Censorship and Prohibition of Books

¹ A threefold prohibition of reading bad books must be distinguished: a. from the law of nature; b. from ecclesiastical law simply prohibiting; c. from ecclesiastical law prohibiting with censure. The third must be treated where ecclesiastical penalties are spoken of; the second must be treated in this place, yet in such a way that a few things are first premised also concerning the first.

¹ A. Vermeersch, De prohibitione et censura librorum, 2nd ed. (Rome: Desclee, 1906); J. Hollweck, Das kirchliche Buecherverbot, 2nd ed. (Mainz: Kirchheim, 1897); Ph. Schneider, Die neuen Buechergesetze der Kirche (Mainz: Kirchheim, 1900); M. C. Gennari, La costituzione "Officiorum" (Naples: Typogr. d. Artigianelli, 1898); G. Peries, L'Index (Paris: Roger et Chernoviz, 1898); J. Pennachi, Commentarium in constitutionem Officiorum ac munerum (Rome: Typogr. S. C. de prop. fide, 1898); A. Boudinhon, La nouvelle legislation de l'Index (Paris: Lethielleux, 1899); J. Hilgers, Der Index der verbotenen Buecher (Freiburg: Herder, 1904); Wernz, Ius decretalium (Rome: Typogr. polyglotta, 1901), III, De prohib. censura et divulgat. librorum, n. 95-131; Sleumer, Index romanus, 2nd ed. (Osnabrueck: Pillmeyer, 1906).

698. On the prohibition of books from the law of nature. 1. By the law of nature the reading of any book is prohibited which brings danger to faith or good morals; since therefore the reason for prohibiting is the spiritual danger which is to be feared from the reading, it follows: a. that everything is prohibited which can bring damage to the reader, of whatever form or size, whether printed in type or written by hand; likewise it makes no difference whether someone himself reads the book, or hears one reading; b. that this prohibition ceases where every danger of perversion ceases; therefore what is prohibited to one person can be lawful to another.

2. The gravity of the sin which one reading a book prohibited by natural right commits does not depend on the quality or size of the book, but solely on the danger which arises from the reading; therefore if a proximate danger of grave spiritual damage is to be feared, it will be grave; but if either a remote danger of grave damage or a proximate danger of light damage arises from the reading, it will be a light sin. Wherefore from a proportionately grave cause it is lawful to read books from which only a light or remote danger is to be feared.

Therefore to read bad papers (Zeitungen) is a grave sin if from the reading a proximate danger of grave spiritual damage is feared; and since frequent reading ordinarily brings a danger of this kind, it is ordinarily a grave sin.

3. To retain bad books is prohibited by the law of nature insofar as from retention there arises danger of spiritual damage to oneself or another.

(St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book I, Appendix III.)¹

¹ Cf. Hilgers, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher; Wernz, Ius Decretalium, III, nn. 96-131; Sleutjes, De prohibitione et censura librorum; Vermeersch, De prohibitione et censura librorum.

I. The Church has the right: 1° of requiring that the faithful not publish writings which she herself, by her judgment, has not previously reviewed; 2° of prohibiting, for a just cause, writings published by anyone from being read or retained. This is clear both from can. 1384, § 1, and from the end of the Church, which was instituted so that she might lead the faithful to God and the heavenly fatherland; hence she has the right and duty of removing dangers to faith and morals from her own. There is added the fact that the Church has continually used the said rights, especially after the invention of the art of printing. Namely, several Supreme Pontiffs established several rules by which that matter would be ordered, until Leo XIII, by the constitution Officiorum ac Munerum,¹ thoroughly ordered that subject anew; the new Code of Canon Law, title XXIII, canons 1384-1405, retained and presents that constitution in inverted order and with a few changes.

¹ 25 Jan. 1897.

II. The Code, just like the constitution Officiorum ac Munerum, distinguishes two things, censorship and prohibition of books. The former regards writings to be published by the faithful, and is the review of a writing to be published by ecclesiastical authority; as such it regards primarily persons, namely the faithful, and secondarily things or books. The latter concerns writings already published by anyone, and therefore directly refers to the things themselves or writings, and forbids reading and other acts about which something will be said later. For the rest, with respect to the interpretation of this title of the Code, observe:

1. There is question only of writings to be published or already published, or rather to be multiplied or already multiplied by type or other means; and indeed, if there is question of prior censorship, to be multiplied for common use, so that they are truly going to be made public, but not for private use, even of many. For the rest, it does not matter whether the work has been multiplied by type or by polygraph or lithography. It suffices - and this is the criterion - that it can be bought by all.

2. The things prescribed under this title concerning books are applied to daily publications, periodicals, and any other published writings, unless something else is clear (can. 1384, § 2). But something else is clear if, for example, the canon expressly distinguishes books from other writings, as happens in can. 1386. Moreover, in the case in which it is clear that there is discussion of books as distinct from other writings, under the name of book comes a literary work multiplied by type, as was explained under 1, and which is of a certain bulk, suppose 160 pages in octavo. Therefore a letter or sermon published separately, small pamphlets, and daily papers or journals are excluded; but not periodical publications, whether taken separately, provided they are of sufficient bulk, or bound into fascicles and thus constituting the required unity.

3. The interpretation of laws concerning censorship and prohibition of books should be made as in other laws, that is, neither broadly as in privileges, nor strictly as in penalties. There are indeed some who think that a broad interpretation is required, so that doubts are to be resolved in favor of the law; but this is clear from no source. Yet observe that many things can be prohibited by natural law which are not prohibited, or are only doubtfully prohibited, by positive law.

With these things premised, we shall speak first about prior censorship, then about prohibition of books, and finally about penal sanctions.

We shall speak first about the prohibition itself, then about prohibited books, and finally about exemption from the prohibiting law and about permission to use prohibited books.

I. Power of prohibiting. The right and duty of prohibiting books for a just cause belongs:

1. To the supreme ecclesiastical authority for the universal Church (can. 1395, § 1). By supreme ecclesiastical authority are understood the Supreme Pontiff, who uses his right by himself or through the Sacred Congregations, and Ecumenical Councils. Moreover, books condemned by the aforesaid are to be judged prohibited everywhere and into whatever language they are translated (can. 1396).¹

2. To particular Councils and local Ordinaries for their subjects (can. cited). Under the name of subjects of the local Ordinary do not come exempt religious, about whom something is said specifically (cf. under 3). For the rest, let them beware of scandal arising for the faithful.

From a prohibition made by a particular Council or local Ordinary there is recourse to the Holy See, but not in the suspensive effect (can. 1395, § 2), i.e. one is held by the established prohibition until the Holy See has decided the case in his favor.

3. Also the Abbot of a monastery sui iuris and the supreme Moderator of an exempt clerical religion, with his Chapter or Council, can prohibit books to his subjects for a just cause; and the same, if there is danger in delay, can be done by other major Superiors with their own Council, but under this law, that they refer the matter as soon as possible to the supreme Moderator (can. 1395, § 3).

Corollary I. It belongs to all the faithful, especially clerics and those constituted in ecclesiastical dignity and those who excel in doctrine, to refer books which they have judged pernicious to local Ordinaries or to the Apostolic See; but by a particular title this belongs to Legates of the Holy See, local Ordinaries, and Rectors of Catholic Universities (can. 1397, § 1). Moreover, it is expedient that in the denunciation of evil books not only the title of the book be indicated, but also, as far as possible, the causes be set forth why the book is judged to be prohibited (can. 1397, § 2). Let it be sacred to those to whom the denunciation is referred to keep secret the names of those denouncing (can. 1397, § 3).

Corollary II. Local Ordinaries, by themselves or, where there is need, through suitable priests, should keep watch over books which are published or offered for sale in their own territory (can. 1397, § 4).

Corollary III. Books which require a more subtle examination, or about which the judgment of the supreme authority seems to be required for attaining a salutary effect, Ordinaries should refer to the judgment of the Apostolic See (can. 1397, § 5).

¹ Orientals also are held by decrees of condemnation of books and daily papers issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (S. C. for the Eastern Church, 26 May 1928; A. A. S. 1928, p. 195).

II. Effects of prohibition. 1. Prohibition regards the whole book, so that even an innocuous part falls under the prohibition. The contrary must be said, as seems sufficiently probable, if the part which gave occasion to the prohibition is separated from the innocuous parts or so expunged that it can no longer be read (St. Alphonsus, VII, 283). The contrary must also be said sufficiently probably if, when a book consists of several volumes, the volumes which were the cause of the prohibition are rendered unfit for use; likewise if an innocent part of a prohibited book is published separately. Nor is it prohibited that innocent parts of a prohibited book be inserted into literary miscellanies.

2. The prohibition of books effects this, that without due permission the book can neither be published, nor read, nor retained, nor sold, nor translated into another language, nor communicated in any way to others (can. 1398, § 1). Besides, a book prohibited in any way whatever cannot again be brought to light unless, after corrections have been made, permission has been given by him who prohibited the book, or by his Superior or successor (can. 1398, § 2). Of these things the following must be explained more:

a) Publication. Under the name of publisher here come: 1° the publisher properly so called, i.e. the one who commits a book to the owner of a printing house to be printed and takes care that it be made public; 2° the owner of the printing house, who accepts the book to be printed; 3° the author of the book, not indeed as such, but insofar as he acts as publisher properly so called or hands the book over to the owner of the workshop or to the publisher for this end, that it be published. Typesetters and other workers, however, are not touched by positive law, but are touched by natural law insofar as they cooperate in evil.

b) Reading. Formal reading is understood, so that the law does not regard him who merely hears someone reading (St. Alphonsus, VII, 292), or recites from memory things once read, or, ignorant of the language, reads through the book; but it does regard the blind person who perceives the type with his fingers.

Grave matter can exist either by reason of quantity, as if, in one at least morally continuous stretch, you read two or three pages; or by reason of quality, i.e. of danger. In this case even a few lines can suffice, because in them there can be danger of perversion (St. Alphonsus, VI, 284, 292). Nor does there seem to be reason for establishing another norm with respect to daily papers.

c) Retention. It is the same whether someone retains his own book or another's; whether he retains the book with himself or with another who does not have the faculty; whether he understands the retained book or not. But he is excused who deposits the book with another who has the faculty, and this with an express agreement that he will not ask for it back except after permission has been obtained; likewise he who retains the book because he awaits either the required permission or an occasion to hand it over to a Superior (St. Alphonsus, VI, 295-298). A bookbinder is indeed counted among those retaining, but he is easily excused if he binds books for one having the faculty of reading them, or if he has another just cause. Likewise the keeper of another's library is not numbered among those retaining, unless he retains prohibited books in his own room or house. Finally, where, as in religious houses, there is a common library, it is permitted that prohibited books be kept in a locked cabinet.

There is grave matter if a book, or, if there is discussion of daily papers, a notable number of sheets, is retained for a notable time, suppose for three or four days (St. Alphonsus, VI, 295). For the rest, if the intention of retaining prohibited writings for a notable time is present from the beginning, one sins gravely at once.

d) Sale. Although sale is prohibited, nevertheless a prohibited book can be sold to him who enjoys the faculty of reading it. Specifically, with respect to sellers of books, can. 1404 establishes: Sellers of books are not to sell, lend, or retain books treating professedly of obscene things; other prohibited books they are not to have for sale unless they have obtained due permission from the Apostolic See, nor may they sell them to anyone unless they can prudently judge that they are legitimately sought by the buyer.

e) Communication. Any communication is forbidden; hence a prohibited book cannot be exchanged with others, nor read aloud to others, nor transcribed for others.

Persons Who Give Scandal on Account of Obscenity.—(a) In case of obscene pictures or statues, scandal is given by the artists, painters, sculptors or others who make the images, and by the responsible persons who place them in museums, galleries, parks or other places to which there is general admission.

(b) As regards female dress, the guilty parties are proximately the wearers, but remotely and principally the designers and society leaders who impose their will in making the fashions dangerous and in causing one extreme mode to follow quickly upon another.

(e) With respect to obscene plays, the scandal is given by playwrights, managers, actors and actresses, and those who patronize or applaud them. The public itself and the civil authorities share in the guilt, when they supinely tolerate the degradation of the stage and the corruption of morals.

(d) In the case of obscene dances, the givers of scandal are the proprietors of resorts where the dances are held, the musicians and singers (especially when the songs themselves are obscene), and the dancers, spectators and other patrons.

(e) In the case of salacious publications or writings, authors, publishers, printers, vendors, and the reading public share responsibility for the scandal. Government censorship of the press is not desirable, but government suppression of obscenity has always been the policy of countries of English origin. The private citizen, then, is not free of guilt if he takes no interest even when he sees piles of indecent magazines, pictures, etc., being sold openly on the newsstands. Canon Law (Canon 1404) forbids booksellers to sell, lend, or keep books that deal ex professo with obscenity, though there is no objection to expurgated editions, as in the case of classical works.

What prohibition of books exists? The prohibition of books is one thing by natural law, another by positive law. The reading of books, for example, handing down false religion, superstitious or lascivious matters, and attacking any virtue whatsoever or defending vice, speaking in itself, is prohibited by natural law.

The reason is that the reading of these books, speaking in itself, has annexed to it the danger of perversion. Therefore unless such reading is done by learned men, and from an honorable intention of attacking, extirpating, etc., these books, it will be sinful in proportion to the danger of perversion.

As regards positive law, there is no doubt that the Church has the power of prohibiting harmful books. Now "to prohibit books throughout the whole world pertains to the Supreme Pontiff, and for him to the Sacred Congregation. But Bishops and Inquisitors can prohibit books in their own territory," even under penalty of censure to be undergone. L. 290. "Let Ordinaries," says Leo XIII in the cited Constitution, § 29, "even as Delegates of the Apostolic See, strive to proscribe books and other harmful writings edited or spread in their diocese, and to remove them from the hands of the faithful. Let them refer to Apostolic judgment those works or writings which demand a more subtle examination, or in which the sentence of supreme authority seems to be required for obtaining a salutary effect." Therefore there is an obligation for Ordinaries to proscribe not all harmful books and writings, but only those edited or spread in their diocese, and therefore with a certain regular number of copies. But other books or writings to be examined more deeply, or requiring the judgment of a higher authority, are all to be denounced. And because Ordinaries of places can proceed in this matter by power delegated from the Holy See, by their prescriptions they can oblige even exempt regulars.

Ordinaries, even as Delegates of the Apostolic See... let them strive to remove them. "By these words a right indeed, but also an office, is mandated... It is the office of Bishops to see that the writings of modernists, or those which savor of and promote modernism, if published, are not read; if not yet published, to prohibit their being read." Pius X, Encyclical Letter Pascendi dominici gregis, September 8, 1907.

The Supreme Pontiff condemns modernism, that is, rash and false novelties which not a few bring forth in this our age as regards Theology, Philosophy, Exegesis and Biblical History, and also ecclesiastical History. Namely, pervaded by an intemperate zeal for novelty, the doctrines constantly handed down by the Fathers and by Catholic Doctors being set aside, they assert opinions little founded, and, prescinding from the supernatural character of facts and from the inspiration of Sacred Scripture, they seem to overturn Religion itself. The Supreme Pontiff indeed condemns modernism, not any modern discovery whatsoever which is approved by solid reason. The Supreme Pontiff himself is author of this matter in his Brief to Ernest Commer Summa nos, June 14, 1907. "Indeed," he says, "it is calumny to assert that the Apostolic See, 'adhering to more obsolete studies, obstructs the progress of disciplines, clips the wings of every keenest genius, and resists those teaching the truth. Yet nothing more false or more unjust can be devised in thought; for indeed the Church disapproves a certain liberty of erring, and watches that the faithful not allow themselves to be entangled in fallacies; but she does not prohibit this in any way, indeed by urging commends and persuades it, that the truth handed down divinely, for the guarding of which she herself was given, be more openly explained according to the character of peoples and ages, and be unfolded by legitimate interpretation.'"

Now, as regards the common law in force, at present one must stand by the Index of prohibited books, most recently recognized by order of Leo XIII, Brief Romani Pontifices, September 17, 1900; and also by the General Decrees already established by the same Leo XIII in the cited Constitution Officiorum ac munerum. These alone have the force of law, "the Rules issued by order of the Holy Synod of Trent, the Observations, Instruction, Decrees, Warnings, and any other statute and command of Our Predecessors concerning this matter being abrogated, with the one exception of the Constitution of Benedict XIV Sollicita et provida, which, just as it has hitherto been in force, so We will to remain entire in force hereafter." Par. Itaque. The Rules being abrogated, etc., simply, and therefore as regards obligations and as regards penalties. Contrary customs likewise remain abrogated, although in the cited Constitution a clause abrogating them is not had. For this is openly deduced from the purpose of this Constitution, namely that provision be made for the necessities of the present time. The Constitution of Benedict XIV Sollicita et provida prescribes the method to be observed in the examination and proscription of books in the Sacred Congregations of the Holy Office and of the Index. But the aforesaid Constitution Officiorum ac munerum has obligatory force everywhere, even in regions of the British idiom. Sacred Congregation of the Index, May 23, 1898. Cf. here 1312. Therefore the Index of prohibited books also is to be observed everywhere. Leo XIII, Constitution Romani Pontifices, September 17, 1900. Pius X, motu proprio Sacrorum antistitum, September 1, 1910; E.M.

Bishops are bound to interdict in their own Diocese all harmful books and especially those of the Modernists, nevertheless restraining the prohibition, if it suffices, to the clergy alone; while the duty of Catholic booksellers remains intact, that they by no means have for sale books marked by the Bishop. If these refuse obedience, Bishops, after a warning has first been given, are to deprive them of the title of Catholic booksellers, and with stronger right if they are called episcopal; but those who are adorned with the pontifical title, they are to report to the Holy See. Pius X, motu proprio Sacrorum Antistitum.

By Decree of October 20, 1907, the book Il programma dei modernisti was proscribed in the City. "Therefore it is lawful for no one of whatever grade and condition subject to Our jurisdiction to sell or read or retain the same book under mortal fault. "Moreover, since the authors and writers of this book in the asserted Response sharply defend the system which in the Encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis is affirmed to be 'the collection of all heresies,' Our Most Holy Lord Pius PP. X, by this Decree, strikes with the penalty of excommunication the authors and writers, and all others whatsoever who in any way contributed labor to the making of this book, absolution from which he reserves to himself alone. Our Most Holy Lord adds that this Decree is valid just as if it had been delivered into the hands of each one of the said authors and writers; and if they are priests and exercise an act of Order, they will incur irregularity. "But nothing would be more satisfactory," says the Most Holy One, "than that all Bishops, each in his own diocese, should impose this prescription and promulgate the censure. Given at Rome, on October 20, 1907." Peter Respighi, Cardinal Vicar. First Supplement to the Enchiridion Morale, 3rd ed.

And by Decree of December 28, 1908, the periodical booklet Nova et Vetera and Rivista di cultura was prohibited in the City. "Therefore let no one print it or cause it to be printed, let no one sell or read it. If anyone does otherwise, let him know that he has sinned gravely. Besides, clerics of whatever order who associate themselves with the same periodical, or if they have already made the association, do not retract it as soon as possible, let them know that they have incurred suspension from divine things by that very fact." Given at Rome, on January 28, 1908. Peter Respighi, Cardinal Vicar. First Supplement to the Enchiridion Morale, 3rd ed. Cf. 1313.

What does the prohibition of books import? It imports the prohibition of reading those books, translating or rendering them into another language, retaining, defending, printing, publishing, selling, and donating them. For books proscribed by the cited Constitution are simply prohibited. "All booksellers, especially those who glory in the Catholic name, are neither to sell, nor lend, nor retain books treating explicitly of obscene things; let them not have other prohibited books for sale unless they have obtained permission from the Sacred Congregation of the Index through the Ordinary; nor are they to sell them to anyone unless they can prudently judge that they are legitimately sought by the buyer." § 46. Cf. nn. 1304-1307, 1311. If at any time all the works of some author are expressly prohibited in the Index, this prohibition does not pertain to those books which either in no way touch, or only incidentally touch, the truths of faith, and are proscribed by no general or special decree. Preface to the Index of Prohibited Books. By the reading or retention of prohibited books excommunication is incurred only in the two cases already related above, §§ 47, 48. Cf. 1165, 1212. Cf. also the preceding number at the end. Absolutely, the book is to be handed over to Inquisitors or Ordinaries. The reason is that superiors may know what poisons are offered to the faithful, and prepare the antidote. But as the practice of many places is today, and so that such books may be extirpated more safely and quickly, they can also be burned. But they cannot be torn up so that afterwards things may be wrapped with their leaves.

To wait a few days either to hand the book to a superior or to seek permission is not grave, and consequently not liable to censure. Finally, books are understood to be books printed with type and of some regular bulk, not manuscripts, lithographs, etc.; nor booklets of slight bulk or flying leaves. This distinction is indeed openly made in the present Constitution. Cf. n. 1165; Sanchez, in Decal., book 2, chap. 10, n. 56; La-Croix 349; Laymann, de Fide XV, 7; E.M.

Are harmful books to be denounced? "Although it belongs to all Catholics, especially those who excel in doctrine, to denounce pernicious books to Bishops or to the Apostolic See, nevertheless this pertains by special title to Nuncios, Apostolic Delegates, Ordinaries of places, and Rectors of Universities flourishing by praise of learning." § 27. It belongs to all Catholics, i.e., from charity obliging when grave danger is present, and denunciation is not made by others, and it can be done without grave inconvenience. Pernicious, as regards faith or morals. To the Apostolic See, i.e., to the Sacred Congregation of the Index, or of the Holy Inquisition, or de Propaganda Fide, or of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. By special title of office and justice, whence the aforesaid obligation presses the aforesaid more gravely.

What about editions of the original text, and of non-vernacular and vernacular versions of Sacred Scripture? "Editions of the original text and of the ancient Catholic versions of Sacred Scripture, even of the Eastern Church, published by any non-Catholics whatsoever, even if they appear to have been edited faithfully and integrally, are permitted only to those who devote their work to theological or biblical studies, provided nevertheless that the dogmas of Catholic faith are not attacked in the prolegomena or annotations." § 5. Ancient: there is question here only of ancient versions, not of more recent ones. By non-Catholics: therefore editions of the original text and of the ancient Catholic versions of Sacred Scripture published by Catholics are permitted to all.

Only to those: therefore they are not permitted to others. Who devote their work to theological or biblical studies, whether by private study or in a public school, whether teachers or students. Sacred Congregation of the Index, May 23, 1898. To attack properly is not simply to deny, but to deny with the reason of denial added. Dogmas of Catholic faith, not any opinions and views whatsoever of theologians. "In the same manner and under the same conditions other versions of the Sacred Bibles, whether in Latin or another non-vernacular language, edited by non-Catholics, are permitted." § 6.

In the same manner, etc.: namely any other non-vernacular versions whatsoever made by non-Catholics are permitted only to students of theological or biblical matters, provided nevertheless that dogmas of faith are not attacked in the prolegomena or annotations. "All versions in the vernacular language, even made by Catholic men, are altogether prohibited unless they have been approved by the Apostolic See, or edited under the vigilance of Bishops with annotations taken from the Holy Fathers of the Church and from learned and Catholic writers." § 7. Unless they have been, etc.: therefore vernacular versions without notes must be approved only by the Apostolic See; with notes they can also be approved by Bishops.

"All versions of the Sacred Bibles in any vernacular language whatsoever, made by any non-Catholics whatsoever, are interdicted, and especially those which are spread by Bible Societies more than once condemned by the Roman Pontiffs, since in these the most salutary laws of the Church concerning the editing of divine books are fundamentally set aside. These versions nevertheless are permitted to those who devote their work to theological or biblical studies, while observing those things which were established above." § 8. The most salutary laws, i.e., concerning tradition, which non-Catholics altogether contemn. These versions nevertheless, whether made by non-Catholics or by Catholics. While observing those things: namely provided that the dogmas of Catholic faith are not attacked in the prolegomena or annotations. Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, proposition 1; E.M.

What about books of apostates, heretics, schismatics, and other writers? "All books which before the year 1600 either the Supreme Pontiffs or Ecumenical Councils condemned, and which are not reviewed in the new Index, are to be held condemned in the same way as they were formerly condemned, with the exception of those which are permitted by these General Decrees." § 1. Before the year: for in the Index of prohibited books, almost no books are inserted except those condemned afterwards. Examples of those condemned books are had in the same Constitution at the beginning of the paragraph Praecipue vero. In the same way: for the prohibition of many ceases to be in force both because of the age of the errors, concerning which no one cares any longer; and because of sufficient knowledge already propagated and becoming prevalent concerning the same errors, whence they have ceased to harm; and because of the utility which is had from the reading of such books, from which many things can be established that pertain to the practice and doctrine of the Church. Such are, for example, the books of Tertullian, Origen, etc. With the exception of those: cf. §§ 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, etc. Hence "those works now which either do not treat explicitly of religion, or, even if they treat of it, nevertheless contain nothing against faith, are permitted, unless perhaps they are found prohibited by some general or special decree." Preface to the Index of Prohibited Books. "Books of apostates, heretics, schismatics, and writers of any kind whatsoever, defending heresy or schism, or in any way overturning the very foundations of religion, are altogether prohibited." § 2. Books, not all, but those defending heresy or schism; not merely containing, but defending with proofs added. Of any writers whatsoever, even Catholics. Foundations of religion, namely the motives of credibility of revealed Religion, and its fundamental truths, such as the spirituality and immortality of the soul, the existence of the one and triune God, the creation of the world, Sacred Scripture, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, the Roman Pontiff, etc. In any way, whether by false proofs, or even by ridicule and another manner; whether by writing or by images. "Likewise books of non-Catholics which explicitly treat of religion are prohibited, unless it is clear that nothing against Catholic faith is contained in them." § 3. Of non-Catholics, namely of those not pertaining to the Catholic religion: heretics, schismatics, Jews, infidels. Explicitly, not incidentally and in passing. Concerning religion, i.e., concerning sacred matters, concerning the Sacred books, concerning the mysteries of Faith, concerning Dogmatic or Moral Theology, concerning the Rites or Canons of the Church, concerning the cult of the Saints, etc. Against Catholic faith: hence books of Roman Antiquities and others of that kind are not prohibited. "Books of the same authors which do not explicitly treat of religion, but only touch the truths of faith incidentally, are not to be held prohibited by ecclesiastical law until they have been proscribed by special decree." § 4. Of the same authors, non-Catholics. Explicitly: therefore books of heretics which do not treat of religion by design, but only incidentally, even though perhaps they err concerning Catholic doctrine, are not positively prohibited, and much more if they contain nothing at all concerning religion.

What about liturgical and prayer books? "In authentic editions of the Missal, Breviary, Ritual, Ceremonial of Bishops, Roman Pontifical, and other liturgical books approved by the Holy Apostolic See, let no one presume to change anything; if otherwise has been done, these new editions are prohibited." § 18. And other liturgical books: such as those which mark liturgical chant and which cannot differ from the authentic and typical Vatican edition, and therefore are to be approved by the Ordinary of the place. Pius X, motu proprio, April 25, 1904; Sacred Congregation of Rites, August 11, 1905; February 14, 1906. Anything of some moment. For if the matter is altogether slight, it will pertain to the ecclesiastical superior to permit or prohibit the use of the book. To change: not to correct a typographical error. To change: not to report something more fully, not abbreviated, for greater clarity and convenience, or to repeat it in its proper place. Let him presume: and therefore from intention, not inadvertently. If otherwise: namely if anything whatever has been changed from the typical and approved editions, whether there is approval or there is not; lacking that, the book is not by that very fact prohibited. Cf. E.M. 125. "All litanies, except the most ancient and common ones which are contained in Breviaries, Missals, Pontificals, and Rituals, and except the Litanies of the Blessed Virgin which are customarily sung in the sacred House of Loreto, and the Litanies of the Most Holy Name of Jesus already approved by the Holy See, are not to be edited without the review and approval of the Ordinary." § 19. Except, etc. By Decree of April 2, 1899, the Litanies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus were also approved. By Decree of March 18, 1909, the litanies in honor of St. Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary, were likewise approved. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 1, p. 290 ff. Are not to be edited: here only the publication of those litanies is prohibited. But by force of the following paragraph the books themselves containing them, published without legitimate approval, are prohibited. From the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, June 20, 1896, and February 11, 1898, Dub., the public recitation in churches or public oratories of litanies which the Holy See has not yet approved is prohibited, although the Ordinary approved them, even if that recitation is made without the intervention of a sacred minister. "Books or booklets of prayers, devotion, or religious, moral, ascetical, mystical doctrine and instruction, and others of this kind, although they seem to conduce to fostering the piety of the Christian people, let no one publish without permission of legitimate authority; otherwise, they are to be held prohibited." § 20. Books or booklets, not flying leaves. Or of doctrine... although, etc.: therefore there does not seem here to be question of books in which that doctrine is set forth merely speculatively. Of legitimate authority, namely of the Ordinary, who can also permit books of devotion containing a version of the Epistles, Gospels, and Canon of the Mass. Sacred Congregation of Rites, August 4, 1877. Collection of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, n. 1890. Let him publish: otherwise. Therefore all books reviewed in this paragraph, to be edited from now on without authentic approval of the Ordinary and not previously edited, are to be held as prohibited. Cf. n. 1308, § 13; n. 1312, § 41. E.M.

Prayers for obtaining the intercession of Servants of God are to be approved by the Ordinary. Sacred Congregation of Rites, March 21, 1914.

What about obscene books? "Books which explicitly treat, narrate, or teach lascivious or obscene matters, since account must be taken not only of faith but also of morals, which are easily corrupted by the reading of books of this kind, are altogether prohibited." § 9. Lascivious or obscene matters: therefore there is no question of "loves," as they call them, with the narration of which merely erotic novels linger. Explicitly, i.e., not lightly, but by design. Treat, i.e., by disputing, defending, or simply discoursing about matters of this kind, so that they are either the object of the whole book or only the special argument of some chapter. Narrate, by relating facts, histories, or fables.

Teach, by explaining, declaring, etc., the nature of lascivious things to be done. Treat, narrate, teach: namely by insinuating these things, certainly not by showing their unlawfulness and persuading their abomination, or by scientifically explaining medicine, surgery, etc.; for it is said: which of this kind, etc. "Books of authors, whether ancient or more recent, which they call classics, if they are infected with this very stain of shamefulness, on account of elegance and propriety of speech, are permitted only to those whom the reason of office or teaching excuses; nevertheless they must in no way be handed over or read before boys or adolescents, unless they have been expurgated with diligent care." § 10.

If they are infected with this very stain of shamefulness: i.e., if they explicitly treat, narrate, or teach lascivious or obscene matters, as is had in the preceding § 9. They are permitted, unless nevertheless they are related by name in the Index. The reason of office or teaching excuses. Therefore professors of humane letters and others can read these books insofar as this is demanded by the reason of office or teaching, namely insofar as it is necessary or useful to them for that reason. But they are by no means permitted to students unless they have been expurgated of that stain of shamefulness.

What about other books of special subject matter? "Books are condemned in which God, or the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Saints, or the Catholic Church and her worship, or the sacraments, or the Apostolic See, are disparaged. Works in which the concept of the inspiration of Sacred Scripture is perverted, or its extension is too much restricted, are subject to the same judgment of reprobation. Books also are prohibited which deliberately afflict the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or the clerical or religious state, with insults." § 11. Books of any authors whatsoever, whether non-Catholic or Catholic. Disparage: namely speak ill, although not explicitly, but in grave matter. Inspiration of Sacred Scripture, which, "written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has God as author." Vatican Council, Constitution Dei Filius, chap. 2; Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, prop. 9. Is perverted: if, for example, the concept of inspiration were constituted in a subsequent approval of the Sacred Books by the Church; or in a certain concomitant direction of the Holy Spirit, if necessity demands; or in divine assistance for preventing errors. Cited Decree, props. 10, 12, 19, 20. Is restricted: namely to only some books of Sacred Scripture, not to all; or to only some part of the books, not to the entire books; or only to dogmas of faith and morals, not also to the remaining matters, to historical matters, to profane matters, to matters pertaining to the natural sciences; or only to matters concerning which they treat explicitly, not also to others said only incidentally. Cited Decree, prop. 11. Deliberately: and therefore not if there is only some injurious expression, but if either the whole book, or a notable part of it, or some entire chapter afflicts the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or the clerical or religious state with insults; not some private person, unless from this vituperation turns against the hierarchical order itself, or a part of it, or against the clerical or religious state itself. "Let it be forbidden to edit, read, or retain books in which sorceries, divination, magic, evocation of spirits, and other superstitions of this kind are taught or commended." § 12. Are taught, for exercising them. Are taught or commended: not if they merely narrate superstitious facts, or treat or discourse concerning them, for reproving them and showing their malice and danger. "Books or writings which narrate new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, miracles, or which introduce new devotions, even under the pretext that they are private, if they are published without legitimate permission of the Superiors of the Church, are proscribed." § 13. Writings, although they are not books, but booklets or leaves; although they are manuscripts, for they are most properly writings. If they are published: therefore the prohibition does not affect books published before this Constitution. Without legitimate permission: if this is had, it now no longer seems to be required, by force of the present Constitution, that there be a protestation according to the Decree of Urban VIII. But cf. what is had here at the end of the number. Without legitimate, etc. All books concerning sacred things and morals are indeed to be subjected to ecclesiastical censure so that they may be licitly edited; but not for that reason are all prohibited if they have been edited without legitimate approval, § 41; while on the contrary books of which there is question in this paragraph, published without permission of the superiors of the Church, are proscribed, and consequently can neither be read nor retained. Cf. 1306. "Likewise books are prohibited which establish as lawful duel, suicide, or divorce; which treat of masonic sects or other societies of the same kind, and contend that they are useful and not pernicious to the Church and civil society; and which defend errors proscribed by the Apostolic See." § 14. Books of authors of any kind, non-Catholics or Catholics. Establish, contend, defend: therefore they do this not incidentally but deliberately. Errors proscribed by the Apostolic See, e.g., errors proscribed in the Syllabus. Sacred Congregation of the Index, May 23, 1898. E.M. "Concerning sacred Relics these things are to be held. If Bishops, who alone can in this matter, know certainly that a Relic is spurious, let them remove it from the worship of the faithful. If the authenticating documents of some Relic, perhaps because of civil disturbances or from any other case, have perished, let it not be proposed publicly unless duly recognized by the Bishop. The argument of prescription or of founded presumption will then only be valid if the cult is commended by antiquity; namely according to the decree issued in the year 1896 by the sacred Council for examining indulgences and sacred Relics, by which it is declared: Ancient Relics are to be preserved in that veneration in which they have been up to now, unless in a particular case certain arguments are present that they are false or supposititious. But when there has been a judgment concerning pious traditions, it is necessary to remember this: the Church uses so great prudence in this matter that she does not permit traditions of this sort even to be narrated in writing unless much caution has been employed and the declaration sanctioned by Urban VIII has been prefaced; and although this is duly done, nevertheless she does not assert the truth of the fact, but, unless human arguments for believing are lacking, only does not prohibit it from being believed.

Thus plainly the sacred Council for guarding legitimate rites, thirty years ago, declared by Decree of May 2, 1877: Apparitions or revelations of this kind have neither been approved nor condemned by the Apostolic See, but have only been permitted as piously believable by human faith alone, according to the tradition which they bear, confirmed also by suitable testimonies and records. He who holds this will be free from every fear. For the religion of any apparition, insofar as it regards the fact itself and is called relative, always has the implicit condition concerning the truth of the fact; but insofar as it is absolute, it always rests on truth, for it is borne toward the very persons of the Saints who are honored. Similarly it must be affirmed concerning Relics. Finally We entrust this to the Council of vigilance, that they assiduously and diligently keep their eyes also on social institutions and on any writings concerning the social matter, lest anything of modernism lie hidden in them, but that they correspond to the precepts of the Roman Pontiffs." Pius X, Encyclical Letter Pascendi dominici gregis, September 8, 1907.

What about newspapers, sheets, and periodical booklets? "Newspapers, sheets, and periodical booklets which deliberately attack religion or good morals are to be held proscribed not only by natural law, but also by ecclesiastical law. But let Ordinaries, where there is need, opportunely warn the faithful concerning the danger and harm of reading of this kind." § 21. Revealed religion, and consequently also natural religion. Deliberately, i.e., by design, expressly, and therefore not incidentally, not lightly, but habitually they gravely attack religion and good morals, by whomever they may be written, whether by Catholics or, a fortiori, by heretics.

Are to be held proscribed: therefore it is not lawful to read, retain, or subscribe to them. Where there is need: with that warning omitted, it is not therefore lawful with impunity to read the aforesaid newspapers, which remain proscribed by this general law. Where there is need: and therefore the warning is not always to be made, but only in a particular case in which a special reason is present. The Cardinal Vicar of the City, by Letter of May 16, 1903, prohibited by name the newspaper Asinus. "Let no one of the Catholics, especially of ecclesiastical men, publish anything in newspapers, or sheets, or periodical booklets of this kind, unless a just and reasonable cause persuades." § 22.

In newspapers of this kind, namely those of which there is question in the preceding § 21. Anything, whether it is an article, as it is called, or even some simple notice of some matter. "Men of the secular clergy are prohibited from undertaking the direction of newspapers or periodical sheets without the previous permission of the Ordinaries." § 42. Newspapers, etc., not periodical booklets. Direction: therefore the permission of the Ordinary is required only for the direction of a newspaper, not for writing some article, or, as it is said, for collaboration.

What about images and indulgences? "Images of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Angels and Saints, or other Servants of God, printed in any way whatsoever and differing from the sense and decrees of the Church, are altogether forbidden. But new ones, whether they have prayers annexed or are edited without them, are not to be published without permission of ecclesiastical power." § 15. Images, not statues, not medals, not paintings. Printed in any way whatsoever, for they can be printed in various ways. Already printed ones are forbidden if they differ from the sense and Decrees of the Church. Cf. Trent, sess. 25, *de Sacr.

Imag.*; Benedict XIV, Constitution Sollicitudini, October 1, 1745. Altogether forbidden: therefore they can neither be publicly exposed nor privately retained. Except unless they are retained as a mere historical monument of art. New ones, or those to be printed hereafter, and new as regards their form, cannot be printed and published without permission of ecclesiastical power. Published without it, they were indeed illicitly published, but they are not proscribed unless they differ from the sense and Decrees of the Church. "It is interdicted to all in any way to spread indulgences which are apocryphal and proscribed or revoked by the Holy Apostolic See.

Those which have already been spread are to be removed from the hands of the faithful." § 16. Apocryphal, namely false. Cf. true indulgences in authentic Collections of Indulgences approved by the Sacred Congregation, Raccolta delle Indulgenze, etc. Proscribed by the Holy Apostolic See: cf. Ferraris, v. Indulgentia, art. 4. To spread: reading in itself is not interdicted, but it is prescribed that those spread, whether in print or in manuscript, be removed from the hands of the faithful, which especially pertains to ecclesiastical superiors. "All books of indulgences, summaries, booklets, leaves, etc., in which grants of them are contained, are not to be published without permission of the competent authority." § 17.

Of the competent authority, namely either of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences or of the Bishop; of the Sacred Congregation, if there is question of new indulgences and of new summaries of them; of the Bishop, if there is speech of indulgences and summaries already approved by the Sacred Congregation, according to the norms established before the new Constitution Officiorum ac munerum. Sacred Congregation of the Index, Constitution, August 7, 1897. Permission: without it they are illicitly published, but those published are not for that reason proscribed by that very fact. E.M. 1310, 1355.

What about the faculty of reading and retaining prohibited books? "Only those will be able to read and retain books proscribed either by special Decrees or by these General Decrees who have obtained opportune faculties from the Apostolic See, or from those to whom it has delegated its authority." § 23. By special Decrees, namely those inserted in the Index of prohibited books. By General Decrees, that is, those proscribed by these General Decrees. "The Roman Pontiffs have placed the Sacred Congregation of the Index over the granting of permissions to read and retain any prohibited books whatsoever. Nevertheless, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office and the Congregation de Propaganda Fide enjoy the same power for regions subject to their governance.

For the City only, this faculty also belongs to the Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace." § 24. Since those who are referred to in this paragraph enjoy ordinary power in the case, they can delegate it to others. "Bishops and other prelates possessing quasi-episcopal jurisdiction can grant permission for individual books, and only in urgent cases. But if the same have obtained from the Apostolic See a general faculty to impart to the faithful permission to read and retain proscribed books, let them grant it only with selection and from a just and reasonable cause." § 25.

Therefore the aforesaid have ordinary and delegated power in the case. Each can be subdelegated. By ordinary faculty they can permit the reading of individual books, and in an urgent case in which recourse cannot be had to the Roman Pontiff or another having power from him. But by delegated faculty, when they have obtained it, they can permit prohibited books generally. With selection, not generally to any person whatsoever, but to an upright and prudent person for whom there is no danger of perversion. With selection, not indeterminately and indefinitely for any book whatsoever, but with individual or at least specific indication of the books having been made, the more pernicious ones being excluded. From a just and reasonable cause, e.g., by reason of studies, of a book to be written, etc.

"All who have obtained an apostolic faculty of reading and retaining prohibited books cannot on that account read and retain any books whatsoever, or newspapers proscribed by the Ordinaries of places, unless in the apostolic indult the power of reading and retaining books condemned by anyone whatsoever has been expressly given to them. Moreover, let those who have obtained permission to read prohibited books remember that they are bound by a grave precept to guard books of this kind so that they do not come into the hands of others." § 26. Proscribed by the Ordinaries of places: cf. n. 1301, § 24 of the Constitution. Do not come: therefore they cannot give them to others. Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 4, dub. 42.

What about previous approval of books? "All the faithful are bound to subject at least those books to previous ecclesiastical censure which regard the divine Scriptures, Sacred Theology, Ecclesiastical History, Canon Law, Natural Theology, Ethics, or other religious or moral disciplines of this kind, and generally all writings in which religion and honesty of morals are specially involved." § 41. All the faithful, namely those who print or cause books to be printed, such as printers and editors or the authors of books themselves. All the faithful; but "if an author dwelling in Rome wishes to print a book not in the City but elsewhere, besides the approval of the Cardinal Vicar of the City and of the Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, no other is required." § 37. Those books, etc.: therefore those books which do not treat of religion and morals, such as literary books, books of profane history, of the mathematical sciences, etc., can be freely published. Books, namely those which are published and spread by type or in another manner. All writings: therefore not only books, but also booklets, newspapers, and flying leaves. Specially: therefore it is not enough that some allusion only to religion and morals be had, unless they properly treat of arguments of this kind. "Men of the secular clergy are prohibited from publishing even books which treat of merely natural arts and sciences without having consulted their Ordinaries, so that they may furnish an example of an obedient soul toward them." § 42. Men of the secular clergy, not others. Men of the secular clergy. "Regulars, besides the permission of the Bishop, should remember that they are bound, by decree of the sacred Council of Trent, to obtain from the prelate to whom they are subject the faculty of publishing a work. But each concession is to be printed at the beginning or at the end of the work." § 36. The Tridentine Decree concerns the editing and use of Sacred Books. Some think that Clement VIII extended it to all books to be published by regulars. But that Instruction, as the present Decree, only asserts that Regulars are bound, by Decree of the sacred Council of Trent, to obtain permission for publishing a work also from their own Prelate. Nevertheless Pius X, in the motu proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, September 1, 1910, says: "We warn the moderators of religious concerning the most grave duty of never permitting anything to be printed by their subjects unless first the faculty of themselves and of the Ordinary has intervened." § IV. Even books, etc.: therefore all books both concerning sacred matters and morals, and concerning merely natural matters. What is had concerning newspapers in particular, cf. 1309. Without having consulted their Ordinaries: therefore permission is to be had from the proper Ordinary, and this is distinct from the ecclesiastical censure which the book must undergo from the Ordinary of the place in which the book is published, § 35, which censure touches only books treating of religion and morals, § 41. It is doubted whether this rule of § 42 is preceptive. "Without the previous consent of the Ordinary no one from the clergy can publish any writing of religious or moral argument, or merely technical. In the foundation of circles and societies, Statutes and Rules must be previously examined and approved by the Bishop. Conferences on popular action or on any other argument whatsoever can be held by no priest or cleric without the permission of the Bishop of the place. Every manner of speaking which can inspire in the people aversion from the higher classes is to be held as contrary to true Christian charity. Likewise, in Catholic publications every assertion is to be reproved which, containing unhealthy novelty, ridicules the piety of the faithful, and suggests a new direction of Christian life, a new governance of the Church, new aspirations of the modern soul, a new social vocation of the clergy, a new Christian civilization." Pius X, Letter to the Bishops of Italy, July 28, 1906.

Books having been subjected to previous ecclesiastical censure, and "the examination having been completed, if nothing shall seem to stand in the way of publication of the book, the Ordinary is to grant to the author in writing and altogether gratuitously permission to publish it, to be printed at the beginning or at the end of the work." § 40. If nothing... permission... The Ordinary who, after examination of some book has been completed, denies permission, is bound to give the author the reason for the denied permission, if the book seems capable of correction. Sacred Congregation of the Index, Constitution, September 1, 1898. "No book subject to ecclesiastical censure is to be printed unless at the beginning it bears the name and surname both of the author and of the editor, and besides the place and year of printing and publication. But if in some case, for just causes, the name of the author seems to be kept silent, the power of permitting this belongs to the Ordinary." § 43. Editor here is said to be the one who undertakes the printing of the book to be performed in his typographical workshop. Cf. the following § 44. "Let printers and editors of books know that new editions of the same approved work require a new approval; and moreover, that approval granted to the original text does not support its translation into another language." § 44.

New editions: not excerpts from some edition and edited separately, tirature a parte. Sacred Congregation of the Index, May 23, 1898. "Books condemned by the Apostolic See are to be judged prohibited everywhere among the nations, and into whatever language they are translated." § 45. By the Apostolic See: not by Ordinaries of places. Everywhere among the nations: the law is universal for any place; and all the other laws contained in the present Constitution are universal. For concerning them it is said in the same Constitution, par. Itaque matura: "which Catholic men throughout the whole world are to obey religiously."

Books to be edited by Religious. Religious assigned to an Institute of simple vows, just as Religious of solemn vows, are bound according to the laws to request from their Superiors the good pleasure or imprimatur for manuscripts to be printed. And if at any time the legitimate Superior has denied this approval of which we speak, Religious will not be able to hand over the manuscript to any printer for editing, who would publish it with the Imprimatur of the Ordinary of the place, the name of the author being suppressed. Sacred Congregation concerning Religious, June 15, 1911.

But it is altogether prescribed that in "all episcopal curias there are to be censors from office, who examine things to be edited. These are to be chosen from the twofold clergy, commended by age, learning, prudence, and who in approving and disapproving doctrines proceed by a middle and safe way. To them is to be referred the examination of writings which, from articles XLI and XLII of the mentioned Constitution, are subject to previous examination. The Censor will give his judgment in writing.

If this has been favorable, the Bishop will give the power of editing by the word Imprimatur, to which nevertheless the formula Nihil obstat will be set before, with the name of the censor subscribed. In the Roman Curia, no otherwise than in all the others, censors are to be instituted from office. The Master of the sacred Apostolic Palace will designate them, the Cardinal Vicar of the Pontiff in the City first having been heard, and then with the Supreme Pontiff himself agreeing and approving. It will belong to him to designate a censor for examining individual writings. The faculty of editing will be given by the same Master and also by the Cardinal Vicar of the Pontiff or by the Prelate acting in his place, the formula of approval having first been set down, as We said above, and the name of the censor added. Only in extraordinary circumstances and very rarely, by the prudent judgment of the Bishop, can mention of the censor be omitted. The name of the censor will never be open to authors before he has issued a favorable judgment, lest any annoyance be presented to the censor either while he is examining the writings or if he has not approved the edition. Censors are never to be chosen from religious families unless first the secret opinion of the moderator of the province is heard; and he will testify according to the conscience of his office concerning the morals, knowledge, and integrity of doctrine of the one to be chosen. We warn the moderators of religious concerning the most grave duty of never permitting anything to be printed by their subjects unless first the faculty of themselves and of the Ordinary has intervened. Finally We declare and decree that the title of censor, with which someone is adorned, has no value at all and can never be brought forward for confirming the private opinions of the same. "These things having been said universally, We command by name that those things be observed more diligently which are declared in article XLII of the Constitution Officiorum in these words: Men of the secular clergy are prohibited from undertaking the direction of newspapers or periodical sheets without the previous permission of the Ordinaries. If any use this permission perniciously, after first being warned, let them be deprived of it. As regards priests who commonly come under the name of correspondents or collaborators, since it more frequently happens that they publish in newspapers or journals writings infected with the stain of modernism, let Bishops see that these do not attempt anything contrary to what they have permitted, and let them retract the power given if necessary. We most gravely warn the moderators of religious that they do the same thing; if they act too negligently, let the Ordinaries provide by authority of the Supreme Pontiff. Newspapers and journals which are written by Catholics, insofar as it can be done, are to have a designated censor. His office will be to read through integrally and attentively individual sheets or booklets after they have been edited; if anything has been said dangerously, let him order it to be corrected in the following sheet or booklet. Moreover let the same faculty belong to Bishops, even if perhaps the censor has favored it." Pius X, motu proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, September 1, 1910.

Who can approve books? "With whom the power is to approve or permit editions and versions of the sacred Bibles is clear from those things which were established above (§ 7)." § 30. With whom, namely with the Holy See or Bishops. The aforesaid editions and versions are to be approved by the Holy See. But if annotations are added to them taken from the Holy Fathers and other Catholic writers, they can also be approved by Bishops. Cf. 1304. "Let no one dare to publish again books proscribed by the Apostolic See; but if for a grave and reasonable cause some singular exception in this matter seems to be admitted, this shall never be done unless permission of the Sacred Congregation of the Index has first been obtained, and the conditions prescribed by it have been observed." § 31. Proscribed, namely simply. Cf. 1304 ff., whether by general decrees or by some special decree. This shall never be done, etc.: therefore it is not sufficient to correct the books and publish them again without the aforesaid permission. "Those things which pertain in any way to the causes of Beatification and Canonization of Servants of God cannot be published without the good pleasure of the Congregation placed over safeguarding Sacred Rites." § 32. Pertain in any way, namely as regards procedural acts. Sacred Congregation of Rites, July 11, 1821, General Decree; February 12, 1909. Cf. Monit. Eccles., vol. 21, p. 18. "The same is to be said concerning Collections of Decrees of individual Roman Congregations; namely these Collections cannot be edited unless permission has first been obtained, and the conditions prescribed by the moderators of each Congregation have been observed." § 33. They cannot be edited, but, if illicitly edited, their use is not for that reason interdicted. Concerning Collections, not concerning individual Decrees, which are customarily published by special periodicals, e.g., by the Acta Sanctae Sedis. "Vicars and Missionaries Apostolic are faithfully to observe the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation placed over Propagation of the Faith concerning the editing of books." § 34. Decrees, etc. Therefore they cannot commit a work, whether their own or another's, to print without the express and written permission of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, to be printed at the beginning of the work. Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, December 6, 1655, Collection n. 1869. Cf. E.M. They are to observe faithfully; but as regards penalties inflicted in them, at present one must stand by the Constitution, § 47 ff. "The approval of books whose censure, by force of the present Decrees, is not reserved to the Apostolic See or to the Roman Congregations, pertains to the Ordinary of the place in which they are made public." § 35. To the Ordinary of the place, etc.; not of the author; not of the editor. In which, etc.: not where they are printed, but where they are brought to light, namely where they are first edited, although from there, namely from that place, the book is also published in other places, as is customarily done. For the sale of approved books is not customarily restricted to the diocese by whose Ordinary the book was approved. Moreover, it is not said to the Ordinary of the places, but of the place.

By Decree of December 28, 1908, the periodical booklet Rivista di Cultura is prohibited at Rome. "And if anyone from the secular or regular clergy reads it or associates himself with it, let him know that he has incurred suspension from divine things by that very fact." Monit. Eccles., vol. 20, p. 528. Cf. here n. 1301.

As regards regulars, and as regards authors dwelling in Rome, cf. 1312. E.M.

Approval of the Ordinary of the place in which the book is published. The Bishop of the place in which some author, not subject to him, desires to make public a book already examined by his proper Ordinary and judged worthy of the press, can permit the printing of that book by appending the judgment Nihil obstat transmitted to him by that Ordinary from the censor of another diocese. Sacred Congregation of the Index, May 9, 1912.

Concerning liturgical books to be edited. So that the norms concerning liturgical books to be edited, handed down several times by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on August 11, 1905, February 14, 1906, and January 25, 1911, may be observed more widely and fully, the Sacred Congregation of Rites, to prevent and impede abuses, decreed that these things are to be observed: "Editions of Books pertaining to the Sacred Liturgy, whether they contain Rites and Prayers to be performed in Sacred functions, or prescribe Sacred Ceremonies accompanying the aforesaid Rites and Prayers, or report the Decrees of this Sacred Congregation collected into one, are either Typical or according to the Typical. "Only the Pontifical Vatican Polyglot Press, or other Pontifical Printers who have obtained permission from the Sacred Congregation of Rites, can print Typical Editions. "Individual leaves of the typical edition will be submitted to the review of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, which will seek the opinion either of the Liturgical Commission or of the Commission on Sacred Music and Chant, according to opportunity. "Any typical edition will report the Decree of approval, declaring such edition to be typical, and at the same time prescribing to all editors that they conform future editions altogether to the aforesaid typical edition. "Editors, once some typical edition has been completed, will hand over two copies to this Sacred Congregation of Rites, to be preserved in the Archive of the same Sacred Congregation with the greatest care and diligence. "Any printer, with the consent and approval of the respective Ordinary having been added, can print Editions according to the typical, namely those which correspond exactly to the aforesaid typical editions. "The Most Reverend Ordinaries of places, having appointed a diligent reviewer skilled in liturgical matters, who is to see whether the aforesaid editions agree completely with the typical ones, are to declare such agreement and append the imprimatur. "As regards editions of Masses or Offices Proper to some Diocese, concerning which a typical edition does not exist, if they are to be printed in the Diocese itself, the Most Reverend Ordinaries of places are to declare their agreement with the originals and append the imprimatur. But as regards editions both of another Diocese and of Orders Regular or Congregations, the Most Reverend Ordinaries of places, to whose jurisdiction the Printers are subject, are to append the imprimatur after either the Ordinary of the Diocese, or the Superior of the Order or Congregation to which the aforesaid Offices or propers pertain, has remitted to them concerning the agreement of these editions with the originals approved by the Holy See a Rescript, which is likewise to be edited. "Among Books pertaining to the Sacred Liturgy, for the effect of the present Decree, the following are especially to be numbered: "The Roman Breviary, Missal, Ritual, and Pontifical and excerpts from them; the Roman Martyrology; the Ceremonial of Bishops; Propers both of Offices and of Masses of some Diocese, Order, or Religious Congregation; the Memorial of Rites of Benedict PP. XIII for smaller Churches; the Clementine Instruction for exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament; the Collection of Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites." Sacred Congregation of Rites, May 17, 1911.

Faculty of editing the New Psalter. By Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, January 15, 1912, Bishops were forbidden to grant to printers of their diocese the faculty of printing the new "Psalter." For already by Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, November 15, 1911, reported in the very typical Vatican edition of the new Psalter, it declared this edition typical, "and established that new editions of the same Psalter are to be in all things conformable to this one and are not to be printed except by printers of this Sacred Congregation, with the prescriptions to be handed down by this Secretaryship observed."

"Whether the aforesaid Constitution has obligatory force also for English-speaking regions, which some think enjoy a tacit dispensation? - Response. Affirmative." Sacred Congregation of the Index, 23 May 1898.

"45. Prohibited books, until they are expurgated, can be retained until, with diligence applied, they are corrected." Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

"79. It is useful and necessary at every time, in every place, and for every class of persons to study and to know the spirit, piety, and mysteries of Sacred Scripture. - 80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all. - 81. The obscurity of the holy word of God is not a reason for laymen to dispense themselves from reading it. - 82. Sunday must be sanctified by Christians with readings of piety, and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful to wish to draw a Christian away from this reading. - 83. It is a delusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mysteries of Religion ought not to be communicated to women through the reading of sacred books. The abuse of the Scriptures did not arise from the simplicity of women, but from the proud learning of men, and heresies were born. - 84. To snatch the New Testament from the hands of Christians, or to keep it closed to them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ. - 85. To forbid Christians the reading of Sacred Scripture, especially of the Gospel, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light and to cause them to suffer a certain kind of excommunication. - 86. To take away from the simple people this consolation of joining their voice to the voice of the whole Church is a practice contrary to Apostolic practice and the intention of God." Propositions of Pasquier Quesnel condemned by Clement XI.

"1. Whether under the name of those who devote themselves to theological or biblical studies are included also students who devote themselves to theology and the Hebrew and Greek languages in seminary schools? And, in the affirmative: 2. Whether a bishop can permit students in the schools, under the guidance of a professor, to read and translate Hebrew and Greek texts edited by non-Catholics, provided that the dogmas of the Catholic Faith are not attacked in the prolegomena or annotations of such books? - Response. To 1. Affirmative. - To 2. Negative, unless they have obtained a special faculty from the Holy See." Sacred Congregation of the Index, 21 June 1898.

"Whether it is prohibited in books called books of devotion to add a translation in the vernacular language to the Latin text of the Order of Mass, and especially of the Canon. - Response. The books and their translations in the vernacular language in question are, by canonical prescriptions and Apostolic Decrees, entirely reserved to the authority of bishops; and therefore it is not lawful for the faithful to use editions of these unless they bear the express approval of the bishops." Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 August 1877; New York.

"Whether works, which are very numerous, infected with errors condemned by the Syllabus, are considered prohibited by the words of article 14 insofar as they contain errors proscribed by the Apostolic See? - Response. Affirmative, if they defend or uphold these errors." Sacred Congregation of the Index, 23 May 1898.

"Whether in decree no. 17 of the General Decrees concerning the prohibition and censure of books recently issued by Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, these words: let them not be published without the permission of the competent authority, are to be understood in such a way that henceforth all books, booklets, sheets, etc., of indulgences are to be referred only to the Ordinaries of places in order to obtain permission? Or are they to be subjected to the review either of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences or of the Ordinary of the place according to the norms established before the new Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum? - Response. To the first part: Negative. - To the second: Affirmative." Sacred Congregation of the Index, 7 August 1897.

"Article 12, section 3, of the Decrees issued after the old Rules of the Index is to be understood in such a way that, if there is question of publishing the grant of some indulgence, or a summary of indulgences which is to be taken from an Apostolic Brief or Rescript, or a summary already published by authority of the Sacred Congregation, it is within the power of the Ordinary to grant permission to print the grants of those indulgences (provided that there is not a special and express prohibition for some list); but, on the contrary, if there is question of a summary previously collected but never approved, or now to be collected for the first time from various grants, the express permission of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences is required. His Holiness approved." Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 22 January 1858.

"Whether chapters extracted from periodicals and published separately (commonly called tirages à part, or separate offprints) are to be regarded as 'new editions' and therefore require a new approval, as is required by article 44? - Response. Negative." Sacred Congregation of the Index, 25 May 1898.

"Whether Ordinaries who, after the examination of a book submitted to their prior censorship has been completed, deny permission to publish it are bound to indicate to the author the reasons for the permission denied? - Response. Affirmative, if the book appears capable of correction or expurgation." Sacred Congregation of the Index, 3 September 1898.

"The Sacred Congregation, moved by just causes, deliberately decreed that henceforth it is lawful for no Apostolic missionary, of whatever rank, condition, preeminence, religion, or state, to commit to print, under any pretext, by himself or through another or others, any work of his own or of another without the express written permission of this Sacred Congregation in the customary form, etc., under the penalty of deprivation of office, of active and passive voice, of suppression of that work, and of excommunication latae sententiae, incurred by the fact itself and reserved to Our Most Holy Lord alone. It commanded the aforesaid and each one of them that, in the event that they obtain the aforesaid permission, they are bound to print it at the beginning of the work itself under the same penalties; any privileges, faculties, permissions, etc., even those otherwise given or granted orally, notwithstanding, all and each of which are to be considered revoked in every manner by the present Decree and regarded as revoked." Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 6 December 1655.

"Since therefore, as We have learned, although at another time the Congregation of Our Venerable Brothers, the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, for just causes had forbidden anyone to publish in print without its permission books and writings in which missions were treated in any manner, nevertheless many, either ignorant of what the same Congregation had decreed or rashly transgressing its Decree, publish writings and books often containing false and inept things, not without offense to pious and learned men: We, moved by these and other grave causes, with the counsel of the aforesaid Cardinals, by Apostolic authority and by the tenor of the present letters, again forbid anyone of whatever state, rank, and condition, even a regular of any order, congregation, institute, and society, even of Jesus, although he be one concerning whom specific and individual mention would have to be made, to publish, by himself or through another, without the written permission of the Congregation of those same Cardinals, which he is bound to print at the beginning of the work, books and writings in which missions or matters pertaining to missions are treated, under the penalties, incurred by the fact itself, of excommunication latae sententiae, from which no one can be absolved by anyone other than Us, or the Roman Pontiff existing at the time, unless placed at the point of death, and of deprivation of office and of active and passive voice, as well as of suppression of the works." Clement X, Brief Creditae nobis, 6 April 1673; Collectanea, no. 1872.

"It is in no way expedient that, in the Empire of China and the Kingdom of Tonkin, any writings or books be published, whether treating directly or indirectly of religion or discussing ecclesiastical matters, unless after the prior examination and approval of this Sacred Congregation. It nevertheless declared exempt from this law small doctrinal works, catechisms, instructions and prayers which serve for the daily use of the faithful; under this condition nevertheless, that they cannot be disseminated among the people unless the respective bishops of the places, or the Apostolic Vicars, have first examined them and permitted them to be published." Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 28 December 1770; 31 March 1836, to the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina; 31 August 1840, to the Apostolic Vicar of Siam; 30 September 1848, to the Apostolic Vicar of Western Cochinchina.

"And since it has been learned that in several vicariates books and booklets are published in which the morals and customs of pagans are discussed, and which refer more or less directly to the interpretation of the Apostolic Constitution of Benedict XIV, of holy memory, which begins Omnium sollicitudinum, the Most Eminent Fathers judged that the Apostolic Vicars and missionaries are to be admonished that a copy of every instruction and booklet in which matters pertaining in any manner to the interpretation of the aforesaid Bull are treated must altogether be sent to this Sacred Congregation." Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to the Apostolic Vicars of India, 8 December 1868.

"Whether the sermons or preachings of missionaries are understood to be included under the prohibition concerning the printing of books of religion, in such a way that the examination and approval of the respective Apostolic Vicar is not sufficient. - Response. Insofar as they wish them to be published in print, affirmative; otherwise, negative in the case, provided that the Apostolic Vicar has approved those sermons." Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 27 September 1843.

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.

981. • Excommunication on account of heresy is the first and principal one of the Bull Apostolicae Sedis ¹. Not only heretics incur it, but also their supporters.

¹ See above, no. 972, I.

With respect to heretics themselves, for excommunication to be incurred, it is required that true heresy be present, that is, a voluntary error, externally manifested and pertinacious, against some article revealed by God and proposed by the Church. Hence:

1. Even vincible, indeed crass, ignorance excuses; but more probably affected ignorance does not excuse, because contumacy is present. St. Alphonsus, no. 301 ², nevertheless holds the contrary as more probable on account of the defect of contumacy.

² This judgment is not that of St. Alphonsus alone, but is almost common. See the things said in volume I, in the Note to no. 210.

2. A positive doubt externally disclosed does not excuse, because one who doubts judges positively that the truth proposed by the Church can be false. St. Alphonsus, no. 302.

3. One who holds heresy within his mind, or who, while manifesting it externally, dissents internally, is excused from the censure. A fortiori, one who manifests his heresy in order to seek counsel is excused, because he does not manifest the error with the intention of professing it. St. Alphonsus, no. 304.

I. A Bishop can absolve from heresy which is notorious and brought into the judicial forum, either by himself or through a delegate. Benedict XIV, On the Synod, book 9, chapter 4.

II. The Pope alone can absolve from heresy, whether notorious or occult, which has not yet been treated in the judicial forum. But an occult heretic is said to be one who, although he has exchanged heretical conversation with another, is nevertheless not notoriously held as such; or one who, although he has communicated his heresies to no one, has nevertheless performed some external acts from which he could be recognized as a heretic. Benedict XIV, Constitution Pastor bonus, 13 April 1744.

Hence it is clear that no one guilty of heresy can be absolved by an inferior judge before he has been summoned into the judicial forum or has spontaneously presented himself to it. A Bishop, however, can receive the abjuration of Protestants in either forum.

According to Laymann, a usage is in force in Germany of not sending to the Bishop Protestants who wish to embrace the Catholic Church; but after they have been taught the true Faith and have abjured heresy, they are admitted to sacramental confession and the reception of the Eucharist. A practice of this kind also obtains elsewhere.

But with respect to the rite of absolving heretics in the external forum and receiving their abjuration, see the rules which Father Maurel gives in the excellent work entitled Guide pratique de la Liturgie romaine.

982. • It was said above (no. 972, II) which books after the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis are forbidden to be read under penalty of censure, namely, that all and each knowingly reading, without authority of the Apostolic See, books of Apostates and heretics defending heresy, and also books of any author, even one not a heretic, prohibited by name through Apostolic letters, are punished with excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff. Therefore the penalty of excommunication incurred by the act itself, although not reserved, has ceased, by which according to the Rules of the Index there were prohibited all books of heresiarchs, or of those who are considered the chiefs or leaders of heretics, and also books of heretics treating expressly of Religion; or even books of an author, whether a heretic or not a heretic, condemned and prohibited on account of heresy or the suspicion of false dogma.

With respect to writings whose reading we have said is forbidden under censure, several teach that those reading a letter or sermon separately printed do not incur excommunication, because it is not a book. But St. Alphonsus, no. 293, rightly notes that in the Roman Expurgatory issued from the Tridentine Decree, all writings, even brief ones, were prohibited under excommunication, which we have said has ceased. But because public journals, commonly les journaux, are subject to ecclesiastical censure, it is evident that they are included under the aforesaid law if they are written by heretics and defend heresy. This is evident from the following Response of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, directed in the year 1832 to the Bishops of Switzerland:

QUESTION 1. Whether newspapers or journals ought to be subject to the censure of the Ordinary, and whether also with respect to political opinions?

Reply. Affirmatively, with respect to both parts.

QUESTION 2. Whether not only doctrinal articles, but also articles in which facts are narrated, are subject to the same censure ³?

³ By the name censure in this Response of the Sacred Congregation there does not appear to be meant the penalty either of excommunication or suspension, etc., but merely the ecclesiastical examination and approval which is required by law before books are printed. Wherefore from it, in itself and directly, it is not proved that the aforesaid newspapers are subject to excommunication. Indirectly, however, it pertains to the matter in some manner, insofar as it sufficiently indicates that the care concerning books or writings to be published, which ecclesiastical power exercises by its own right, extends also to this kind of writing; and thus that with respect to these also it can appear not incongruous that it use the customary remedies for forestalling dangers to the faithful.

On this matter, that which we observe in the Decrees concerning books prohibited but not expressed by name in the Index is plainly worthy of notice. For in section 1 the title is prefixed: Books Written or Published by Heretics; then in no. 6 there is read: Poems, Orations, Images; and in no. 9: Confessions, Articles, or Formularies of Faith. Therefore in the Decrees concerning the reading of Books the name BOOKS extends also to these. Say the same of section 2, whose title is: BOOKS of Certain Subjects Prohibited. Nevertheless, see mentioned therein, in nos. 5, 6, and 7, Pamphlets, Letters, Ordinances, Arrests, Decrees, Epistles. Therefore, if in Decrees which condemn the reading of books even under censures it must be judged that the name Books is used in that sense in which it is generally accustomed to be employed in Decrees of this kind, the argument sought by others from the common appellation of a book, by which, namely, the reading of a letter, poem, oration, or some newspaper is exempted from the condemnation and added penalties, could appear empty. And this can be confirmed by another reason. For, after the Decrees have been inspected, it is sufficiently evident that by the name of a book there is understood anything whatever whose reading contributes to the detriment and corruption of faith and morals. But this belongs not only to writings which commonly have the name of books, but to any little writing. Therefore.

It is useful here to subjoin those things which the Rieti Commentary adds after relating the contrary opinion of Bouvier: The most learned writers of the periodical whose title is La Civilta Cattolica think otherwise (series VIII, volume VI, from page 648), being led chiefly by this reason, that newspapers differ from books in this: the former are issued from individual sheets or leaves on individual days, while the latter coalesce into books from several joined sheets published at the same time; a brief and pressing reason. However that is altogether indubitable, that newspapers whose reading is dangerous to faith or morals are forbidden under grave obligation by the natural law itself. And this is most certainly so after the Letters of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX given to the Most Eminent Vicar of the City on 30 July 1871....

Reply. Affirmatively.

But one who hears another reading does not incur excommunication, at least probably, because he does not read. Nor does one who reads some small portion, on account of paucity of matter. But the gravity of matter cannot be strictly determined; sometimes a few lines suffice if heresy occurs. St. Alphonsus, no. 284. Nor does one who reads from necessity in order to refute a heretic incur it, if recourse to the Superior is not available. St. Alphonsus, no. 283. Nor one who retains a book for a short time, for example, one or two days. St. Alphonsus, no. 295. Nor if he retains a book while awaiting an opportune time to hand it over to the Superior; but otherwise if he retained it for a long time, even though he abstained altogether from reading it. St. Alphonsus, ibid.

983. • The Index was composed and promulgated by command of Paul IV in the year 1558; Pius IV perfected it with the Council of Trent and published it in the year 1564. Clement VIII enlarged it in the year 1595. The Congregation of the Index was instituted by St. Pius V. See St. Alphonsus, Appendix On the Prohibition of Books, book 1, at the end, no. 17, etc.

The Index presents three principal classes of prohibited books. The first class contains all books of heretics which contain heresy or treat expressly of Religion. The second class embraces books of Catholics against the Faith or good morals. The third class contains books published without the name of the author which hand down depraved doctrine. St. Alphonsus, no. 289.

Books of the first class, which by the ancient law were all prohibited under penalty of excommunication, still all remain prohibited; but which are now forbidden under penalty of excommunication, and indeed a reserved one, was said above. Books of the second and third class are not considered prohibited unless they are specially designated in the Index, unless nevertheless they pertain to certain general classes of matters which are designated in the Rules of the Index. Furthermore, in the Index all books of heresiarchs are prohibited generally in hatred of the author, even if they do not contain heresy or treat of Religion ⁴.

⁴ Avanzini notes (Commentary, no. 8) that, with account taken of penalties, books prohibited or to be rejected can be divided into three classes, namely: 1. books prohibited under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, concerning which above, no. 972, II; 2. books prohibited under penalty of fault according to the Index of Prohibited Books and its rules in force. To this class can also be referred books or writings forbidden only by the law of nature, although not yet placed in the Index, which nevertheless can otherwise easily be referred to certain general classes of prohibited books; likewise, books prohibited by Bishops in individual dioceses. That Decree, however, both as regards the force of a positive precept and as regards the censure, if any were added, would bind only the subjects of each diocese. 3. Books which, according to the ancient usage in the Church, we shall call apocryphal, which, namely, we hold as destitute of all that authority, force, or use to which they might appear to be ordained. In this class we call a monument, canon, testament, decree, etc., apocryphal; but the Church simply repudiates these books without any sanctioned penalty. Of this kind are books treating of sacred matters but printed without the approval of the Ordinary. To this class can be referred all books of indulgences, journals, summaries, pamphlets, and sheets in which their concessions are contained but which were published without permission of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences; likewise ritual books issued without the approval of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, etc.

984. • 1. All books condemned before the year 1515 are prohibited, even if they are not found described in the Index.

2. All books of heresiarchs are altogether forbidden, even if not erroneous or not treating expressly of Religion. Other books of heretics which are not erroneous and do not treat of Religion can be permitted, provided they have been examined and approved ⁵.

⁵ This clause does not appear now to be in force.

3. The Scriptures and books of controversies in the vernacular language cannot be read unless they have been approved by the Holy See or published with notes taken from the holy Fathers of the Church or from learned Catholic men ⁶.

⁶ POSTULATUM. Since it has been reported with certainty to the Sacred Congregation of the Index that in some places the most sacred books of the Bible are printed in the vernacular language without the most salutary laws concerning this matter being observed, and since it is therefore to be feared that, such being the conspiracy of wicked men especially in these times, errors wrapped in the more sacred array of the divine word may be insinuated perversely, the same Sacred Congregation judged that those things which were otherwise decreed must again be recalled to the memory of all: namely, that vernacular versions of the Bible are not to be permitted unless they have been approved by the Apostolic See or published with annotations taken from the holy Fathers of the Church or from learned Catholic men. 13 June 1757. Likewise, 7 January 1836.

4. Books treating expressly of obscene things are absolutely prohibited, although they are not found in the Index.

5. Likewise, all books treating of astrology, divination, and sorceries are forbidden, more probably under an excommunication not reserved.

6. All books condemned on account of suspicion of false dogma are prohibited under penalty of excommunication, but see above, no. 972, II; others under guilt of mortal sin.

Besides the ten Rules issued by command of the Council of Trent, there exist other general Rules established by the Sacred Congregation of the Index itself and published by command of the Pontiffs in the volume of the Index of Prohibited Books, under this title: Decrees Concerning Prohibited Books, etc.

By the ancient law, books of heretics treating of Religion or containing heresy were prohibited under excommunication in two ways: one reserved to the Roman Pontiff through the Bull Coenae; the other not reserved. For the new law see above, no. 972, II.

985. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether the law of the Index, prohibiting the reading of certain books, binds by natural law or only by positive law?

Reply. It obliges by both laws, at least of itself, because it does not prohibit books except because they are pernicious and induce proximate danger of perversion or sin; but by natural law everyone is bound to flee danger of this kind. Hence, even if the obligation of the Index were not acknowledged somewhere, nevertheless the reading of books placed in the Index would be prohibited under grave obligation. Concerning this St. Alphonsus observes: All theologians add that even with the permission of the Pontiff the reading of that book which could be an occasion of ruin to someone cannot be permitted. Appendix On Prohibited Books, chapter 1, no. 12.

Two things must furthermore be noted.

1. Private persons ought to obey the commands of the Confessor in those things which concern the reading of books. Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition replied in the year 1832 to the Bishops of Switzerland asking: Can the faithful, with conscience safe, read newspapers or books which have not undergone the censure of the Ordinary? Reply. Let them have recourse to the Confessor ⁷.

⁷ Indeed, even when the faculty of reading prohibited books is given to someone, a clause is sometimes added that in this matter the counsel and judgment of the confessor are to be employed.

2. The Confessor himself ought carefully to seek the direction of the Bishop and diligently to keep before his eyes the most grave admonition which St. Alphonsus handed down, namely: In this matter it is ordinarily expedient to follow the stricter opinions. Chapter 5, no. 8.

986. • QUESTION 2. Whether the law of the Index is binding in France?

Reply. Not all agree concerning this matter. Some affirm it because the law is general. Others, however, deny it both because, they say, the law of the Index was not received, which the opponents otherwise say is historically false, and because of the long desuetude of the law. But others, walking a middle way, used to say that the prohibition of the Index was not received in France as regards the penalty of excommunication, but was binding as regards the guilt of sin, which is generally committed on account of the danger of perversion or of evil delight from reading such books.

But whatever not a few theologians of France formerly said, it does not now appear that there should be any further doubt on account of the unambiguous Declarations of Pius IX. For the Pontiff not only acted by persuasions to induce the Bishops of France to put the laws of the Index into execution, but also displayed such authority that henceforth it is licit for no one to affirm that the law of the Index is not in force in France. It suffices to bring forward the testimony of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, and consequently of the Pontiff himself, in the acts of the Council of Rheims in the year 1857, namely: Moreover, let the Rules of the Index be observed. See Cardinal Gousset, Exposition des principes du Droit canonique.

It is also worthy of note that the Bishops of France strive daily that the laws of the Index be put into execution, as is evident from the Provincial Councils of Avignon, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Auch, La Rochelle, etc.

987. • QUESTION 3. Does one violate the law of the Index who reads, for example, manuscripts of larger format written by a heretic?

Reply. It appears that this must be affirmed with St. Alphonsus, no. 293, Suarez, La Croix, and others more commonly. The reason is that in common usage manuscripts are often accustomed to be designated by the name of books; for thus all writings were called before typography had been invented. Several nevertheless contradict this because manuscripts do not come under the name of books ⁸.

⁸ Yet it must not be neglected that in the Decree On Prohibited Books, section 2, nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13, mention is expressly made also of manuscripts. Therefore, according to the proper sense of the Curia, manuscripts too come under the name of a book.

988. • QUESTION 4. From whom must permission to read prohibited books be obtained?

1232. Two things are established in the Code concerning this matter: 1. the previous censure of certain books; 2. the prohibition of certain books. "Those things which are prescribed under this title concerning books are to be applied to publications, newspapers, periodicals, and any other published writings whatever, unless the contrary is established."¹⁷

¹⁷ Code, c. 1384, § 2.

1233. 1. Certain books cannot be published, even by laymen, unless ecclesiastical censure has preceded, which "can be given either by the local Ordinary proper to the author, or by the Ordinary of the place in which the books or images are made public property, or by the Ordinary of the place in which they are printed, yet so that, if any one of these Ordinaries has denied permission, the author cannot seek it from another Ordinary unless he has informed the same of the permission denied by another."¹⁸

¹⁸ Code, c. 1385, § 2.

Now these books are: "(a) Books of Sacred Scripture, or annotations and commentaries on them; (b) books which regard divine scriptures, sacred theology, ecclesiastical history, canon law, natural theology, ethics, or other religious and moral disciplines of this kind; books and booklets of prayers, devotion, or religious, moral, ascetical, mystical doctrine and instruction, and others of this kind, although they seem to conduce to fostering piety; and generally writings in which there is something which is of special interest for religion and honesty of morals; (c) sacred images to be printed in any way, whether they have prayers joined, or are published without them."¹⁹

¹⁹ Code, c. 1385, § 1.

Besides, "in newspapers, sheets, or periodical booklets which are accustomed to attack the Catholic religion or good morals, let not even Catholic laymen write anything, unless a just and reasonable cause persuades, approved by the Ordinary of the place."²⁰

²⁰ Code, c. 1386, § 2.

1234. 2. Secular clerics are forbidden, without the consent of their Ordinaries, and religious without the license of their major superior and of the local Ordinary, to publish also books which treat of profane matters, and to write in newspapers, sheets, or periodical booklets, or to moderate the same.²¹

²¹ Ibid., § 1.

1235. 3. Express license of the Apostolic See is required "so that it may be lawful to publish in print, in any language, both an authentic collection of prayers and pious works to which the Apostolic See has attached indulgences, and a list of apostolic indulgences, and a summary of indulgences either previously collected but never approved, or now for the first time to be gathered from diverse concessions."²² - Moreover all books, summaries, booklets, sheets, etc., in which concessions of indulgences are contained, are not to be published without license of the Ordinary.²³

²² Code, c. 1388, § 2.

²³ Ibid., § 1.

4. "Those things which in any way pertain to the causes of beatifications and canonizations of Servants of God cannot be published without the license of the Sacred Congregation of Rites."²⁴

²⁴ Code, c. 1387.

5. "Collections of decrees of the Roman Congregations cannot again be published unless permission has first been obtained and the conditions prescribed by the Moderators of each Congregation have been observed."²⁵

²⁵ Code, c. 1389.

6. "In publishing liturgical books and their parts, and likewise litanies approved by the Holy See, agreement with the approved editions must be established from the attestation of the Ordinary of the place in which they are printed or made public property."²⁶

²⁶ Code, c. 1390.

7. "Versions of Sacred Scripture into the vernacular language cannot be printed unless they have been approved by the Apostolic See, or unless they are published under the vigilance of the Bishops and with annotations chiefly excerpted from the holy Fathers of the Church and from learned and Catholic writers."²⁷

²⁷ Code, c. 1391.

8. Translations and new editions of an approved work must be fortified by a new approval. But chapters excerpted from periodicals and published separately do not need new approval.²⁸

²⁸ Code, c. 1392.

1236. 9. As regards censors to be established in all episcopal curias:²⁹

²⁹ Code, c. 1393.

(a) "Let them be chosen from either clergy, commended by age, erudition, and prudence, who in approving and disapproving doctrines go by a middle and safe path."

(b) Examiners, in performing their office, with every acceptance of persons laid aside, should keep before their eyes only the dogmas of the Church and the common doctrine of Catholics which is contained in the decrees of General Councils, or in the constitutions or prescriptions of the Apostolic See, and in the consent of approved doctors.

(c) A censor must give his judgment in writing. If it is favorable, the Ordinary is to grant the power of publishing; nevertheless the judgment of the censor is to be placed before it, his name being inscribed, except in a few extraordinary cases in which mention of the censor, by the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, can be omitted. - But the name of the censor should never be made known to authors before he has issued a favorable judgment.

10. The Ordinary³⁰ should grant the power of publishing in writing, at the beginning or at the end of the book, sheet, or image to be printed, with the name of the one granting, the place and time of the concession expressed. - If license is denied, unless a grave cause demands otherwise, the reasons are to be indicated to the author asking.

³⁰ Code, c. 1394.

1237. 1. Besides books prohibited under penalty of excommunication,¹ and books reported in the Index, from the Code itself these are prohibited by the law itself:²

¹ Code, c. 2318.

² Code, c. 1399.

1. Editions of the original text and of ancient Catholic versions of Sacred Scripture, even of the Eastern Church, published by any non-Catholics whatever; likewise versions of the same into any language, made or published by the same;³

³ Yet the use of these books is permitted to those who devote themselves to theological or biblical studies, provided that the same books have been published faithfully and integrally, and that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are not attacked in their prolegomena or annotations. Code, c. 1400.

2. Books of any writers whatever which defend heresy or schism, or strive in any way to overthrow the very foundations of religion;

3. Books which, by set purpose, attack religion or good morals;

4. Books of any non-Catholics whatever which treat professedly of religion, unless it is established that nothing is contained in them against the Catholic faith;

5. Books of which there is question in c. 1385, § 1, n. 1, and c. 1391; likewise, from those of which there is question in the cited c. 1385, § 1, n. 2, books and booklets which narrate new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, or miracles, or which introduce new devotions, even under the pretext that they are private, if they have been published without observing the prescriptions of the canons;

6. Books which attack or deride any one whatever of the Catholic dogmas, which defend errors proscribed by the Apostolic See, which detract from divine worship, which contend to overthrow ecclesiastical discipline, and which by set purpose heap reproaches upon the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or the clerical or religious state;

7. Books which teach or commend superstition of any kind, sorceries, divination, magic, evocation of spirits, and other things of this kind;

8. Books which establish as licit the duel, or suicide, or divorce; books which, treating of Masonic sects or other societies of the same kind, contend that they are useful and not pernicious to the Church and civil society;

9. Books which professedly treat, narrate, or teach lascivious or obscene matters;⁴

⁴ But expurgated classical books do not fall under the prohibition.

10. Editions of liturgical books approved by the Apostolic See, in which anything has been changed so that they do not agree with the authentic editions approved by the Holy See;

11. Books by which apocryphal indulgences, or indulgences proscribed or revoked by the Holy See, are spread abroad;

12. Images printed in any way whatever of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the Angels and Saints, or of other Servants of God, alien from the sense and decrees of the Church.

1238. 2. Local Ordinaries can also proscribe books, and they must warn the faithful of the danger and harm of reading depraved books, especially prohibited ones.⁵ They can besides grant permission to their subjects to read books prohibited by the law itself or by decree of the Holy See, but only for individual books and only in urgent cases. But if they have obtained from the Apostolic See a general faculty of permitting their subjects to retain and read proscribed books, let them grant it only with selection and for a reasonable cause.⁶

⁵ Code, c. 1405.

⁶ Code, c. 1402.

1239. 3. Those only can read and retain proscribed books who have obtained opportune faculties. - License to read or retain books condemned by the Holy See does not include license to read and retain books prohibited by a Bishop, unless in the case of express mention.⁷ Besides, they are held by grave precept to guard prohibited books in such a way that these do not come to the hands of others.⁸

⁷ Code, c. 1403.

⁸ Code, ibid., § 2.

1240. 4. Sellers of books are wholly prohibited from selling, lending, or retaining books treating professedly of obscene matters; moreover, they are forbidden to have other proscribed books for sale without permission of the Congregation of the Index, or to sell them to those who do not legitimately ask.⁹

⁹ Code, c. 1404.

Division into four Parts

1. In order that, which is our purpose, we may place the present law concerning the prohibition and censorship of books in a clearer view, we divide this our study into four principal Parts.

The first will contain various notions which either, as it were, surround the law, concerning its end, usefulness, and history, or are of more general use and give common aids for its right interpretation.

In the second, we shall illustrate the several articles of the Constitution, in the order in which they are proposed, by brief notes.

In the third, there will be made a brief repetition of the General Decrees, arranged, as they say, in a "logical" order.

The fourth will give certain useful forms and lists.

Finally, at the end of the work, before the Indexes, we shall bring forward the Constitutions of Leo XIII and Benedict XIV, from which the present law concerning the prohibition and censorship of books is composed.

Books prohibited in the first age of the Church

2. 1. Relying on the example of St. Paul himself, under whose eyes at Ephesus books of superstitions were burned by fire,¹ the Holy Fathers strove with every effort to deter the faithful from keeping or reading the writings of heretics. And in the very first ecumenical Council, that of Nicaea, in the year 325, a decree was issued against the book Thalia of Arius, which Constantine the Great completed by severe enforcement. Several later decrees concerning the books of Pelagius, of the Manichaeans, and so forth, imitated that example.

Gelasian decree

Moreover, the first catalogue of prohibited books is found in the decree which, under the name of Gelasius (496), was received into the Gratian collection of law.² It is sometimes celebrated as the first Roman Index.

Besides the works of heretics, the forged Acts of the Martyrs and apocryphal penitential books were then condemned.

¹ Acts of the Apostles, 19:19.

² Canon Sancta Romana, 3, D. 15.

Prohibited books in the Middle Ages

3. 2. In the Middle Ages also severity was used against the works of heretics and treatises on the magical arts.

Precautions concerning the Sacred Bibles, thirteenth century

4. 3. From the end of the thirteenth century (1299), on account of the abuses of heretics, precautions began to be taken lest the Sacred Bibles be read imprudently by the people, especially in the vernacular tongue.¹

¹ Hilgers, Der Index, p. 5.

After the spread of the typographical art

5. In the sixteenth century, after the typographical art had spread, there was need to take sharper measures against evil books. Therefore several particular Indexes of dioceses¹ or kingdoms appeared.

Index of Paul IV

Paul IV first published a Roman Index in the year 1559, to the moderation of which that Holy Pontiff himself already applied his labor.²

Of Pius IV

But in the year 1564 there appeared the Index of Pius IV, called the Tridentine Index, because that sacred synod had committed to the Supreme Pontiff the care of publishing an Index and of arranging that subject. The so-called Tridentine rules, or ten general decrees concerning the proscription of books, are placed before the catalogue itself. The catalogue, however, borrowed from Paul IV the division of books into three classes: 1. of heretical authors; 2. of Catholic works; 3. of anonymous works. Moreover, all the works of authors of the first class were prohibited. This Index, as far as substance is concerned, remained up to Leo XIII.

Of Sixtus V and Clement VIII

Nevertheless, Sixtus V prepared a new edition of the Index, which, with certain books removed, especially the Controversies of Cardinal Bellarmine and the Relectiones of Francis de Vitoria, Clement VIII completed in the year 1596. The first class scarcely appears there to have been increased by any name; but in place of insertion into the first class there succeeded the clause Opera omnia, by which a writer was marked who seemed worthy of universal proscription.

Of Alexander VII

Then, in the edition of Alexander VII (1664), the division into three classes was formally suppressed, since the books were arranged in alphabetical order.

Of Benedict XIV

Benedict XIV deservedly gave an excellent edition (1758), after first prescribing the most wise Constitution Sollicita ac provida, July 9, 1753, concerning the method to be observed in the examination and proscription of books.

Of Leo XIII

And thus one comes to the Index which, under the auspices of Leo XIII, was promulgated to the whole world in the year 1900.

¹ It would be wholly alien from the mind of the Holy See to publish particular Indexes of this kind today. Thus, on August 17 of the year 1892, to the Archbishop of Valladolid, who had asked the Holy See certain things concerning the Spanish Index, the response was: One must stand solely by the Roman Index and its rules, and new editions of the Spanish Index are to be prohibited.

² Cf. Hilgers, Der Index, p. 7.

Origin of the Sacred Congregation of the Index

6. Concerning the Sacred Congregation of the Index itself, it will be useful to recall that it is contained seminally in the Motu Proprio of St. Pius V, November 19, 1570, by which he gave to the Master of the Sacred Palace a most full faculty of correcting books. Then, as the Congregation for Reforming the Index and Correcting Books, it was brought to light in the month of March 1571; which institution the Bull of Gregory XIII, September 13, 1572, solemnly promulgated, so that Sixtus V, by the Constitution Immensa aeterni Patris, January 22, 1588, by which he instituted or confirmed fifteen Congregations, had only to ratify the already existing Congregation.

Censorship from the first centuries of Christ down to the modern age

7. 1. For a long time, before any law concerning previous censorship existed, there were holy and learned men who either handed suspect works over to the Supreme Pontiff to be judged, or sought his judgment and counsels concerning their own writings. Thus in the fifth century a certain Gennadius sent his work On Ecclesiastical Writers to Pope Gelasius, just as in the year 1198 Godfrey of Viterbo offered to Urban III his book whose title is Pantheon, to be approved and corrected.¹

A certain previous censorship was imposed by particular law, for example, by the University of Paris (June 5, 1366), for masters.

After books began to be printed with type, the University of Cologne went before others by example in requiring previous censorship; Sixtus IV praised its zeal and approved its service, March 18, 1479.²

¹ Hilgers, Der Index, p. 403.

² Ibid., p. 407.

In the modern age

8. 2. But the first pontifical Constitution concerning the previous censorship of books has as its author Innocent VIII, November 17, 1487. Although it has universal force, it was sent to the Archbishop of Cologne. Alexander VI, by the Constitution Inter multiplices, June 1, 1501, issued for the four ecclesiastical provinces of Germany a general prohibition that books should not be printed unless the Archbishops or competent Officials had first been consulted.

Then, in the Lateran Council (1515), Leo X, by the Constitution Inter sollicitudines, May 4, 1515, enacted a general law by which, under grave penalties and even excommunication itself, he prohibited anyone from presuming to publish any writing whatever without the previous review of the Bishop, or, in the City, of the Vicar and the Master of the Sacred Palace.

At the present age

That decree was confirmed in the Tridentine Index; afterwards it was increased by the rules of Clement VIII concerning the printing of books, until the rigor of the former law was mitigated by an express law of Pius IX in the year 1848 for the Pontifical State, and elsewhere also by the custom of places. Leo XIII sanctioned and more fully defined that benignity.

Particular laws

Meanwhile, particular provisions were also made concerning liturgical books, and concerning books written on a certain subject matter in places which are governed by the spiritual jurisdiction of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide. Cf. Collectanea, n. 1866 ff.

Censorships and proscriptions among non-Catholics and political men

9. At the end of this very brief exposition, these things must not be passed over: the pseudo-reformers of the modern age were most severe censors and proscribers of books; and political men, in order to attain their own ends, framed similar laws, which not even today have been entirely suppressed. One must by all means compare the things which are learnedly set forth concerning the censorship and prohibition of books in England, Holland, Scandinavia, Switzerland, Germany, and concerning royal and imperial censorship in France, in the work of Father Hilgers, S.J., Der Index.

The Church's right of making these laws

10. By its sanctions concerning the prohibition and censorship of books, the Church wishes to provide for the spiritual safety of the faithful, while it strives to punish or restrain evils, and indeed to forestall them. No one among Catholics will be able to deny that this is its inviolable right.

The past usefulness of the laws

And formerly indeed, so long as the rulers of the state agreed as one with the sacred power,¹ the usefulness of proscriptions was great: evil books were morally removed from commerce.

So happy a fruit can no longer be hoped for today. On the contrary, it happens that by its very proscription a book acquires a certain reputation and fortune. This may be a reason why the Church prefers that many works perish in silence rather than, by its mark of censure, to procure celebrity for them.

¹ Constitution Officiorum, preface.

And present usefulness:

11. Yet beware lest on that account you hold the general or special decrees of the Index to be useless. And indeed:

For the faithful,

1. They constantly inculcate the salutary principle concerning the danger which exists in the reading of many books. And this not ineffectively.

Even now there are not lacking, especially among Catholic young people, those whom the prohibition of the Church restrains from reading evil writings, so that by the benefit of laws of this kind they preserve purity and virtue unharmed.

For writers,

2. Next, for many writers these laws are a bridle by which they are kept back from not a few excesses. For most Catholics dread the reprobation of the Index; therefore, lest they be affected by that mark, they write much more cautiously and temperately than they would if they were permitted to set forth all things with impunity.

Indeed, since because of a mark of this kind profits are often made smaller, or positive losses of fortune are sustained, it happens that even those who are little inclined toward the Church do not dare to offend faith or morals, and publish books that are more corrected. It is enough to recall in mind how a more chastened edition of several dictionaries appeared, such as those which borrow their name from Littré or from Larousse.

For the Church

3. By disapproving books, the Church not rarely manifests its mind concerning various doctrines and directs the good along the right way, even before solemn judgments concerning doctrine can prudently be made. This is especially profitable to the Christian commonwealth.

4. Moreover, by previous censorship, which is imposed on certain kinds of books, the faithful are rescued from many dangers of deception. The Church also has a means of providing for its own name, which, from ill-timed or ridiculous writings, can be exposed not only to the hatred but also to the mockery of enemies.

The true reason why these laws are often less pleasing

12. Observe, moreover, with how great a force of words, in our Parliaments, men inveigh against certain books which defend principles contrary to modern principles, as they say. Nor would they allow such things to be read aloud in public schools. Therefore let them not wonder that the Church pursues the documents of revealed faith with a similar love and zeal to that by which they wish to honor "revolutionary" principles. That affected tolerance of many, by which they claim liberty for dogmatic error and moral evil, seems, when all is finally said, to be drawn rather from a certain doubting and skepticism than from a benign moderation of mind.

The laws in force are enumerated

13. I. Today we are governed solely by:

1. The Constitution Officiorum, issued by Leo XIII, January 25, 1897.¹

2. The Constitution Sollicita ac provida of Benedict XIV, July 9, 1753, which Leo XIII wished to remain wholly in force, as he openly declares in the beginning of his own Constitution.

3. The new Index which Leo XIII, by the same Constitution Officiorum, ordered to be made and promulgated by the appended Brief Romani Pontifices, September 27, 1900.

Moreover, the Index itself, or catalogue strictly so called, has its own Preface, written by the Very Reverend Father Thomas Esser, O.P., which supplies no slight aids to the interpreter.

On the volume of the Index

The monuments thus far recounted are contained in that handsome volume which, in the year 1900, first appeared under the title Index librorum prohibitorum.² In this order:

The Brief of Leo XIII, Romani Pontifices, dated September 27, 1900;

The Preface written in the name of the Sacred Congregation of the Index by its secretary;

First Part. Apostolic Constitutions on the Examination and Prohibition of Books:

The Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum of Leo XIII;

The Constitution Sollicita ac provida of Benedict XIV;

Second Part. Index of Prohibited Books.

4. A few decrees which have interpreted the Constitution of Leo XIII, or have governed a new subject, such as the sanctions concerning sacred music of Our Most Holy Lord Pius X.

Concerning the first three sources of law, these few things must be handed down.

¹ In Bulls, the year is taken from the Incarnation of the Lord, whose beginning is March 25. Therefore, since this Bull appeared in the month of January, the year indicated was 1896, which by civil reckoning was already to be called 1897.

² One large octavo volume, XXIII-317 pp. The title reads thus: Index librorum prohibitorum, Ssmi D. N. Leonis XIII iussu et auctoritate recognitus et editus. Praemittuntur Constitutiones Apostolicae de examine et prohibitione librorum. Romae, Typis Vaticanis, MCM. Afterwards a second edition appeared, MCMI; the most recent, however, in the year MCMIV.

Of the Constitution Officiorum

14. II. The Constitution Officiorum consists of the Preamble, the General Decrees, and the clauses by which pontifical acts are customarily concluded.

Preamble

1. In the Preamble, the reason for the laws concerning harmful books is defended, the history is sketched, the necessary mitigation is demonstrated, the intention of the Pontiff is set forth, and the former law is abrogated.

General Decrees

2. The General Decrees are the chief part and systematic ordering of ecclesiastical law concerning books, on which, as on their foundation, special decrees rest.

Moreover, they are divided into two titles: the first is on the prohibition of books; the other on their censorship.

In the first title are contained general proscriptions by which, even if no special sentence comes forth, various classes of books are reproved under a general note; these Father Hilgers elegantly reduces to three kinds of works:¹ irreligious, heretical, superstitious, and immoral works; works injurious to God and the Church; and works which, without the approval of competent authority, handle delicate subjects of Christian doctrine and instruction.

This title therefore brings this advantage: the Church need not proscribe all books by a special prohibition, and can especially pass over those on which a general proscription has clearly fallen.

The other title treats with sufficient distinctness of the Prelates who are placed over the censorship of books, of the mode in which the previous examination is to be carried out, and of the books which are subject to this examination. Then it gives related admonitions for printers and publishers of books.

Nevertheless, the last chapter of this title in reality pertains to all the laws concerning books, so that it may furnish them with a suitable sanction.

Clauses

3. By the customary clauses of Bulls, these laws are intimated, it is decreed to what copies faith is to be given, and, after the ordinary threats, there is appended the day, month, and year of the Incarnation.

¹ Der Index, pp. 38, 39.

Brief summary of the Constitution Sollicita

15. III. The Constitution Sollicita ac provida chiefly treats and sets forth three things in order, by which:

1. First, there is described and confirmed the form of action by which either the supreme Congregation of the Holy Office or the Sacred Congregation of the Index examines books and reproves those which seem to be worthy of condemnation.

2. Precautions are recalled and recommended by which, as far as possible, Catholic writers are spared, especially those who have acquired a certain name for themselves, and a fitting place is prepared for their defense.

3. Consultors and relators are instructed by wise admonitions and counsels.

Those letters of Benedict XIV are worthy of every consideration; they exhibit the true mind of the Church in prohibiting books, and they contain those things which vindicate the same Church as free from many accusations.

The end intended in the Brief of Leo XIII

1. The proper intention of these letters is the promulgation of the Index itself: apostolic approval, I say, and confirmation. "This general Index of this kind," the Pontiff says, "which we wish to be held as inserted expressly in these letters, by Apostolic authority, by the tenor of the present letters, we approve and confirm, and we command it to be observed by all, everywhere, wholly and inviolably, under the penalties sanctioned in our Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum."

The Index therefore obtains the force of a universal law, which is commended to the local Ordinaries and to the Superiors of all Regulars, that they "take care, according to their powers, that it be published and observed."

Matters contained

2. Matters contained. a) After a brief survey has first been set forth of the historical progress of the laws by which the Church has taken action against evil writings, and after the additions have been related by which, at the command of various Pontiffs, the Tridentine Index was supplemented, the Supreme Pontiff declares the task entrusted by him to the Eminent Fathers of the Congregation of the Index; and this task looked to this end, that, after a most diligent review of the former Index, a new Index might be prepared, purged of errors, of more expedient use, and at the same time adapted to more benign laws. b) Therefore, as the Holy Father recalls, it was necessary to relieve the new catalogue "of not a few books, whose proscription, once necessary or opportune, has today become almost useless." c) The Supreme Pontiff congratulates both the Eminent Cardinals and the learned men whom they had called in as an aid to their work on the task happily completed.

Importance of the Preface

That Preface not merely explains in what manner the Index was composed, but hands down several things from which we shall draw no small light for rightly understanding the laws of the Index. Concerning each subject separately:

Various notions

Certain errors are corrected

1. Various notions concerning the Index. a) After the proper nature of the Index has been explained, the Preface compares that special catalogue with the General Decrees: in what respects they agree, and what difference there is between the two. It warns that those who think they can know from the Index alone the books of disapproved reading are gravely mistaken, since it contains only the smallest part of them; and it declares that those do not think truly who suppose that certainly those books can be sought there which in any discipline are, as it were, outstanding in wickedness: for a special reason, generally denunciation, must be added for a book to be proscribed by a particular decree.

Which books have been removed from the Index

b) It goes through various kinds of books which have now been struck from the Index. They are chiefly: books whose defects were compensated by no mediocre usefulness; books which were noted less on account of an intrinsic reason than on account of the manner of treating the matter, or because of the necessity of protecting charity, after passions and excessive contests had been suppressed in disputing about subjects which today can now be treated with an even mind; or also on account of inserted little offices or litanies which today can be published for private use by the authority of Ordinaries; books which today, either because of the folly of the subject, are rather to be despised than reproved, or which, by their small bulk, have been, as it were, carried off by the wind; all works which, in the early seventeenth century, were struck solely by edicts of the Master of the Sacred Palace; books concerning which the Sacred Congregation of the Index itself sometimes decreed that they could or should be omitted in the next decree; and old collections of decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, proscribed by the decree of April 20, 1621.

Statistical indications

Moreover, from the work of Father Hilgers¹ we borrow these numerical indications. Almost 800 works have been struck from the earlier Index. But 4000 decrees are preserved, by which either works or writers are condemned by name. Moreover, the writers whose works are collectively reproved are numbered as 108.² Of the 4000 proscribed books, 1500 are assigned to the seventeenth century, 1200 to the eighteenth century, and 1300 to the nineteenth century. For works condemned before the year 1600 are not distinctly recounted.

As regards the kinds of reproved writers, in the sixteenth century and at the beginning of the seventeenth century Protestant heretics are chiefly noted, besides impious or base writers of the age which is called that of revived letters. From about the year 1649 there follow Jansenists, Gallicans, several moralists sinning by excessive benignity, defenders of the Chinese and Malabar rites, and Quietists. From the middle of the eighteenth century, the reproved works cannot be forced into a few kinds.

Of the 1330 works condemned in the nineteenth century, 500 are Italian in origin, 480 from France (together with Belgium and Holland),³ 180 from Germany, about 120 from Spain and Portugal, and 40 from England. The very few which remain are to be assigned to Poland, Greece, Denmark, and so forth.

External figure of the Index

c) The praised Preface delineates, as it were, the external figure of the Index by handing down the method observed in composing the Index and in describing books.

Aids for the interpreter

Benign mind of the Pontiff

2. Aids of interpretation. a) The Preface again emphasizes this plan of the Supreme Pontiff, by which, tempering the former severity, he wished "to accommodate the whole system of the Index to the time, according to the maternal benignity of the Church."

Exclusive force of these laws

b) While the Constitutions of Leo XIII and Benedict XIV are placed before the Index (the latter of which, it says, pertains to the censors of books rather than to the universality of the faithful), the Apostolic Constitutions are proclaimed to be published "by which the examination and proscription of evil books is governed at present." Therefore, that book is declared to be of safe reading which is reproved neither by the Index nor by these General Decrees.

We wish this to be observed by those who seem to labor so that from the ancient laws they may seek obligations and bonds by which the benefit of Leo XIII is almost raised away; for he determined that precepts in this matter should be made easier both to know and to observe.

Clause Opera omnia

c) The force of the clause marking the Opera omnia of some writer is accurately explained.

All editions and versions are prohibited of themselves

d) The author of the Preface confirms that which has already been received: when some book has been prohibited, all its editions and translations are prohibited, unless by express words the proscription is confined within narrower limits.

Volumes or fascicles later than the decree are of themselves only suspect

e) Explaining the force of a decree by which some volume of a work is condemned, when that work has afterwards had another volume, or by which a periodical booklet, afterwards continued, is condemned, he teaches us that those later volumes or fascicles are not indeed affected by a special decree, but are to be held as suspect unless the repentance of the author is established.

When mention is made of a version

f) He warns that in the new Index the version of a work is no longer indicated unless it is established that only the version is prohibited. But each book is indicated in its own language, such as it was when published. And, moreover, translations have then only been listed when, besides the work itself, the Sacred Congregation also wished to mark some translation of it by a special decree.

To what date decrees are referred

g) He adds that, in the new Index, as far as possible, the day and year on which the decrees were issued have now been placed, not, as used formerly to be done, the day and year on which they were printed and published. Hence, for example, the Catechismus spiritualis of Father Surin was formerly noted in Italian as proscribed by decree of the Holy Office of September 7, 1695; now it is noted in French as proscribed on July 20, 1695.

Clause Donec corrigatur

h) The clause Donec corrigatur is said to affect the manner of the prohibition, but not its effects.

¹ Pp. 93 and 113.

² Their works taken together seem to be near the number of a thousand.

³ Why Italian and French works stand out so much in number, there are several causes: the Catholic religion of the writers, which demands greater vigilance; more frequent use of denunciation; the intensity of intellectual life in these regions during the nineteenth century; proximity and greater knowledge of the language.

Words of the Constitution

18. I. At the end of the Preamble itself, the Supreme Pontiff sets down a most ample abrogation of the earlier law when he says: "We will that these alone have the force of law, the Rules published by order of the Holy Synod of Trent, the Observations, the Instruction, the Decrees, the Admonitions, and every other statute and command of Our predecessors concerning this matter being abrogated, with the sole exception of the Constitution Sollicita ac provida of Benedict XIV, which, just as it has been in force up to now, so we will to remain wholly in force for the future."

II. Therefore:

The statutes which were prefixed to the Index are abrogated

19. 1. By the first enumeration there are suppressed, under their proper indicated title, most of the general statutes which, in editions of the Index, were prefixed to the catalogue itself. They are, namely: the Rules of the Index, promulgated by order of the Sacred Tridentine Council; the Observations of Clement VIII on Rules IV and IX, and of Alexander VII on Rule X; the Instruction of Clement VIII for those who are to devote labor to books, both to be prohibited and to be expurgated, and also to be printed; the Decrees of Benedict XIV concerning prohibited books not expressly named in the Index; the Admonitions of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, March 4, 1878, January 7, 1836. The Constitution Sollicita ac provida of Benedict XIV is omitted, since it still remains in force; also the Mandate of Leo XII and the Most Recent Addition (concerning censures), which have material confirmation in the new Constitution.

And any other dispositions concerning this matter

Extent of this abrogation

As to extension

2. By the universal words which follow the enumeration, this abrogation is made most ample. But we declare its extensive amplitude thus: Excepting the Constitution Sollicita, which is expressly confirmed, and saving perhaps a future exception to be introduced by Decrees or Responses of the Congregations, every sanction of the superior pontifical law concerning the censorship or prohibition of books is suppressed. Nor does it matter whether it is a general or special law distinctively concerning this subject, or whether the disposition concerning censorship or prohibition is part of another law which principally treats another matter.

I say, saving perhaps a future exception. For it happens that the breadth of dispositions of this kind is afterwards sometimes opportunely tempered by "restrictive" Declarations of the Holy See. Thus, after the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis had been promulgated, which suppressed all censures latae sententiae of the superior law, it nevertheless wished the Declaration of Pius IX to remain in force, namely the excommunication laid down against missionaries who trade.¹

Concerning the censorship or prohibition of books. For the Supreme Pontiff says: concerning this matter. Therefore it is not of itself repugnant that a special law be preserved which indeed does not prohibit a book, but subjects a certain use of it to a special solemnity. Cf. the things which we shall discuss concerning liturgical books.

Moreover, we prove our conclusion:

a) From the words by which, at the end of the Preface, the Supreme Pontiff both negatively abrogates every other statute and command concerning this matter, and positively designates his present Decrees as the single source of law in this matter; he wills that they alone have the force of law, and that the sacred Council for marking books use them alone.

b) From the end. The Holy Father wishes to effect this, that "a certain and clear norm of acting in this kind be available to all." Nothing contributes more to this end than to have, collected in a single Constitution, as in a certain Code, all the laws concerning the same matter. On the contrary, if particular dispositions which wander through various Constitutions and were already partly obsolete still had to be approached,² who would not see with how many doubts and questions that effect would be impeded?

c) From the examples given in the Constitution itself. If he had wished a less ample abrogation, why in articles 47 and 48 would the Supreme Pontiff have judged that the excommunications latae sententiae promulgated by Pius IX in the recent Constitution Apostolicae Sedis had to be expressly confirmed? For those excommunications do not so much prohibit something in our matter as they are penal sanctions of an existing prohibition. Why, in articles 31, 32, and 34, did he have to recall special dispositions concerning documents pertaining to causes of beatification,³ and Decrees issued by the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide for Missionaries?

d) From the fact that, if you circumscribe the abrogation to those statutes which were prefixed to the Index,⁴ or even to others which are general by their object, the clause "every other statute and command concerning this matter" accomplishes scarcely anything. For by express words those things are suppressed which were contained in the volume of the Index. But what other general statutes in force can be designated?

e) From authority. Dilgskron,⁵ Cardinal Gennari,⁶ Hollweck,⁷ Planchard,⁸ and Wernz⁹ seem to think with us; hence, for example, Gennari and Hollweck compare the effect of our Constitution with the similar effect which the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis had for censures latae sententiae.

That correction of law is odious, as J. V.¹⁰ objects, what obstacle does that present? Are we thereby forbidden to understand words according to their proper sense, and as the end of the law demands?

¹ Promulgated by the encyclical letter of Propaganda Fide, March 29, 1873 (Collectanea P. F., nn. 351, 352).

² Thus, those who hold that the sanctions of Urban VIII concerning the narration of miracles still remain in force must send the reader back to the works of Benedict XIV, so that he may fish out from them the texts of the two protestations which we have seen inserted in no book!

³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, July 23, 1661.

⁴ The distinguished Pennacchi, n. 34, seems to do this.

⁵ Analecta Ecclesiastica, 1897, pp. 129, 130, 226.

⁶ Monitor Ecclesiasticus, loc. cit., pp. 13, 14.

⁷ Op. cit., p. 16.

⁸ Revue Theologique Francaise, loc. cit., nn. 4-7.

⁹ N. 110, note 45.

¹⁰ Nouvelle Revue Theologique, vol. 30, p. 109.

Intrinsic force of the abrogation

20. III. Moreover, this abrogation has a most full efficacy, or in its intensity is very strong. The Supreme Pontiff wills that, from this promulgation of his, even those dispositions which materially sound like the ancient ones draw their force solely from it. Pius IX did not do thus in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, but confirmed the ancient law in the parts which agreed with his Constitution, so that they received their force also from the authority of the old canons. Therefore, while in declaring the Constitution of Pius IX one immediately had to look back to the earlier jurisprudence, here, on the contrary, above all from our Constitution itself, as Pennacchi says,¹ that is, from the connected discourse, from the end of softening the law which the Legislator professes, questions are to be solved and the sense is to be determined.

Whether the suppressed Decrees are plainly useless

Only when this criterion is lacking, or remotely and secondarily, is appeal most usefully made to the understanding of the earlier age. For in this case the mind of the Supreme Pontiff becomes doubtful, and there is place for the principle of harmonizing the new law with the old. Cf. concerning these principles the letter Redditae Nobis, sections 9-13, which Benedict XIV, as a private Doctor, wrote on December 5, 1744.

¹ Op. cit., n. 34. Cardinal Gennari is somewhat otherwise in Monitor Ecclesiasticus, loc. cit., p. 14. Cf. also Wernz, n. 110, note 45.

Whether customs have been suppressed

21. IV. What of custom, I mean of a particular custom of places which has been contrary to this law?

1. No clause of the law abrogates particular customs of places, if they have been legitimate. For they are not taken away by a general law, "unless it is expressly provided in the law itself."¹ But in our Constitution no clause, not even generically, commemorates them, whereas the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis contains the most ample revocations of them. Nor does the end of our law demand this severity, so long as the matter concerns certain secondary mitigations which had prevailed even in those places where the laws of the Index undoubtedly were in force, and which can be composed with general obedience to our Constitution. We judge that these, if they have been legitimately prescribed, can still be retained. In explaining articles 7 and 41, examples of mitigations of this kind will occur. Genicot,² the Archiv fur katholisches Kirchenrecht,³ and several others are with us; nevertheless Wernz is against us,⁴ since he considers only our written Constitution.

What custom can be legitimate

But the custom of plainly setting aside those prohibitions which contribute so greatly to protecting faith and morals seems to many not to be capable of being reasonable. So Fessler.⁵ Gopfert denies that this reason is effective,⁶ since this custom tended only to this: that those who would read reprehensible writings without detriment would not commit a sin against ecclesiastical laws, a case which otherwise would be very frequent. And in truth, can the faithful not, by the counsels of a prudent confessor, avoid the excessive danger of delusion, on account of which that custom would seem unreasonable?

Nevertheless, a general exemption from the laws of the Index, even one resting on custom, cannot stand with the manifest intention of the Legislator, by which he commands that "Catholic men throughout the whole world obey these decrees religiously." Yet he prudently knows how to urge the force of his law. Cf. below concerning England.

¹ C. Licet 1, De Constitutionibus, in Sexto. Cf. Reiffenstuel, I, 4; or I, 2, nn. 498, 499; Laymann, Ius canonicum, in book 1, title 2, chapter 1 in Sexto, n. 12.

² Loc. cit., I, n. 455.

³ Vol. 78, p. 187.

⁴ N. 110, note 46.

⁵ Cited by Arndt, op. cit., n. 90, p. 104.

⁶ Op. cit., p. 322.

What value the reformed catalogue of the Index preserves

22. V. Once the new Index has been promulgated, the former one is abrogated. Yet it preserves usefulness for declaring doubtful points, if perhaps any things occur in the new Index that are obscurely stated, or even for correcting material errors if any have slipped in when ancient Decrees are being referred to. For the Legislator certainly does not wish to change the Decrees to which he refers his subjects.

Twofold aspect of the question

23. The question concerning the universal force of these laws has a twofold aspect:

Do these laws bind all persons, or are there some who, for example, on account of their dignity or knowledge, are exempt from them?

Do these laws bind in every place?

Reserving the first aspect for the commentaries on the articles (cf. art. 23), here we deal only with the second.

Of themselves they bind everywhere among nations

Proceed then: understood in this way, the universal force of these sanctions (apart perhaps from certain mitigations introduced by a particular and reasonable custom)¹ can no longer be doubted; and the controversy, if any remained, has been completely removed by this Constitution. For thus it states in the preface: "and let Catholic men throughout the whole world obey these [General Decrees] religiously"; and article 45: "Books condemned by the Apostolic See are to be held prohibited everywhere among nations." Thus the common opinion now holds, and it was confirmed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index when, on May 19-23, 1898, it responded affirmatively to the question "whether the said Constitution has obligatory force even for regions of the British language, which some think enjoy a tacit dispensation."

Nevertheless, Pennacchi writes² "that men of those nations are not to be disturbed who still wish to defend a custom introduced among themselves concerning exemption from the laws of the Index." A subjective excuse of good faith can indeed found a prudent dissimulation;³ yet this does not take away the actual efficacy of binding all, which the present law possesses of itself. Therefore, in order that very many may be freed from necessary solicitude, and the Bishops themselves may be immune from the obligation by which they are bound to promulgate new pontifical laws throughout their dioceses and bring them into use, we do not see another safe way available, except that which the distinguished Pennacchi² calls most advisable: namely, recourse to the Holy See.

¹ Cf. Aichner, ed. 1890, p. 146.

² Op. cit., n. 33.

³ Compare the Instruction of the Holy Office of February 1, 1871, concerning the admonition to be given to those who had incurred the censures of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. It is in the Collectanea Prop. Fidei, n. 1003, and is recited by Planchard, loc. cit., n. 10.

What now in England

24. The Bishops of England entered upon this way, and obtained ample faculties from the Holy See. Relying on these, His Eminence Archbishop Vaughan, in the 36th Synod of Westminster (1897), declared that each priest had the power prudently to permit the reading of prohibited books, saving, as is clear, the natural law.¹

At the same time, however, in order that they might act more gently and prudently, in the periodical The Tablet, December 18, 1897, they took care that by an article which bore the character of a communication not merely private but "official," the faithful should be admonished that nothing had been substantially changed in the discipline of England.² Then, by other encyclical letters, December 29, 1900, they commend the ecclesiastical laws concerning books and exhort the faithful to their diligent observance.³

**Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide**

Rome, May 31, 1897.

Most Eminent and Most Reverend, my most honored Lord,

Since the Apostolic Letters issued by the Supreme Pontiff **Leo XIII** on January 25 of the preceding month concerning the prohibition of evil books have given certain Prelates in England occasion to set forth grave difficulties which, on account of the peculiar circumstances of that region, stand in the way of Catholic men there being kept away from reading books of heretics; hence it has seemed opportune to this Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide to equip the sacred Prelates in England with due faculties, so that the rigor of the law may be tempered, according to the opportunity of the matter, by prudent counsel.

Therefore by the present letters, by the authority of the Apostolic See, a faculty is granted to Your Eminence, for as long as your episcopal office endures, of granting to the faithful of Christ of your Diocese who request it permission to read and retain, though under custody, prohibited books, even those treating against religion, except those which expressly deal with obscene matters. Your Eminence is to use this most ample faculty according to your prudence, when you shall judge it expedient in the Lord.

Meanwhile I most humbly kiss your hands.

Of Your Eminence,

the most humble and devoted servant,

**M. Cardinal Ledochowski**, Prefect.

**A.**, Archbishop of Larissa, Secretary.

To Lord Cardinal **Herbert Vaughan**, Archbishop of Westminster.

Then, by rescript of June 7, 1897, the clause "though under custody," which, as the Bishops thought, could create difficulties, was suppressed; that is, its use was committed to the prudent judgment of the Bishops.

He used these words: "Respecting the Apostolic Constitution on the Prohibition and Censorship of Books, by virtue of faculties granted by the Holy See, the Clergy are hereby allowed to give permission to all who apply to them to use their discretion as to the books they may read and retain; the natural law of course remaining in full force, which forbids people to expose themselves to suffer in their faith or morals by reading works that are likely to injure them in this way."

¹ The indult is of this kind:

² "In January last, the Holy See published a Constitution which in a considerable measure modified and simplified the provisions of the Index. Such a Constitution was naturally issued to the Church at large, and when it appeared in the Catholic press of this country, it necessarily, as we might expect, elicited from both clergy and laity the question whether this new constitution was or was not intended to supplant the status quo which had hitherto existed amongst us. The Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of England addressed an inquiry to Rome upon the subject, and at once received from the Propaganda the 'most ample' faculties for dispensation, so that owing to 'the special circumstances of the country,' they should be fully empowered 'to modify the rigour of the law by their prudence and counsel according as the case might demand.' Rome's reply was thus as ready and as liberal as we could well desire. It contained an official recognition of our special circumstances to which we have referred, and it responded to it by investing the local ecclesiastical authorities with the fullest faculties to meet every need of our position. The possession of such faculties practically leaves the status quo substantially untouched, while the Constitution itself has the additional benefit of modifying the law for the universal Church."

³ A joint pastoral letter on the Church and liberal Catholicism by the Cardinal Archbishop and the Bishops of the Province of Westminster (December 29, 1900). The summary of that letter is in Civiltà Cattolica, series XVIII, vol. I, 1901, p. 156, the place which interests us.

25. The laws of the Index contain a few censures latae sententiae; they strictly command or forbid many things, with arbitrary penalties being threatened; they commend or advise some things; finally, they grant certain faculties.

General rule

On censures

1. That these censures latae sententiae are to be interpreted strictly, no one today doubts; formerly it was denied by Suarez.¹

¹ De Fide, disp. 20, sect. 2, n. 10. Cf. the responses of Schmalzgrueber, in book 5, title 7, n. 55; and Castropalao, treatise 4, disp. 20, point 10, section 1, n. 3.

On precepts and prohibitions

26. 2. That rigorous precepts and prohibitions are to be interpreted strictly is held by the common opinion,¹ against very few.²

Concerning the more benign opinion, which is ours, these three things must first be observed, lest it be understood wrongly.

The more benign opinion is safeguarded

a) We are dealing only with positive prohibition; when this has been removed, the obligations of natural prudence remain. By these we are forbidden to expose our faith or our morals to proximate danger, and to be a scandal to others. Moreover, if it is neither lawful nor expedient to increase the force of obligations beyond what is just, nevertheless our counsels ought to strive for this: that, as far as possible, they remove dangers of spiritual ruin. Therefore, when there is question of counsels to be given, we plainly agree with St. Alphonsus writing: "In this matter it is ordinarily expedient to follow the more rigid opinions."³

b) We consider and interpret the Constitution as it was enacted, that is, in relation to the universal Church. But if the very good circumstances of some diocese can bear and seem to demand more severe sanctions, the remedy is ready at hand, and its use has more than once been commended by the Holy See: namely, the faculty granted to the Bishop of supplying, by particular laws, that which is wanting in the general Law for his diocese. But private persons are not thereby permitted to have recourse to an arbitrary interpretation of the common law.

c) The canon concerning the restriction of an odious law does not give the supreme rule of interpretation. Therefore it can happen that, in appearance, it must be derogated from, in order to observe higher canons, which command us, for example, to adapt an explanation to the clear mind of the Legislator,⁴ or to interpret words in such a way that they have some effect.

And it is proved

These things having been laid down, our solution rests especially on the circumstances in which this Constitution was enacted. Their sum is this: the desire of reading everything has increased immensely; regard for authority and docility of minds have greatly diminished; the Church has been deprived of every support of secular power;⁵ in our mixed societies there is daily commerce with men of every opinion and religion; there is a daily publication of books and writings which of themselves would be worthy of a censorial mark, and yet, at the same time, on account of other merits, furnish to many a useful, not to say necessary, reading; hence there are innumerable reasons, both pretended and true, for keeping and reading writings of this kind; and the necessity of a more benign law has been declared more than once. In his preface, Leo XIII, according to his prudence, acknowledges that the Bishops both of France and of Germany, who insisted in this sense with weighty words, had asked what was equitable, by denouncing the scruples, anxieties, and most grave temptations of violating the law by which the consciences of Catholics were burdened more than was fair.⁶ Add finally that not one region professed itself immune from the rules of the Index, and that it was among the wishes of the Supreme Pontiff that universal observance of these sanctions be restored. To one weighing these things, unless we are mistaken, the following will easily be clear:

a) The common good demands a strict interpretation of the prohibitions, lest, from the inclination of minds to cast off a yoke of this kind, there would be too great a temptation to violate the law, and thus for too many there would be an occasion of sinning; lest "imperfect persons, unable to bear precepts of this kind, break forth into worse evils."⁷ But the common good, just as it is the supreme norm of making law, so also is it the supreme norm of interpreting law.

b) The wish and command of the Supreme Pontiff, who desires that "Catholic men throughout the whole world obey these sanctions religiously," demands a strict interpretation. Rigid explanations of this law will not greatly profit this end.

c) If we wish to take refuge in axioms: "Every odious law is to be interpreted strictly."⁸ But that law is understood as odious which imposes a burden, an encumbrance.⁹ Who can doubt that the present law is of this kind, since it prohibits and indeed under a grave penalty,¹⁰ especially if you look to the circumstances? And it is already enough that, since the prohibitions run far beyond the limits of natural prohibition, it directly restricts natural liberty.¹¹

d) The character of the present Constitution demands a strict interpretation of the prohibitions. By this law of his the Supreme Pontiff imitates "the maternal zeal of the Church: which indeed desires nothing so much as to impart herself benignly, and has always taken care, and takes care, to heal those born of her in such a way that she lovingly and zealously spares their infirmity." He acknowledged and professed the necessity of softening the laws of the Index. He wills that "to obey" these laws, "provided one is not of evil disposition, cannot be grave and arduous." Yet, being well aware of the difficult circumstances, when the Bishops of England requested it, he immediately granted the very great power of which we spoke in n. 24. A broad acceptance of the prohibitions corresponds little with these things. Apply, for example, this method in explaining article 11.¹² Will you not immediately seem to yourself to be carried away by excessive rigor?

e) Together with the prohibitions, this Constitution contains penalties; indeed, all the precepts are sanctioned by arbitrary penalties. All acknowledge that these are of strict interpretation.¹³

But if you understand the prohibitions broadly, it will happen that you take the same words in a different sense in the offense than in its sanction! Moreover, if, on account of the favor of faith, we must interpret the prohibitions broadly, shall we not be compelled from the same cause to take strictly the licenses or faculties of reading, and the articles which hold certain books as not prohibited?¹⁴ No one will fail to see how strange these things are, and how much they are opposed to received practice.

¹ Genicot, I, 451; Hollweck, Das kirchliche Bücherverbot, p. 20, V; Péries, op. cit., p. 55; Pennacchi, op. cit., nn. 34, 38, 49 and passim; Palmieri, op. cit., n. 794; the writer of Archiv, vol. 78, p. 187; Piat, Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 32 (1900), p. 479; Wernz, op. cit., n. 110, IV; Ciolli, op. cit., n. 4, etc.

² Planchard, Revue Théologique Française, vol. 2, p. 159; Van Coillie, op. cit., nn. 9, 10; L. Van Ruymbeke (somewhat more temperately), in Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 36 (1904), p. 98.

³ Appendix, chapter 5, n. 8.

⁴ We understand that mind which can be demonstrated from reason, the connected discourse, or the circumstances, so that it has been promulgated with the law. For a private declaration of the Legislator can no more be efficacious than a private will. Very well Wernz, I, n. 131, II, where the words are doubtful, says: "From the disposition of the law one must have recourse to the mind of the Legislator truly manifested in some other way."

⁵ If, as formerly, the matter concerned preventing the introduction of dangerous books into some region, the common utility of warding off common harms could easily demand that the commands given, especially those which are given to public powers, be accepted broadly; but prohibitions which affect individuals in particular are to be accepted otherwise. Just as you will understand more broadly a general prohibition by which men infected with plague are kept away, and a particular prohibition lest you approach a man suffering from plague.

⁶ Cf. the words in the Collectio Lacensis, vol. 7, p. 843; or in Péries, pp. 46, 47; or Pennacchi, op. cit., nn. 29, 30.

⁷ St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 96, art. 2, ad 2. Cf. also the body of the article.

⁸ Reiffenstuel, I, 2, 427; and cf. Rule 15 of Law in Sexto.

⁹ B. P., tract. 3, n. 381.

¹⁰ Cf. already Albitius, De inconstantia in fide, chapter 30, n. 224 ff.

¹¹ In this matter Reverend Father Van Ruymbeke seems to err in an otherwise learned dissertation, when he describes the laws of the Index as gentle and easy to observe of themselves. It is enough even briefly to question, I do not say impious men and haters of the Church, but Catholics and priests (provided they devote themselves to studies, for what does it matter with respect to others?), so that you may become more certain that those laws, both concerning prohibition and concerning previous censorship, are today held as most troublesome, and are far from being marked by that note which Suarez himself requires in order to indicate that prohibitions are favorable, that is: that they command something "moderate, and agreeable to the common manner of living of men" (De Legibus, book 5, chapter 2, n. 6).

¹² Cf. below, in the commentaries.

¹³ Lehmkuhl, I, 1073, 4; Van Gestel, De Iustitia in Lege civili, p. 185.

¹⁴ For example, article 4.

General rule concerning faculties

27. 3. But faculties either of reading and retaining prohibited books, or of granting this permission, seem to us to have, of themselves, an ample interpretation.

We say this of indults for granting faculties, such as Bishops obtain, because faculties of this kind are referred to privileges which are outside the law and not against the law.

We hold the same concerning indults for reading books, because they have the character of a faculty, not of a dispensation. For the law does not simply forbid reading, but forbids you to read without license. By reading with license, you observe the law, far from being dispensed from it.

But since a general faculty concerning the reading of books expressly obscene is never granted, the necessity on account of which you think yourself exempt from that prohibition seems to be to be taken strictly - I do not say scrupulously.

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.

3. On the Signification of Various Words and Clauses

A) What is a Book?

A certain bulk is required

Whether newspapers, sheets, little works?

33. What is a Book? According to common acceptance, by this word there is designated a volume of a certain bulk, which offers to readers a subject matter of a certain unity.

a) Of a certain bulk, I say. Therefore newspapers, even more ample ones, sheets (imprimés),¹ and small opuscula are not understood, since they "are accustomed to be called by some other name, such as elegies, letters, or speeches, rather than books."² Many, after Schmalzgrueber,³ require ten sheets for a book. We understand these as whole sheets, so that an octavo work would be 160 pages, a sextodecimo work 320. This estimate seems sufficiently fair.⁴ Without denying, therefore, the material truth which this rule can generally have, we judge, with Lugo,⁵ that the formal reason of the solution is rather to be drawn from common usage.

We have some opponents, who, under the earlier law, either argue with B. P.⁶ from the fact that in the Decrees concerning books, the Legislator spoke of poems, images, etc.; or with Piat⁷ infer the same from certain words of an allocution of Pius IX. But the words of Pius IX, according to Villada,⁸ seem to be referred "to eleven newspapers which the same Supreme Pontiff, by express name, had prohibited for the Roman diocese through his Vicar, June 30, 1871." And by the response of the Holy Office, April 27, 1880, denying that excommunication is incurred by one reading "newspapers defending heresy," our opinion is strongly confirmed.⁹ Now an argument is added from the present Constitution, which in a distinct chapter, namely the eighth, treats of newspapers, sheets, and periodical booklets; and in article 13 distinguishes writings from books; and in articles 17 and 20 distinguishes booklets and sheets.¹⁰

b) Of a certain unity. Therefore smaller booklets bound together by chance are not books.¹¹ But if from the beginning they are destined to compose one volume, which is thus published in parts, the whole volume thus composed is to be held as a book; indeed, the individual parts also, even taken separately, which reach the bulk of a book.

¹ Avanzini, op. cit., Appendix 3.

² Planchard, Revue Théologique Française, loc. cit., n. 14.

³ Book 5, title 7, n. 55.

⁴ D'Annibale, op. cit., III, 141; Pennacchi, op. cit., n. 38; Génicot, op. cit., 454, against Planchard, loc. cit., 13, 14, though he remains doubtful.

⁵ De Fide, disp. 21, n. 38.

⁶ Treatise 7, section 4, nn. 12, 13.

⁷ Op. cit., p. 619.

⁸ Op. and loc. cit., n. 11.

⁹ Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 20, p. 368.

¹⁰ We argue from this deservedly, contrary to the opinion of C. V. C., loc. cit., since we have proved that prohibitions also are to be taken strictly. Add that it would be strange if you took the same word books in one way in the prohibition and in another way in the censure which is its sanction, and now, as Planchard observes, loc. cit., 14, part of the same law. Did the ancients do so?

¹¹ For the same reason we judge that newspapers are not to be placed among books, even if they are gathered into one volume. So also Sleutjes, De prohibitione, etc., p. 24, note 2. We do not know with what truth several, Cardinal Gennari, loc. cit., p. 155, and Hollweck, loc. cit., p. 26, bring forward to the contrary the response of the Holy Office alleged below in the text, from which those incur the excommunication of persons knowingly reading certain books of apostates, heretics, etc., who read periodical publications of the same "bound into fascicles." For in the obvious sense, since we are not accustomed by the name fascicle to designate the large volume which newspapers bound together make, the petitioner who used this expression in proposing the doubt does not seem to have been thinking of newspapers, but wished to describe those publications which, as Lehmkuhl explains (II, 923), "are published periodically in compact fascicles" (qui paraissent en fascicules); otherwise, "les revues," "le riviste." Nor does Arndt, p. 217, seem to have understood the matter otherwise.

Whether periodical booklets are to be held as books

34. What of periodical booklets, "reviews"?

What generally prevents them from being called books is the lacking unity, since they are accustomed to embrace disparate, indeed diverse, subjects and treatises. Yet if from their habitual subject matter they have some unity of kind or tendency, under this respect, and not under another, they will be equated with books as soon as they reach the bulk of a book. Therefore periodical booklets devoted to cultivating the sciences or to philosophy are to be held as books of the sciences or of philosophy.

But a volume which, among other things, contains a study written by a heretic is not to be treated as the book of a heretic.

And in a similar way, periodical booklets which are customarily published by heretical authors and habitually defend heresy are to be equated with books of heretics defending heresy. Therefore, wisely, on January 13, 1892, the Holy Office responded that the censure laid down against those reading books of heretics defending heresy is incurred by those who knowingly read periodical publications bound into fascicles, having a heretical author and defending heresy.¹

Summary concerning the laws by which they are governed

Because the matter is one of daily use, it is helpful here to set forth, as it were in summary, which positive laws must be obeyed in keeping or reading periodical booklets.²

First, indeed, we observe this: individual fascicles are generally of less bulk (cf. n. 33) than that they can be called books; yet today several periodical booklets appear whose individual fascicles, in number of pages, equal even a fairly large book. Proceed then:

1. The General Decrees concerning books seem to us to affect periodical booklets only then:

a) When you have in hand a volume or fascicle which by its bulk equals a book, and if, moreover:

b) By its general character or habitual course the periodical booklet itself, or the whole fascicle, has the quality or sins by the defect which is marked by the General Decrees.

Therefore, if the first condition is lacking, neither a book on religion, nor a book in which the Church is disparaged, nor a book teaching magic, is a separated article of a periodical booklet, or a whole fascicle not reaching the quantity of a book, although they treat of religion, disparage the Church, teach magic. Therefore articles 3, 4, 11, 12 of the Constitution Officiorum do not fall upon an article or fascicle of this kind.

But if the second condition is lacking, neither is a complete volume or a collection of several volumes a book of this kind, if in them, besides articles on religion, there are also other longer articles of profane subject matter, or besides articles in which the Church is disparaged or magic is taught, there are found others of a different kind, so that from the prior articles you cannot gather one character of the periodical booklet.

But, on the contrary, a book of heretics is a periodical booklet which heretics are accustomed to write; a book on religion is a periodical booklet which has been accustomed to treat religious subjects; and so forth, provided you look at a volume of just bulk.

2. But individual fascicles, even smaller ones, are governed as by their own law by the General Decrees which are sanctioned in articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution Officiorum.

3. But if a work, whether previously or subsequently proscribed by name, has been published in a periodical booklet in several successive articles, to read one of those articles truly separated from the others does not seem contrary to the positive law; but you will have offended against the law if you morally have all or almost all the articles before your hands. For in the first case you do not read the work, but a separated part of it (cf. n. 36); in the other, you read the work itself, which, even as it is in the periodical booklet, is prohibited by positive decree. Yet the collection itself, or series of volumes, will not therefore always have to be mutilated. Cf. n. 32.

¹ This, therefore, seems to us to be the proper force of that decree. By no means, contrary to what many think and what we ourselves previously thought, is it there defined that periodical booklets are to be held as books. Nor, even if the individual articles reach the bulk of a book, would we say that the fascicle is then virtually to be compared with several books, as Villada writes, op. cit., n. 12.

² The things which we say concerning periodical booklets can almost be transferred to newspapers.

Whether calendars

35. By its external figure itself, a calendar whose leaves are to be torn off on individual days (Calendrier à effeuiller), and which therefore is more like a newspaper, does not seem to us to have the character of a book. It is otherwise, however, if it has had the character of a stable volume.¹

¹ Schmalzgrueber, 5, 7, 33; Bucceroni, p. 339; in the second edition, p. 368.

Sheets separated from a book

36. Nor do several sheets separated from a book come under the name of book. Against Piat,¹ who brings forward many authorities.

¹ Op. cit., p. 620.

Whether a collection of images

37. Nor is a collection of images considered a book. Therefore, by this Constitution, obscene or impious images are not touched by positive prohibition.¹

¹ Pennacchi, op. cit., n. 40; Hollweck, op. cit., p. 32.

Whether manuscripts

38. Whether it is further necessary that it be printed with type, or whether a manuscript work comes under the name of book, is not entirely certain. Most include manuscripts, because the word book is older than the typographical art, and the reason of the law, or the danger of infection, also obtains here. This is preferred by St. Alphonsus,¹ Arndt,² and B. P.³ Others, however, to whom laws of this kind seem to be interpreted strictly, not improbably observe that in our days, by common usage, books are distinguished from manuscripts, and that the reason of the law is less urgent concerning these, since they are disseminated with more difficulty. This is maintained by D'Annibale,⁴ Avanzini,⁵ and Bucceroni;⁶ Göpfert, however, says the same is probable.⁷ And after the Constitution was issued, Cardinal Gennari,⁸ Planchard,⁹ Génicot,¹⁰ and Hollweck¹¹ are of the same opinion; Hollweck adds this excellent reason, that the use of a manuscript work is today so rare that concerning it this holds: "what is minimal the legislator does not consider." Palmieri now holds the same in Gury, II, 794.

But there is no reason why you should deny the character of a book to works which indeed are not printed with type, but by other methods (lithography, hectography) which can give place to similar diffusion.

¹ Book 7, n. 293.

² N. 101, pp. 118-121.

³ Loc. cit., n. 13. Cf. in Piat, loc. cit., p. 618, note 1, many, both of the earlier and of the present age, holding the same.

⁴ III, 141.

⁵ Op. cit., I, appendix 3, pp. 134, 135.

⁶ II, p. 339, n. 4.

⁷ Op. cit., p. 323.

⁸ Loc. cit., p. 132.

⁹ Revue Théologique Française, loc. cit., n. 12.

¹⁰ I, 454.

¹¹ Op. cit., p. 24.

Whether lithographed or printed codes

39. Furthermore, at least as regards the necessity of previous censorship, books are not regarded except insofar as they are published. Hence works set down lithographically, which professors are accustomed to prepare so that hearers may make a compendium of what is to be written, and which are not of public right, are not subject to this censorship.¹ We know this to be approved by Roman usage itself. We think the same must be said of treatises which, for the same reason, are even printed with type. In German they say: Als Manuskript gedruckt - printed as a manuscript. And here again we are confirmed by usage, which is the best interpreter of laws.

¹ Génicot, op. cit., I, 454.

What is a Booklet?

40. A booklet designates a work of smaller bulk, which does not reach the just quantity of a book, but nevertheless is composed of some pages. So also Pennacchi, op. cit., n. 58. Booklets are spoken of in articles 17, 20, and 21 of the Constitution Officiorum.

1. The legislation of the Church concerning books is partly preventive and partly repressive.

2. Its underlying principle is stated thus in the new Code: “The Church has the right to demand that the faithful should not publish books which she herself has not previously examined, and also, for a just cause, to forbid books, by whomsoever published.”¹

¹ C. I. C., can. 1384, § 1.

The laws now in force, both in regard to preventive censorship and the prohibition of books, are contained in Book III, Title XXIII, can. 1384 to 1405, of the Code. All previous legislation is expressly abrogated, but the Index of Forbidden Books, as last edited and published in the year 1900, remains in force.²

² See infra, pp. 415 sq.

3. The laws of both censorship and prohibition affect not only books properly so called,³ but also periodical publications, in fact all published writings, except where the contrary is evident from the text of a law. Hence, generally speaking, this legislation does not apply to manuscripts, type-written or lithographed sheets, etc., unless they are issued in considerable numbers and sold like books; nor does it apply to non-periodical publications of very small size and insignificant content.⁴

³ H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, p. 701.

⁴ C. I. C., can. 1381, § 2; cfr. J. B. Ferreres, Compend. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 625 sqq.; Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 726 sq.

4. Though all laws referring to the censorship and prohibition of books may be interpreted leniently, yet, as St. Alphonsus says, in matters of this kind it is ordinarily better to follow the stricter opinion.⁵

⁵ A. M. Arregui, S.J., Summarium Theol. Mor., 4th ed., p. 256.

No prohibitive law on this subject ceases to bind except when it would miss its purpose by being obeyed, as when one is obliged to refute a forbidden book and cannot obtain timely permission to read the same. The reason is that such laws are based upon the general presumption that the thing prohibited constitutes a universal danger.⁶

⁶ Ibid., p. 256.

I. The preventive censorship of books consists in an examination made before they are published, followed by a judgment of approbation or condemnation.

1. The previous permission of the Holy See is required for the publication of a) Any authentic collection, in whatever language, of prayers and pious works to which the Holy See has attached indulgences; and of b) Any list of Apostolic indulgences, or summary of indulgences, whether collected at some former time and never approved, or newly collected from diverse documents;¹ also of c) Any vernacular translation of Holy Scripture without notes drawn from the writings of the holy Fathers and of Catholic theologians;² with the possible exception of certain devotional parts of the Bible, which are apt to kindle the piety of the faithful, such as the Psalter, the Sunday gospels, etc.; these, according to a probable opinion,³ the bishop can permit without notes.

¹ C. I. C., can. 1388, § 2.

² C. I. C., can. 1391.

³ Ferreres, Compend. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, p. 632.

2. The permission of the Sacred Congregation of Rites is required for the publication of anything and everything pertaining to the beatification and canonization of saints.⁴

⁴ C. I. C., can. 1395 sq.

3. The permission of the prefects of the various Roman congregations is necessary for reprinting the decrees of the respective congregations in new editions.⁵

⁵ C. I. C., can. 1389.

4. The permission of the diocesan Ordinary, that is, the bishop of the diocese in which the author lives, or in which the book is printed or published, is required for the publication of a) Any book, pamphlet, summary or leaflet containing indulgences,⁶ and of b) All books of Holy Scripture, or notes or commentaries on the same,⁷ or translations or paraphrases of such books in the vernacular with notes from the Fathers and approved theologians,⁸ or books which treat of Sacred Scripture, revealed or natural theology, Church history, Canon Law, ethics, and other religious and moral disciplines;⁹ and of c) Books or pamphlets containing prayers, devotions or instructions on religious, moral, ascetical, mystical or similar subjects, even though they appear to promote piety;¹⁰ and of d) Any other writings having special reference to, or involving the interests of, faith or morals;¹¹ and of e) Sacred images or pictures, no matter how manifolded, with or without prayers attached.¹²

⁶ C. I. C., can. 1388, § 1.

⁷ C. I. C., can. 1385, § 1, n. 1.

⁸ C. I. C., can. 1391.

⁹ C. I. C., can. 1385, § 1, n. 2.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Can. 1385, § 1, n. 3.

5. No cleric may publish books on profane subjects, or write for newspapers or magazines, or edit any periodical publications, without the permission of his Ordinary.¹³

¹³ C. I. C., can. 1386, § 1.

6. Religious, besides the permission of the diocesan Ordinary, must have also that of their major superior in order to publish any of the things listed under n. 5 and n. 4, b, c, d, and e.¹⁴

¹⁴ C. I. C., can. 1385, § 3; can. 1386.

Except for a just and reasonable cause, approved by the Ordinary of the diocese, neither clerics nor laymen are allowed to write for newspapers, reviews, or magazines that habitually attack Catholic faith or morals.

The permission of the Bishop (imprimatur) must be printed in the beginning or at the end of the book or picture thus approved, and must contain the name of the Ordinary or his representative, together with the place and date when the permission was granted.¹⁵

¹⁵ C. I. C., can. 1391, § 1.

A new imprimatur is required for the translation of an approved book into some other language and for each new edition of the book itself, but not for articles or excerpts reprinted from periodicals.¹⁶

¹⁶ C. I. C., can. 1392.

No episcopal imprimatur is necessary for reprinting liturgical books or any parts thereof, or litanies approved by the Holy See, but the Ordinary of the diocese where they are printed or published must certify that the text conforms to the originals.¹⁷

¹⁷ C. I. C., can. 1390.

1. The right and duty to forbid books for a just cause belongs:

a) For the universal Church, to the Supreme Pontiff and to ecumenical councils; b) For their respective subjects, α) To the diocesan Ordinaries and particular councils; β) To the abbots of independent monasteries and to the highest superiors of exempt institutes of religious clerics, acting together with their chapter or council; or, γ) When delay would be dangerous, to the other major superiors, acting with the advice of their consultors; but in this case the highest superior must be informed of the matter as soon as possible.¹

¹ C. I. C., can. 1395.

2. Laws prohibiting books do not affect:

a) Cardinals, bishops (diocesan and titular), and other Ordinaries,² including the major superiors of exempt clerical orders,³ all of whom, however, must apply the necessary precautions.

² C. I. C., can. 1401.

³ C. I. C., can. 198, § 1.

When issued by the Roman Pontiff or by his authority, these laws do affect.

b) All other members of the Church, no matter where they live or into what language the forbidden books are translated; when issued by an inferior prelate, they bind all his subjects.⁴

⁴ C. I. C., can. 1395 sq.

3. The common law of the Church, as laid down in the Code, forbids:

a) All editions of the original text and the ancient Catholic versions of Sacred Scripture, including those of the Eastern Church, when published by non-Catholics; also all translations of the Bible or any part thereof, into whatever tongue, when made by non-Catholics or edited by them.⁵

⁵ C. I. C., can. 1399.

The use of such editions of Holy Scripture and vernacular translations as lack the required approbation is permitted to those who are engaged in theological or scriptural studies, provided, however, that the editions are faithfully and completely edited and do not attack the doctrines of the Catholic Church, either in their prolegomena or notes.⁶

⁶ C. I. C., can. 1400.

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.

c) The common law of the Church also forbids all books that purposely or professedly attack religion or morals.⁹

⁹ C. I. C., can. 1399, n. 3.

d) Also all books written by non-Catholics, which treat ex professo¹⁰ of religion, unless it is certain that they contain nothing against the Catholic faith.¹¹

¹⁰ On the meaning of this phrase see Timothy Hurley, A Commentary on the Present Index Legislation, Dublin 1907, pp. 84 sqq.

¹¹ C. I. C., can. 1399, n. 4.

e) Likewise, unapproved editions of, or commentaries upon Sacred Scripture, or translations into the vernacular, whether with or without notes; also those mentioned supra, as well as all books describing new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, or miracles or introducing new devotions, even though it be under the pretext that they are private, if published without canonical approbation.¹²

¹² C. I. C., can. 1385, § 1, n. 1; can. 1391; can. 1385, § 1, n. 2; cfr. Ferreres, Compend. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, p. 638.

f) The common law also forbids books which impugn or deride any Catholic dogma, or defend errors that have been condemned by the Holy See, or detract from divine worship, or attempt to subvert the discipline of the Church, or purposely (data opera) malign the ecclesiastical hierarchy or the clerical or religious state.

g) All books that teach or recommend any form of superstition, witchcraft, divination, magic, the evocation of spirits, or other similar practices.

h) All books that represent duelling, suicide or divorce as permissible, or defend Freemasonic or other societies of the same kind as useful and not pernicious to Church and society.

i) Also all books which treat ex professo of lascivious or obscene things.

j) Also any and all editions of approved liturgical books in which anything has been changed, so that they no longer agree with the authentic originals approved by the Holy See.

k) Also all books containing spurious indulgences or such as have been proscribed or revoked by the Holy See.

l) Also images or pictures, no matter how manifolded, of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the angels and saints or other servants of God, depicted contrary to the mind and the decrees of the Church.¹³

¹³ C. I. C., can. 1399; cfr. Ferreres, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 637.

The last-mentioned prohibition does not affect statues, coins, or paintings.

4. The effects of the prohibition of a book by the ecclesiastical authorities are indicated in canon 1398, as follows:

(cc. 1384-1405)

Usefulness. - The rules concerning the censorship of books are chiefly useful for clerics themselves; the rules concerning the prohibition of books affect all. In this matter one cannot first neglect what natural prudence already prescribes; then the faithful are to be warned that it is not enough that they attend to the Index of prohibited books, but that they must also look more to the general rules by which very many works are prohibited. Since writings come forth in such number, it will also help the priest to have at hand a book or periodical booklets which prudently instruct readers concerning the merit and dangers of works which are published in print.

— Appendix XIX belongs to this section. Historical. Cf. Appendix XIX.

— Introduction. In the fourth part of Book III, which is inscribed On the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, the Code assigns Title XXIII, consisting of cc. 1384-1405, to treating again the matter of the censorship and prohibition of books, which Leo XIII had entirely arranged anew by the celebrated Const. Officiorum ac Munerum, 25 Jan. 1897. And because it treats that matter anew, at the same time, from c. 22, it abrogates every earlier law, although in reality it differs little from the previous Constitution.

But while the latter had treated first of the prohibition and then of the censorship of books, now, with the order inverted, the chapter on censorship is placed before the chapter on prohibition.

By canon 1384, more general and introductory, the Church vindicates for itself the right of censorship and prohibition over the books of the faithful. At the same time it thus defines the extensive force of the canons, more clearly but more severely than before the Code, so that "what is prescribed under this title concerning books is applied to daily publications, periodicals, and any other published writings whatsoever, unless something else is clear."

Therefore, of themselves, leaving these distinctions aside, the rules fall on sheets and booklets just as on books; on periodicals just as on separate works; on lithographed writings just as on printed ones, provided, however, they are published, i.e., become public property, or are spread among the people, or stand open promiscuously to all, and are not merely destined for selected persons, for example hearers (to whom others may perhaps be joined per accidens), so that they can be considered as a manuscript.

But to the general extension, which is presumed, there are exceptions, which, however, must be proved so that the presumption may be overthrown. But an exception can be clear either from the nature of the thing or from the context of the speech, as is said in c. 188, 7°. From the nature of the thing: thus prior censorship of a daily paper or of an image will have to be made otherwise than of a book; from the context of the speech: thus c. 1386 itself distinguishes books from daily papers and periodical booklets.

— The censorship of a book must be distinguished from the license to publish it. Censorship, by the force of the word, means a sentence, a judgment; and from c. 1384 it is the authoritative review of a book by ecclesiastical power; wherefore it logically precedes license. Censorship immediately touches the book; license, the person writing. Censorship is necessarily particular and prior. License can be general, express, tacit, presumed; and its defect can be supplied by ratification. Ecclesiastical censorship by common law is assigned to the Ordinary of the place, because it is made concerning works which are rendered public property; license, from the Code itself, must also be given by the major Superior of a religion.

Voluntary omission of censorship, just as of license, is indeed of itself grave; yet omission of the latter more easily than of the former will be excused from grave sin on account of lightness of matter.

Therefore we shall separate license which is joined with censorship from separate license.

— Works to be subjected to censorship. "Unless ecclesiastical censorship has preceded, let there not be published, even by laypersons:

1° "Books of the Sacred Scriptures or annotations and commentaries on them (c. 1385);

2° "Books which regard the divine Scriptures, sacred theology, ecclesiastical history, canon law, natural theology, ethics, or other religious and moral disciplines of this sort; books and booklets of prayers, of devotion, or of religious, moral, ascetical, mystical doctrine and instruction, and other such things...; and generally writings in which there is anything which peculiarly concerns religion and uprightness of morals" (c. 1385).

What peculiarly concerns religion and uprightness of morals will often have to be judged from the circumstances of place or time. For it happens not rarely that a question of political or social government, on account of the circumstances of a region, cannot be resolved toward this or that side without religion itself receiving much utility or detriment therefrom. In this matter one must stand by the judgment of Ordinaries, as is plain, although recourse to the Holy See, at least in devolutive effect, will always lie open.

3° "Sacred images to be printed in any way, whether they have prayers or are published without them" (c. 1385).

Now all sacred images, not only new ones (Off. ac Mun., 15), are to be subjected to censorship. An image must be called sacred which is published for worship or for fostering piety; for if they are proposed as specimens of eminent art and works of famous artists, there is no reason why, the end of the law entirely ceasing, they should be approved by ecclesiastical Superiors.

4° "Those things which in any way pertain to causes of beatifications and canonizations of the servants of God..." (c. 1387);

5° "All books of indulgences, summaries, booklets, sheets, etc." (c. 1388);

6° Collections of decrees of the Roman Congregations, to be published again (c. 1389);

7° Liturgical books and their parts, likewise litanies approved by the Holy See (c. 1390);

8° Every new edition or translation into another language of an approved work" (c. 1392).

The Code itself notes that chapters excerpted from periodicals, published separately, are not to be considered a new edition.

— Author of the license to be granted after censorship. 1. Unless approval, according to the quality of the matter, is more reserved (e.g., for liturgical books, summaries of apostolic indulgences), "license to publish books and images... can be given either by the local Ordinary proper to the author, or by the Ordinary of the place in which the books or images are made public property or in which they are printed...; yet in such a way that if any one of these Ordinaries has denied license, the author cannot seek it from another Ordinary, unless he has informed the same of the license denied by the other" (c. 1385).

2. "If license seems to have to be denied, the reasons are to be indicated to the author asking, unless a grave cause requires otherwise" (c. 1391, 2).

The obligation is passed over, if there truly was one, for authors who live in Rome to obtain the approval of the Cardinal Vicar of the City or of the Master of the Sacred Palace (Off. ac Mun., 37).

— On the office and mention of censors (c. 1393). The office of a censor, if you look only at the words of the canon, is to judge concerning the doctrine of the book, not concerning its opportuneness; moreover he must give his judgment in writing. The recommendation is renewed that censors, in bringing judgment, follow not private opinions or opinions of their own school, but the common doctrine of Catholics and approved authors, all acceptance of persons being set aside.

Yet the censor will be able to warn the Ordinary concerning the inopportuneness of a book, indeed sometimes by the natural law of charity he will have to.

The censor's judgment is to be placed before the license to publish and, except in the rarest cases, his name. Yet this must never be revealed to the author before he has brought a favorable judgment.

Neither the words of the canon nor reason demand that the censor's name be indicated in the book itself. Not the words of the canon, for c. 1394 requires only that the license itself be published, with the name of the one granting it expressed; not reason: for mention is required so that there be evidence of some sponsor of the book. But for this it is enough that the censor's name be preserved in the archive. And in reality, both in Rome and outside Rome, the censor's name does not appear in many books.

— On license separate from censorship. 1. To the Ordinary of the place is reserved the judgment concerning the just and reasonable cause on account of which even Catholic laypersons may "write something in daily papers, sheets, or periodical booklets which are accustomed to attack the Catholic religion or good morals" (c. 1386, 2).

In an urgent case it will be licit to presume approval.

2. "Secular clerics are forbidden, without the consent of their Ordinaries..., to publish even books which treat of profane matters, and to write in daily papers, sheets, or periodical booklets or to direct the same" (c. 1386).

3. Religious, that they may publish a book on any matter whatsoever or write in daily papers, sheets, or periodical booklets or direct them, first need the license of their own major Superior and then of the Ordinary of the place (cc. 1385, 1386).

All will easily perceive the increased severity of the law. For the cause for writing something in periodicals which are hostile to religion or good morals is subjected to the judgment of the Ordinary. The prohibition formerly made to clerics of directing daily papers or periodicals is now extended to every cooperation of some moment, which, for example, will be had by repeated, even smaller, compositions. For thus we interpret the word "to write," since the Code itself uses other words for bad and for good periodicals. Yet lest someone abuse this interpretation, the prohibition made above (c. 889, 2°) of publishing without prior censorship whatever "peculiarly concerns religion and uprightness of morals" is to be noted.

Finally, all religious are assimilated to secular clerics in this matter, which is an extension of the old law both as regards things and as regards persons (Off. ac Mun., 42). The local Ordinary whose license religious need seems to be one of those three who are indicated in the preceding canon.

But the license of one's own Superior must precede the license of the local Ordinary. For c. 1385, §3 says: "Religious... must first obtain the license... of their own major Superior."

— Form of the license. "The license by which the Ordinary gives the power of publishing is to be granted in writing, to be printed at the beginning or at the end of the book, sheet, or image, with the name of the one granting it expressed, and likewise the place and time of the concession" (c. 1394).

But the obligation has been suppressed of printing in the title of the approved book the name and surname both of the author and of the publisher, and also the place and year of printing and edition. And here, unless we are mistaken, there is question only of the license which is connected with the censorship of books, so that books immune from censorship are not touched by this canon.

We have already admonished at n. 894 that the name of the one granting, but not likewise of the censor, must be printed; and for many writings it is practically admitted that there merely be placed: "With ecclesiastical approval."

— 1. General canon. Those things which are prescribed concerning books under title XXIII are to be applied to any published writings, unless something else is clear from the nature of the thing, as for the prior censorship of a daily paper and image; or from the context of the speech, as c. 1386 itself distinguishes books and daily papers from periodical booklets. Nor are penalties inflicted below under another title to be taken with the same extension.

I. Censorship and license. Censorship is the authoritative review of a book by ecclesiastical power; it is necessarily particular and prior; it is committed by common law to the Ordinary of the place; it immediately touches the book; and it logically precedes license, which is given to a person, can be general, express, tacit, presumed, and is supplied by ratification. This license must also be given by the major Superior of religious.

II. Works to be subjected to prior censorship. 1. Books of Sacred Scripture or annotations or commentaries on them.

2. Books which regard religious and moral disciplines; books and booklets of devotion or religious instruction; writings which contain anything which peculiarly concerns religion and uprightness of morals.

3. Sacred images with or without prayers.

4. Those things which pertain to the beatification or canonization of Servants of God.

5. Writings on indulgences.

6. Collections of decrees of the Roman Congregations, to be published again.

7. Liturgical books and their parts; litanies approved by the Holy See.

8. Every new edition or translation of a work to be approved or already approved. Yet excerpts taken from periodicals, published separately, are not a new edition.

The proper office of censors, according to the norm of c. 1393, is to bring judgment concerning the doctrine of the book, according to common teachings, with the opinions of their own school neglected.

Yet they are not prohibited from making the Ordinary attentive to reasons of the religious common good which could dissuade from the divulgation of the book and on account of which the Ordinary would opportunely deny license for publishing the book. But this pertains less properly to their office. Wherefore c. 1393 treats only of the doctrine of the book.

After judgment has been brought, excepting arguments to be submitted to the Holy See, license is given by the local Ordinary either of the author, or of the publisher, or of the printer. License denied by one must be manifested to another from whom it is sought. The reasons for denied license are of themselves to be indicated to the author asking. The license is to be printed in the book. But it does not seem to be required that the censor's name be made public property.

III. 1. For writing anything in daily papers and periodical booklets which are accustomed to attack religion or morals, of itself, if time is available, the Ordinary of the place must be approached by all.

But secular clerics are forbidden, without the consent of their Ordinaries, to publish even books concerning profane matters, to direct daily papers or periodicals, or to give work to the same as writers.

Religious need the license of their own major Superior besides the license of the Ordinary, who seems able to be the same one to whom recourse can be made for censorship.

— The competent author of prohibition (c. 1395).

The right and office of prohibiting books for a just cause belongs:

1° to the Roman Pontiff (by himself or through the Sacred Congregations) and to general Councils for the universal Church;

2° to particular Councils and local Ordinaries for their own subjects.

That exempt religious are immune from the prohibition of the Ordinary is the more probable now because there is already silence concerning his faculty of acting as a delegate of the Holy See. Besides, the prohibitions of Ordinaries are said to be valid for their own subjects.

3° to the Abbot of a monastery of its own right and to the supreme Moderator of an exempt clerical religion with his Chapter or Council for their own subjects; "and the same, if there is danger in delay, other major Superiors can do with their Council, under this law, however, that they refer the matter as soon as possible to the supreme Moderator."

A prohibition from which someone has appealed to the Holy See must be observed until the matter is decided in his favor.

— The force of prohibition.

We have proved in our On the Prohibition and Censorship of Books, 5th ed., n. 26, that not only penalties, but also prohibitions, as such, are to be interpreted strictly.

Those things which were everywhere and not completely stated in the old law are now proposed clearly: "The prohibition of books effects this: that without due license a book can neither be published, nor read, nor retained, nor sold, nor translated into another language, nor communicated with others in any way."

"A book prohibited in any way whatever cannot be published again, unless, after corrections have been made, he who had prohibited the book, or his Superior or successor, has given license" (c. 1396).

He publishes a book who, with his name given, spends effort on its diffusion, by which note he differs from one who merely prints a book. The author is very often at the same time the publisher. Therefore a book is published when it becomes public property. Miscellanies in which various excerpts even of a condemned book are contained are not a new edition of the book.

The reading of a book means the immediate use of the book for understanding the concepts of the writer: whether for this reason you survey the book with the eyes or with the fingers, as the blind do.

Therefore he does not read who hears one reading, for example a professor of apologetics while from a proscribed book he reads before his hearers passages afterward to be refuted; nor he who, to learn the art of reading unknown letters, merely strives, like children, to recognize and pronounce individual letters. Nor does he read the book who reads excerpts in another volume.

To sell books is not the same as to have them for sale. The sale of a book to him who has license to read and retain prohibited books is not prohibited. But no one can have prohibited books for sale unless he has obtained due license from the Apostolic See; nor then may he sell prohibited books to anyone unless he can prudently judge that they are legitimately sought by the buyer. Moreover, books obscene by profession are excluded (c. 1404). According to the rules of cooperation and with attention to the use of places, it will be able to be tolerated that sellers sell under the spear or at public auction another's library which contains prohibited books (yet not books merely obscene).

— Books prohibited by the law itself (c. 1399). By the law itself are prohibited:

1. An edition of the text of Sacred Scripture or of any version made or published by non-Catholics.

2. Books of any writers whatsoever which defend heresy or schism, or tend in any way whatsoever to overthrow the very foundations of religion.

Not everyone who utters heresy defends it, but only he who tries to uphold or defend it by added reasons.

The foundations of religion are those preliminary truths of the natural order for religious worship itself, such as the existence of God, free will, the spirituality of the soul; and truths which are necessary for an adult unbeliever so that he may be led to embrace the faith: the force of miracles for proving, motives of credibility in general, but not at the same time the principal dogmas of the faith itself.

"To overthrow in any way whatsoever" is circumscribed by no definite mode, provided the intention or attempt of overthrowing is shown.

3. "Books which intentionally attack religion or good morals."

Although most understand by the name of religion the Catholic faith, we think that here there is rather question of divine worship as such, which is attacked by atheist or materialistic books or daily papers. Good morals signify that manner of life which agrees with the laws of natural uprightness, especially as regards chastity. Therefore pornographic works are proscribed, and also those which strive to overthrow good morals theoretically, provided they do this intentionally, or with a directly contrary intention, and this in a notable part.

4. "Books of any non-Catholics whatsoever which treat of religion by profession, unless it is clear that nothing against the Catholic faith is contained in them."

Any non-Catholics whatsoever are also the non-baptized. Their books concerning a religious argument are condemned because of presumption, which, however, yields to truth.

5. Unless they bear due approval before them: a) texts, annotations, commentaries, versions of Sacred Scripture; b) books and booklets which recount new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, miracles, or introduce new devotions, even under the pretext that they are private.

By the previous law there were also prohibited, on account of the mere defect of approval, books and booklets of prayers, or those which handed down ascetical or mystical instruction.

6. "Books which attack or deride any of the Catholic dogmas; which uphold errors proscribed by the Apostolic See; which detract from divine worship; which affect ecclesiastical discipline, the hierarchy, or the clerical or religious state with insults" (c. 1399, 6°).

7. "Books which teach or commend superstition of any kind, sorceries, divination, magic, evocation of spirits, and other things of this sort."

Other things of this sort would be arts of having prophetic dreams.

8. "Books which establish dueling or suicide or divorce as licit; which, treating of Masonic sects or other societies of the same kind, contend that they are useful and not pernicious to the Church and civil society."

That societies may be similar to Masonic sects, it is necessary that they be secret and at the same time machinate, openly or secretly, against the Church or the State.

9. "Books which by profession treat, narrate, or teach lascivious or obscene matters."

10. New editions of liturgical books which do not agree with the authentic ones approved by the Holy See.

Editors are not prohibited from repeating certain things in their own place for the sake of greater convenience.

11. "Books by which apocryphal indulgences, or those proscribed or revoked by the Holy See, are spread abroad."

12. Pious images "printed in any way... alien from the sense and decrees of the Church."

— Books proscribed by particular decrees. 1. Of itself, once a denunciation has been received or by its own inquiry, it now belongs to the special Section of the S. C. of the Holy Office to examine and prohibit books and to foster the zeal of Ordinaries in this matter (c. 247, §4). It is not repugnant that per accidens another Congregation proscribe a book concerning a matter of its competence. And there are examples.

2. C. 1397, §1 warns that it pertains under a particular title to Legates of the Holy See, to local Ordinaries, and to Rectors of Catholic Universities - which, moreover, is the office of all the faithful, especially of clerics, of those who occupy a dignity, or excel in doctrine - that, insofar as there is opportunity, even with the causes indicated, they refer books which they judge pernicious to local Ordinaries or to the Holy See. Provision is made for secrecy for them. And Ordinaries are warned that they be solicitous concerning books which are published in their territory.

3. Yet today it belongs to the Holy See alone to make the Index or catalog of prohibited books. Since that catalog contains particular decrees, it has by no means been suppressed by the Code. Wherefore it cannot be admitted what R. P. Prummer affirms, Manuale, iuris eccl., Q. 419, that because of the silence of the Code books listed in the Index are no longer prohibited otherwise than insofar as they fall under one of the just-mentioned classes of prohibited books. Moreover the new Index was published in the year 1922.

4. From the preface of the Index of Leo XIII we know: a) when some book is prohibited, all its editions and translations are prohibited, saving a formal exception; b) later volumes of a work whose first volume is proscribed are to be held as suspect unless there is proof of the author's repentance; c) the clause All works does not strictly condemn the individual works of an author, but only works which treat of religion; but it renders individual works suspect, unless it is clear that the same are condemned by no general rule recited above in n. 900. I.e., directly it is prohibited that all be read, not, however, individual ones.

— Persons exempt from the law.

1. "S. R. E. Cardinals, bishops, even titular, and other Ordinaries, with necessary precautions employed, are not bound by the ecclesiastical prohibition of books" (c. 1401).

2. Those who in any way give work to theological or biblical studies can, as before, use any texts and versions whatsoever of Sacred Scripture, provided Catholic dogmas of faith are not attacked in the prolegomena or annotations and "the same books (sc. texts and versions of Sacred Scripture) have been faithfully and integrally published" (c. 1400).

When there is question of ancient non-Catholic versions, that fidelity seems able to be taken relatively, consisting in this, that the ancient version be published as it was, even if it contains not a few false things.

That faculty seems able to be extended to almost all priests if, observing the prescriptions and recommendations of the law, they continue by private study and readings to cultivate and increase those things which they learned in theological studies. For the faculty is conceded to those who give work "in any way" to studies of this sort.

N.B. The general license of reading classical books, even obscene ones, formerly conceded to those whom the nature of their teaching or office excuses, is now passed over in silence. This omission can be interpreted thus. Where there is no opportunity of seeking particular license (a general one, at least to this day, is conceded only most rarely), if the nature of the office or teaching makes reading of this sort quasi-necessary, the positive law ceases to oblige, either because it creates too great an inconvenience, or because its end then ceases contrariwise. But with the general license suppressed, all become more attentive to the grave cause required for someone to read books obscene by profession, and the liberty which perhaps some, deceived by reason of their office, could abuse is more restricted.

Moreover, by canon 1405 the rule always to be observed in this matter is opportunely recalled to memory: "No one is exempted in any way by a license obtained from anyone whatsoever from the prohibition of natural law of reading books which offer him a proximate spiritual danger."

— Author of the license of reading prohibited books.

Recourse is to be made to the Holy Office, to the Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate, or to the Ordinary.

The Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate can make license simply "with the cautions and under the limitations which will seem necessary or useful in individual cases, and which are in use with the S. C. of the Holy Office" (Faculties, n. 14).

By the name of Ordinary are also designated the Vicar general, the Vicar capitular, and major Superiors of an exempt clerical religion. The Ordinary, a special privilege being set aside, is able to concede the faculty "only for individual books and only in more urgent cases" (c. 1402).

From the present style of the Holy Office, the supplicatory letter of a secular cleric or priest must be recommended by his own local Ordinary, that of a religious by his own Superior, while the recommendation of the confessor suffices for a layperson. Nor is it sufficient to indicate the end for which the license is sought, but the quality which explains the intention, for example of a student, a professor of such a University, is to be added.

The license is like a personal privilege, which must be interpreted broadly and permits use everywhere. Wherefore, when it has been given concerning books, of itself it is valid concerning daily papers; yet an apostolic faculty of itself is not extended to books proscribed by the Ordinary. The motive of the concession, saving an express clause, does not limit use, so that if you read from curiosity, nevertheless you will have violated no positive law. Once license has been obtained, one is obliged by grave precept to guard prohibited books so that they do not come into the hands of others. Saving the rarest exception, the license excludes books obscene by profession.

— Penalties against violators of the law (c. 2318).

1. They incur excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff who, "after the work has been made public property, are publishers of books of apostates, heretics, and schismatics which defend apostasy, heresy, schism, and likewise those defending the same books or other books prohibited by name through apostolic letters, or knowingly reading or retaining them without due license."

The words printed by us in italics are new; and the word knowingly no longer falls upon "defending," which is a twofold extension of the prior penal law. Apostolic letters are letters immediately proceeding from the Supreme Pontiff. That a prohibition be judged made by name, it is necessary that it be designated at least by its proper title, individual or generic (for example, the catechism of the Carbonari). And from the interpretation of the earlier law, a prohibition made under the penalty of excommunication reserved to the Holy See can be required. The force of the general canon is this: that publishers, etc., of books which had been proscribed by name under simply reserved excommunication are punished by specially reserved excommunication.

2. They incur excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one, not printers, but only "authors and publishers who, without due license, take care that books of the Sacred Scriptures or their annotations or commentaries be printed."

N.B. From c. 1384, only those things which are prescribed concerning books under title XXIII, part 4, book 3 of the Canonical Code are applied to other publications. Therefore penalties are not applied, especially since this is odious matter. Wherefore this excommunication does not affect writers of a work of smaller size than 10 pages in folio, which is called a booklet, nor of a periodical fascicle, at least a separate one.

— Obligation of conscience. 1. By the very law of nature, the use of a book which creates a grave danger of sin not excused by a proportionate cause is prohibited. And according to the proximity and gravity of the danger, the sin will be light or grave.

2. But it is sufficiently clear that positive laws oblige under sin, though lightness of matter is not excluded.

3. The publication of a prohibited book is regularly grave. For it is notable to spend effort so that a book be spread abroad which the legitimate Superior wills to be suppressed. Yet harmlessness and the minimal moment of the work seem able to be excused from grave sin.

4. Defense of a prohibited book, whether physical or moral through commendation, is grave of itself where there is question of a book whose reading is prohibited under grave obligation.

5. As regards reading, this is the general principle of estimation. Matter which of itself, or for most, would be grave according to the natural law on account of proximate danger is to be reputed simply, or for all, grave in violating positive law, even if per accidens, in a particular case, there would be greater or lesser danger.

This, departing from excessively severe opinions, we think we can further illustrate by certain applications:

a) any book which is prohibited is presumed to be prohibited under grave obligation. Yet if the reason for the prohibition shows the book to be gravely dangerous to no one, suppose a book innocent in itself, narrating miracles but lacking approval, we judge the sin of one reading such a book venial. Yet we would not wish to transfer this to the publication of sacred books, concerning which the Church demonstrates greater solicitude.

b) nor is the reading of a book prohibited under grave obligation grave unless a notable part is read, whether by extension or by the things contained.

If they are works which bring a special danger to faith or morals, because they are packed with insidious arguments or lascivious descriptions, we already judge it grave to read a few (5-6) pages of an unknown nature.

And any passage, even much shorter, will already be notable if it is gravely dangerous in itself, whether because of its obscenity or because of the sophistic reasons which it contains.

Other works become gravely dangerous only from prolonged commerce. Thus many books which are prohibited because of their tendencies. If you read less than a twelfth or tenth part of such a book, or, if the work is very large, you do not complete 10 pages in folio, we think grave matter is not attained.

If it is clear that from a large part of a book the intrinsic reason of grave danger is absent and that the force of enticing the mind to read the rest is not notable, such a part seems to us able to be read without grave guilt. By separating physically or morally the part of the book which alone is the cause of the prohibition, the rest no longer seems to be touched by the prohibition.

As regards daily papers: a) it is grave habitually and morally to read bad daily papers as a whole, even if you omit the place especially repugnant to religion or morals; b) sometimes it will be grave to read one article peculiarly repugnant to religion and especially to morals; c) or to read with grave scandal of others, with attention to the quality and authority of the reader. But by reason of matter, it will be venial from time to time to read in them those things which do not attack religion except incidentally, or while omitting places especially dangerous, or without foreseen danger to run through one or another "number"; to read more often, indeed habitually, those things which it is clear are plainly harmless, for example business news: scandal always being excluded. Indeed, for a just cause, in singular cases all fault can be absent.

But although not so many newspapers have been proscribed either by particular decree or habitually fall under a general decree, he who seeks almost daily food from a newspaper less well affected toward the Church, little by little, as experience bears witness, suffers not a little detriment in his religion and faith: which we cannot prepare for ourselves without grave guilt.

The confessor will prudently try to obtain what he can in this matter, especially by attending to the danger of ruin.

6. Retention is prohibited under grave obligation if it is connected with danger of reading. It does not seem able to be prolonged beyond a month without grave guilt, unless on account of a plainly different use to which it is deputed, for example a sheet, every danger of reading being absent.

N.B. The celebrated protestations of Urban VIII in reporting miracles, etc., no longer seem prescribed by positive law. To librarians there is conceded the faculty of lending prohibited books.

On this grave matter cf. our On the Prohibition and Censorship of Books, 4th ed., Rome, 1906.

— 1. The Holy See and a general Council prohibit books for the universal Church;

2. Particular Councils and local Ordinaries, for their own subjects;

3. The Abbot of a monastery of its own right and the Supreme Moderator of an exempt clerical religion, with his chapter or council, for their own subjects; indeed, if there is danger in delay, the major Superior with his council. Appeal to the Holy See is conceded only in devolutive effect.

There are books prohibited by the law itself or by general rules, which c. 1399 enumerates. Others are prohibited by particular decrees. Once denunciation has been received, or from its own inquiry, the Holy Office or the local Ordinary, whose zeal is excited, prohibits books.

Prohibition forbids of itself publication, reading, retention, translation, sale, private or public, to one not having the faculty, or communication with others. The clause all works strictly prohibits only works treating of religion; but it renders the rest suspect until it is clear that they are forbidden by no general decree.

Exempt persons. Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church; bishops, even titular, and other Ordinaries are not bound by ecclesiastical prohibition. To those who in any way give work to theological or biblical studies are permitted any texts and versions whatsoever of Sacred Scripture, faithfully and integrally published, provided that in the prolegomena or annotations Catholic dogmas of Faith are not attacked.

Licenses in this matter are conceded by the Holy Office. Ordinaries, saving a broader indult or privilege, can concede the faculty "only for individual books and in only more urgent cases."

Apostolic Legates are furnished with a greater faculty.

4. Canonical penalties punish with excommunication latae sententiae specially reserved to the Holy See, after the work has been made public property, publishers of books of apostates, heretics, and schismatics which defend apostasy, heresy, or schism, and likewise those defending the same books or other books prohibited by name through apostolic letters, or knowingly reading or retaining them without due license.

They incur excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one who are authors and publishers who, without due license, take care that books of Sacred Scripture or its annotations or commentaries be printed.

In these penalties, books are understood to be works which are not of smaller size than ten pages in folio, nor are separate periodical fascicles comprehended.

5. Obligation of conscience. By natural law the gravity of guilt is to be estimated from the proximity and gravity of the danger. By positive law: a) publication is regularly prohibited under grave obligation; b) defense, whether physical or moral, by commendation of a book whose reading is prohibited under grave obligation, will also be grave; c) reading will be grave if matter is read which of itself, or for most, generates grave danger by reason of extension or the things contained, which are especially dangerous. Retention which is connected with danger of reading is prohibited under grave obligation; and when protracted beyond a month it is of itself thought grave. If the reason why a book is prohibited is extrinsic to danger, neither reading nor retention seems always to be prohibited under grave obligation.

1. Particular decrees by which books were condemned are already had in the First Council of Nicaea (325), against the book of Arius, Thalia; then against the books of Pelagius, of the Manichaeans, etc.

The first catalogue of prohibited books is in the decree which, under the name of Gelasius (496), was received in the Decree of Gratian, D. 15, c. 3. Sometimes it is celebrated as the first Roman Index.

Besides the works of heretics, the fabricated acts of martyrs and apocryphal penitential books were then condemned; afterward, in the Middle Ages, also treatises of the magical arts.

From the end of the thirteenth century (1299), on account of the abuses of heretics, provision began to be made lest the Sacred Scriptures be read imprudently by the people, especially in the vernacular tongue.

In the sixteenth century it was necessary to proceed more sharply against depraved books. Wherefore several particular Indexes of dioceses or kingdoms appeared.

Paul IV first issued the Roman Index in the year 1559; but in the year 1564 there appeared the Index of Pius IV, called for by the Council of Trent, to which are prefixed the so-called Tridentine rules, or ten general decrees concerning the proscription of books. This Index, as regards its substance, remained down to Leo XIII.

Yet Sixtus V prepared a new edition of the Index, which, with certain books removed, Clement VIII completed in the year 1596. Here occurs the clause Opera omnia, by which a writer who seemed worthy of universal proscription was marked.

In the edition of Alexander VII (1664), the books which previously were distributed into three classes were arranged in alphabetical order.

Benedict XIV gave an excellent edition (1758), after first prescribing the most wise Constitution Sollicita ac Provida, July 9, 1753, concerning the method to be observed in the examination and proscription of books.

In the year 1900, Leo XIII, with the general Tridentine rules also reformed, promulgated a new Index for the whole world. The new general rules are contained in the Code.

II. Even before the law concerning previous censorship existed, there were not lacking holy and learned men who would hand over suspect books to the Supreme Pontiff for examination, or who would seek his judgment and counsels concerning their own books.

A certain previous censorship was imposed by particular law, for example, of the University of Paris (June 5, 1366), upon masters.

After books began to be printed with type, the University of Cologne, praised by Sixtus IV on March 18, 1479, went before by example in exacting censorship.

But the first pontifical Constitution concerning the previous censorship of books has as its author Innocent VIII, November 17, 1487. Alexander VI, in the Constitution Inter multiplices, June 1, 1501, issued a general prohibition, for the four ecclesiastical provinces of Germany, that books should not be printed unless the archbishops or competent Officials had first been consulted. Then in the Fifth Lateran Council (1515), Leo X, on May 4, 1515, prohibited under grave penalties that anyone should presume to publish any writing without the previous recognition of the bishop or, in the City, of the Vicar and the Master of the Sacred Palace. The Council of Trent confirmed this decree, then increased by the rules of Clement VIII concerning the printing of books, until the rigor of the former law was mitigated, by an express law for the Pontifical State, by Pius IX in the year 1848, and elsewhere by the custom of places. Leo XIII sanctioned and defined this benignity more, and now the canonical Code does so.

Meanwhile particular provisions were also made concerning liturgical books and concerning books written on a certain argument in places which are subject to the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide. For more on these matters, cf. our De Prohibitione et Censura librorum, ed. 4, or Hilgers, S.I., Der Index.

394. - 1. Tender words, whether uttered orally or written:

They are most excellent between spouses, between parents and children, between brothers, indeed between friends, when they are dictated by a noble friendship and not by love;

They are honorable between betrothed persons;

They are reprehensible and dangerous among others if they express a futile, vain, sensual love;

They are certainly gravely blameworthy between persons who love one another lustfully. Among these persons, prolonged and unnecessary conversations already create a grave danger (St. Alphonsus, book 3, no. 422).

2. Prolonged conversations and narratives concerning gravely obscene things, for example concerning seminal emission or the manner of intercourse, held between unmarried persons, are of themselves to be regarded as gravely unlawful, especially among younger persons and if the matters are described. Custom, however, and related studies can diminish the force of conversations of this kind.

3. Isolated words or base jests, such as are uttered, for example, by reapers and muleteers, are not judged mortal. For these things are generally uttered in sport.

4. One who out of boasting recounts his own base sins easily sins by the sin of scandal; and if, as is likely, complacency in his own sin and, as it were, a new approval of it was present, there will be a new sin, whose gravity and species to be accused are determined by the object. Cf. what was said in no. 362.

5. To sing gravely obscene songs before others will be grave, at least because of scandal; it is otherwise if you sing alone and attend more to the melody (Palmieri, Opus theologicum, vol. 2, treatise 6, no. 989).

Wherefore, we judge that those who in the theater or in a public hall sing base things which, as such, will be received with applause can never be excused.

Nevertheless, as regards the proximate cooperation which by acting or singing is afforded to comedies not absolutely gravely base but notably immodest, they "excuse him who takes part by the acting itself or by singing, a depraved affection being excluded, because of the very grave poverty in which he would otherwise be placed, for a short time - Sanchez, Pontius, Castropalaus, Tamburini, In Decalogum, book 5, chapter 1, § 4, no. 28 - provided that, as much as he can, he moderate the lasciviousness ¹." Cf. also no. 408.

¹ Sanchez, De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 45, no. 37; Lehmkuhl, I, 1034, approved by Palmieri, vol. 2, no. 990.

As regards hearers, unless the base matter itself pleased them in itself, or unless by exciting and encouraging they were the authors of such a conversation or of its continuation, or unless, because of the position they hold and the authority with which they are clothed, they ought to have prevented it or at least could easily have done so, it is not imputed to them as a grave sin that, from a certain shame and human fear, they abstain from reproof, or indeed smile, especially if laughter is excited by the artifice of the speech rather than by the base matter itself ². As is evident, they sin in no way if they have a just cause for tolerating the matters, for example, because rebuke would move others to say or do worse things.

² Lehmkuhl, I, 826. Cf. St. Alphonsus, book 3, no. 427.

But let them endeavor at least by a certain manner of silence to disapprove such things. It can also happen that from one's personal condition, for example that of a priest, a special scandal may arise unless he testifies that he is averse to these conversations.

6. Finally, you should observe that in workshops and offices where several young persons are gathered, the danger of conversations of this kind is so common that a change of place will scarcely be useful. Wherefore, rather let the confessor commend to workers and clerks, urging it gravely, that they not provoke these things nor have a notable part in them. Moreover, having observed the quality and authority of the persons and their natural fortitude, let him give them courage so that they may decline these things not fearfully and timidly but firmly and simply.

But a fuller remedy is to be sought either from the master of the workshop or the head of the office, if he possesses authority by which he can efficaciously restrain these things; or from an association of good men who are more numerous in the same workshop and mutually assist one another in correcting and removing this.

395. - 1. Those who write, or indiscriminately sell to all, books or newspapers which incite to lust or are hostile to good morals sin mortally, because it is certain that many will sin mortally therefrom.

Nor can it be tolerated that obscene newspapers be displayed in taverns and public places.

Sellers can be excused for a short time by the gravest necessity.

2. Without a sufficient cause, which literary studies or dealings with literature can furnish, to read base books, even from curiosity alone, will be at least venial, even with the proximate danger excluded, because a remote danger is certainly incurred.

But if, as wholly obscene books commonly do, they proximately dispose one toward carnal pleasure, this is to be judged rather mortal in unmarried persons. Those, therefore, can be excepted who by age or custom do not incur a danger of this kind.

Rarely, however, will there be a just cause for reading wholly obscene books, and younger persons are greatly to be turned away even from lightly immodest readings: anthropologists themselves testify that these are incentives to lust. And prolonged reading often ends in lustfulness.

And girls and women are especially to be turned away from novels in general, lest they hope for a chimerical life or, given over to vain dreams, lose time and moral vigor.

The ecclesiastical law must also be observed, which by the law itself condemns both books "which deliberately attack good morals" and books "which professedly treat, narrate, or teach lascivious or obscene matters" (canon 1399 of the Code of Canon Law).

Adolescents who, moved by curiosity, seek certain obscene words in dictionaries in order that they may know their meaning better commonly do not sin except lightly. Thus also Noldin, De sexto, no. 59.

396. - What has been said concerning words can generally be transferred to less decorous gestures, since these also are signs. Cf. Palmieri, vol. 2, treatise 6, no. 990, at the end.

Those things which in this constitution are prescribed or prohibited are found arranged in better order, for the dispositive part, in can. 1385-1405; as regards penalties, in can. 2318. Generally all things are confirmed. It is only to be noted from can. 1384 § 2 that under the name of books there are also comprehended daily publications, periodicals, and any other published writings. From can. 1385 § 2 the license of publishing can be given either by the Ordinary of the place of the author, or by the Ordinary of the place in which they are made public, or by the Ordinary of the place in which they are printed, yet so that, if one of these Ordinaries has denied the license, the author cannot seek it from another Ordinary unless he has made the same certain of the license denied by the other. Anonymous publications are also no longer prohibited. In Proemium III is confirmed from can. 1398 § 1.

1 remains. - 2 is confirmed by can. 1399 n. 2. - 3 can. 1399 n. 4. - 4 is clear of itself. - 5 can. 1399 n. 1 with can. 1400, where it is said: "those who devote effort in any way to theological or biblical studies." - 6 can. 1399 n. 5, 1391 and 1400. - 7 can. 1385 § 1 n. 1, 1391 and 1399 n. 5. - 8 can. 1391, 1399

n. 3, and 1400. - 9 can. 1399 n. 9. - 10 concerning classic works discourse is no longer made. - 11 as regards substance is confirmed in can. 1399 n. 6. - 12 is confirmed by can. 1399 n. 7. - 13 can. 1399 n. 5. - 14 can. 1399 n. 8 and, as regards the last part, by the same canon n. 6. - 15 is confirmed by can. 1399 n. 12. - 16 by the same canon 11. - 17 can. 1388 § 1. - 18 can. 1399 n. 10 and can. 1390. - 19 can. 1390 and implicitly 1385 § 1 n. 2. - 20 can. 1385 § 1 n. 2 and 1391 n. 5. - 21 can. 1399 n. 3. - 22 can. 1386 § 2. - 23 can. 1398 § 1 and 1402 § 1. - 24 this faculty is transferred to the Holy Office from can. 247 § 4. The S. Congr. of the Index has been suppressed. - 25 is confirmed by can. 1402 §§ 1-2. - 26 can. 1403 §§ 1-2. - 27 can. 1397 § 1. - 28 can. 1397 §§ 2-3. - 29 can. 1397 § 4 as regards substance and from the same canon § 5. - 30 can. 1395 § 1 and § 3. - 31 can. 1391 § 2. - 32 can. 1387. - 33 can. 1389. - 34 is omitted; it is clear of itself. - 35 is confirmed by can. 1385 § 2. - 36 by the same canon § 3; it is now said: religious, by which word all are comprehended from can. 488 n. 7. - 37 no further mention is made of authors who dwell at Rome; therefore for them henceforth the common law has force. - 38 is confirmed by can. 1393 §§ 1 and 3. - 39 by the same canon § 2. - 40 can. 1394 § 1. - 41 can. 1385 § 1 nn. 1 and 2. - 42 can. 1386 § 1. - 43 this prescription has been suppressed. - 44 is confirmed by can. 1392 §§ 1-2. - 45 can. 1396. - 46 can. 1404. - 47 can. 2318 § 1. - 48 can. 2318 § 2, and 49 is clear of itself.

769. By natural and positive law, writings dangerous to faith or Christian life are prohibited in diverse ways. - By natural law we are obliged to avoid every danger of great moment for faith and morals; hence, apart from all human and ecclesiastical laws, it is regularly unlawful to disseminate or to read writings dangerous to faith or good morals. Hence:

1. Bishops, parish priests, fathers of families, legislators, magistrates, teachers, etc., must use the greatest vigilance that pernicious books be kept far from the eyes and hands of those for whom they are to render an account to God (can. 1405, § 2; 1397, § 4).

2. Even if books are not prohibited by human and ecclesiastical law, nevertheless they can be dangerous and prohibited for a determined person by reason of special danger, for example, for a youth.

3. Hence if books are not entered in the Index, they can be prohibited by the natural law, either generally, or for a determined person.

4. And if some have been furnished with the faculty of reading prohibited books, or if the laws of the Index did not flourish somewhere, nevertheless they could not read all things, namely, if by their nature they are dangerous for all, or if they know or experience that reading of this kind is harmful to them, or proximately dangerous, for example, if they do not know how to discern truth from error (can. 1405, § 1).

5. In this matter it is ordinarily expedient to follow the stricter opinions, says St. Alphonsus, namely, when it is a question of avoiding the proximate danger of formal sin.

6. But in addition, by ecclesiastical law, for example, of the Index, or by the Supreme Pontiff or by a bishop by name, writings can be interdicted¹ (can. 1395); and then, even if they were read without danger, nevertheless they remain prohibited: by natural law indeed they are prohibited on account of the very danger of perversion in the particular case, but by positive law on account of the presumption of common danger (n. 345, and can. 21).

¹ Cf. the treatise De Ecclesia, where concerning the power of the Church; likewise the Council of Trent, sessions 4, 18, and 25. Concerning the law of the Index one can consult: Vermeersch, De Prohibitione et Censura librorum; Salsmans, Het Index; Kiselstein, L'Index; Marc-Gestermann, in Th. M. I, appendix.

Concerning this positive law of the Index and its general and special rules we must now speak specifically; it prohibits three kinds of writings, namely, those regarding Sacred Scripture, or faith and morals, or worship, devotion, and liturgy.

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.

1705. - The Index was composed and published by order of Paul IV in the year 1558. - Pius IV perfected it with the Council of Trent, and published it in the year 1564. - Clement VIII enlarged it in the year 1595. - The Congregation of the Index was instituted by St. Pius V.¹

But the Index prohibits books partly by certain classes, as in the ten Rules of the Index, and in the Decrees concerning prohibited books not expressed by name in the Index;² partly by indicating, in alphabetical order, either the titles of books or the names of authors.

1706. - I. There are prohibited absolutely: 1° all books of heresiarchs (both of those who after the year 1515 invented or stirred up heresies, and of those who are or have been Heads or Leaders of heretics, such as Luther, etc.), even if not erroneous, or not treating expressly of Religion.

2° Books of heretics which treat expressly of Religion.

3° Books treating expressly of obscene things, with the exception of ancient books written by pagans, which, on account of elegance and propriety of speech, and insofar as there is question of ecclesiastical law alone, are permitted; nevertheless they are by no reason to be read before boys.

4° All books treating of astrology, divination, and sorceries.

5° All books entered into the Index without any addition.

II. There are prohibited under clauses:

1° All books which, before the year 1515, either the Supreme Pontiffs or Ecumenical Councils condemned, in the same way as they had formerly been condemned. By this rule however there are not prohibited the old books of pagans, nor even, according to Theologians (see n. 1704, q. 5°), the books of heretics of earlier centuries, as of Tertullian, Eusebius, etc.

2° Books written either a) by heretics, although not treating of Religion; or b) by those who afterward fell into heresy, or after a fall returned to the bosom of the Church, although written in a Catholic manner, unless they have been approved.

3° Bibles in the vernacular language, unless they have been approved by the Holy See, or published with notes drawn from the Holy Fathers, or from learned and Catholic men. Thus, not without foundation, Craisson interprets the Decrees and Responses of the Holy See.¹ I add: provided that a special prohibition has not been made by the Bishop concerning those versions which have been published without the approval of the Holy See or of the Ordinary. But Bishops cannot approve versions without the aforesaid notes, as is plain from the concession made to them in the year 1757.²

4° Books entered into the Index with the clause: until they are corrected, i.e., until they have appeared in a new corrected edition, which has been approved by the Sacred Congregation of the Index.

III. It is established that no book and no writing be printed without the license of the Ordinary.

1707. Questions. - Query 1° Whether the law of the Index, prohibiting the reading of certain books, obliges by natural law, or only by positive law?

Resp. It presses by both laws, at least of itself; because it prohibits books only because they are pernicious, and bring in a proximate danger of perversion or of sin; but by natural law each one is held to flee danger of this kind. Hence even if the obligation of the Index were not acknowledged somewhere, nevertheless the reading of books entered into the Index would be prohibited under grave sin, at least in general. On this matter St. Alphonsus observes:³ "All Theologians ... add, that not even with the license of the Pontiff can the reading of that book be permitted, which could be an occasion of subversion to someone."¹

Two things besides are to be noted.

1° Private persons ought to obey the commands of the confessor in these things which regard the reading of books. Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition responded in the year 1832 to the Bishops of Switzerland asking: "Whether the faithful, with a safe conscience, can read Periodicals or books which have not undergone the censure of the Ordinary?" Resp. "Let them have recourse to the confessor."

2° The confessor himself ought carefully to seek the direction of the Bishop, and diligently to keep before his eyes the very grave warning which St. Alphonsus¹ handed down, namely: "In this matter it is expedient ordinarily to follow the stricter opinions."

Query 2° Whether among us the rules of the Index are to be observed and urged?

Resp. Affirmatively, if, when they are neglected, Faith or morals are exposed to proximate danger; indeed, even apart from this danger, those rules which have not been abrogated and morally speaking can be observed, are to be observed and, if it can be done prudently, urged.²

Especially: a) "Obscene books ... expressly so called cannot be read by anyone without grave sin, because of the proximate danger of exciting lust."³

b) "Those who read books treating of history, geography, and other matters of this kind, in which many things opposed to the Faith are found here and there, seem to be excused, because of the very great difficulty which exists in discerning and comparing books; for since most books written in the English language have non-Catholic authors, it can scarcely happen that Catholics, without very grave detriment to knowledge and other inconveniences, abstain from them. Therefore the kindness of the Church seems to indulge this, lest otherwise pious souls be ensnared. Moreover, care must diligently be taken that an occasion of perversion not arise; and therefore one must labor with every zeal, that expurgated books be had."⁴

c) Those things are to be observed which were said in n. 1706, II. 3°, concerning Bibles in the vernacular language. - Kenrick however observes:⁵ "If there are any recently converted to the Faith, who retain Bibles handed down by the hands of their ancestors, in which also the names of parents and children are inscribed, as is the custom, they do not seem to be compelled against their sentiments and affections, to cast them away, the Apostle admonishing: Receive him who is weak in faith."¹

d) As to the printing of books, the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore² recalls the law of the Church forbidding that "books concerning Religion and the worship of God" be committed to the press without the approval of the Ordinary.

Note. - Let these things said be understood insofar as there is question of the Index alone, apart from those things which we have explained in nn. 1702-1704 according to the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, and which we shall say in n. 1741, 1°, according to the same Constitution.

530. Already for centuries⁷⁹ the Church with watchful vigilance has proscribed bad books and forbidden the reading of them under grave penalties. There will be speech below about those ecclesiastical penalties in the treatise on censures. Almost nothing is so pestiferous for true religion and good morals as the reading of bad books. Hence Leo XIII says: "In the struggle [against the doctrine of Christ] the wiles and arts of harming of the enemies are indeed various and innumerable; but among the first is the full-of-dangers intemperance of writing and disseminating among the people the things which have been written badly. For nothing more pernicious can be thought of for staining souls through contempt of religion and through the many allurements of sinning."⁸⁰ The same Pontiff established certain new general rules for discerning the categories of prohibited books. These rules indeed are renewed in the Code of Canon Law c. 1399. Thus are prohibited, e.g.: "Books of any writers whatsoever defending heresy or schism, or in any way overthrowing the foundations of religion itself; books which deliberately attack religion or good morals; books of any non-Catholics whatsoever which professedly treat of religion, unless it is certain that nothing against the Catholic faith is contained in them; ... books which establish as licit duel, suicide, or divorce, which treat of Masonic sects or other societies of the same kind and contend that they are useful and not pernicious to the Church and civil society; books which professedly treat, narrate, or teach lascivious or obscene matters." - All these books are prohibited on account of the imminent danger to faith and good morals. But if in a particular case for an individual man such danger does not exist on account of the firmness of his character, nevertheless the law of prohibition perseveres.⁸¹ But then the faculty of reading prohibited books is easily obtained from the competent authority, if a reasonable cause exists.

Note. No more efficacious way is given of preventing the reading of bad books and papers than to provide good books for the people to read, and especially good daily or periodical papers. Hence with the best fruit in diverse regions associations operate for spreading good books.⁸²

⁷⁹ On the history of the prohibition of books, see Jos. Hilgers, Der Index der verbotenen Bucher (Freiburg, 1904), 2 sqq., Geschichtl. Uberblick des kirchl. Bucherverbotes.

⁸⁰ Const. "Officiorum et munerum," January 25, 1897.

⁸¹ Compare what was said above (n. 218) about law founded on the presumption of common danger.

⁸² E.g. in Germany: the Borromaeusverein; in other regions: l'oeuvre de la bonne presse.

I say 1st. § 1. It is the right of the Church to require that the faithful not publish books which it has not previously reviewed by its own judgment, and to prohibit, for a just cause, books published by whomever.

§ 2. The things prescribed under this title concerning books are applied to daily and periodical publications and to any other published writings whatever, unless something else is clear (Can. 1384).

By natural law itself any use of bad books from which a proximate danger of sinning arises is prohibited. But the Church, by its providence toward the faithful, has always applied diligent care "that, just as good seed is separated from darnel, so also sound and excellent books might be separated from spurious and apocryphal and pernicious books, lest Christian persons, by an incautious or rash use of these, should suffer detriment to the integrity of faith and morals." Apostolic Letters Romani Pontifices (17 Sept. 1900).¹

Moreover, the Index or syllabus of prohibited books, most diligently reviewed and printed again, which he willed to be held as expressly inserted in the Letters Romani Pontifices, the same Pontiff, Leo XIII, approved by apostolic authority and commanded to be observed whole and inviolably by all in every place.

Wherefore, in order that the reading of some book be permitted, it is required that it neither be enumerated in the Index nor belong to any of those classes which the canons proscribe; but by no means is it sufficient that it not be found in the Index. For it would be neither possible nor necessary to register in the Syllabus all and every bad book. It must also be noted that the prohibition extends not only to the reading of books, but also to the retention, publication, defense, and donation of the same.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1144, n. 117.

Question 1. Which books are to be subjected to prior censure?

Response. § 1. Unless ecclesiastical censure has preceded, let there not be published, even by laypersons:

1st. Books of the sacred Scriptures, or annotations and commentaries on the same;

2nd. Books which regard the divine Scriptures, sacred theology, ecclesiastical history, canon law, natural theology, ethics, or other religious and moral disciplines of this kind; books and booklets of prayers, of devotion, or of doctrine and religious, moral, ascetical, mystical instruction, and other such things, although they seem to conduce to fostering piety; and generally writings in which there is something which particularly concerns religion and uprightness of morals;

3rd. Sacred images to be printed in any manner whatever, whether they have prayers adjoined, or are published without them.

§ 2. The license of publishing the books and images about which in § 1 can be given either by the local Ordinary proper to the author, or by the Ordinary of the place in which the books or images are made public, or by the Ordinary of the place in which they are printed, yet in such a way that, if any one of those Ordinaries has denied license, the author cannot seek it from another Ordinary unless he has informed the same concerning the license denied by another.

§ 3. Religious, however, must also first obtain the license of their own major Superior (Can. 1385).

Question 2. What especially is forbidden to secular clerics and religious concerning publishing books and concerning writing in newspapers? What also is forbidden to laypersons concerning writing in certain newspapers?

Response. § 1. Secular clerics are forbidden, without the consent of their Ordinaries, and religious, without the license of their major Superior and of the local Ordinary, to publish books also which treat of profane matters, and to write in daily papers, sheets, or periodical booklets, or to direct the same.

§ 2. But in daily papers, sheets, or periodical booklets which are accustomed to attack the Catholic religion or good morals, let not even Catholic laypersons write anything, unless a just and reasonable cause, approved by the local Ordinary, recommends it (Can. 1386).

Secular clerics need the consent of their Ordinaries; Religious need the license both of the Major Superior and of the local Ordinary; both are subject to this respective ordinance both as regards books, even if they treat of profane matters, and as regards writing in daily papers, sheets, and booklets, and as regards the direction of these. As regards daily papers accustomed to attack the Catholic religion or good morals, let not even laypersons write anything in them without a cause approved by the local Ordinary.

Question 3. Of what Sacred Congregation is license required for publishing those things which pertain to the causes of beatification and canonization of Servants of God?

Response. The license of the Congregation of Sacred Rites is required. - Cf. can. 1387.

Question 4. Whose license is required for publishing books of indulgences, etc.? What is established particularly concerning Apostolic indulgences?

Response. § 1. All books of indulgences, summaries, booklets, sheets, etc., in which concessions of them are contained, are not to be published without the license of the local Ordinary.

§ 2. But the express license of the Apostolic See is required that it may be lawful to publish in type, in whatever language, both an authentic collection of prayers and pious works to which the Apostolic See has annexed indulgences, and a list of apostolic indulgences, and a summary of indulgences either previously collected but never approved, or now for the first time to be gathered from diverse concessions (Can. 1388).

It is of the highest moment that those booklets, sheets, etc., not spread among the people false notions and apocryphal Indulgences. Hence there is need of the license of the local Ordinary.

Question 5. Is a special permission required for publishing collections of decrees of the Roman Congregations?

Response. Collections of decrees of the Roman Congregations cannot be published again, unless license has first been obtained and the conditions prescribed by the Moderators of each Congregation have been observed (Can. 1389).

In this one way provision can be made against the danger that decrees and responses be adulterated.

Question 6. About what must there be certainty in publishing liturgical books and their parts?

Response. In publishing liturgical books and their parts, and likewise litanies approved by the Holy See, there must be certainty concerning their agreement with approved editions by the attestation of the Ordinary of the place in which they are printed or are made public (Can. 1390).

An error in these books can bring great harm to the people of God.

Question 7. Does the approbation of some original text suffice for a new edition, or for a translation of the same into another language? Are chapters excerpted from periodicals and published separately to be held as new editions?

Response. § 1. The approbation of the original text of some work does not suffice either for translations of the same into another language or for other editions; wherefore both translations and new editions of an approved work must be furnished with a new approbation.

§ 2. Chapters excerpted from periodicals and published separately are not considered new editions and therefore do not need a new approbation (Can. 1392).

Question 8. What conditions are required so that versions of the Sacred Scriptures into the vernacular language may be printed in type?

Response. Versions of the sacred Scriptures into the vernacular language cannot be printed in type unless they have been approved by the Apostolic See, or unless they are published under the vigilance of the Bishops and with annotations chiefly excerpted from the holy Fathers of the Church and from learned and Catholic writers (Can. 1391).¹

The reason of the law is lest any man presume to twist the Sacred Letters to his own senses, contrary to that sense which Holy Mother Church, to whom alone has been entrusted the custody of the deposit of Faith and the judgment concerning the sense and interpretation of the divine utterances, has held and holds. Cf. Pius IX, Encycl. Ep., Nostis et Nobiscum.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1109, n. 52.

Question 9. What is the office of censors?

Response. § 1. In all episcopal Curias let there be official censors, who examine things to be published.

§ 2. Examiners in carrying out their office, laying aside all acceptance of persons, are to have before their eyes only the dogmas of the Church and the common doctrine of Catholics which is contained in decrees of general Councils or in constitutions or prescriptions of the Apostolic See and in the consent of approved doctors.

§ 3. Censors are to be chosen from both clergies, commended by age, erudition, and prudence, who in approving and disapproving doctrines go by a middle and safe path.

§ 4. The censor must give his judgment in writing. If this is favorable, the Ordinary may grant the power of publishing; nevertheless, the judgment of the censor is to be prefixed to it, with his name inscribed. Only in extraordinary circumstances and very rarely, by the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, can mention of the censor be omitted.

§ 5. Let the name of the censor never be made known to authors before he has issued a favorable judgment (Can. 1393).

Question 10. How is this license of publishing to be granted? Whether and how must it be clear that it has been granted?

Response. § 1. The license by which the Ordinary grants the power of publishing is to be granted in writing, to be printed at the beginning or at the end of the book, sheet, or image, with the name of the one granting it expressed, and likewise the place and time of the concession.

§ 2. But if the license seems that it should be denied, unless a grave cause requires otherwise, the reasons are to be indicated to the author asking (Can. 1394).

I say. § 1. The right and office of prohibiting books for a just cause belongs not only to the supreme ecclesiastical authority for the universal Church, but also, for their subjects, to particular Councils and to local Ordinaries.

§ 2. From this prohibition recourse is given to the Holy See, but not with suspensive effect.

§ 3. Also the Abbot of a monastery of his own right and the supreme Moderator of an exempt clerical religion, with his Chapter or Council, can prohibit books to their subjects for a just cause; and the same, if there is danger in delay, other major Superiors with their own Council can do, yet under this condition, that they refer the matter as quickly as possible to the supreme Moderator (Can. 1395).

Indeed, the right and office of prohibiting books belongs to those upon whom it is incumbent to watch assiduously and to strive with every means that the integrity of faith and of Christian morals suffer no detriment. Nothing can be thought more pernicious than bad books for staining souls through contempt of religion and enticements to sin. Hence to the Holy See for the universal Church, to particular councils for their subjects, to Bishops for the diocese, to the Abbot of a monastery of his own right, and to the Supreme Moderator of an exempt clerical religion for his own, and to other major superiors if there is danger in delay, this right has been entrusted.

Question 1. Are books condemned by the Apostolic See prohibited everywhere?

Response. Books condemned by the Apostolic See are to be considered prohibited in every place and into whatever language they are translated (Can. 1396). - Cf. Leo XIII, Officiorum ac Munerum, n. 45; S. C. of the Index, 24 Aug. 1864.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1145, n. 117 bis.

Question 2. To whom chiefly does it belong to denounce pernicious books? To whom? In what manner are they to be denounced?

Response. § 1. It belongs to all the faithful, especially to clerics and those constituted in ecclesiastical dignity and those who excel in doctrine, to denounce books which they have judged pernicious to local Ordinaries or to the Apostolic See; but by a peculiar title this pertains to Legates of the Holy See, local Ordinaries, and Rectors of Catholic Universities.

§ 2. It is expedient that in the denunciation of bad books not only the title of the book be indicated, but also, as far as can be done, the reasons be set forth why the book is thought to have to be prohibited.

§ 3. For those to whom the denunciation is brought, let it be sacred to keep secret the names of those denouncing.

§ 4. Local Ordinaries, by themselves or, where there is need, through suitable priests, are to watch over books which are published in their own territory or are set out for sale.

§ 5. Books which require a more subtle examination, or concerning which the judgment of the supreme authority seems to be required for attaining a salutary effect, Ordinaries are to refer to the judgment of the Apostolic See (Can. 1397).

Question 3. What does the prohibition of books effect?

Response. § 1. The prohibition of books effects this, that without due license the book can neither be published, nor read, nor retained, nor sold, nor translated into another language, nor in any way communicated to others.

§ 2. A book prohibited in any manner whatever cannot again be brought to light unless, corrections having been made, he who had prohibited the book, or his Superior or successor, has given license (Can. 1398).

Publication, reading, retention, sale, translation, and communication of the book with others are prohibited without license.

Question 4. What books are prohibited by the law itself?

Response. By the law itself are prohibited:

1st. Editions of the original text and of the ancient Catholic versions of sacred Scripture, even of the Oriental Church, published by any non-Catholics whatever; likewise versions of the same into whatever language, prepared or published by the same;

2nd. Books of any writers whatever, defending heresy or schism, or striving in any way whatever to overthrow the foundations themselves of religion;

3rd. Books which deliberately attack religion or good morals;

4th. Books of any non-Catholics whatever which treat expressly of religion, unless it is established that nothing against the Catholic faith is contained in them;

5th. The books about which in can. 1385, § 1, n. 1 and can. 1391; likewise from those about which in the cited can. 1385, § 1, n. 2, books and booklets which narrate new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, miracles, or which introduce new devotions, even under the pretext that they are private, if they have been published without the prescriptions of the canons being observed;

6th. Books which attack or deride any of the Catholic dogmas, which defend errors proscribed by the Apostolic See, which detract from divine worship, which contend to overthrow ecclesiastical discipline, and which deliberately assail with reproaches the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or the clerical or religious state;

7th. Books which teach or commend superstition of any kind, sorceries, divination, magic, evocation of spirits, and other things of that kind;

8th. Books which establish dueling or suicide or divorce as lawful; which, treating of Masonic sects or other societies of the same kind, contend that these are useful and not pernicious to the Church and civil society;

9th. Books which expressly treat, narrate, or teach lascivious or obscene things;

10th. Editions of liturgical books approved by the Apostolic See, in which anything has been changed, so that they do not agree with authentic editions approved by the Holy See;

11th. Books by which apocryphal indulgences, or indulgences proscribed or revoked by the Holy See, are disseminated;

12th. Images printed in any manner whatever of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of Angels and Saints, or of other Servants of God, alien from the sense and decrees of the Church (Can. 1399).¹

Propugnantes, that is, those defending by reasons brought forward, those trying to persuade, not merely those asserting or narrating. Foundations of religion are such as the immortality of the human soul, the existence of God, miracles, and truths of this kind; in whatever manner, seriously or with ridicule. Acatholici are all those who do not belong to the Catholic Church. Ex professo, that is, not incidentally, but by design. If it is established that no error concerning this faith is contained in these books, they are not prohibited. Impugnant, those who by reasons brought forward deny a dogma. Detrahunt, they speak badly about someone by taking away his reputation. Lascivious and obscene things: books which inculcate, treat, defend, and teach the nature of lascivious matters, which declare the manner of doing lascivious things; pornographic books, by which in practice harm is brought to morals; wherefore many books in which love affairs are narrated are not understood, although these also are very often prohibited by natural law.

The use of books about which in can. 1399, n. 1, and of books published contrary to the prescription of can. 1391, is permitted only to those who devote themselves in any way to theological or biblical studies, provided that the same books have been published faithfully and integrally, and that in their prolegomena or annotations the dogmas of the Catholic faith are not attacked (Can. 1400). Wherefore editions of the original text and of the ancient Catholic versions of sacred Scripture, even of the Oriental Church, published by any non-Catholics whatever; likewise versions of the same into whatever language, prepared or published by the same; and books published contrary to the prescription of canon 1391, namely versions of the sacred Scriptures in a vernacular language published without due approbation, or without the vigilance of Bishops, and without annotations, are permitted only to those who apply themselves to theological and biblical studies, that is, who are learned men devoted to these sciences, all beginners of sacred theology, and those who are occupied with theology and the Hebrew and Greek language in the schools of Seminaries.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1146, n. 118.

Question 5. Who are not bound by the ecclesiastical prohibition of books?

Response. Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Bishops, even titular Bishops, and other Ordinaries, the necessary cautions having been applied, are not bound by the ecclesiastical prohibition of books (Can. 1401).

Question 6. What can Ordinaries grant in this matter?

Response. § 1. Ordinaries, as concerns books prohibited by the law itself or by decree of the Apostolic See, are able to grant license to their subjects only for individual books and in urgent cases only.

§ 2. But if they have obtained from the Apostolic See a general faculty of permitting their subjects to retain and read proscribed books, let them grant it only with discernment and for a just and reasonable cause (Can. 1402).

Question 7. Does the Apostolic faculty of reading prohibited books carry with it the faculty of reading books proscribed by Ordinaries?

Response. § 1. Those who have obtained the apostolic faculty of reading and retaining prohibited books cannot for that reason read and retain any books whatever proscribed by their Ordinaries, unless in the apostolic indult express power has been given to the same persons of reading and retaining books condemned by anyone whatever.

§ 2. Moreover, they are bound by a grave precept to guard prohibited books in such a way that these do not come into the hands of others (Can. 1403).

Question 8. Is it licit to sell books treating of obscene things?

Response. Let booksellers not sell, lend, or retain books expressly treating of obscene things; let them not have other prohibited books for sale unless they have obtained due license from the Apostolic See, and let them not sell them to anyone unless they can prudently judge that they are legitimately sought by the buyer (Can. 1404).

Question 9. Does a license obtained with regard to forbidden books exempt someone from the prohibition of natural law?

Response. § 1. By a license obtained from anyone, no one is in any way exempted from the prohibition of natural law against reading books which present proximate spiritual danger to himself (Can. 1405).

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.

I. The prohibition of books is ancient, and is found in Acts chapter 19: And many of them who had followed curious arts, brought together their books, and burnt them before all. The Council of Nicaea commanded the books of Arius to be burned, as Socrates narrates, book 1, chapter 6.

II. For a twofold reason the books of Heretics are prohibited: both that the evil of seduction may be impeded, and that the Heretics may be confounded. Heretical books are proscribed in the Bull Coenae. Under this prohibition are not comprehended the books of the Jews, of the Mahometans, or of the Heathen. This prohibition has annexed to it the penalty of excommunication when four conditions concur: 1. That the books be those of Heretics. 2. That they teach Heresy, or treat of Religion. 3. That they be knowingly read, retained, or printed. 4. That this be done without the authority of the supreme Pontiff. Those books treat of Religion which expound sacred Scripture and Theology; which interpret the affairs of Monks, of Clerics, the worship of the Saints, and rites; but not those which handle philosophical and historical matters and other inferior arts.

III. He who reads a book of a catholic author in which the errors of the Heretics were described is not subject to the penalties of the Bull, because the book is not a Heretic's, but a Catholic's. The same must be said of one reading a book of a catholic author in which certain heresies were written through ignorance. Nor does it matter whether the books of Heretics are written by pen or published in type. He who reads a sermon, an oration, an epistle, or a disputation of a Heretic containing heresy is subject to the penalties of the Bull — whatever Sanchez teaches to the contrary. Wherefore the opinion of Fr. Sporer is not to be admitted, who with Sanchez, Laymann, and others teaches that he does not incur the excommunication who should read a writing of a Heretic of fewer than ten leaves. There is, however, a parvity of matter in this reading. What is it? Azor assigns one or two little verses; Suarez, two or three lines; Sanchez, a page of a leaf; Fagundez assigns a page and a half; and each speaks according to his own pleasure. A certain rule cannot be designated. Deliberate reading is not free of venial fault. Wherefore the one safe way is to abstain altogether from this reading. Yet the circumstances of the person reading, of the thing read, and other things of this kind must be regarded, that the gravity of the fault may be defined.

IV. He who reads a book of a Heretic which in no way treats of Religion is not subject to the penalties enacted in the Bull Coenae. Yet the books of the Heresiarchs — of Luther, of Calvin, and of the others — are all forbidden, in whatever matter.

V. That anyone may incur the penalties contained in the Bull, he must read knowingly; that is, knowledge is required both of the law and of the fact: he must know both that the reading of a heretical book is forbidden, and that the book which he reads is heretical. To the same penalties is subject he who hands a heretical book to another to be read, that he may hear the reader. But he who by fortuitous chance hears another reading is not subject to the penalties contained in the Bull, but can sin more or less according to the diversity of circumstances. A Theologian, a Preacher, a Confessor, when grave necessity presses, can read the books of the Heretics, either to confound the Heretics or to confirm the Catholics. Yet this rarely happens.

VI. Those who have obtained a license, either from the supreme Pontiff or from the Congregation of the Holy Office, to read heretical books, if they suffer danger of seduction, and feel their mind shaken by grave temptations, sin mortally in reading such books. For no pontifical license can free from the duty of avoiding an occasion that gravely allures. But those who suffer no temptation do not sin gravely, even if they read from mere curiosity. Not only do they sin gravely who without legitimate faculty read heretical books, and incur the reserved excommunication; but also those who retain them for any cause whatsoever, whether for show and ornament, or to fill their libraries.

VII. Printers of heretical books sin mortally, and contract the excommunication — as do all those who lend helping hands to the printers, who hand over the book to be printed, who furnish inks or types: because all contribute to the printing, and favor the Heretics.

VIII. In the Tridentine and Roman Index, besides the books of the Heresiarchs, many books of Catholics are prohibited. The former are named of the first class, the latter of the second. Those books of Catholics are prohibited which contain errors hostile to the doctrine of faith or of morals, or which instill a suspicion of error, or offend pious ears, or furnish scandal, or contain lax opinions. Books of this class are sometimes prohibited until they be corrected. This happens when in the book absolutely sound doctrine is contained, but some proposition, which is not capital, has fallen from the author's pen beside his intention, or from a slip of the mind, or through ignorance. Such books are prohibited under mortal sin, and an excommunication not reserved.

IX. There are several other kinds of books prohibited in the aforesaid Index. First, all books treating of Magic. Secondly, books of astrology. Thirdly, all obscene books are prohibited by the law itself; nor does any faculty or license avail for the reading of these, for they are by their nature pestilential. Finally, in the fourth rule of the Roman Index the reading of the sacred Bible in the vernacular tongue is forbidden without the license of Superiors. A book proscribed in one language is proscribed in every other, unless there be a difference, and a correction have been made.

Julius, who is a good Catholic, noticed some time back that a young woman, a near relative of his, who cares little about religion or the Church, is passionately fond of the Memoirs of Casanova, which she actually devours herself, and lends to others to read. In order to prevent the spiritual harm done by such reading, Julius borrows the Memoirs from the young woman and hides them where no one can get at them. Some time after this he hears, accidentally, that no one is allowed even to keep in his possession books forbidden by the Index. Thereupon he calls upon his pastor and consults him as to what he ought to do with these Memoirs, of which there are several volumes.

Answer.—Casanova's Memoirs are on the Index, decree of July 28, 1834.

Therefore, 1. Julius dare not keep these Memoirs in his possession, no matter how praiseworthy his purpose, without the permission of the Holy See. St. Alphonsus says:

“A person is not excused who keeps a book either in another’s house, or under another’s name, or with the intention of not reading it” (L. vii., n. 297).

Dr. Hollweck, in his work on the Index, comments on these words as follows:

"Concerning the having in one's possession books forbidden by the Index, we must emphasize the fact that it makes no difference whether you keep the book in your own possession or give it to others to keep for you; whether the book belongs to you or to somebody else; whether you intend to read it or no. Moreover, you must have had the book in your possession for a considerable length of time before you become guilty of a mortal sin, and incur the censure attached to the transgression of the law. St. Alphonsus calls one or two days parvitas temporis (l. c. n. 295). The Popes have usually named eight days as the limit of time for giving up bad books. With this fact in mind, it may be safely said that one must keep in one's possession a forbidden book over one week in order to be adjudged guilty of a serious infraction of the law and to have incurred the censure attached to it. One may keep the forbidden book in one's possession, even longer than one week, if one does so in order to await a more favorable opportunity of turning the book over to the bishop or vicar-general, or to get the necessary permission to keep it. But one should not keep the book longer than one month, for a month is ample time to get the necessary faculties from the Holy See." Thus far Dr. Hollweck.

2. Julius may not burn the book, or otherwise destroy it, because it is not his property.

3. Although the borrower or depositary of another's property is bound to restore the same to the owner upon his demand, or at the stipulated time, still in the case of Julius there is the exception to be made, of which St. Thomas writes: “When a thing to be restored appears to be gravely harmful to the person to whom restitution is to be made, or to another, it ought not then to be restored to him. Nevertheless, the person who thus retains another’s property ought not appropriate it to himself, but either reserve it so that he may restore it at a suitable time, or even hand it over to another for safer keeping” (2, 2, q. 62, ad. 1).

St. Alphonsus, Lessius, Lugo, and others, teach the same.

Julius would sin against charity, or the love he owes his neighbor, if, without more ado, he were to return the forbidden book to the owner, foreseeing the harm that would come to her or to others from its perusal. We say, "without more ado," because if Julius can not refuse to return the forbidden book to its owner, without serious inconvenience to himself, "sine gravi incommodo," he may return the book at once (Cf. Marc, n. 1020).

4. Since, therefore, Julius may not return the book to its rightful owner, simply upon her demand, and since he may not keep it any longer in his possession without the permission of the Church authorities, he should either get the permission to retain the book in his own possession or he should give it to some third person for safe keeping who has the faculty to retain forbidden books.

Perhaps, in the course of time, the young woman may be prevailed upon to waive her right to the book, and no longer to consider it her own property.

1. There are many persons, especially women endeavoring to lead a holy life, who occupy themselves a great deal with so-called revelations made to pious persons, even to the exclusion of all other spiritual reading matter. Sometimes such persons study the revelations made to some particular saint, drawing all their spiritual nourishment from them; then having their appetite whetted by the perusal of one book of this kind, they eagerly devour anything of the same nature that they are able to lay hold of. They believe in these revelations as firmly as they believe in the Gospels and are strongly disposed to brand as heretics, or at least as suspects, all who do not put the same faith in them as they do themselves. This disposition alone is sufficient to prove that the perusal of these private revelations is not a healthy, spiritual exercise for all indiscriminately, and it becomes necessary from time to time to instruct the faithful on this head.

2. That there may be, that there have been, and that there are at present revelations made to private individuals is beyond question. We are speaking, of course, of revelations made to holy and devout persons, which have been investigated by the Church and declared to contain nothing against faith or good morals. No positive ecclesiastical approbation is ever given to such revelations.

3. When the Church revises and approves revelations and visions in this sense, all she does is to certify that these visions and revelations contain nothing against the "rule of faith," the "regula fidei"; so that the faithful may believe them without injury to their faith (pie creditur) and use them as a guide to conduct without fear of believing or doing anything unauthorized by the Church. Where the Church has thus given her approval to any particular private revelation, it is no longer permitted to ridicule or to despise it. “It is not lawful,” says Card. Franzelin, “to despise such revelations” (de div. trad. 22). To do so were to fail in the respect due to the Church. But not to believe the revelation is no sin against the obedience we owe the Church. For the Church, by her approval or quasi-approval of these revelations, has no intention of obliging the faithful to believe them. Whoever believes in them, does so "fide humana," and not "fide divina," at least not "fide divina Catholica."

"In spiritual things," says Catherine Emmerich, "I never believed anything except what was revealed by God and proposed formy belief by the Catholic Church. What I saw in visions I never believed in this way."

4. The body of revealed truth, necessary to salvation and bearing the seal of infallibility, was completed and closed, once for all, by the teachings of Christ and the apostles. When the Church defines a new dogma, she simply declares authoritatively that it is contained in the teachings of Our Lord and the apostles. Just as private revelations do not bear the seal of infallibility, so neither do they bear the mark of inerrancy. There is no divine inspiration guaranteeing the correct recording of private revelations, as is the case with the Holy Scriptures, even though the fact of the revelations has been established.

Private revelations are exposed to a threefold danger. The understanding may err in receiving the revelation. The memory may fail in recording orally or in writing the contents of the revelation. The tongue may err in its effort to clothe the revelation in human words.

Moreover, as Bened. XIV remarks, notions and ideas acquired previous to the revelation may be confounded by the person receiving the revelation with the things learned in the revelation, and thus the saints have sometimes considered things to have been revealed to them which were in nowise revealed. Hence the contradictions in different revelations.

5. The supernatural communication, therefore, as well in its reception as in its transmission, may be unwittingly falsified. The Holy Scriptures alone are preserved from such falsifications. And thus it happens that the private revelations of different holy persons contradict one another openly, and in many things.

6. All that the Church says, therefore, when she lends her approval to the private revelations of the saints or other holy persons, is that these revelations may be believed "fide humana," and that they are adapted and may be used for the edification of the faithful.

The declaration of Bened. XIV does not contradict this: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin." The Pope speaks only of their origin, and not at all of their contents, nor of their correct reproduction. And even a refusal to believe in their divine origin would not be a sin against Catholic faith.

7. After these theoretical remarks let us add a few words of a practical nature. The reading of these visions and private revelations is in nowise adapted to the needs of ordinary people, even though they may have correct notions about the credibility of private revelations. Many of these revelations are beyond the needs and the intelligence even of persons already far advanced in the spiritual life, and are often clothed in language quite unintelligible. And herein precisely lies a new source of anxiety, because a new danger, namely, the danger of understanding the revelation in a wrong sense, which may easily lead to positive error and sin against the "rule of faith."

8. Besides the danger just mentioned there is another, namely, the danger of a one-sided and an imperfect direction in holiness, and of laying great stress on trifles and things of secondary importance. But what is worst of all is that the reading of these revelations gives rise to secret spiritual pride and makes silly pious people, for it is such persons that are most addicted to this kind of reading, that imagine themselves farther advanced in the ways of perfection than others and think that they know more about matters of faith and morals than most other people, even more than the priests themselves.

9. It may cause some surprise if we add a warning for members of religious orders, especially of women. As a general rule, it is not advisable to make use of histories of private revelations, made to pious and holy persons, for general community reading. And those in authority in religious communities should be very slow to allow individual members of the community to make use of the same for their private reading. Women in religious orders who are endeavoring to lead holy lives are more apt to evince a weakness for what is extraordinary than for what is ordinary in their quest of perfection, than their sisters in the world. They prefer the revelations of St. Brigitta or of St. Gertrude to an ordinary introduction to the spiritual life. And it is precisely those who are by no means firmly grounded in the spiritual life who hanker after what is higher before they understand or put into practice the most ordinary and necessary requirements of spiritual growth. In the case of religious the evil effects of this kind of reading are more pronounced and more disastrous than in the case of lay people, and they sometimes create disturbance and division in an entire convent.

10. Some may think these remarks and warnings too severe and even exaggerated. And such indeed were the case did we apply them, a priori, to all private revelations. They hold good only for those who read indiscriminately, and without selecting, especially revelations made to holy persons in times long gone by, and which are profoundly mystic, not to say apocalyptic in their presentation.

Simple books, and books that may be readily understood, like the visions of Catherine Emmerich concerning the life and sufferings of Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, are much to be preferred to others, and we would even recommend them.

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.