Books of Apostates, Heretics and Schismatics

1. Antoninus, a bishop, hearing that heretical books are being spread in his diocese, without delay orders them to be brought to himself, so that he may read them, examine them, and, insofar as there is need, proscribe them. Can Antoninus read the aforesaid books of heretics in the Case?

R. Affirmatively. For bishops, according to necessity or time, can well read the books of heretics, C. 1, Dist. 37. And the contrary opinion of certain persons was seen in the Holy Office as too rigorous, Albitius, de Inconst. in fide, c. 30, n. 204. Namely, bishops are the born judges of the faith, and to their office it belongs to defend the faith, and therefore to ward off from the sheep committed to them the harmful pastures of faith. Whence it is of their office to prohibit the reading of depraved books, and also, if it is necessary, to denounce them to the Holy See. Leo XIII, C. Officiorum; I. M. 1301. Now how could they ever execute such an office unless they read the aforesaid books? Commentar. in C. Apostolicae Sedis n. 13, ed. 5; D'Annib., Comment. in C. Apost. Sed., ed. 4, n. 41.

2. Alphonsus, owner of a typographical workshop, and Alfredus, corrector in the same workshop, in which books of heretics have until now been printed, doubt whether they have incurred excommunication, and their confessor himself also doubts.

It is asked: Whether Alphonsus and Alfredus have incurred, in the Case, excommunication reserved in a special mode to the Supreme Pontiff, art. 2 of the first series of C. Apost. Sed.?

R. Affirmatively. For first as regards Alphonsus, he cannot indeed be counted among readers, nor among defenders, nor even among printers from the fact that he is owner of the workshop, himself provides the expenses, and by his will and mandate the books are printed. Nevertheless he must be counted among retainers, since he very truly retains them in his own workshop. But Alfredus, because he is corrector, is reckoned among readers. Wherefore both incur the aforesaid excommunication. Comment. in C. Apost. Sed. n. 13.

3. Seius, having lapsed into heresy, wrote several heretical books, which he himself was continually reading and correcting in order to prepare new editions. He was converted to the faith, and his uncertain confessor asks whether, besides the excommunication because of heresy, he also incurred excommunication because of the reading of heretical books.

R. The more common opinion affirms. And by the rigor of law and of the law it must be affirmed, because Seius in reality was retaining and reading books of a heretic championing heresy. Yet D'Annib., Comm. in Const. Apost. Sed., n. 41, note 44, says: "I fear lest this be true; for who, in the proper and common meaning, would say that a heretic reading his own books reads books of heretics?"

4. Guido, an editor of books, gratuitously furnishes the expenses of the edition of a heretical book of Vincentius, his friend. Does he incur excommunication reserved in a special mode to the Supreme Pontiff, art. 2, first series, C. Apost. Sed.?

R. Negatively, as is clear from the preceding case; because he does not read, does not print, does not retain. Nevertheless he incurs excommunication art. 1, as a favorer of heretics. Comm. in C. Apost. Sed. n. 9 seqq.

Subject of the chapter

This chapter is most general, since it observes both the kinds of writers and the subject matters of works.

All books which, before the year 1600, either the Supreme Pontiffs or Ecumenical Councils condemned, and which are not listed in the new Index, are to be held condemned in the same way as they were formerly condemned, excepting those which are permitted by these General Decrees.

Force of the article

65. 1. This article looks to this: that, after the distinct enumeration has now been suppressed, it may in a general way confirm the apostolic decrees or Roman Indexes by which works were condemned before the year 1600, yet excepting works which are permitted by the present General Decrees.

You can scarcely draw so broad a signification from the words of article 1. For those Indexes consist in great part of books proscribed by the Sacred Congregation, which cannot strictly be said to have been condemned by the Supreme Pontiff. But the Preface of the new Index (p. XIII) has manifested to us this mind of the Holy See, by which, therefore, one must stand.

Why the enumeration is omitted

But the reason why a distinct catalogue of those works is not repeated is that either it clearly appears that some General Decree falls upon them, or the works themselves are exceedingly rare and almost destroyed by oblivion (Hilgers, op. cit., pp. 105, 106). Therefore it was permissible, without harm, to relieve the new Index of these titles and names.

What is "in the same way"?

2. In the same way does not signify under the same penalties, since those penalties have been made much milder by the new law, but with the same force and extension of prohibition. It sounds almost the same as: no less than before.

Force of the exception

Certain works of non-Catholics

3. Excepting those which are permitted by these General Decrees. Hence it happens: a) that although before the year 1600 all works of authors, non-Catholic authors, who were placed in the first of the three classes then distinguished, were prohibited,¹ nevertheless now only those are condemned which expressly treat religion² or fall under the prohibition of some other General Decree.

Catholic writers

b) That Catholic authors whose names were undeservedly placed among heretics are no longer to be thought condemned.

These mitigations are brought by articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution Officiorum.

Works condemned by name

c) That even works condemned by name before 1600 are judged permitted, unless they are prohibited by a General Decree of the present Constitution. Father Hilgers³ defends this as likely and safe.

General conclusion

Therefore it can be said that, concerning books condemned before 1600, judgment is to be made according to the General Decrees of the present Constitution, but that those which were named in the Indexes are presumed prohibited.

At the same time we know that the former reprobations of editions and versions of the Sacred Bibles, and of obscene works, are mitigated according to the norm of articles 5, 6, 8, and 10.

¹ The first class condemned writers, all of whose works were thereby proscribed; the second class, works of a named writer; the third, "anonymous" works.

² Nor are these very works condemned if it is established that nothing is contained in them against the Catholic faith.

³ Der Index, p. 196.

Books of apostates, heretics, schismatics, and any writers whatever, defending heresy or schism, or in any way overturning the very foundations of religion, are altogether prohibited.

66. By the superior law, with the quality of the writer more observed, all books of heresiarchs were proscribed, but of heretics at least those which expressly treated religion.¹ Now, in this article, the writer or his mind is not regarded, provided the clause obtains. Now:

What is an apostate

1. An apostate, who, as is clear, is here understood as an apostate from the Christian faith,² is anyone who not only the Catholic but the Christian faith externally (even secretly) and at the same time internally casts away completely, whether he passes over to the "errors of Mohammed, etc.," or merely becomes a perfect "free thinker." Avanzini, loc. cit., p. 8. Think, for example, of E. Renan, Laurent.

What is heresy

2. Understand heresy as an error opposed to a truth sufficiently proposed by the Church, whether through the ordinary magisterium or through a formal definition; namely, that error which, if externally proposed with pertinacity, makes one guilty of heresy in the canonical forum, and is punished by excommunication latae sententiae specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff through the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, n. 1.

Schism

3. Schism, taken perfectly, entails withdrawal from the communion of the universal Church, which practically will happen by rejecting the spiritual authority of the legitimate Supreme Pontiff. For if you refuse subjection to a legitimate Bishop, the schism will not be perfect unless you separate yourself from him because he himself preserves communion with the Roman Pontiff. Cf. Schmalzgrueber, book 5, title 8, n. 12.

To defend

4. To defend says more than to assert, or merely to praise without demonstration; rather, it is to uphold by reasons being added.

Foundations of religion

5. By the very foundations of Religion we understand only the truths which either found natural religion itself, or are necessary for an adult unbeliever so that he may be led to embrace the faith; but not at the same time the principal dogmas of the faith itself. These are less properly called the foundations of Religion, and are already touched by the earlier words of the article.³ These truths are: the existence of God, the spirituality of the soul, the force of proof of miracles, the motives of credibility in general, and anything of this kind.⁴

To overturn in any way

6. To overturn in any way, or in whatever way it is done. Therefore by a serious attack, or one made through ridicule; directly or indirectly, for example by defending universal skepticism, from which God can no longer be demonstrated; from formal intention or objectively, from the subject matter of the work. There are so many books of this kind from the philosophy of materialists, positivists, rationalists.

Earlier heretics

7. Already formerly it was likely that by the severe proscription of heretics, books of earlier heretics, such as Tertullian, Pelagius, and those of this kind, were not comprehended, so that the reading of such books was permitted especially to theologians and students of ecclesiastical sciences.⁵

The benign intention of our Constitution allows us to preserve this exception of the law. So the common opinion. Indeed, nothing seems to prevent us from saying the same of other heretics who are not now so ancient, indeed, but whose errors have plainly become obsolete and are merely historically reported without danger of contagion. We would say this of heretics prior to the Protestant Reformation.⁶ For the argument is similar. Of itself the danger has ceased; therefore the reason of the law has been removed, not in some particular case but commonly; indeed, at least in part, it has ceased contrariwise, since the reading of them brings very many advantages for investigating the ancient morals of Christians or philosophical systems.

Collection of Labbe, Migne

Therefore, without scruple, one can have the collections of Councils which take their name from Labbe; the collection of patrology of Migne,⁷ where these works are inserted so that the monuments of ecclesiastical tradition may be possessed more fully.

What of debates of Parliaments?

For a somewhat different reason, that is, because they are not books properly so called, and at the same time with parts which attack the faith they contain others by which it is defended, it is lawful also not to refer to proscribed works the reports of speeches and disputes which are customarily held in Parliaments, as they are set forth in a public periodical (Journal Officiel, Annales parlementaires), or in private collections, such as Questions actuelles. A certain force of usage is added.

¹ From Rule 2 of the Index.

² For they distinguish apostasy from faith, from order (for example the sacred order of the diaconate), from religion (from a regular order).

³ With us Hollweck, op. cit., p. 31; Péries, op. cit., p. 64, note 2; Planchard, Revue Théologique Française, loc. cit., n. 21.3; against Gennari, op. cit., p. 30, note 1; and Piat, Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 30, p. 53, n. XIII.

⁴ But not the divinity of Christ, against Pennacchi, who otherwise agrees with us. Op. cit., n. 40.

⁵ Cf. Cardinal de Lugo, De Fide, disp. 21, n. 29.

⁶ Going farther, Boudinhon, op. cit., p. 316, thinks the same should be said of books and writings which defend Jansenism.

⁷ Cf. Pennacchi, op. cit., n. 39.

Likewise prohibited are books of non-Catholics which expressly treat religion, unless it is established that nothing is contained in them against the Catholic faith.

What non-Catholics are

67. 1. Non-Catholics, taken closely - as if deprived only of the Catholic faith - seem to us to be those who, outside the Catholic Church, contend that they profess true Christianity. They are therefore only baptized persons who, through heresy or schism, are reputed plainly alien from Catholic communion. For the word non-Catholic is opposed not so much to the Christian genus as to the Catholic species. And when the word must receive a broader use, the Pontiff himself indicates this by a word, as he did, for example, in articles 5 and 8, where he treats of non-Catholics of any kind whatever. Besides, they are worthy of special mention both because the Christian truths retained by them create a greater danger that the faithful be deceived and seduced by the honorable appearance of their works, and because they give a greater hope that sometimes certain arguments, even religious ones, for example concerning God, concerning the divinity of Christ, may be treated in a way that can also benefit Catholics. Therefore the Legislator wisely establishes a presumption against their books which expressly treat religion, while at the same time conceding that this same presumption can be destroyed by contrary proof.

Pennacchi,¹ Génicot,² Péries,³ and Ciolli⁴ are with us. Others, however, also include Mohammedans, Jews, unbelievers.⁵

Therefore, in our opinion, books on religion written by an unbeliever or by a rationalist who was formerly Catholic are not governed by this article, nor are they prohibited unless they defend heresy or schism, or overturn the foundations of religion.

Expressly

2. Which expressly, so that religion is, by design, the subject matter, not indeed necessarily of the whole book, but at least of a notable part, for example of one chapter.

On religion

3. On Religion, that is, on sacred matter, on natural or positive religion, on Sacred Scripture, dogmatic and moral theology, liturgy, canon law, ecclesiastical history; on moral philosophy itself, insofar as it embraces duties toward God or religious society, or by its principles seems to attack the dogmas themselves. Suarez;⁶ Lugo;⁷ St. Alphonsus;⁸ Arndt;⁹ Piat.¹⁰

They treat

They treat. To treat, according to Lugo, loc. cit., is not to say one's meaning incidentally, but to defend something, to prove it, to solve the contrary.

How far they are reproved

5. Unless it is established. When they expressly treat religion, they are prohibited from the presumption of an evil character, until it is morally established, for example by the testimony of a trustworthy man, that nothing is contained in them against the Catholic faith. Nothing can be taken morally. Therefore understand: nothing which is of any moment.

What if the mind is not hostile

But what if nothing is said formally, or from a hostile intention, against the faith, yet some things are put forward which are materially opposed to it? Objective opposition seems entirely sufficient. Wernz, n. 111, note 56.

NB. What if Catholic notes have been added to the book of a heretic, or the contrary

NB. Certain Catholic notes added below do not prevent the book from being that of a non-Catholic; nor do certain notes added by a heretic to the book of a Catholic man cause it now no longer to be judged a book of a Catholic writer.¹¹ But if the scholia are so great that the book is judged rather to consist of these, it will receive its denomination from the author of the scholia.

¹ N. 41.

² Op. cit., I, 52, 3.

³ Op. cit., p. 70.

⁴ Op. cit., n. 15.

⁵ So Cardinal Gennari on this article, except that he does not here include schismatics; Hollweck, Das kirchliche Bücherverbot, p. 31; Planchard, Revue Théologique Française, loc. cit., n. 23; and Wernz, loc. cit., n. 111, note 55. The use of this probable doctrine will be this: that you extend the faculty positively made by this article to books of unbelievers which treat a religious subject in such a way that they contain nothing notable against the Catholic faith; but the other opinion gives the faculty of reading books of unbelievers who treat of their own religion and commend it, so long as they do not defend heresies or overturn the foundations of religion.

⁶ De Fide, disp. 20, n. 16.

⁷ De Fide, disp. 21, n. 51.

⁸ Book 7, n. 283.

⁹ Op. cit., pp. 121-123.

¹⁰ Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 30, pp. 55-56.

¹¹ Cf. Laymann, Theologia moralis, book 2, treatise 1, chapter 15, n. 2; Piat, ad Van der Velden, p. 621. Arndt speaks more severely, op. cit., pp. 123-125, n. 103.

Books of the same authors which do not expressly treat religion, but only incidentally touch truths of faith, are not to be held prohibited by ecclesiastical law until they have been proscribed by special decree.

Proper force of the article

68. Therefore, even if certain religious truths are denied, provided they do not defend heresy or schism nor overturn the foundations of religion (art. 2), these books, if only incidentally or as if accidentally they touch truths of faith, are not prohibited by general decree. And although it can happen that by the natural law they are forbidden at least to certain persons, ecclesiastical law passes them over until a special decree has appeared.

This milder discipline had already prevailed by usage in several places.

b) The common law further forbids all books, pamphlets, leaflets, and periodicals, no matter by whom composed, that defend heresy or schism, or in any way strive to undermine the foundations of religion.⁷

⁷ C. I. C., can. 1399, n. 2.

This prohibition, in the opinion of competent theologians, includes all writings which in word or picture (caricature) ridicule religion and aim at subverting its foundations. But it does not include encyclopedias compiled by Catholics and non-Catholics in collaboration, even though the articles contributed by the latter may contain heresies or champion materialism and other grievous errors.⁸

⁸ Cfr. Arregui, Summarium Theol. Mor., p. 260; Ferreres, Compend. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, p. 636.

1702. - II. "All and each persons knowingly reading without the authority of the Apostolic See the books of the same apostates and heretics defending heresy, and also the books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters, and those retaining, printing, and in any way defending the same books." Bull Coenae, § 1, and Rule X of the Index.

The reading of books can be prohibited by natural law, or by positive law, or by laws of both kinds.

Namely, the reading of those books is prohibited by the law of nature itself whose use brings danger of sin, and indeed insofar as the same law commands that this danger be avoided. - See n. 1448. 1449.

But by positive law books are proscribed either immediately by the Supreme Pontiff, or by Councils, even general ones, or by the Index of prohibited books, or by another competent authority, e.g., by Ordinaries of places, and indeed either by name, i.e., with the title of the book expressed, or in general, indicating namely not individual works, but certain classes of works, the use of which is forbidden to the faithful. But the prohibition embraces the reading, retention, defense, and printing of such works.¹

There are added ecclesiastical laws by which especially the edition or printing of books without approval, e.g., of the S. C. of Indulgences or of the Ordinary, is prohibited.²

1703. - In this article a twofold species of prohibited books is contained: the former embraces the books of apostates and heretics; the latter, books prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters.

Books of the former species, that they may fall under excommunication, must bear before themselves two conditions, namely: 1° That they be of apostates or heretics; 2° That they defend heresy.

Books prohibited through Apostolic Letters, that they may fall under excommunication, must 1° be prohibited either in the form of a Brief, as most often happens, or in the form of a Bull, or through encyclical letters, or through any other extrinsic form, when in the letters themselves is read: from the fullness of Our Apostolic authority, or by Apostolic authority; for all these are called by the generic name Apostolic Letters. Therefore the censure does not comprehend books prohibited through decrees of the Index; but it is extended to books prohibited through Apostolic Letters before the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, provided they were prohibited, or, if there is question of prohibiting them, are prohibited under excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff. Thus Avanzini. Godschalk otherwise.³ But in the Index it is enunciated in what manner individual books are proscribed. 2° They must be prohibited by name, or by their proper titles.⁴

1704. Questions. - Query 1° Whether the books of those who believe apostates and heretics, of whom there is discussion in n. 1701. 3°, or of favorers and defenders (ib. 4°), if they defend heresy, are comprehended under this censure?

Resp. Negatively, because the books defending heresy are prohibited of those who pertain to the first class, i.e., of those who are leaders of apostates and heretics, or who formally pertain to their sects, or to true and certain heretics. Thus Avanzini.¹

Nevertheless it is not required that the author have been juridically condemned as a heretic or apostate, or have been born in a heretical sect; nor that the book have been written by heretics or apostates alone, with Catholics not cooperating; nor that the author's name be expressed; namely it suffices that: 1) in the book there be contained an indubitable defense of heresy or of apostasy from the Faith, and 2) that the defense have been made so pertinaciously that it cannot be doubted that the author of the book is certainly a heretic or apostate; and thus books of believers, favorers, etc., can be comprehended under the censure. - But books of infidels or of Jews are not comprehended under the censure, since they are neither apostates nor heretics.

Query 2° Whether books of apostates and heretics in which heresy is simply handed down, without being defended, are comprehended under this censure?

Resp. Negatively, since in the Constitution, which in this respect differs from the Bull Coenae, defense of heresy is required. Yet it suffices that the author has applied his talent for this end, that heresy be defended, whatever otherwise may be the matter of the book. Nouv. Rev. Th. T. II. p. 623.

Query 3° Whether periodicals, or newspapers, of the same persons, defending heresy, are prohibited under this censure?

Resp. They do not seem to be; because newspapers, insofar as the sheets remain complete by themselves, do not come under the name of books.² Nevertheless periodical writings, or fascicles destined for composing a volume, are comprehended by the censure.³

Query 4° Whether under the name of a book there also come little books of too slight a bulk, for instance a letter, a sermon, and whether manuscripts come under it?

Resp. to the 1st. Negatively. The reason is, because a penal law is to be interpreted strictly. Say the same concerning sheets separated from the book itself.¹

Resp. to the 2nd. Affirmatively, according to the more common opinion, to which St. Alphonsus adheres more, and which he says is altogether to be counseled.²

Note. - Under the name of a book there comes also the translation of the same, made in whatever language.³

Likewise, according to the opinion to which St. Alphonsus adheres more, there come books of Catholics to which a heretic has added notes so copious that they must be said to consist from these rather than from the writings of Catholics.⁴

Query 5° Whether under the censure there come books of very ancient heretics, or books containing errors wholly obsolete, which, every danger having been removed, are held as merely historical documents?

Resp. Negatively, because as to these the end of the law has entirely ceased.⁵

Query 6° Who in the Constitution come under the name of a) those reading, b) those retaining, c) those printing, d) those defending in any way?

Resp. to a). He who reads by himself, but not, at least probably, he who hears one reading, although the reader reads either by the counsel or by the command of the hearer. The reason is, because he does not read. - Nor does he incur the censure who reads himself, if he is ignorant of the language in which the book is written. - But when a book is prohibited, not only that part which gave cause for the prohibition, but the whole book is prohibited from being read, and besides this whatever part of the book is understood to be prohibited, as the dedicatory epistle, the prologue, the index. - But if the work has been distributed into several volumes, the Doctors dispute whether the prohibition is extended to those in which heresy is not defended, or which did not give cause for the prohibition. The opinion of Lugo pleases us more, who denies this if the subject matter of the work admits division, as history; but otherwise affirms it. - The prohibition ceases if you have withdrawn, or erased, or blackened that part which gave cause for the prohibition, so that it can no longer be read, provided the book was not proscribed because it treats of Religion expressly, or in hatred of the author.¹

Resp. to b). 1° The owner of the book, although it is deposited with another; 2° the depositary; 3° the borrower; 4° one retaining it in pledge. Nor is it enough to hand the book to another torn into sheets for wrapping medicines, salted goods, etc., or to hand it to one having license to retain it, unless you hand it over on this condition, that you do not reclaim it until you have obtained license of reading.²

Resp. to c). Immediate cooperators in the printing (n. 315), whether material cooperators, or (according to the truer opinion) those hiring their labor as conducive to this, as the owner of the printing-house, the editor, etc.³

Resp. to d). See n. 1700, q. 4°, R. c), d). But under the name of those defending there probably do not come those who would praise only the style or talent of the author, but not his doctrine.⁴

Resp. It is required:

1° That they act knowingly, as is said in the Constitution. Hence ignorance, at least gross ignorance, and probably even affected ignorance, excuses. Yet it suffices to know by report, or by a witness worthy of faith. (Cf. n. 1664, q. 3°, R. 2°.)⁵

2° That grave matter be present.⁶ - But smallness of matter: a) On the part of those reading or printing is to be considered formally, and thus sometimes a few lines suffice, if they defend heresy.⁷ - b) On the part of those retaining it is present, if someone retains a book for a short time, e.g., one or another day, or retains it while awaiting the opportune time to hand it over to the Ordinary, or to one having license, or to a confessor. Otherwise, if he were to retain it for a long time, even though he abstained entirely from reading it.¹ - c) On the part of those defending, smallness of matter does not seem admissible.²

3° That these things be done "without the authority of the Apostolic See," as the Constitution speaks, except however the case of a pious and learned man, who from necessity reads in order to convict a heretic, recourse to the Superior not being open.³ By what reason our Bishops can communicate the faculty of reading prohibited books, see p. LXXI. 21, and p. LXXII. 2.

But the clause: for the purpose of attacking them, does not cause that you sin gravely or incur the censure, although you do not read for that end, but e.g., from curiosity.⁴

Query 8° Who among those who belong to literary societies, among which books prohibited by this article are kept, incur the censure?

Resp. 1° Certainly the society as such does not incur it, since a community cannot be struck with excommunication. See n. 1669, q. 6°.

Resp. 2° As to individuals, distinguish. For they belong to the society either a) in such a way that they have co-ownership of the books, or b) in such a way that they belong to the assembly of those who preside over the society and direct its affairs by counsel, vote, etc., or c) in such a way that they are mere ministers of the society, as e.g., a librarian, or d) in such a way that by a contribution of money they procure for themselves the right to the use of the books.

If a), they incur the censure as owners of the books [this number, q. 6°, R. to b)].

If b), subdistinguish. The president will incur it, as is plain of itself; but not the remaining members who in no way favor the purchase of prohibited books. Thus in the hypothesis that those members lack co-ownership of the books.

If c), the librarian is held by the censure, because he comes under the name of those retaining [this number, q. 6°, R. to b)]. As to the others, see whether perhaps from the circumstances they are to be numbered among those defending [this number, q. 6°, R. to d)].

If d), they do not incur it, if they do not use their right for the use of prohibited books. Except if in a particular case they defend prohibited books or by circumstances are judged to defend them.

Thus, saving a better judgment; for I have sought this question in vain among the Doctors, even among those who have written expressly on the prohibition of books.

771. As regards faith and morals, by a general rule, by the law itself there are prohibited:

Heresy is error in Catholic faith. Schism is understood as perfect and complete, by which someone refuses obedience to the Supreme Pontiff; but not simple disobedience, nor contempt of a particular law, nor rebellion against a bishop. The foundations of religion are preliminary truths of the natural order which found the Catholic religion (for example, the possibility of a miracle, prophecy, revelation, or motives of credibility in general, etc.) or every religion (for example, the existence of God, the spirituality of the soul). Hence books defending atheism, pantheism, skepticism, agnosticism, positivism, theosophy (June 16, 1919), and many modern philosophical works are prohibited.

2. "Books which deliberately attack religion" (Catholic, or at least natural religion) "or good morals" (can. 1399, § 3), that is, they do not touch upon them in passing, but professedly attack them, or from intention and by design; this can be manifested either explicitly or by multiplied attacks from the fact that it is done in a notable part, for example, several times, or through several pages or an entire chapter.

Hence sectarian writings are prohibited, and many socialist writings, and those which habitually narrate or describe immoral things.

3. "Books of any non-Catholics whatsoever" (namely, apostates, heretics, schismatics, or the non-baptized) "which professedly treat of religion" (that is, with the intention of teaching, principally, in a notable part, for example, one chapter), "unless it is clear that nothing" (of any moment) "is contained in them against Catholic faith" (can. 1399, § 4).

Books of non-Catholics treating of sacred doctrine, of dogmatic or moral matters, of canon law or ecclesiastical history, of philosophical truths which are the foundation of religion and theology, are presumed erroneous and dangerous in faith, unless the contrary is clear, as for example, in the case of Leibniz, Systema theologiae, or Hugo Grotius, De Religione. Therefore they are not to be read without previous information. - On the contrary, works of Catholics who afterward became heretics.

4. "Books which attack" (by arguments) "or deride any one whatsoever of the Catholic dogmas" (not only deny them), - "which support errors proscribed by the Apostolic See" (either immediately by the Supreme Pontiff or mediately by a Sacred Congregation with pontifical approval, for example, the errors of the Syllabus: thus S. C. Ind., May 23, 1898), "who defend them" (that is, professedly), - "which detract from divine worship" (not in passing but notably, so that its reputation is harmed or it is held in less esteem), - "which contend to overthrow ecclesiastical discipline" (for example, celibacy, the Index), that is, they professedly intend to change it and make it waver, - "and which deliberately" (studiously, advisedly, by design) "affect with insults the ecclesiastical hierarchy" (whether of order or of jurisdiction), "or the clerical or religious state" (not as private persons, but because they pertain to the hierarchy or the state) (can. 1399, § 6).

5. "Books which teach" (so that others may learn and do) "or commend superstition of any kind, sorceries, divination, magic, evocation of spirits, and other things of this kind" (can. 1399, § 7).

Such are those which teach effects of the devil, modes which are known to be insufficient without the intervention of the devil, or true spiritism by which the evocation of spirits or intercourse with them is intended; but not books which hand down merely natural occultism.

6. "Books which state that dueling, or suicide, or divorce" (not only of the civil contract but of the bond itself of marriage) "is lawful" (in conscience), that is, they do not affirm it in passing but attempt to demonstrate it by reasons, - "which, treating of Masonic sects or other societies of the same kind, contend that they are useful and not pernicious to the Church and to civil society," not incidentally but in a notable part (can. 1399, § 8).

Societies of that kind are clandestine sects, such as the Carbonari, Nihilists, Anarchists, etc., also the Fenians (Holy Office, January 12, 1870); but not socialists, who form a political sect, unless nevertheless they were secretly united to overthrow the State.

7. "Books which professedly" (not in passing, but principally, or directly and notably) "treat, narrate" (vividly so that they entice, for example, pornographic books), "or teach lascivious or obscene things," that is, theoretically approve them, for example, free love, Malthusianism, contraceptive means (can. 1399, § 9). - But not theological, scientific, or surgical works, unless under a scientific pretext they appear to have been written to nourish wicked curiosity or to excite venereal appetite.

It should be noted that formerly there existed an exception in favor of teachers for obscene classical works, but this has been removed. Hence if a professor, or judge, or newspaper writer, or official must read an obscene book by office, he should ask permission; but if he had to read it altogether immediately, he could suppose, for this case alone, that the law does not oblige and that its obligation here and now ceases.

1. Custom has excepted the writings of more ancient heretics, such as Tertullian, Origen, Pelagius, etc., whose errors have long since become obsolete.

Heretics CRY OUT wailing against this truly effective Antidote, whose complaints Bellarmine refutes, Lib. 3. de Laicis, cap. 20. Suarez disp. 20. sect. 2.

Nor is this remedy new in the Church, for in Actorum 19. many brought vain and superstitious Books to be burned.

St. CLEMENS, Lib. 1. constitut. Apost. cap. 7. reports that the Books of the Gentiles and of false prophets were prohibited to the faithful by the Apostles; and in the Council of Nicaea, by the testimony of Nicephorus, Lib. 8. cap. 18. it was decreed that the Books of Arius be burned, and Constantine added the penalty of death for those who concealed them.

IN the Fourth Council of Carthage, can. 16. it is permitted to Bishops alone, in case of necessity, to read the Books of heretics; and Theodosius, in the Lege damnato, Cod. de haereticis, by the precept of the Council of Ephesus, ordered the Books of Nestorius to be burned. Leo I. epist. 91. and Gelasius, in cap. Sancta Romana, dist. 15. prohibited the Books of heretics; and Leo adds that those Bishops are to be judged heretics who would permit Books of this kind in the houses of the faithful. The same is evident from the Fifth Synod, act. 1. and by L. quicunque, §. nulli, and §. omnes, Cod. de haeret. all the Books of Eutyches are prohibited and adjudged to the fire, by the precept of the Council of Chalcedon, act. 3. See the Allegati Doctores reporting other things, with Basilio Pontio in Appendice, post Lib. 12. de matrimonio, cap. 2.

The RATIO is from D. Bonaventure, in Diaeta, tit. 6. cap. 3. because sincere instruction is necessary to us for salvation and the knowledge of God; for we draw spiritual things through corporeal ones. Two senses are chiefly those by which the discipline to be learned is taken in, Sight, and Hearing. And indeed by sight we read the book of creatures, and therefore we rise up into the knowledge of God. For the invisible things of God, being understood by those things that are made, are seen, Rom. 1. We also read Books cut with letters; and truly the Books of Scripture are most apt for this: whence also Christ, Lucae 24. He opened their sense, that they might understand the scriptures. See therefore on the contrary how much books teaching heresies can harm; for they are more subversive and pestilential, since they contain sacrilegious doctrines. For these move most powerfully, since they are more diligently elaborated, and they endure. Hence the Gentiles cautiously prohibited Books adverse to their sects, as Valerius Maximus reports, Lib. 1. cap. 1. and Tullius, Lib. 1. de natura Deorum.

Let the Heretics not grieve that the reading of the Books of the Gentiles is permitted to us, for the Books of Heretics are adorned for that very end with specious titles and doctrines, to seduce: but the Books of the Gentiles report errors already outworn and exploded, which are not so dangerous. Indeed certain Books of the Jews and Turks are prohibited, in which there are some things more dangerous.

But the Books of Heretics are prohibited in the Bull of the Supper which contain heresy, or treat of religion.

He includes, moreover, there also one epistle of a heretic, as Suarez brings forward, disp. 20. sect. 2. Hugolinus in him, Megala 3. p. lib. 3. cap. 1. num. 55. Farinacius de haeresi quaest. 180. num. 70.

OTHERS, however, deny it with sufficient probability: Sanchez 42 cap. 10. num. 20. Durandus, and Bonacina, whom Palao reports and follows, primo Tract. 4. disp. 2. part. 10. Layman, Pottel, and Sousa, whom Diana brings forward and seems to approve, p. 1. Tract. de Bulla Cruciata, resol. 34. and Card. Lugo disp. 21. sect. 2. §. 1. The ratio is, because odia are rather to be restricted. It is confirmed, because although it is not licit to print books without the author's name on sacred subjects, the prohibition of the Council of Trent sess. 4. remaining in force, usage itself has nevertheless declared that these small writings are not contained under that decree, as Azorius testifies, Tract. 1. Lib. 8. cap. 8. cap. 17. quaestio 4. Lugo num. 33.

ALL persons, however, are included in this prohibition, according to the decree of Urban VIII. de motu proprio, 2. Aprilis 1631.

But those are excommunicated who read, or retain, print, or in any way whatsoever defend them, for any cause whatever, publicly or secretly, by any device or pretext. See Cardinal Lugo, and what was said Tomo 4. disp. 17. de conscientia, quaest. 10. ad proposit. ultimam.

Common sense, as well as the teaching of the Church, tells us that it is wrong without good reason to put ourselves in the proximate occasion of committing sin. We very soon learn that the reading of bad books is a proximate occasion of sin. If we want a healthy body we must give it healthy food; and if we want a healthy mind, healthy food must be given to it, too. Impure literature is bad for the soul, and so is infidel and heretical literature. Balmes, the well-known Spanish writer of the last century, was obliged to read many infidel and heretical books in order to defend Catholic doctrine from their attacks. He found that such reading had a bad effect on him; it left a bad taste in the mouth, which he used to counteract by reading a chapter of the Imitation of Christ.

It is the duty of the Catholic Church to guide and instruct her children in all that concerns faith and morals. She is the Shepherd of our souls, and it is her right and duty to provide us with healthy food for our souls and to warn us to avoid unhealthy pastures. One of the ways in which she has done this from very early times is by prohibiting bad books against faith or morals. In the new Code of Canon Law the regulations on the subject which have been made from time to time are codified. A dozen canons, some of them containing many subsections, are devoted to the subject. We are told that not only the Pope can prohibit books for the whole Church, but that particular synods, local Ordinaries, and Religious Prelates with the Chapters may do the same for their own subjects.

When a book has been condemned by the Holy See, all translations of it into other languages are also forbidden. A number of general rules are laid down forbidding certain kinds of books in general, but particular books are often condemned by name. This usually happens because someone has denounced such books to ecclesiastical authority as being dangerous to faith or morals. When a book has been prohibited, it is thereby forbidden to publish, read, keep, sell, translate, or in any way to give it to others without leave. Leave for reading and keeping forbidden books may be obtained from the Holy See by those who need it. Local Ordinaries can give particular leave to read and keep a book for good reason to their subjects, and sometimes they receive more ample faculties from the Holy See.

Like other laws of the Church, the laws about forbidden books bind under pain of mortal sin in grave matter, but no special penalty is incurred by transgressors except in the cases mentioned in Canon 2318. That Canon may be translated thus:

“The publishers of the books of apostates, heretics, and schismatics which propound apostasy, heresy, and schism ipso facto incur excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See, as also do those who defend or knowingly without proper leave read or retain the same books, or others prohibited by name by apostolic letters.

“Authors and publishers who procure the printing of books of Holy Scripture or of notes and commentaries on them without proper leave by the very fact incur excommunication reserved to no one.”

It is obvious that no very large class of books is prohibited under pain of incurring this censure. Only those books come under it which propound apostasy, heresy, or schism, and which are written by apostates, heretics, or schismatics. A book which does not propound apostasy, heresy, or schism, though written by an apostate, heretic, or schismatic, is not included under the censure, nor is a book which propounds apostasy, heresy, or schism, but which was written by an infidel. To propound apostasy, heresy, or schism is to maintain and defend it by advancing reasons in its behalf. A merely incidental heresy occurring in a book written by an apostate, heretic, or schismatic would not bring the book under the censure.

Not only the publishers of such books, but also those who defend them or who, knowing that they are forbidden under pain of censure, read or keep them without the required permission, incur excommunication.

Books are condemned by this Canon, not newspapers or articles in magazines, even though they defend heresy or schism and are written by heretics. A few books have been condemned by name, and the faithful have been forbidden to read them under pain of incurring excommunication, by Letters or Briefs or Bulls of the Pope himself. As examples may be mentioned Fénélon’s Explanation of the Maxims of the Saints, and the Spiritual Guide, by Molinos. These books are included under Canon 2318. A Catholic who desires to publish any portion of Holy Scripture or notes or commentaries on Holy Scripture must obtain permission to do so from the Bishop. Authors and publishers who neglect to do this and who have such productions printed incur excommunication, but any approved confessor can absolve them from the censure on repentance.