Evil Writings

I. Books and newspapers professedly or notably contrary to religion or good morals are commonly a proximate occasion. Of this kind are, for example, socialist newspapers and many novels. Books and newspapers which do not oppose religion or good morals so notably are a relative occasion. To this are referred several liberal newspapers and many novels, as being erotic.

II. In doubt whether a book is dangerous, to read through it is illicit.

Dangerous Reading.—There is a threefold prohibition against the reading of literature dangerous to faith.

(a) The natural law forbids one to read or hear read written matter of any description which one knows is dangerous to one’s faith, even though it is not dangerous to others and not forbidden by the law of the Church. For a similar reason one may not keep such material in one’s possession. Example: Titus and Balbus read the letters of a friend on Evolution. Titus finds nothing unsound in the letters, and is not troubled by reading them; but they fill the mind of Balbus with doubts and perplexities, as the subject is above him. This reading is naturally dangerous for Balbus, but not for Titus.

(b) The law of the Church forbids the use of certain kinds of writings or representations dangerous to faith (Canon 1399), as well as of those individual writings that have been denounced to the Holy See and placed on the Index, or forbidden by other ecclestiastical authorities. (See Appendix I for Summary of Common Law on Prohibition of Books.)

(c) The law of the Church also pronounces ipso facto excommunication against those who make use of works written by unbelievers in favor of their errors (Canon 2318).

As regards the kind of sin committed by using writings dangerous to faith, the following points must be noted:

(a) If a writing is dangerous and forbidden under natural law, the sin committed is of itself grave whenever the danger itself is serious and proximate; it is venial, when the danger is slight or remote. The sin committed depends, therefore, not on the time spent in reading or the number of pages covered, but on the danger (see 260-261, on the Dangers of Sin). No sin at all is committed, if the danger is slight or remote, and there is reason for reading the writing in question (e.g., the defense of truth).

(b) If the writing is forbidden under ecclesiastical law, the sin committed is of itself grave, even though the danger to an individual is not serious or proximate, for the law is based on the presumption of a common and great danger (see 460). The sin is not grave, however, when the prohibition is generally regarded as not binding under grave sin, or when the use made of the writing is inconsiderable. No sin at all is committed, if one has obtained the necessary permission to read forbidden works, and is not exposed to spiritual danger in using the permission.

There are two cases in which the use of writings forbidden by the Church is only a venial sin. (a) When a writing, which in itself is not dangerous or only slightly dangerous, is forbidden, not on account of its contents, but only on account of its lack of ecclesiastical approval, it is not ordinarily regarded as forbidden under grave sin (e.g., Catholic Translations of scripture that have not received the Imprimatur). (b) When a writing has been condemned on account of its contents or manner of presentation, one does not sin mortally, if the use one makes of it is only slight.

What constitutes notable use of forbidden matter is not determined by law, but recent moralists, bearing in mind the character of the law and what would prove proximately dangerous to faith for the generality today, offer the following rules: (a) notable matter in reading a book is three or four pages from the more dangerous parts, from thirty to sixty pages from the slightly dangerous parts; (b) notable matter in reading a paper or periodical is habitual use of it, or even one very bitter article; (c) notable matter in retention of forbidden writings is a period in excess of the reasonable time (say, a month) for securing permission or for delivering the writings to those who have a right to have them.

It is more difficult to decide what is notable matter, when a book has been condemned on account of its general tendency. (a) Under the natural law, of course, even a page or less is notable matter, if it places an individual in proximate danger; (b) under the positive law, perhaps anything in excess of one-tenth of the book would place one in proximate danger. But, as we are dealing now with the general tendency of a writing, this may have its effect on the reader before he has read one-tenth, if the book is large, or the treatment is very seductive. Hence, “one-tenth” is an approximation, rather than a rule.

The kinds of printed matter forbidden by the Code (Canon 1399) are as follows: (a) the prohibition extends to books, to other published matter (such as magazines and newspapers), and to illustrations that attack religion and what are called “holy pictures” (i.e., images of our Lord and the Saints), if opposed to the mind of the Church; (b) the prohibition extends to published matter dangerous to faith, and therefore to the following; to writings or caricatures that attack the existence of God, miracles or other foundations of natural or revealed religion, Catholic dogma, worship or discipline, the ecclesiastical hierarchy as such, or the clerical or religious state; to those that defend heresy, schism, superstition, condemned errors, subversive societies, or suicide, duelling, divorce; to non-Catholic publications of the Bible and to non-Catholic works on religion that are not clearly free from opposition to Catholic faith; to liturgical works that do not agree with the authentic texts; to books that publish apocryphal indulgences and to printed images of holy persons that would be the occasion of error (e.g., the representation of the Holy Ghost in human form).

The mere presence, however, of condemned matter in a writing does not cause it to fall under prohibition.

(a) Some works are not forbidden unless the author’s purpose to teach error or attack the truth is known. Hence, books on religion written by non-Catholics which contain errors against the Catholic Faith are not forbidden, unless they deal with religion ex professo (i.e., not incidentally or cursorily, but clearly for the purpose of teaching). It is not necessary, however, that religion be the main theme of the book, Similarly, books that attack religion are forbidden, not when attacks are casual or by the way, but when they are made purposely; and the same is true as regards books that insult the clerical state. The purpose is recognized from the declaration of the author, from the nature of the work, from the systematic treatment, length or frequency of argumentation or attack, etc.

(b) Other works are not forbidden, unless they contain not only agreement with error, but also argument in defense of error. Thus, books in favor of heresy, schism, suicide, duelling, divorce, Freemasonry, etc., are forbidden when they champion wrong causes by disputing in their behalf.

(c) Other works are forbidden, not because they state, but because they approve of error. Such are books that attack or ridicule the foundations of religion or the dogmas of faith, those that disparage worship, those that are subversive of discipline, those that defend proscribed propositions, those that teach and favor superstition, etc.

Books that deal with religion ex professo (i.e., of set purpose), or obiter (i.e., incidentally), are as follows: (a) Books that are ex professo religious are manuals of theology, works of sermons, treatises on the Bible, instructions on religious duties, works of piety, text-books of church history. Works of a profane character, such as scientific books, may also teach religion ex professo, but it is not easy as a rule to perceive the intention of teaching religion in works of this kind. (b) Books that deal with religion only obiter are works of a profane character, in which the subject of religion is introduced only briefly (e.g., by way of illustration).

Books dealing ex professo with religion and written by non-Catholics are: (a) forbidden, if they contain matter contrary to Catholic faith; (b) not forbidden, if it is clear to one (e.g., from a competent review) that they contain nothing contrary to Catholic faith.

How is one to know in a particular case whether a book falls under one of the foregoing classes forbidden by the Code? (a) If the Holy See has made a declaration, the matter is of course clear; (b) if no declaration has been made, and one is competent to judge for oneself, one may read as much as is necessary to decide whether the book is one of those proscribed by the Code; but if a person has not received the education that would fit him for judging, he should consult some person more skilled than himself, such as his parish priest or confessor.

Is it lawful to read newspapers, magazines, or reference works (such as encyclopedias), which contain some articles contrary to faith, and others that are good or indifferent, if these papers or books have not been condemned? (a) If the reading or consultation, on account of one’s individual character, will subject one to grave temptations, then according to natural law it should be avoided. (b) If there is no serious danger or temptation, but the policy of the works or journals in question is anti-religious or anti-Catholic, as appears from the space given to hostile attack, their frequency or bitterness of spirit, then, according to the law of the Code just mentioned, one should avoid such reading matter. Examples of this kind of literature are papers devoted to atheistic or bolshevistic propaganda, anti-Catholic sheets, etc. (c) If there is no danger to the individual, and the editorial policy is not hostile, one may use such matter as is good and useful, while passing over any elaborate or systematic attack on truth or defense of error.

Individual books are forbidden by name to all Catholics by the Holy See and to their own subjects by Ordinaries and other local or particular councils (Canon 1395). Books condemned by the Apostolic See must be considered as forbidden everywhere and in whatsoever language they may be translated into (Canon 1396).

(a) If a book is forbidden, one may not read even the harmless parts of it, for there is the danger that, if one part is read, the other parts will also be read. But, if the part that occasioned the prohibition be removed, the prohibition ceases as regards the remainder of the book.

(b) If a work is forbidden, one may not read any volume, if all the volumes deal with the same subject. But, if the volumes treat of different subjects or of one subject that is divisible (e.g., universal history), one may read such volumes as do not contain the danger that occasioned the prohibition.

(c) If all the works of an author are condemned, the prohibition is understood to apply only to books (i.e., not to smaller works), and only to books dealing with religion, unless it appears that the other kinds of writings are also included; but the prohibition is to be presumed to include works that appear after the condemnation, unless the contrary is manifest.

Some outstanding works that have been condemned are the following: (a) In English: Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire (Gibbons); Myth, Ritual, and Religion (Andrew Lang); History of England (Goldsmith); The Roman Popes (Ranke); The Life and Pontificate of Leo X (Roscoe); Constitutional History of England (Hallam); Political Economy (Mill); Happiness in Hell (Mivart); History of English Literature (Taine); Reign of Charles V (Robertson); Zoonomia, or The Laws of Organic Life (Darwin).

(b) In French: Notre Dame de Paris (Hugo); Life of Jesus and eighteen other works of Renan; all the works of Anatole France; The Social Contract and four works of Rousseau; nearly all the works of Voltaire; The Gospel and the Church, Gospel Studies, The Fourth Gospel, Apropos of a Little Book, The Religion of Israel (Loisy); all the works of Jean Paul Sartre; La Deuxieme Sexe and Les Mandarins by Simone de Beauvoir.

What is meant by “use” of forbidden writings? (a) In the first place, those “use” a writing who read it—that is, who go over it with their eyes, understanding the meaning therein contained. Hence, a person does not violate the church law against forbidden books if he merely listens to another read; although he might sin against the natural law, and even against the church law, if he induced the other to read to him; neither does a person violate the church law, if he merely glances at the characters, without understanding the sense expressed. Example: Titus, a professor of theology, has permission to read forbidden books, and he sometimes reads to his class doctrinal passages from works on the Index in order to explain and refute errors. Balbus examines very carefully the pages of a beautifully printed copy of a forbidden work, but he understands hardly a word of it, since it is in a foreign language. Neither Titus’ class nor Balbus are guilty of reading as forbidden by the Church, for strict interpretation is given to penal laws (see 485).

(b) In the second place, those “use” a forbidden writing who retain it—that is, who keep it in their home as belonging to themselves or borrowed from another, or who give it for safekeeping to another, even though they are not able to read it. Hence, a librarian who has forbidden books on his shelves does not break the law, since the books are not his property, nor are they kept in his home. A bookbinder also who receives forbidden books is considered as excused through epieikeia for the time the books are in his shop, especially if his customer has the permission to read those books. Example: Sempronius bought an expensive work and then discovered that it is on the Index. Is he obliged to destroy it? No, if he does not wish to destroy it, he may, if he does not delay beyond a month, either give it to someone who has permission to keep it, or obtain that permission for himself.

(c) In the third place, those “use” a forbidden writing who communicate it to others—for example, those who make presents of works that are on the Index, who lend such books to others, or place them where others will read them, who read to others passages or write out excerpts for them. It is lawful, however, for professors in theological and other classes of sacred science to read from forbidden works to their student body, if a suitable explanation and refutation exclude all danger.

(d) Lastly, those fall under the law as violators who co-operate in the production or distribution of forbidden literature—for example, publishers, owners, authors, translators, booksellers, printers, etc. (cfr. 976 sqq., on cooperation in Worship).

The church law on forbidden literature affects all Catholics not excepted by law, no matter how learned they may be, what position they may hold, or how immune from danger they may seem, unless they obtain permission to read such literature from the Holy See, the Ordinary, or their regular Superior (Canon 1402). Those excepted by law and who do not need to seek such permission are certain prelates and students. (a) Cardinals, Bishops, and other Ordinaries (Canon 1401), and likewise major superiors in exempt clerical orders (Canon 198, Sec. 1) are not bound by the church prohibition of books dangerous to faith; (b) those who are pursuing theological or biblical studies may use forbidden editions of scripture, provided these are correct and complete as to the text, and contain no attacks on Catholic teaching in the introductions and annotations (Canon 1400). This permission extends not only to seminarians, but also to lay students; not only to those who are at school, but also to those who are really studying outside of school, such as professors, writers and those who are preparing lectures or dissertations.

When the necessity of reading a forbidden book is urgent, and the opportunity of asking permission from the Holy See or Ordinary is lacking, a person whose duties call for acquaintance with such a book may consider that the law does not bind in his particular case (see 411-417 on epieikeia). (a) A professor, editor, critic, etc., who had not yet received permission might read a forbidden book, if, being called upon to criticize it, he could not await the permission; (b) a confessor, pastor, etc., in similar circumstances could read a forbidden book in order to be able to refute it.

Those who have received permission to read books forbidden as generally dangerous to faith, may also read papers and periodicals of the same character, and they may use the permission given them anywhere, since it is a personal indult (see 446). The following restrictions, however, are understood in the grant of permission:

(a) Permission to read, no matter by whom granted, does not make it lawful to read what is really a danger to one’s faith, for this (as explained above in 849-850) is contrary to natural law. Moreover, those who have received an apostolic indult may not read or retain books proscribed by their Ordinaries, unless the indult extends even to this.

(b) Permission to retain does not make it lawful to keep forbidden books in such a way that they will fall into the hands of those who have no right to read them. On the contrary, there is a grave obligation arising from the natural law to prevent such a thing from happening. Hence, those who have permission to keep writings dangerous to faith should not place them on shelves to which there is general access, or else they should label them as dangerous and forbidden (see Canons 1405, Sec.1, and 1403, Sec.2).

According to Canon 2318, the following censures are incurred through the use of forbidden books:

(a) Excommunication specially reserved to the Apostolic See is incurred ipso facto by those who offer to the public books, even of a non-religious character, written by apostates, schismatics, or heretics in systematic defense of heresy or schism. This censure applies, first, to the chief causes of publicity of the work—i.e., to the author who offers it for publication, and to the publisher and printer (owner or manager of the press) who accept it for that purpose—not, however, to remote cooperators or helpers; secondly, to such chief causes as understand the character of the book, either from the word of the author or from the contents. It is not incurred, if the work is not published (i.e., if it remains in manuscript, or is circulated only privately), or if it is published in other than book form (e.g., as a pamphlet, leaflet or article). Ignorance, if not crass or supine (see 27), excuses from this censure (Canon 2229, Sec.3, n. 1).

(b) The same censure is incurred by those who defend the aforementioned books, either materially (e.g., by saving them from destruction) or morally (e.g., by defending, praising, or recommending them). Ignorance excuses here as in the case of publishers.

(c) The same censure is incurred by those who defend books of any author condemned by name through Apostolic letters. Hence, the censure does not apply to books condemned by a pontifical congregation nor to books condemned in a Papal Letter, if their title is not mentioned. Ignorance excuses here as in the previous case.

(d) The same censure is incurred by those who knowingly keep or read any of the forbidden books mentioned so far in this paragraph. The sense to be attached to the words “keep or read” has been given above (see 862). Even crass and supine ignorance of law or penalty, provided it be not affected, as well as other causes that lessen imputability (see 40), excuse from this censure (Canon 2229, Sec.Sec.1, 2).

(e) Excommunication not reserved is incurred ipso facto by authors and publishers who are responsible for the printing without due authorization of books of Holy Writ, or of notes or commentaries on the Bible, even though the text be correct and the explanation orthodox. This censure is not incurred by those who are not responsible for the printing done, such as typesetters and readers. Ignorance, if not crass and supine, excuses here (Canon 2229, Sec.3).

419. Principles. - I. To speak, sing, write, or hear base things for the sake of venereal delight or with proximate danger of consent into it is a grave sin. But if wicked intention and danger of consent are absent, and at the same time a legitimate cause is present of uttering, writing, or hearing such things, there is no sin.

II. To read books altogether obscene without a just cause is a mortal sin, even if this seems to be done from curiosity or for the sake of recreation; because per se this reading very much provokes to lust. Except perhaps unless those reading, from curiosity alone, on account of advanced age and cold temperament or the custom of treating venereal matters, do not incur grave danger of lust. - St. Lig., n. 426.

III. To read amorous and lightly obscene books per se is not mortal, although in practice it is very dangerous especially for younger persons. But to read books in some measure obscene, otherwise treating of the sciences, from the sole view of science or one's own or another's utility, per se is not a sin, yet with danger of venereal consent removed, which otherwise in younger persons will rarely be absent.

420. Resolves. - 1. Generally they sin gravely who mix in conversations, even from levity, concerning the conjugal act, concerning things licit and illicit between spouses, concerning ways of impeding generation, of procuring pollution..., especially if this happens among young persons of different sex.

2. They sin gravely who utter even only base words, if they do this on account of delight taken from the very thought of base things. Nor are they excused from grave sin who, under the pretext of joking, express the same things on account of that delight by equivocal but sufficiently known words. - St. Lig., n. 426.

3. They also sin gravely who because of boastfulness narrate their own base sins, and indeed ordinarily in a threefold way: namely by the sin of complacency, of scandal, and of boastfulness concerning a sin committed.

4. It is not per se mortal to utter things indeed base, but not gravely obscene, if it is done briefly, through joke or vain solace, unless those hearing are so weak in spirit that they suffer grave scandal. Hence commonly base witticisms which are uttered by harvesters, grape-gatherers, muleteers are not grave, because ordinarily they are said and heard for mere joke. - St. Lig., n. 426.

5. Tender conversations with persons of a different sex are not always to be held as mortal sins, although they are full of dangers, especially if they are lengthy, often repeated, or happen in solitary places. - St. Lig., n. 422, 426. What therefore must be judged concerning loves, as they call them, especially among younger persons? - Not all indiscriminately are faults, mortal to be condemned; although often the proximate occasion of sinning lethally will with difficulty be absent, at least in the progress and when certain adjuncts approach, as if lovers meet wholly alone, especially for a longer time or at night, etc. - St. Lig., Praxis Conf., n. 63.

6. They do not sin gravely who from mere curiosity read witty books, because they do not gravely excite to lust, nor expose to great danger, such as many comedies or poems. - But if they do this on account of a legitimate cause, for example for learning or for acquiring eloquence, they do not sin in any way.

34. 5. Concerning the reading of books and attendance at theaters. These two excite the passions more or less, according as they display matters more or less luxurious, and at the same time according to the diverse persons who read the books or attend the spectacles.

Hence (a) to read shameful books from a libidinous intention, or books so obscene that there is proximate danger of consenting to venereal delectation, is a mortal sin. Say the same of spectacles. (b) With shameful affection and proximate danger of sinning gravely excluded, to read shameful or dangerous books without cause, from curiosity, is a venial sin; if a just cause is present, there is no sin, provided all consent to carnal delectation is guarded against.

Today not a few young persons are corrupted by reading depraved books or by frequenting spectacles of the lowest kind; wherefore parents must take care lest in this matter they furnish evil example to their children.

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.

Corruption of morals, for the most part, arises from obscene conversations and obscene readings, according to that saying of the Apostle (1 Cor., 15, 33): Evil conversations corrupt good morals. Wherefore, in hearing the confessions of adolescents and of others unknown to him, the confessor, when he has come to the sixth precept, will be able very fittingly to begin the questions from shameful speech.

Acts that regard human conversation are generally a cause of lust by reason of scandal. By reason of the knowledge that they bring to the ignorant, they influence lust less. Therefore the gravity of sin here will be discerned from the circumstance of the intended end, or of the persons who speak or before whom speech is held, or finally of the mode in which shameful speech happens.

808. Principles. I. To speak, sing, write, hear, or read shameful things from carnal pleasure, or with proximate danger of consent to it, or even with grave scandal, is a mortal sin. Thus all from the principles concerning lust or pollution indirectly admitted (III, 426).

Hence, generally, the following sin gravely: 1. Those who mix into conversations, even from levity, about the conjugal act, about licit and illicit things between spouses, about modes of impeding generation, of procuring pollution, especially if this happens among young persons of different sex.

2. Those who for boasting recount their shameful sins; and indeed ordinarily in three ways: a) because they glory concerning an evil thing; b) because they provide great scandal; c) because they easily take complacency in sins perpetrated (H. Ap., IX, 9).

3. "Those who say shameful things on account of pleasure taken from thought of the shameful things themselves, or with danger of such pleasure, or with danger of grave scandal, which is frequently present when such things are uttered before young men or girls" (III, l.c.).

4. Those who read, without just cause, plainly obscene books (as Zola, Alfred Musset, George Sand, Guy de Maupassant, etc.), although they may seem to do this from curiosity alone or for the sake of recreation; for such reading generally greatly incites to lust.

It is to be noted that the danger from immodest speech is so much greater as particulars are more described, as the speech is more prolonged, and finally as greater sympathy intervenes between those speaking. Wherefore authors advert, with St. Thomas, that prolonged conversation with a girl inordinately loved is not without grave danger (H. Ap., l.c.).

II. To speak shameful things for the sake of recreation or jest is not of itself mortal, unless the hearers are so weak in spirit that they suffer scandal, or unless the words are too lascivious. Thus St. Alphonsus with St. Antoninus and others (III, 426, 427).

Hence: 1. Commonly, amorous words and shameful jests uttered in passing (for example by harvesters, grape-gatherers, muleteers) are not grave; because they are said and heard playfully. Except, as already said, words too lascivious, especially when uttered before adolescents and younger honorable women. - 2. They do not sin gravely who from mere curiosity read witty books, for example comedies lightly shameful; because they do not gravely excite to lust, nor expose to great danger (Gury, I, n. 420).

809. III. To speak, write, read, or hear shameful things with legitimate cause, without wicked intention and danger of consent, and without scandal, is no sin.

Hence: 1. They do not sin who read obscene books in order to acquire necessary knowledge, to correct morals, to learn the truth of history, to inform Superiors, etc., provided they do not assent to shameful pleasure. The same must be said of those who read poems of the ancients in order to exercise and perfect style; these, however, are not to be handed to youths (cf. Const. Officiorum, n. 10).

2. "As regards the reading of romantic books that treat of loves, in practice a distinction must be made between assiduous or frequent reading, and fortuitous or rare reading. The first, especially as regards youths, must for the most part be forbidden under grave sin; not so the second, at least ordinarily" (Berardi, Praxis, n. 810).

810. On Those Hearing Shameful Things. 1. If they have authority over those speaking, they are held from office to restrain them. 2. But if they are inferiors or equals, let them either admonish, or be silent, if silence is held as a sufficient admonition.

If the shameful speeches are mortal on the part of the one speaking, the hearers, if they laugh a little, either commit no sin (because it is a first-first movement), or are not immediately and indiscriminately to be accused of mortal sin; for it can happen that they laugh rather about the mode of speaking than about the things themselves, or even so that they may not give occasion for worse things to be said. - Yet religious and clerics, who are held to chastity in a special mode, would easily provide grave scandal (H. Ap., VII, 37, 3).

811. Practical Rules. Concerning obscene words let penitents be asked: 1. What words they said, i.e. in genus, not in species; whether they had very shameful conversations; so that thus it may be known whether they sinned gravely or lightly. 2. Before whom and how often they uttered them, by reason of scandal: - whether before men or women, married or unmarried, boys or adults? For girls and boys are more easily scandalized than adults, especially if there is question of adults who are habituated in this vice. - 3. Whether they uttered the words from anger, or jest; for from anger complacency and scandal will be present with more difficulty. 4. Whether they boasted about some sin; for then often three sins concur, as was said (n. 352, 2).

They should also be asked whether they took pleasure in hearing others speaking dishonorably; and whether then they adverted to the precept of correction, thinking it would profit. Then St. Alphonsus gravely adds these things: "Let the confessor beware of absolving those relapsing in shameful conversations, although they say that they uttered them from jest, unless first they are amended, or bring an extraordinary sign of sorrow. Alas, how much harm from dishonorable words! One dishonorable word can effect that all who hear it be damned" (Praxis, n. 40; Inst. Cat., P. I, c. 6, n. 21).

491. Principles. - I. To speak, sing, write, hear, or read base things, either for the sake of carnal delectation, or with danger of consent to it, or also with grave scandal, is a mortal sin. Thus all.³ Hence:

1° Generally speaking, those sin gravely who mingle conversations, although from levity only, concerning the conjugal act, concerning licit and illicit things between spouses, concerning modes of impeding generation, of procuring pollution, especially if this is done among young persons of different sex.

2° Those sin gravely who narrate their own base sins; and indeed ordinarily threefoldly, namely on account of complacency, scandal, and boasting about a sin committed.

3° Those also sin gravely who utter only base words (although not conversations) on account of delectation taken from the very thought of base things, or with danger of such delectation. Nor are they excused from grave sin who, under pretext of joking, express the same things by equivocal words, but sufficiently known, on account of base delectation.

4° The same must be said concerning those who read, without just cause, wholly obscene books, even if they seem to do this from curiosity or for the sake of recreation; because of itself reading of this sort greatly provokes to lust, at least ordinarily speaking.

5° Moreover, it must be carefully noted here, with the Salmanticenses from St. Thomas, that a prolonged conversation with a girl loved inordinately is not lacking in grave danger.⁴

492. • II. It is not mortal to utter base words from anger, jest, for vain solace, as harvesters, grape-gatherers, muleteers, and those of this sort are wont to do. Except things too lascivious, or if they are a scandal to others, as they are generally to boys and girls. - "Those hearing ... only on account of curiosity, or for vain solace, can sometimes be excused from mortal sin; unless there is present base delectation, or the danger of it, which will easily always be present in adolescents, or others of little timorous conscience, or unless scandal is present." - "To read base books" (but not those of which n. 491. 4°) "from curiosity, without base delectation or its proximate danger," of itself is only venial. Yet this must be carefully prohibited to young people as much as possible.¹

III. To speak, write, read, or hear base things with a legitimate cause, without an evil intention, danger of consent, and scandal, is no sin.² Hence:

1° They do not sin who, for forming and perfecting style, read the poems of the ancients; yet these are not to be conceded to young people.

2° They do not sin who read obscene books for acquiring knowledge, for correcting morals, for learning the truth of history, for informing Superiors, etc.; provided they do not consent to base things and truly intend an honorable end.

As regards those hearing, these things are specially to be noted:

a) If those who hear obscene things have authority over those uttering them, they are bound from office to restrain them; but if they are inferiors or equals, let them admonish them, or at least be silent before them.

b) Those who hear base speech mortal on the part of the speaker, and laugh a little, are not immediately and indiscriminately to be charged with mortal sin: for it can happen that they laugh at the mode of speaking rather than at the things themselves. - Yet Religious and Clerics would easily furnish grave scandal.³

Practical rule.⁴ Concerning obscene words penitents are to be questioned: 1° Before whom and how often they have spoken them, by reason of scandal: - whether before men or women, married or unmarried? before boys or adults? For girls and boys are more easily scandalized than adults, especially if there is question of adults habituated in this vice. Yet beware lest you conclude from this that lascivious conversations among married persons are altogether immune from grave sin. For they can be a scandal to themselves. Nor should they deceive themselves because they have them before little children under the pretext that they are not understood; for sometimes they are truly understood, or at least little children retain in memory certain things whose explanation they afterward seek, and easily obtain. - 2° What words they have said; whether, for example, they have named the pudenda of the different sex (Note that the Saint is speaking of questioning the rude; therefore do not question all in that way), so that it may be known whether it is mortal. - 3° Whether they have uttered the words from anger or jest; for from anger complacency and scandal will more difficultly be present. - 4° Whether they have boasted of some sin; for then three sins often concur, as was said. - They are also to be questioned whether they were delighted in hearing others speaking dishonorably, and whether then they adverted to the precept of correction, thinking it would be profitable. St. Doctor adds:¹ "Let the confessor beware of absolving those relapsing in base conversations, although they say that they uttered them from jest, unless they first amend, or bring an extraordinary sign of sorrow." "Alas! what damage," he says, "from dishonorable words! One dishonorable word can effect that all who hear it be damned."²

1448. - The reading of depraved books and newspapers is interdicted by natural law and by ecclesiastical law. Concerning this latter we shall speak n. 1702 sq.; concerning the former we must treat in this place.

For knowing the degree of fault in reading them, insofar as this is interdicted by natural law, it is necessary to distinguish books into two classes. Some are full of impieties or obscenities: others are only erotic, i.e. treating of loves, without any or almost any impiety or obscenity.

"As to books of the first class I say," says Berardi, "that, ordinarily speaking, and natural law alone being considered, it is a mortal sin to read them, even if they are read only on some one occasion. The reason is that such books are extremely dangerous and fatal."

Books of the second class, "as are many comedies, tragedies, dramas, poems, and some moderate romantic books, in which many things indeed are found very tender and affective, but nothing or almost nothing is present which smacks of impiety or of obscenity," are "all dangerous to youth"; and, ordinarily speaking, grave danger is present for those who are wholly occupied in readings of this kind about loves, but not for those who sometimes read some one of these books. But for the greatest part this matter depends "on particular circumstances, and especially" it is "to be attended to whether the reading is done from a lustful end, or with special danger, the age, temperament of the reader, and especially his morals and experience of falls having been inspected." Cf. above n. 233, Resp. to the 1st.

1449. Questions. - Query 1° What must be said concerning the reading of many newspapers, in which here and there some or many things hostile to the Catholic Religion are found?

Resp. "I judge," says Berardi, "that the reading of those newspapers can be gravely illicit by natural law, the quality of the person reading, the frequency of reading, and the quality of the newspaper itself being inspected, i.e. the multitude of impieties contained in it, the manner of announcing them, etc." Cf. above n. 310, d). (25) p. 420.

Query 2° Can a penitent having a depraved book which is not his own, but another's, return it to the owner?

Resp. Distinguish. "If no," says the same Berardi, "or a small inconvenience will follow from the burning of the book, certainly he will be held to burn it from charity toward the owner, because charity then prevails over that small violation of justice (if there is any). But if notable inconveniences will follow from the burning of the book, then the penitent can return it to the owner." L. IV. 753. § fin.

VI. Observation. The cause or occasion of internal lust is base conversations and writings, and the hearings and readings of them. Concerning these, let it be noted:

1. When someone speaks base things from libidinous affection, to excite venereal pleasure either in himself or in others, it is always mortal sin. The same must be said when someone, by speaking base things, exposes himself or another by such speech to the proximate occasion of mortal sin.

Hence they easily sin gravely:

a. who mingle conversations concerning the conjugal act, concerning things licit and illicit between spouses, concerning modes of impeding generation, of procuring pollution, or concerning young men and girls, especially if this is done among younger persons of different sex;

b. who out of boasting recount their own base sins, both because they often give great scandal and because they easily take complacency in the sins perpetrated;

c. who say base things because of pleasure taken from those things thought of, or with danger of such pleasure, or with danger of grave scandal.

2. To speak base things from levity or curiosity or for mere recreation, in such a way that the pleasure does not pass to the things which are expressed by the words, but stops in the artifice of the words, provided scandal is absent and the danger of the speaker falling into mortal sin is absent, is not mortal sin; for the affection of the will is not borne into lust. Thus often among the uneducated and workers, or among women gathered together. Yet because this recreation is inordinate, there is venial sin.

3. The same is to be said, as in the two prior principles, concerning the hearing, reading, and singing of base things.

4. To write base things on account of doctrine, on account of history, on account of informing superiors or due reprehension, is no sin. The same is to be said in the same cases concerning speech, hearing, and reading.

5. To write base things for the pleasure to be taken by oneself or to be provoked in others is mortal sin. Likewise to write such things without this intention, but with at least confused foresight of this effect, unless, however, some necessity or utility excuses.

6. To write base things out of levity or pleasantness, without danger of scandal even of the little ones, is only venial sin.

7. In words or writings, by invitation or counsel or approval, to induce another to a sin of lust is mortal sin, which participates in all the specific malices of the work advised.

VI. Writings: 1) some are professedly impious and against religion, or obscene, that is, composed for exciting lust, and these are a proximate danger of sinning generally for all, unless perhaps for a learned and pious theologian if it is a question of impious writings, and for an altogether serious and honorable man if it is a question of obscene writings; hence of themselves they are prohibited by the Index.

2. Others are not impious or obscene except incidentally and on a given occasion, because they have something slight of obscenity or against the Church or its ministers, such as are many romantic and dramatic works today, and these constitute a proximate danger for many, especially for the younger. Now:

a) The former are not permitted to be read unless there is a grave reason of necessity and at the same time fitting cautions are employed by which the danger becomes remote; for this besides, a dispensation from the law of the Index is to be obtained.

b) Similarly to read the others is a grave sin in a case in which they constitute a proximate danger, or if they have been reported by name in the Index.

c) Merely recreational reading of base or impious writings, when by the law of the Index they are not prohibited to someone, without utility and without danger, which nevertheless is rarely absent, is only a venial sin.

The gravity of the danger is to be weighed from the end, age and disposition, morals and religion of the reader, especially from frequency of reading, from the compensating influence of good writings, and above all from frequency of falls.

And similarly, according to the same rules, one must judge concerning writings subversive of society, e.g., anarchistic writings.

VII. The duty of the confessor. - 1) The first is to ask concerning writings and readings, and also to admonish, unless it is certain that the penitent is in good faith, and no fruit is to be hoped from admonition, and there is not present a proximate danger of sin; which can scarcely happen in those who habitually read depraved writings.

2. To those refusing to abandon a proximate danger from reading, he must deny absolution.

3. Depraved books which the penitent possesses are to be thrown away, or rather handed over to the confessor.

4. If someone has a serious reason for reading certain prohibited works, it is better to procure ecclesiastical license for him, and to admonish him to lock the books away at home, and also to read good works as an antidote.

5. Let him draw all, especially young persons, away from reading writings which favor indifferentism, liberalism, socialism, or foster sensualism, novels; because they easily cause great ruin of the soul, namely little by little and without being sensed they eradicate faith and devotion, cause disgust for good books, inflame the soul toward profane loves, and incline to vice.

6. Let him admonish parents and superiors of colleges that in this matter they be most vigilant toward sons and pupils.

7. To those who say that they wish to judge all things by themselves, let it be shown that it is impossible to judge concerning religious questions for those who have not studied philosophy and theology.

VIII. Observations. - 1) Innkeepers cannot a) display writings professedly depraved; b) nor generally and always less good and prohibited writings, without a just reason; c) nevertheless they can do so if great damage is to be avoided, and at the same time they display good writings.

2. In readings there can be sin: a) because of scandal given; b) because of danger, for judging which various things are to be considered: the manner of proposing, the disposition of the one reading, habitual or transitory reading, circumstances, as if good writings are also read at the same time, etc.; c) because of cooperation, as in editors, sellers, writers, printers, etc., concerning whom it is customary to speak in the treatise on Faith.

3. Those who, on account of a legitimate reason, e.g., on account of the necessities of their trade or industry, subscribe to depraved daily papers or periodicals, should not read the depraved things printed there.

4. Concerning moving-picture spectacles, similar things hold as concerning theaters.

5. Concerning worldly ornament and novelty in dress the following hold:

The ornament of women, even for fostering and elevating beauty, of itself is an indifferent thing, and therefore good if it is done according to right reason; hence excess of itself is only a venial sin, yet it can be mortal both by reason of the intention or depraved end mortally evil, and by reason of danger or grave scandal.

Hence: A. They sin mortally a) if they adorn themselves with the intention of provoking to lust; b) if they use a garment so thin and subtle that dishonorable parts are not sufficiently covered; c) if they have the breast immoderately uncovered, so that the middle of the breasts or almost the whole breasts are uncovered, or covered only by a translucent veil; this holds concerning our cultivated regions, not concerning barbarous peoples; d) if they have the breast not altogether immoderately uncovered and show only the upper part of the breasts but contrary to the custom of the country, or introduce such a custom: for extraordinary and unaccustomed things move more. This custom is not praiseworthy, and therefore rather is to be extirpated.

On the contrary, B. They sin venially a) if from levity, vanity, or boasting they adorn themselves according to the custom of the country; b) if the ornament is beyond the condition of state; c) if, without sufficient reason, they bear the breast not altogether immoderately uncovered according to the custom of the country, for accustomed things allure less; and also, apart from this custom, if they have the breast moderately uncovered or the arms uncovered, or a garment so made that the form of the breast altogether appears, or introduce such a custom, for such a custom is not praiseworthy; d) if in ornament there is fiction or simulation properly so called, e.g., of beauty, as if, without an excusing reason, at least of legitimate recreation, a woman uses masculine dress, puts on masked garments, smears the face with paint and pigments, uses another's hair for feigning her own, wears false breasts, etc., unless these have been introduced by general custom; e) if they invent or make or introduce new and curious ornaments, ridiculous fashions.

C. No sin is present a) if right intention, legitimate custom of the country, and the condition of state are preserved; hence in many regions to proceed today with hair not veiled is no sin: nevertheless that custom is not praiseworthy, cf. I Cor. XI, 6; b) if a woman adorns herself to please a man, a married woman to please her husband, when he commands it, or lest he turn aside to other women, or an unmarried woman in order to have a husband; nevertheless if she does not wish to have a husband, let her leave even superfluous ornament; c) if it is done by dissimulation alone and someone uses ornament for covering or hiding a defect, e.g., another's hair for covering baldness, a false breast if the other has been cut away, paint for hiding deformity arising from a defect, unless this violates only the natural law, as in our Belgium it can safely be admitted.

It should be noted that there is no obligation of dismissing ornament decent according to the custom of the country, even if certain determined men would be allured from it to concupiscence, because this would be too burdensome. But if it is contrary to the custom of the country, or if it is immodest, though nevertheless not altogether dishonorable, there is such an obligation for avoiding the scandal of a determined person, at least several times, according to the principles which are expounded in the treatise on Charity.

I say. To speak, hear, or read base things for the sake of venereal pleasure or with proximate danger of consent to it is a grave sin, as is evident of itself. But if the danger is not proximate, or indeed is proximate but at the same time there is a just cause of speaking, hearing, or reading those base things, the sin will be either none or only venial. But what is said here about the base is not to be applied to speech simply obscene.

You Will Resolve. - 1st. Generally they sin gravely who mingle conversations, even from levity, concerning the conjugal act, concerning licit and illicit things between spouses, concerning modes of impeding generation, of procuring pollution ... especially if this happens among young persons of diverse sex. Likewise those who from boasting narrate their own base sins.

2nd. It is not of itself mortal to utter things that are indeed base but not gravely such, if this is done briefly, through jest or vain solace, unless the hearers are so weak in spirit that they suffer grave scandal. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 426.

3rd. Tender conversations with persons of diverse sex are not always to be held as mortal, although they are full of dangers, especially if they are long-lasting, often repeated, or happen in solitary places. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 422 and following.

4th. They do not sin gravely who from mere curiosity read entertaining books, because they do not excite gravely to lust, nor expose to great danger, as many comedies or poems are. But if they do this for a legitimate cause, e.g., to learn style, they do not sin at all.

Titia, of a very nervous temperament, confessed that she had rather often suffered grave movements against chastity. When the confessor asked whether they were voluntary, Titia answered that she had by no means consented to evil pleasure, but nevertheless had given cause to those movements by reading slightly bad romantic books and by not restraining her eyes from looking at animals mating. The confessor doubts whether Titia sinned gravely, whether she is bound to declare the number and lowest species of those sins, and whether she is bound in the future to abstain from similar things under penalty of the denial of absolution. Hence it is asked:

1. What is lust, and in what does its malice consist?

2. Is smallness of matter found in sins of lust?

3. From what is the malice of sins which are voluntary only in their cause to be measured?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is lust, and in what does its malice consist?

Lust is an inordinate appetite for sexual things. Sexual things, however, are ordered to the generation of offspring, which must take place only in marriage. Hence every use of sexual things which takes place outside marriage, or in marriage but contrary to its laws, is inordinate and sinful.

2. Is smallness of matter found in sins of lust?

Lust directly sought or admitted is gravely unlawful and does not admit smallness of matter. Indirect lust, however, admits smallness of matter.

3. From what is the malice of sins which are voluntary only in their cause to be measured?

Sins which are voluntary only in their cause have the malice of that cause, for they are formally evil to the extent that they are voluntary, but by hypothesis they are voluntary only in their cause.

4. What is to be said of the case?

Titia rather often suffered grave movements against chastity from reading slightly bad romantic books and from looking at animals mating. She did not, however, consent to those movements, and it is supposed that Titia did not indulge in the reading and the sights in order to procure those evil movements for herself. The confessor doubted whether Titia had sinned gravely or not. It is not established that Titia sinned gravely, because the immodest movements were voluntary only in their cause, but the causes were only slightly bad; hence Titia sinned only lightly. Therefore she is not bound in confession to declare the number and lowest species, nor to abstain from similar things in the future under penalty of the denial of absolution. Nor did Titia expose herself to the proximate danger of sinning gravely, insofar as, although rather often tempted, she never fell gravely. Nevertheless, she is certainly to be exhorted, and is bound under pain of venial sin, to abstain from such actions, especially since in lust a light indulgence easily declines into grave excesses.¹

1 Bucceroni, Theol. Mor., vol. i, nn. 37, 40, 822.

Caia, a girl sixteen years of age, is accustomed to read romantic books which, although they are not bad, are nevertheless very diffuse in describing love affairs. While she reads, evil thoughts and even impure carnal movements are accustomed to arise, but for the most part she does not consent to them, although she continues to read because other girls read such books and she wishes to pass the time. Once or twice, however, she consented to the pleasure arising from the evil movements, and once she sinned by touching herself immodestly; she afterward confessed these sins by saying that two or three times she had procured immodest pleasure for herself, without adding anything else. Hence it is asked:

1. Is venial sin from smallness of matter to be admitted in sexual matters?

2. Is anyone bound to avoid the cause of evil movements?

3. Are immodest touches and looks distinguished in species from one another and from consummated acts of lust?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. Is venial sin from smallness of matter to be admitted in sexual matters?

No, if sexual pleasure is directly sought or admitted, as was said above, p. 237.

2. Is anyone bound to avoid the cause of evil movements?

It is supposed that consent is not given to those movements. If the cause produces evil movements accidentally and is useful and not dishonorable in itself, then there is no obligation to avoid such a cause. But if it is a cause lightly dishonorable in the genus of lust, it is to be avoided under pain of venial sin; if it is gravely dishonorable in the same genus, it is to be avoided under pain of grave sin, unless there is a just and proportionate honorable reason for positing that cause.

3. Are immodest touches and looks distinguished in species from one another and from consummated acts of lust?

Those imperfect acts are certainly distinct from perfect and consummated acts, just as a building begun is distinguished from the same building completed. Whether those same imperfect acts are distinguished among themselves in the genus of lust is disputed. Several affirm it, because the objects of those acts are diverse and the acts themselves proceed from diverse faculties. Others, however, with St. Thomas, deny it, because those acts are not evil precisely in themselves, but by reason of the evil pleasure which arises from them. But the pleasure which arises from all those acts is the same. Hence the acts also, insofar as they are evil in the genus of lust, have the same specific malice.¹

1 Bucceroni, Theol. Mor., vol. i, n. 783.

4. What is to be said of the case?

The reading in which Caia indulges is not bad, nor by hypothesis is it a proximate occasion of sin; hence, although it is accustomed to produce evil thoughts and evil movements in Caia, she is not strictly bound under sin to avoid it. Nevertheless, by way of counsel, indulgence in such reading should be sparing, since there are very many other books which are more useful and not liable to the same danger, and more suitable for cultivating the mind. Caia, however, at least probably satisfied the obligation by the manner in which she confessed the non-consummated sins of lust, according to what was said above.