Obligation of Conscience and Gravity of Fault

Principles concerning guilt

53. That conscience is bound by the laws concerning the censorship and prohibition of books is not doubted. But the guilt of fault must be estimated both of itself, or with the law of nature considered, by which we are forbidden to cast ourselves or others into danger of sinning and to cooperate in the sins of others; and accidentally, that is, when positive law is added, whose violation introduces moral fault.

I do not know whether this estimate is customarily made with sufficient care and with the variety of circumstances sufficiently weighed. Therefore we shall diligently try, according to our powers, to weigh this matter.

Chiefly from violation of the positive law

54. Concerning the violation of positive law, these principles are to be laid down:

a) In their kind, or of themselves, the prohibitions and precepts of this law bind conscience gravely. This is a certain opinion, which, as far as we know, no one attacks. Statutes of this kind have always been understood in this way; moreover, their words manifest a strict command or prohibition, with the gravest penalty of excommunication latae sententiae also added in two cases.

b) At the same time, it is not doubted that smallness of matter excuses from grave sin.

c) The highest norm for estimating matter must be borrowed from the reason of the law, by which the Legislator has sought to consult the safety of the faithful more than was done by natural law alone.¹ Now acts which have effects of themselves sufficiently general or common, for example the publication of a work, and acts, for example reading, whose force is of itself circumscribed to individual persons, can be gravely opposed to this safety.

In the precepts or prohibitions of the former acts, the legislator will consider that general and less determinate efficacy, so that he may, under grave guilt, impose precepts or prohibitions which are apt for forestalling a harm which, as affecting many, appears notable, although for individuals of itself it can easily be moderate. Thus it does no small harm to the common good of the Church if apocryphal indulgences or ridiculous devotions are spread, although among individual persons the use of them may do little harm.

In precepts or prohibitions of acts which of themselves benefit or harm only one person, those things are judged to be gravely sanctioned which avert a danger that, human nature considered concretely, must generally be thought grave for individuals. For the foundation of the law is the presumption of danger. But the subjective exceptions of individuals are not attended to in a positive general law.

Relying on these principles, we think that the following things can be established, though we permit them to the judgment of wiser men.

¹ Benedict XIV, cf. Sollicita ac provida.

Guilt of defense

55. 1. Defense of a prohibited book, whether physical or moral by commendation, is grave of itself where the matter concerns a book whose reading is prohibited under grave guilt. Indeed, that defense can contain such contempt or attack upon authority that it induces grave sin even if the prohibition was light.

Certainly it will be less grave not to deny the justice of the prohibiting decree, but to deny its opportuneness, or to suspect the ignorance, levity, or heat of passion of those condemning. Reprehensions of this kind vary in gravity according to those who hear them, those who are blamed, the very foundation of the accusation, and the manner of the disapproval. For by these things it happens that the esteem of the Holy See receives greater or lesser detriment, from which the criterion here is to be taken.

Guilt of publication

56. 2. The publication of a prohibited book, whatever may be the reason of the prohibition, is rightly thought by the distinguished Boudinhon¹ to be regularly grave. For it is notable to devote labor so that a book which the legitimate Superior wishes suppressed be spread into any place whatever. Yet if a book is prohibited for this reason, that it lacks the necessary approval of the Ordinary, it can happen, from the very small importance of the work, that the publisher of the book or writing is immune from grave guilt. Suppose that a certain innocent little sheet of indulgences, a small booklet of devotion, is published with previous censorship omitted. Thus we speak at least in those places where the rules concerning previous censorship are not so strictly urged. For one must beware lest he seem to despise legitimate power or bring grave scandal to others.

¹ Op. cit., p. 314.

Guilt of reading

Severe opinions

57. 3. As regards reading, they are accustomed to pronounce very severely and rather absolutely in this matter. For, according to St. Alphonsus,¹ he sins gravely who reads a few lines which he observes to be directly opposed to the faith (in a heretical book); on the other hand, a whole page, even of a large volume, in which no error is noticed, seems to him also to be called small matter. More recent authors almost agree with St. Alphonsus. So also His Eminence Cardinal Gennari.² Lugo, however,³ although he inclines more to the same opinion, nevertheless practically judges probable the opinion of those who deny that a few lines constitute a notable part, even if they contain heresy. A little more benignly, Noldin⁴ thinks that three or four pages are needed for grave matter where no error is contained; Hollweck⁵ thinks six.

To what extent they seem to need correction

Without derogating in any way from the authority of illustrious theologians, we seem able to say that these things were said too absolutely and more severely than was fitting. Certainly many learned men whom we have questioned today think thus; and a certain common sense seems to demand that more deference be given to the variety of circumstances and that an excessively mathematical definition be abandoned.

General principle

The general principle itself of estimation can easily be set forth thus. Matter which of itself, or for most persons, on account of proximate danger, would be grave according to the natural law, is to be reputed grave simply, or for all, in violating the positive law, even if accidentally, in a particular case, the danger was greater or lesser.

Account of present circumstances in moral estimation

But the estimation of this moral danger must be made otherwise today than formerly.

For, by almost the same reason by which, according to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, the laws had to be made somewhat softer, so also it seems to us that one must respond more benignly concerning grave matter. For not all books which are proscribed are of the same wickedness or are equally dangerous of themselves to the reader.

Moreover, it cannot be denied that today direct or indirect attack upon faith or morals is made so frequently that morally there is no one who has not read or heard some things less piously written or said. Hence even individual harmful writings today have less power of harming or disturbing than formerly, when many men scarcely suspected that arguments against Christian institutions were being attempted.

What of the fact that formerly the question was not rarely framed in these words: "What matter is to be thought notable in reading books of heretics treating of religion?"⁶ These books are the smallest part of those which today are prohibited by name and concerning which we are especially questioned.

Applications

It remains that we propose certain examples of moral estimation. But we cannot pursue all cases by speaking of them; for their variety is infinite.

What is grave of itself

a) It is grave of itself to read a book prohibited under grave guilt.

On a part notable because of extension

b) Yet this will not be grave unless a notable part of such a book is read. Moreover, a part can be notable because of its extension or because of the things contained.

A part notable by mere extension is held by some to be one page, by others six pages, by others a large sheet (= two folio pages, or sixteen octavo pages). There is someone who proposes the quantity of an entire newspaper (tout un journal, eine Zeitung, un giornale).

Unless we are mistaken, it will not be difficult for this to be conceded to us: that even in this estimation attention must be paid to the different kinds of books, since in some books there is much more danger than in others of falling upon a passage gravely harmful of itself, and the reason of harming occurs everywhere in some, but not in others, which can rather be detrimental only by long-lasting familiarity.

If you weigh these things, do we seem to be far from the truth in proposing these rules, which we already know have been approved by the vote of several?

alpha) There are works which bring special danger to faith or morals, because they are filled with insidious arguments or lascivious descriptions. In these, it is not enough if you wish to abstain from those places full of treachery; rather, to read even a few pages (five or six) of unknown character we regard as grave, because of the danger of falling upon gravely harmful passages and reading them. Here, therefore, we only slightly temper what was formerly said concerning grave matter.

beta) Other books become gravely dangerous rather only from long-lasting intercourse. Of this kind are many books which are prohibited by special decree on account of their tendencies, as they say, or the suspect causes which they patronize. Can mortal guilt then be induced if you read less than the twelfth or tenth part of the book? Yet if the work has been very ample, we judge that part to be always, or absolutely, notable which in itself would be sufficient to constitute a book.⁷ Cf. above, n. 33, where we required at least two sheets in folio.

gamma) If it has been established at the same time that from a large part of the book the intrinsic reason of grave danger is absent, and that the force of enticing the mind to read the rest is absent (suppose the reading is sufficiently wearisome), such a part, whatever it may be, seems to us able to be read without grave guilt.

delta) Yet the positive prohibition embraces all these things, and we are not those who give counsels for sinning venially in this matter. Yet more easily, on account of a just cause, you can be excused from a light precept.

Because of things contained

Finally, by reason of the subject matter, or because of the things contained, any passage is notable, even one much shorter, but in itself gravely dangerous; thus an obscene passage, or one containing sophistical or captious arguments against faith or morals.⁸

Not every prohibition of books is grave

c) Any book that is prohibited is presumed to be prohibited under grave guilt. And grave prohibition truly affects works which are condemned because they are opposed to faith or morals, or attack or undermine ecclesiastical authority and the reverence due to it; or because, in recent controversies, they seem to exhibit unsafe doctrine concerning inspiration, philosophical principles, etc. But if it is established that the reason of the prohibition is diverse in kind, and shows the book to be not gravely dangerous, we judge that the guilt of one who reads a book prohibited by general or even special decree is only venial.⁹ As an example, let there be certain books, innocent in themselves, of devotion, or of the narration of miracles, which lack the necessary approval; or which, though retained in the catalogue of the Index, would today nevertheless escape condemnation. Certainly such was, while it was kept in the Index, the work of Father Croiset on the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

d) Thus far concerning books. But what if you read periodical sheets or booklets?

One must respond here more benignly

The case of a book and of a newspaper or periodical booklet is not entirely the same.¹⁰ A book is held as a whole at once, so that from one place read, you are easily drawn to read the rest. Nor in a book is it usually manifest which parts are innocent. On the contrary, since periodical sheets are published separately, there is less danger of continuing the reading; and from distinct titles the parts which are of a plainly indifferent subject matter are easily discerned: suppose commercial notices. Finally, as is clear from the words of article 21, the prohibition of newspapers is emphasized in a peculiar way as a confirmation of a prohibition already made of itself from natural law.

Therefore we judge that the limits of light matter must here be widened;¹¹ and, that we may put forward our judgment, saving a better one, we give these practical indications:

As regards reading, grave and light matter

1) As regards reading: It is grave: alpha) habitually and morally to read such sheets in their entirety, even if you omit the place specially repugnant to Religion. For habitual reading makes danger grave of itself: lest you gradually be imbued with the evil tendency of the newspaper, or be so affected toward newspapers of this kind that you no longer wish to abandon them, and no longer pass over any part.

Nor does it matter much whether you read the same newspaper, or various newspapers of the same kind.

Sometimes it will be grave: beta) to read one article peculiarly repugnant to morals or religion. This will more easily happen with regard to morals than with regard to religion. For a very impious passage, unless at the same time from the clever manner of proposing the error it has been very persuasive, does not create such danger, since it rather inspires horror; whereas one obscene passage is of itself very harmful.

It is grave: gamma) to read in these circumstances which of themselves produce grave scandal to others. The degree of scandal depends here very much on the authority of the reader. It will more easily be grave if a cleric, a person of known piety, reads before others, or if a father reads before his sons, than if an unknown, extraneous lay person has done so.

On the other hand, it will be venial by reason of matter: beta) now and then to read in one of these sheets those things which attack religion only incidentally; or by omitting the places which of themselves contain proximate danger. In other words: without foreseen danger, to glance through one or another issue, scandal being excluded;

gamma) to read even more often (why not habitually?) those things which are established as plainly innocent,¹² for example commercial notices. Always understand: scandal being removed.

Moreover, we do not deny that by certain precautions being used, which of themselves diminish the danger, such as if you at the same time read a Catholic newspaper of good name and merit, guilt can be diminished.

Hence also, when a just cause urges, danger of ruin or scandal having been removed, and when a faculty cannot conveniently be sought, someone will read in a singular case a proscribed newspaper without sin. For a reasonable cause excuses from a venial prohibition of positive law.¹³

NB. What from the law of nature

NB. In this whole article we merely weigh the gravity which arises from violation of the positive law. The prohibition of the natural law, according to the measure of the danger, will be graver or lighter.

Practical norm for the Confessor

Practically, the Confessor must strive as much as possible that, various pretexts having been rejected, the faithful cease from reading evil sheets. "But where the penitent either does not read evil newspapers so assiduously, or, for any reason, is known by experience to be immune from proximate danger, it will often belong to a prudent confessor to keep silent about the positive prohibition or to urge it little, lest something worse happen." So Génicot, op. cit., I, 455.

¹ Book 7, n. 284.

² Op. cit., p. 26, note 1.

³ Disp. 21, n. 83.

⁴ Summa theologiae moralis, vol. 1, n. 689.

⁵ Das kirchliche Bücherverbot, p. 23. In the more recent work Die kirchlichen Strafgesetze, he uses greater benignity, when concerning books of heretics defending heresy he has this: The reading of one chapter is certainly notable matter. Section 106, note 8.

⁶ So also in St. Alphonsus, Dissertation De prohibitione librorum, chapter V.

⁷ This norm was already defended in the seventeenth century, but too universally, by Croussers, O.F.M., according to the testimony of Albitius, Inconstantia in fide, chapter 30, n. 214.

⁸ Captious reasonings are much more dangerous than blasphemies, which produce horror and indignation.

⁹ Thus we change our earlier opinion (cf. 3rd ed., p. 107 note), so that we may approve what was said by the distinguished Boudinhon, op. cit., p. 315.

¹⁰ This danger is indicated as at least a partial cause why it is grave to read parts innocent in themselves. Hollweck, op. cit., p. 23.

¹¹ Génicot, op. cit., 455, also thinks that one must judge here a little more benignly than when the matter concerns books, "lest their proscription fall into destruction rather than edification."

¹² For in a newspaper, as we were just warning, we can distinguish: a) articles where they expressly exhibit their mind hostile to religion or morals; b) parts where, indirectly but more or less easily, according to the character of the newspaper, poisons are instilled, as in political news, miscellaneous items (faits divers); c) parts which are usually innocent, which pertain to business dealings.

¹³ Génicot, op. cit., I, 455.

Guilt of retention

58. 4. The retention of a book is often blameworthy from positive law alone, which, by prohibiting retention, wishes to forestall dangerous readings. Therefore this precept is connected with the prohibition of reading; and retention which of itself contains a grave danger of reading books which of themselves cannot be read without grave guilt is prohibited under grave guilt.

What delay is grave:

To speak now with the common opinion, by time a retention is judged notable which is prolonged beyond two or three days. Again Hollweck,¹ arguing from the fact that a term of eight days was often established by the Pontiffs for handing over a book, defines the grave quantity according to this space.

A longer delay, however, though not, says Hollweck,² beyond a month, will be excused from grave guilt if it was done with the intention of handing over the book, at the first opportunity, to someone who has the faculty; or if the one retaining it hopes that this faculty will soon be his; or, we shall add, if it must be imputed not to evil will, but to a certain negligence in executing a good purpose, joined with some difficulty of seeking or finding the book, perhaps lying hidden in a corner of the house or library.

Excuses

How one who binds books is excused, we saw above. Similar is the case of a servant, whom Lugo³ and several others already excuse if he retains a book for a master having the faculty.

On retained sheets

As regards sheets, it will also be grave to retain longer those sheets, or that series of sheets,⁴ which a grave prohibition forbids you to read.

Observe, however, that a book can scarcely be preserved of itself without danger that it be read, whereas old newspapers are more easily and quite often assigned to a plainly different use. Whether it would be grave to buy or retain a collection of sheets for a use which removes every danger of reading can certainly be doubted.

¹ Das kirchliche Bücherverbot, p. 25, note 3.

² For within a month a license can even be obtained from the Holy See. And generally recourse to the extraordinary faculties of the Bishop suffices.

³ Loc. cit., n. 84.

⁴ For example, a continuous series of fifteen sheets, or thirty non-continuous sheets.

Guilt of selling

59. 5. a) One who has books for sale also retains them, and for this reason can already sin.

Leaving this aside, it will be grave to have prohibited books for sale in that manner by which they are at the same time recommended and more easily spread even among those who are not permitted to read such books. For in this way the malice of one publishing the book is shared. We say this of those books which are prohibited under grave guilt.

And the matter would be full of scandal if prohibited books were openly available for sale among Catholic booksellers.

b) But the question arises whether handing over prohibited books to be sold at auction is absolutely to be condemned, or whether it can sometimes be excused.

A distinction seems to have to be made among the works themselves. Some are very evil and morally have no lawful use. Others, on the contrary, on account of the author's name, knowledge, or style, are held in just esteem and can be used for the most useful ends of studies or letters. Moreover, that in a public sale each of the purchasers is permitted to his own conscience does not seem intrinsically evil.¹ But no positive prohibition appears.² Therefore it seems to us that this, on account of a proportionate cause - in estimating which account must be taken of probable abuse against faith or morals that will occur - can be excused from sin.

¹ In a private sale, one must attend more to the person of the buyer and to the probable use of the book.

² For here we are not treating of sellers of books, concerning whom there is article 46. Cf. the explanation of this article.

Guilt of lending

60. 6. On the lending of a book. a) Of itself, it is less grave to lend a book than by selling it to hand over full possession of it. Therefore a proportionate reason, such as a librarian of a public library has, can excuse the lending of those books which, although prohibited, have a useful use.¹ Moreover, a positive faculty is granted by the Holy See.

On a librarian,

b) But concerning booksellers who also rent the books which they have for sale, or concerning libraries which are set up by private funds, one must respond more cautiously. This private industry easily contains some recommendation of prohibited works, which is entirely to be avoided. Catholics besides must beware of scandal. Therefore these will neither rent such books without license, nor openly display them, nor hand them over without distinction of persons.

On innkeepers

c) Here the question is asked concerning innkeepers, whether or not they can set evil newspapers before guests.

We think this question is to be solved thus,² leaving aside positive prohibition.

How far innkeepers can set out evil newspapers

alpha) On account of the additional reason of scandal, they cannot, even if they would be abandoned by many clients, set out those newspapers which are entirely opposed to faith and morals.

beta) But those which more rarely contain something less right, they will be able, for a reasonable cause, to hand over to be read, especially if, on account of the announced matters, for example commercial news, there is some necessity for several to read some sheet; at least then they can supply these things to clients of this kind in a separate place.

gamma) But the Confessor should practically see what he can obtain. The matter must be urged more severely in those places where, as in the countryside, these newspapers will be removed both more usefully and with greater scandal if displayed. Let him certainly lessen the evil which he cannot extinguish, by effecting that they be handed over only to those asking, or in a separate place, not indiscriminately, and that at least good newspapers be displayed at the same time.

¹ Cf. Hollweck, Die kirchlichen Strafgesetze, section 107, 4, who thinks it is lawful for public libraries, excepting obscene books, to contain all prohibited books and to leave the reader to his own conscience. We can concede this for those places where it can scarcely be otherwise. This will often happen in larger cities.

² Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 664; Arndt, pp. 235, 236, n. 175.

On purchase

61. 7. The purchase of a prohibited work is referred to a certain kind of defense. For it contains of itself a certain recommendation of the book. Yet this, where the matter concerns a book which it is lawful for you to possess, is excused by the useful cause on account of which you wish to have and read the book.

One must respond more severely concerning newspapers or periodical booklets. Their openly made purchase easily has the flavor of a certain scandalous recommendation, since they are accustomed to be available for sale in great number; besides, since they have a successive course, these periodical sheets are nourished and preserved by the money of buyers. Yet the scandal of the purchase can be avoided; and the cooperation itself, since it is light of itself, can be excused by a proportionate cause.

But we judge that the law is violated in a grave matter if, by an annual subscription (abonnement) or one for three months, you receive sheets of this kind which are prohibited to you by positive law.

But those who are permitted to read and buy these seem also able to obtain the same for themselves by subscription. Cf. Génicot.

NB. Concerning the other prescriptions of the laws, cf. the commentaries on the articles.

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.

775. To what precisely does the law of prohibition oblige? - The aforesaid laws oblige the faithful (not Cardinals, Bishops, Ordinaries according to can. 1401), and indeed under grave obligation, because the end of warding off from the faithful the danger which threatens from reading is more grave, and the law contributes much to this end; this is also clear from the penalties. Moreover, it obliges the faithful so that:

a) they are bound everywhere on earth (can. 1396), unless nevertheless in some place a special indult has been obtained;

b) even those for whom danger is not present are bound (can. 21);

c) and so that "without due permission a book can neither be published, nor read, nor retained, nor sold, nor translated into another language, nor communicated in any way with others" (can. 1398, § 1).

It cannot:

1. be published, that is, be made public, which is done by: the author if he handed over the book for the end that it be published; the publisher who cares for its dissemination; and the owner of the printing house who undertakes its printing; - yet probably not proofreaders or the printers themselves;

2. nor be read in the proper sense, which is done by those who, scanning a book with their own eyes, understand the things written; - but not by those who hear another reading, nor by those who recite from memory, nor by those who scan with their own eyes but do not understand because of ignorance of the language, nor probably by those who hear a reader whom they have induced to read by requests or by command.

Grave matter and mortal sin are present: a) by reason of quality, when a very depraved passage is read, or an article in newspapers, even if it comprises only one or another page; b) by reason of quantity, if someone reads indiscriminately all things, or a notable part of a writing of unknown nature, because he commonly exposes himself to great danger: what a notable part is is difficult to determine, whether 6, 10, or perhaps even 20 pages, according to the depravity or bulk of the writing and the gravity of the danger; but for newspapers it is the custom of reading; c) to read things which certainly are harmless, not only to the reader but by their nature and commonly to all, is venial, unless there is danger of contracting a habit and reading the rest; d) it is venial to read that which is prohibited only because it was published without approval;

3. nor be preserved, which is done by: the owner who keeps his own book with himself, even if he did so not for reading but for mere ornament, even if he does not understand the language; - by the depositary who keeps another's book with himself; - by the depositor who keeps his own book with another, provided he does not deposit it with an agreement not to reclaim it except after permission has been obtained; - yet not by the bookbinder (at least if it is not done for a long time), nor by the custodian or librarian, provided he does not remove the books and transfer them into his own house.

It is a grave sin to preserve one for a notable time, for example, for some weeks or for a month; but if someone is waiting for a suitable occasion of asking permission, the books can be retained somewhat longer;

4. nor be sold. Hence can. 1404: "Sellers of books are not to sell, lend, or retain books treating professedly of obscene matters; other prohibited books they are not to have for sale unless they have obtained due permission from the Apostolic See, nor are they to sell them to anyone unless they can prudently judge that they are lawfully sought by the purchaser." But those also sell who procure the book;

5. nor be translated into another language;

6. nor be communicated with others, for example, by propagating, lending, leasing, etc. (can. 1403, § 2).