Newspapers, Sheets and Periodical Booklets

Argument of the chapter

By a new positive law concerning periodical writings there is concluded this, as it were, prior section of title I of the General Decrees, in which the prohibitions of books are proposed in order.

Newspapers, sheets, and periodical booklets which assail religion or good morals by designed effort are to be held proscribed not only by natural law, but also by ecclesiastical law.

Moreover, let Ordinaries take care, where there is need, opportunely to warn the faithful concerning the danger and harm of reading of this sort.

This article comprises two paragraphs, to be explained distinctly.

The words are explained

92. 1. First of all let us ask what, in article 21, comes under the name of newspapers, sheets, and periodical booklets.

Newspapers

Newspapers are periodicals strictly such, which are published daily.

Sheets

By sheets, we understand periodical ones. This is urged by the position of the word, which is placed between newspapers and periodical booklets; it is also urged by the unity of this chapter, which seems as a whole to concern works which have a course in some manner continuous; finally, it is urged by the common opinion.¹

Wherefore, even if someone thought the mind of the Legislator to be otherwise, this, as not promulgated, can safely be put aside, and we shall say that "flying" sheets, published once, are immune from this proscription.

Periodical booklets

Periodical booklets are those which in size and form imitate a booklet or even a book, yet differ from books by variety of subjects and writers, and are published after fixed intervals, for example each month, or four times in a year.

Force of the clause: By designed effort ... not only by natural law

2. Moreover, from article 21, first part: "Which assail religion or good morals by designed effort, are to be held proscribed not only by natural but also by ecclesiastical law."

Therefore it is required that they be such as of themselves make a proximate danger of sinning, and indeed from this, that by designed effort they assail religion or good morals. For the article sets down that the same things are prohibited by natural law. But the proscription of this law rests upon danger of ruin or scandal.

That they may assail by designed effort, an intention must appear which is directly contrary to religion or morals, and they must do this in themselves, or in a notable part.

It is necessary that they do this as Newspapers, etc

3. It is necessary, if we judge rightly, that they do this as newspapers or periodical publications; that is, that, considered in their periodical course, they notably intend these things by designed effort. Therefore it is not sufficient that in some single sheet an impious article be read, but it is necessary that such things be found in several "numbers," or frequently. For newspapers, periodical publications, are punished. But a singular sheet, or "number," is not in itself a newspaper, but some writing, and hence is governed by the law of this.²

But once a newspaper is punished according to its habitual character, even those sheets which in themselves would be harmless participate in that proscription, as parts of the Newspaper. Pennacchi, cited work, n. 59.

What here is to assail religion?

4. Some here understand religion as true or Catholic religion, yet taken universally, so that the attack of one dogma would not suffice. Thus Hollweck,³ Gennari,⁴ and, as the more probable, Génicot.⁵ For what, they say, is Religion for the Church except true, Catholic Religion; and would not the end of the law, which certainly looks to the preservation of the Catholic religion, be obtained too imperfectly unless this opposition sufficed for proscription? And perhaps it can be added that immediately in the following dispositions, when Ordinaries are incited to warn the faithful concerning the danger of reading of this sort, and Catholic men are turned away lest they publish anything in these, the intention of the law is carried to all periodicals which are hostile to the Catholic religion. We do not deny that this opinion is probable.

Yet others take the clause against Religion concerning a contrariety which is wholly opposed to religion as it is taken for religion both natural and revealed; therefore concerning contrariety to religion as such, or to every religion, even natural, and not merely to religion as revealed, Catholic. Then only those sheets are touched which habitually defend atheism, materialism, and other "modern" errors by which the religious sense of man is extinguished, or which try to overturn every divine worship. Yet a newspaper which attacks Catholic worship would not evade condemnation if, from the manner of attack, an intention contrary to every religion became manifest. For today, to many, the option does not seem to be between anything except either Catholic faith or none. Of this opinion, which we proposed in the first edition, and which Planchard,⁶ Piat,⁷ and, as it seems, Périès⁸ defend, these are the foundations.

a) The word religion, according to itself, has a broader usage than faith, and is, as it were, generic, under which true and even false worships are contained. This broader usage is not unknown in ecclesiastical law. Hence speech is made of the impediment of mixed religion, while mixed faith would never be said. In this very Constitution, article 2, with several interpreters, we understood the foundations of religion concerning truths which are the foundation common to every religion; and in article 3, the words "which of set purpose treat of religion" are to be taken more broadly than the words of the exception, "unless it is established that nothing in them is contained against the Catholic faith." By the same appellation of Catholic faith, in article 5, our holy religion is designated.

Come now: the words, not very defined, to treat of religion, signify handling a subject religious by its nature.

Hence you are treating of religion whenever you speak of the Catholic faith, of heresy, of pagan worship, etc. But when words signify a definite opposition, contrariety with some species or quasi-species of religion does not necessarily signify contrariety with the generic reason of religion. One who treats, for example, of Protestantism treats of religion; but one who attacks Protestantism will not be said to attack religion. For although whatever is brought forward against the genus is against every species, since the genus is contained in every species, it can by no means be said: whatever is against the species is against the genus.

Therefore the words to attack religion can indeed signify: to attack the true faith; but equally well: to attack religion taken generically, or every divine worship. And since prohibitions are to be interpreted strictly, already of itself one must rather incline into this opinion.

b) Historically, moreover, that formula seems first to have been introduced by the decree of February 20, 1778, by which the Supreme Pontiff wished this general proscription to be placed in the Index itself: "All books of unbelievers, whether anonymous or otherwise, in which action is taken against religion." In this condemnation there was speech concerning works of those who rejected every religion.

Moreover, in a matter plainly similar to ours, when from the ordinary quinquennial faculties of reading and retaining prohibited books there are excepted books of set purpose against religion, those are not reputed such which, although opposing revelation, nevertheless preserve safe and sound the foundations of natural religion. Thus at least Zitelli,⁹ Konings,¹⁰ Arndt,¹¹ De Brabandere,¹² Planchard,¹³ and it is confirmed from the changed formula, which formerly sounded: against the Catholic Religion.¹⁴

c) Nor is it to be denied that plainly impious newspapers deserve a special mark. Thus Bouix,¹⁵ explaining which books would be bad books, already separated books opposing every revealed religion from books which attack only the Christian or Catholic one. Thus, in the question of civil tolerance of cults, theologians distinguish from others cults not opposed to natural religion.

Nor does it stand in the way that at the end of the article, in § 2, there is question also of other newspapers. For even those who defend the more severe side are compelled to make the matter of the prescribed warning broader than that of this prohibition. For newspapers can be bad and dangerous which nevertheless are not of set purpose opposed to the faith, and merely try to attack a certain "clericalism," as they say.

And indeed, in reality, the two opinions are not separated by so great a difference as you might say at first appearance.¹⁶ For the more benign one looks to this: that certain newspapers which would join hatred of the Catholic faith with zeal for some divine worship not be affected by positive condemnation. Today, in parts where there are Catholics, they will not be very many.

For even in the more severe opinion, only those newspapers are positively proscribed which by designed effort, in their successive course, attack the true religion. Hence several periodicals, although habitually hostile to the Church, if they preserve a certain appearance of honesty and do not openly oppose dogmas, escape that positive condemnation; and it can by no means be conceded that all "liberal" newspapers are condemned by our article.

Which are good morals?

5. Good morals you should understand, from the common acceptance of the word, as that manner of life which accords with the laws of natural honesty, especially as regards chastity. Thus in French: les bonnes mœurs. Therefore "pornographic" newspapers are proscribed; and also, since the law does not distinguish, those which theoretically, by designed effort, strive to overturn good morals.

Force of the added ecclesiastical prohibition. In part natural law is more severe

6. But also by ecclesiastical law. What does that added positive prohibition effect? These two things:

Even those for whom by accident the danger of ruin or scandal ceases are nevertheless held by that positive interdict, while the prohibition of natural law must be judged wholly from that danger. With us is Pennacchi, n. 59.

If, under this respect, the positive disposition is more severe, on the other hand, there are several sheets, etc., which do not assail religion or morals by designed effort, but whose habitual reading is prohibited by natural law. These are not touched by the present clause.

The other force of the positive prohibition is this: that even parts in themselves harmless of publications of this sort are proscribed. Thus also Pennacchi, cited place.

But what is grave matter, cf. above, n. 57.

¹ Cf. still recently Boudinhon, cited work, p. 173; C. Gennari, cited work, on this place; Hilgers, Der Index, p. 30; Ciolli, n. 51.

² With us are Planchard, Rev. Th. Fr., cited place, n. 76; C. Gennari, Monit., p. 80; Pennacchi, cited work, n. 59; Périès, cited work, p. 122; against Moureau, Rev. Sciences Eccl., cited place, p. 115.

³ Cited work, p. 37.

⁴ Cited work, on this place.

⁵ Cited work, I, 452, 9.

⁶ Rev. Th. Fr., cited place, n. 74.

⁷ Nouv. Rev. Théol., t. 31, pp. 140 and 344.

⁸ Cited work, p. 125.

⁹ Apparatus iuris eccl., p. 540, note.

¹⁰ Comment. in facult. apostol., n. 177.

¹¹ Cited work, n. 182, p. 251.

¹² Cited work, n. 1361.

¹³ Rev. Th. Fr., 1897, p. 35.

¹⁴ Cf. declaration of Urban VIII, October 30, 1631, in Albitius, De inconst. in fide, chapter 30, n. 262.

¹⁵ De Curia, p. 386.

¹⁶ Wherefore in the more benign opinion we do not think there is so much danger in it as the Eminent and most learned C. Gennari, on this place, thinks. And we are confirmed by the response of the Sacred Congregation of the Index. For from the benign report of the orator we received that a doubt about this matter had been proposed to the Sacred Congregation, among several others. But this Congregation responded in the year 1902: "It is not the custom of this Sacred Congregation to solve doubts proposed thus, nor do they seem such and of such great moment that they demand to be solved by the authority of the Congregation itself."

The zeal of Ordinaries is stirred up

93. The zeal of Ordinaries is stirred up, that they opportunely warn the faithful concerning the danger and harm of reading of this sort. Arndt, pp. 91-96, nn. 81, 82, wisely develops that danger.

And, as we said, a similar zeal must be demonstrated concerning all newspapers which bear a mind alien from the Church. For daily reading of periodicals gradually makes persuasions common, or at least does not leave the contrary one untouched.

Whether in Belgium there exists a common prohibition of bad newspapers from episcopal law?

N.B. Formerly the Bishops of Belgium, in a pastoral Instruction, August 5, 1843, § 6, had decreed thus: "Nous renouvelons autant qu'il est en nous les défenses faites par l'Église sous peine de péché mortel d'imprimer," etc., "tous livres, journaux," etc. Cf. the text, for example, Statutes of Mechlin, Appendix XXVII.

Yet from this it is not established that there has force in Belgium a common prohibition issued by the Bishops. For they seem to forbid periodicals insofar as, as they themselves were persuaded, they were subject to the universal interdict of the Church. If not, since books are designated by the same sentence, an episcopal prohibition would have to be acknowledged also for books; and consequently the necessity, for reading them in Belgium, of seeking a double license, namely episcopal and pontifical, unless this were fortified by a special clause.¹ Yet no one up to now has asserted this. But this seems to have been the end of the Declaration: that by that promulgation every doubt concerning the force of the laws of the Church in Belgium in this matter be removed. Cf. De Brabandere.² He himself adds: "Since it is said, 'nous renouvelons,' no new law ... is added"; and very well Heymans:³ "Not only books are comprehended, but also any writings whatever ... if nevertheless the laws themselves of the Church, which are renewed, contained any writing whatever." Now, since before the Constitution of Leo XIII, especially after the remembered response of the Holy Office, April 27, 1880, praised above in n. 33, this at least was doubted: not improbably, in those dioceses which are under the regime of that pastoral Instruction alone,⁴ it is denied that there is an episcopal prohibition concerning periodicals.

¹ Cf. article 25 of this Constitution. Yet concerning the efficacy of the act by which a bishop would wish to sanction more firmly a pontifical prohibition, there can be doubt. Cf. the declaration of article 25.

² In the first edition, II, pp. 452, 453.

³ Cited work, n. 312.

⁴ For in Liège there were added the Instructions of the Most Illustrious Bishop in the years 1857, 1858, 1865. Also to be praised is the more recent letter of March 21, 1899, by which the new laws were proposed and inculcated to the faithful.

Let no one from among Catholics, especially from among ecclesiastical men, publish anything in newspapers, or sheets, or periodical booklets of this sort, unless a just and reasonable cause persuades.

Force of the article

94. By this article there is promulgated a wise admonition, by which at last we are referred back to the general principles concerning cooperation. Now:

Whether it is good in itself to increase these sheets with honorable articles

1. As Arndt¹ skillfully observes, those are vehemently deceived who, while they regularly send to bad periodicals lucubrations of an honorable but indifferent subject, which are commended by scientific merit or elegance of speech, think that they are performing this useful work: that they may furnish to the readers of these periodicals some honorable food. For they bring it about of themselves that the name of those periodicals is increased, and that the minds of the upright abhor them less. Wherefore only a graver cause can excuse this cooperation, if the influence has not been notable.

A just cause can exist

2. Yet, when occasion has been given, to write something to be inserted in those newspapers, especially something which yields to the honor of Religion and the confusion of calumny, for example, if you use the right of responding to some attack, can be the best counsel. Wherefore Leo XIII wisely made no absolute prohibition.

What of announcements to be published

3. In itself it is also to be disapproved that, by announcing certain things through those newspapers, you give them an occasion of profit. Yet, according to circumstances, this can more easily be lawful. Cf. also Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor., I, 665.

¹ P. 237, n. 175, 9.

773. What is prohibited under the name of books? - Under the name of books manuscripts do not come (even lithographic or polygraphic ones), unless they have been published and made public, handed on or sold to all; but "those things which are prescribed concerning books are to be applied to publications, newspapers, periodicals, and any other published writings whatsoever, unless something else is clear" (can. 1384). Hence:

1. Periodicals, encyclopedias, etc., if by the way, in one or another article, they are touched by the general rules of the Index, are not judged prohibited; - on the contrary, if ordinarily or in a notable or greater part they have such things as their object, then not only the fascicles collected into a volume, but each one is proscribed. Yet excerpts from periodicals (tires a part), which contain good or indifferent things, are not prohibited.

2. If a prohibited work consists of several tomes, all are prohibited if they treat of the same argument and one indivisible; only the tome which contains the error or dangerous part is prohibited if the different tomes treat of a different argument, or indeed of the same one but divisible, as is, for example, universal history, because in this case they are judged different books.

3. A book prohibited only on account of certain places, provided this is certain, is no longer prohibited if this part is removed so that it cannot be read.

4. Mere citations from a depraved book, especially in order to refute them, are not prohibited, unless they are longer such that they would be a reproduction.