II. On Less Perfect Prohibition

Prohibition of publishing

52. The prohibition of publishing a book without previous approval does not of itself prohibit the reading or retention of a book published without the prescribed censorship. For neither do the words sound more broadly; nor, when he intends a more severe sanction, is the Legislator accustomed to suppress it in silence.¹ Cf., for example, articles 13, 18, 20. So also Pennacchi,² Gennari,³ etc., against Péries.⁴

¹ Nor is it sufficient, contrary to the opinion of Hollweck - who, p. 36, 37, note 3, and p. 50, 51, note 3, introduces this distinction - that the necessity of previous censorship for certain books is expressed in the chapter contained under the title On the Prohibition of Books. This, I say, is not sufficient. For the insertion is sufficiently explained by the connection of the matter, just as under the same title certain articles, for example article 4, positively permit certain kinds of books. But in the contrary opinion no reason can be given why in certain articles the sanction of the prohibition of a book is appended to the requested censorship, while in others there is complete silence about that sanction. Therefore let us hold this: a prohibition which the Legislator has not expressed is not to be introduced. As Wernz elegantly observes, n. 53, a rubric denotes the principal matter, but not the exclusive one.

² Acta Sanctae Sedis, loc. cit., n. 54, p. 311.

³ Monitore, loc. cit., p. 66 and note 1.

⁴ P. 114.