which is sufficiently distinct from the earlier work.
This, therefore, is to be judged in itself. One must indeed see whether perhaps it is touched by some general decree.
On the historical account of systems
Hence it appears what must be thought concerning those books which historically report the system and opinions of some heretical or unbelieving writer.
If these are so proposed, with arguments added and no response made, that they seem to defend heresies or errors, they will fall under the law by which books that defend such things are prohibited; if they were composed by a heretic and expressly treat religion, they will easily be touched by article 3, and so forth. You will estimate the doctrine of those books in itself.
What of literary miscellanies which excerpt places from prohibited books
31. f) What of literary miscellanies, "chrestomathies," which report passages from condemned works? They can be considered either as some new book, composed from various works of others, or formally as reporting passages of other works.
Under the first heading, their own proper character is to be weighed, and the General Decrees are to be applied to them as to any other work. For they can expressly oppose faith, morals, etc. But under the other heading, if they seem morally to exhibit some same proscribed work, they will share its proscription. But if, as generally happens, the condemned books contain few pages in number, the miscellanies themselves are not already prohibited on that account. The solution is confirmed by practice itself.
On a periodical booklet which reports a condemned work
32. g) But what if a certain book or work, proscribed by name, is previously or afterwards reported in a periodical booklet, which in its general character is good, or treats matters which do not concern religion?
Certainly it is not lawful to disseminate again, by periodical publication, a work already reproved, which would be entirely unworthy of a Catholic man. This is not in doubt.
But it has already happened that a work was condemned which had been taken up in good faith in a periodical booklet; and the question arises concerning those who read and retain the collection of the periodical booklet.
Must we hold as proscribed the volume in which that work is found? In the rigor of law, you would perhaps answer thus.
Yet no one fails to see that a special inconvenience underlies this, namely that on account of this insertion you can no longer possess some whole good and useful collection.1
Again, as appears from the Constitution Officiorum itself, periodical booklets are to be judged from their successive course rather than from individual articles. Nor would you call a periodical permitted which, being habitually evil, happens to contain one or a few good treatments.
Therefore, because of this reason, and because a work in a periodical booklet seems to lose the figure of a book, we judge that a benign response can be given: those who preserve that volume in their collection are not to be troubled. Yet they will have to abstain from reading the proscribed work, unless they are equipped with a positive faculty.
And on newspapers in a similar case
You would say the same of newspapers which by chance have published a similar work in parts (en feuilletons, in serial installments). Here, however, the reason drawn from loss is usually of less benefit.
1 They know that a collection is made of much less value because even one volume is lacking.