Obscene Books

A prohibited book is prohibited as a whole. Separated parts

29. 2. Objective extension of a special prohibition. a) A book which is prohibited is prohibited as a whole, and not only the part which gave occasion to the proscription. Nevertheless, when this part has been separated (if it is established what part it is), by cutting it out, sealing it up, or obliterating it, the prohibition probably ceases.¹

On a work which consists of several volumes, or a periodical booklet of several fascicles

b) When the first volume or earlier volumes of some work have been condemned, if others are afterwards printed, these are not strictly marked by that special decree, to which they are later, but they are to be held as suspect unless the author has proved that he has corrected himself. Cf. above, n. 17, e, where we learned both these things from the Preface of the Index itself.

The same is to be said of fascicles of a periodical booklet which are later than its proscription.

But if the work, when it is condemned, has already grown into several volumes, and it is established that the cause of the prohibition is found in one only, Sanchez² denies that the others are prohibited, because they seem to be several books. Suarez does not admit that unless they are of diverse subject matter.³ Commonly they hold the doctrine of Lugo,⁴ who resolves the question from this point: whether or not the subject matter admits division. Thus, for example, in a universal history, a volume narrating ancient history is so distinguished from a volume destined for the description of the Middle Ages that they are, as it were, several works.

Yet in either case, if you remove the volume in which the error is contained, you separate the part which gave occasion to the proscription; and therefore, unless you wish to deny the opinion just recited here under a), the prohibition of the remaining volumes probably ceases.

New editions and versions

c) The proscription affects all editions and versions of the work which have been made before the decree, unless it is expressly provided otherwise in the Index. (Cf. the Preface of the Index.)

d) A new edition of the same book, even corrected, in whatever language it is made, is prohibited unless faculty has been granted by the Sacred Congregation of the Index (art. 31). This holds even if you refute the errors by notes, or if it was proscribed not absolutely, but with the added mention "until it is corrected."

Nevertheless, except books of authors whom they call classics, and which expressly treat or teach lascivious matters. For these, when well expurgated, are permitted to be handed over to children (art. 10).

Properly speaking, however, this is not an exception. For the books which article 31 forbids to be published again because they have been proscribed by the Holy See seem to be only those which are prohibited by a special decree of the Index, not by a general rule. So Cardinal Gennari and Palmieri on this article.

¹ St. Alphonsus, book 7, n. 283; D'Annibale, III, 141; B. P., op. cit., n. 14. The response of the Holy Office, July 26, 1848 (Collectanea Prop. Fidei, n. 1883), is by no means an obstacle, contrary to what Piat asserts, Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 30, p. 58. For the matter there concerns translations of the New Testament which were already proscribed for this reason, that they had been made by non-Catholics. This defect is not removed by taking away the errors.

² In Decalogum, book II, chapter 10, n. 36.

³ De Fide, disp. 20, sect. 2, n. 9.

⁴ De Fide, disp. 21, n. 62.

Argument of the chapter

By both articles of this chapter, the Pontiff first strictly prohibits obscene works, and then relaxes his severity on account of the usefulness of letters.

Books which treat, narrate, or teach lascivious or obscene matters of set purpose, since account must be taken not only of faith, but also of morals, which are commonly easily corrupted by the reading of books of this sort, are altogether prohibited.

Scientific books are not treated

72. 1. Here there is no question of books which, for the sake of cultivating moral or medical science, hand down even those things which, concerning base matter, are useful to be known for this end. Those books are not to be rejected, although they are not to be run through by all.

Nor books speculatively against morals

Nor is there question of books which theoretically attack good morals, defending divorce, free loves, atheism;¹ but, as Bouix says,² books which practically oppose morals, or constitute "pornographic" letters: insofar as they "treat, narrate, or teach lascivious or obscene matters of set purpose."

What obscene things are

2. By obscene things understand things base to sight, namely those things which, when seen, of themselves excite a base (venereal) appetite.

To treat

They treat: those who handle obscene things in that manner by which lust is excited, thoughts which they call "practical" are suggested, and lingering delights concerning a base matter are suggested.

To narrate

They narrate: those who describe the same things or recount them historically with particular circumstances which represent a base image to the mind.

To teach

Or they teach: those who explain where, how base acts are performed, women are enticed, etc.

Of set purpose?

3. But it is necessary that books do this of set purpose: that is, by designed effort, "specially and with conceived intention," and in a notable part: whether an entire chapter is destined to these things, or whether here and there and not rarely (in French you would say: un peu partout) these things occur in the book. Hence, for example, the work En route of Huysmans is not condemned here, which, like many romantic works, narrates obscene things, but not of set purpose; but another work, Là-Bas, by the same author, is condemned.³

N.B. Whether base images are prohibited here

4. Obscene images, as we have said, are not touched here, except insofar as they are part of a book treating or teaching obscene things of set purpose. Hollweck, cited work, p. 32, citing Boudinhon.

Rigor of the prohibition

5. So absolute is the prohibition that a positive faculty is never granted; but, on the contrary, in faculties for reading prohibited works, if you except only those which are communicated to Cardinals, works which treat obscene things of set purpose are always excepted. Yet that severity of prohibition is tempered by article 10. Cf. also, to complete the doctrine concerning obscene books, those things which are contained above (n. 29, d, at the end), and below, article 25 and article 46.

¹ From this clause, I say; for cf. articles 2 and 14 of the Constitution.

² De curia romana, p. 387.

³ On these cf. Hollweck, Das kirchl. Bücherverbot, p. 51; Pennacchi, cited work, n. 47; Planchard, Rev. Théol. Fr., 1897, pp. 33, 34.

Books of authors, whether ancient or more recent, whom they call classics, if they are infected with this very stain of baseness, are permitted, on account of elegance and propriety of speech, only to those whom the reason of office or of teaching excuses; nevertheless, they must by no means be handed over or read before boys or youths, unless purged with careful diligence.

Comparison with prior law

73. 1. Formerly, to the seventh rule of the Index this exception was appended: "But ancient [books] written by pagans are permitted on account of elegance and propriety of speech; nevertheless, they must by no means be read before boys."

Therefore the faculty of the prior law was broader with respect to persons; narrower with respect to the object. For it excluded no one;¹ and it prohibited only readings which were made before boys; while now it is confined to persons excused "by office or teaching," and both the handing over and the reading made before boys or youths is prohibited, unless the books have been purged with careful diligence. Yet at the same time the former exception regarded only the ancients, whereas today it looks to all "classic" writers.

What this faculty effects

Moreover, the force of the faculty made is this: that it places the persons whom it affects back under natural law. Therefore it does not take away the efficacy of the divine sanction by which we are forbidden to expose ourselves to proximate danger; and he would err vehemently who, relying on this permission, considered it lawful for himself habitually to devote himself to reading books obscene of set purpose.

What classics are

2. Classic authors are those who in individual languages are used as examples. Formerly, as we were saying, the exception was circumscribed to the more ancient classics.

Which books of theirs are permitted

3. The permission regards their obscene books, but not those which, on another account, for example on account of pernicious doctrines, are either referred to the Index or touched by a general Decree. This is the case, with the question omitted whether the author can be held to be a classic, of certainly many books of Ém. Zola, all of whose works are referred to the Index.²

What if placed by name in the Index?

But, unless we are mistaken, the positive faculty comprises all obscene books, even if, on account of this vice, they are placed by name in the Index, provided they are by a classic author. With us is Génicot, Theol. mor., n. 456, while others, Boudinhon, C. Gennari, Ciolli (on this place), except from the faculty books which are prohibited by name. Yet the law does not distinguish.

To whom the permission is given

4. The permission is given to those whom the reason of office or teaching excuses. Therefore it is not required that these make the reading of those books strictly necessary, but it is sufficient that they furnish an excuse. Namely, the elegance of the speech of classic writers brings it about that, although they contain base things, nevertheless their works can contribute to the greater cultivation of men of letters or of teachers of letters, and the knowledge of them can pertain to the necessary or at least suitable erudition of many. For these causes the faculty of the present article is conceded.

Hence a) we draw: office, which in general signifies an assumed condition of state (profession, état), will here look especially to the cultivation of letters, so that those are excused by office who, of set purpose, either write or judge works of letters (Littérateurs de profession, hommes de lettres, critiques).³ But it is not sufficient that by accident you write something pertaining to letters. Yet someone can at the same time exercise another art and devote himself enough to letters that he is excused.

Furthermore, on account of other offices, indeed, several persons can sometimes have a just cause why they read obscene things (cautiously and insofar as natural law itself permits this), whether classic or even non-classic. We do not think these persons can directly use the benefit of the present article. But since explicit permission concerning obscene books has not been customarily given, and to obtain it is sufficiently odious, a reasonable epikeia is founded in this article, by force of which that reading is not positively forbidden to those persons, insofar as they must read such things in order to be able to fulfill their office suitably. By office of this sort those can be excused who, for example, by a special title must denounce bad books,⁴ and, in large cities, certain confessors. Yet the office must be understood as honest. Correctors of typography⁵ we will excuse only if and when it is lawful for them to exercise their art in a workshop where base things are printed.

b) We draw: by teachers not only those are excused who, by order of the Government, are compelled to use obscene classics,⁶ but all for whom the reason made is useful, namely teachers who teach letters, but not those who teach merely the rudiments of a language, as in an elementary school (école primaire); nor those who hand on another discipline, even a nobler one: such as law or theology.

Exception with regard to boys or youths

5. Nevertheless, they must by no means be handed over or read before boys or youths. Therefore the Constitution prudently takes care lest those whose office it is to instruct boys or youths in letters and to furnish them with suitable books should place obscene things in their hands, or much less read them before them.

Boys or youths are certainly those who are taught the more humane letters in gymnasia.

What of those who frequent Universities?

What of those who frequent Universities? If you consider the native meaning of the words, and also the meaning received in law, boyhood lasts until the eighteenth year, youth at least until the twenty-fifth.⁷ If you turn your mind to the reason of the law, do not those younger persons perhaps offer more danger from obscene writers than boys themselves?⁸

Wherefore, in our opinion, readings which are held in Universities also are comprehended by this prohibition.⁹

If some, however, although youth has not yet been surpassed, already exercise the teaching of letters, certainly, as teachers, they will be able to enjoy the benefit of article 10. Yet we would by no means recommend use of the faculty. And if you wish those to be excused by office who, in Universities, devote themselves to a special cultivation of letters on account of a future state, we do not altogether oppose it. Yet we prefer to consider them rather as on the way to an office than as already furnished with an office. Nor do we see the necessity why they ought not to use corrected editions. But is our Constitution to be presumed to have wished to give our youths a new pretext for excusing their excessive and not sufficiently deplored license in this matter?

Or certain gymnasia?

But it can happen that even in certain gymnasia, the necessity of hearing teachers who spurn these admonitions, or of preparing themselves for examinations (examens) to be made, compels youths to use uncorrected editions. Then, within the limits of a necessity of this sort, they will be excused from the positive law.

Purged obscene books can be handed over

6. Yet, if purged with careful diligence (if nevertheless the abundance of obscenities permits this cleansing), they can be handed over and read before them. Thus there is formally conceded what had already prevailed by usage.

What if you read versions?

7. You will ask whether the faculty is circumscribed to the proper language of the classic author, or whether they can also be read when turned from their own language into another. If the version is of such a kind that it furnishes the faculty even in a foreign idiom of perceiving the usefulness from the classic author, the reason made obtains here also. For those who are engaged in literary studies often approach writers translated into a foreign language, whose elegance of speech, if less their propriety, they can perceive even in a foreign garment. Wherefore we think that our article can be transferred to versions of this sort.

¹ But because the license was circumscribed to books of pagans, by that fact "the profane crowd" was excepted.

² Decree of January 26, 1895.

³ Palmieri, on this place, also indicates keepers of libraries, presidents of lyceums, etc., as excused by office.

⁴ Pennacchi, cited work, n. 48, indicates these.

⁵ Hollweck cites these, p. 34.

⁶ Against Pennacchi, cited place.

⁷ Cf. Barbosa, Repertorium iuris, v. Aetas.

⁸ Cf. Génicot, cited work, I, 452, 4°.

⁹ Thus also Wernz, n. 111, 10.

Which Prelates possess this faculty

96. 2. Prelates to whom quasi-episcopal jurisdiction belongs are Nuncios,¹ Apostolic Vicars, Capitular Vicars, and Superiors of exempt Regulars, both Generals and Provincials, and also, as is probable, Locals,² provided they truly preside over a convent or monastery. Thus Guardians of the Friars Minor; Priors of the Friars Preachers; Provincials, Rectors, Vice-Rectors of the Society of Jesus, and Superiors of houses which are of their own right. But not Ministers, nor Priors who are subject to an Abbot.³

The same power belongs to the Vicar General, not as to a Prelate, but insofar as he exercises episcopal jurisdiction as one judge with the Bishop.

What power has been conceded to them

3. To these Prelates an ordinary power is made of conceding license, for individual books, and only in urgent cases.

For individual books

For individual books, strictly, would signify for certain books designated individually, and not by some general reason of books, for example, which might be useful for making this lucubration. Yet because the faculty can be taken broadly, a sufficiently special designation seems to suffice so as to contract the faculty to a few books, provided the other condition of an urgent cause is observed.

In urgent cases

In urgent cases only. A case will urge if a just cause of reading suffers no delay necessary for Roman recourse.⁴

But the cause ought not to be of so great necessity that it excuses from the law; but we seem able to be content with notable utility, on account of which a general license would deservedly be given by a competent Superior; indeed with less, since there is less danger in the reading of one individual book. Suppose, for example, that a rare occasion is offered of reading a book which is indeed prohibited but useful for studies.

It can be delegated

Since this power is ordinary, it can be delegated to Deans, Parish Priests, and Confessors themselves (for whom it will often be useful to have it).

It extends to obscene books

It is not circumscribed by object, so that, if nevertheless a just cause underlies it, it comprises a book obscene of set purpose.⁵

¹ The principle from which they could regularly do those things "which the Ordinary could do in his diocese" seems sufficiently to have force for this use. Pirhing and Schmalzgrueber on book 1, title 30, n. 4.

² Cf. Vermeersch, De Religiosis, etc., t. 1, n. 412.

³ The distinguished Pennacchi, A. S. S., n. 63, p. 385, whom Ciolli, n. 59, still follows, undeservedly excludes from use of this faculty all regular Prelates whose authority, circumscribed to monks, is not exercised over some people. He gives as reason that, in the latter part of article 25, the Legislator sets down the case in which Prelates of this sort have obtained from the Holy See the faculty of imparting to the faithful license of reading and retaining prohibited books. Therefore the Prelates must be understood only as those who would have faithful. But by the name of faithful there come only "secular men and those living in the lay state." But what prevents some expression in the two sentences from being taken in a sense accommodated to each sentence? Therefore in the former sentence, Prelates possessing jurisdiction as if episcopal will be all who are accustomed to come under this name; in the latter they will be those who "de facto" have faithful. Besides, why say more? Even if this article did not include regular Prelates in express words, it was not fitting to pass over the Constitution Romani Pontificis circumspecta of St. Pius V, which universally disposes: "The Regular Prelates themselves, by themselves, can do altogether the same toward Brothers and Nuns ... subject to them, which Bishops can do toward clerics and laymen subject to them, both as regards faculties of absolving and dispensing of this sort and as regards any other faculties whatsoever, by the same authority and tenor, even perpetually we concede and indulge, and also declare." That this Constitution still has force, Piat, Prael. Iur. regul., t. 2, p. 87, note 2, shows. This concession plainly suffices in the present species. Cf. also the general principle in Suarez, De Relig., tract 8, book 2, chapter 12. On the matter also very well Wernz, cited place, n. 111, note 78.

⁴ To Roman recourse, I say. For just as concerning reserved cases, so concerning this matter the impediment seems able to be estimated with respect to him who has the ordinary faculty, that is, in the case, with respect to the Holy See. Therefore the said superiors will enjoy the faculty of an urgent case although opportunity is at hand of approaching a Bishop furnished with a delegated faculty.

⁵ Nordin, Summa theol. mor., n. 694, note.

Distinctions to be made

124. 1. By this article those who glory in the Catholic name are distinguished from the common class of sellers; and books treating expressly of obscene matters are distinguished from the common prohibition of books. Account must be taken of these distinctions in the commentaries.

Who booksellers are

2. All booksellers whatsoever. Therefore the general precept is directed to all, however many, who are accustomed to sell books, whether in their own shops, or in rented stalls, or by walking through streets and squares, or by holding auctions. For all these are booksellers.

What it is to glory in the Catholic name

3. Especially those who glory in the Catholic name. Such are not those who in their private life adhere to the Catholic faith, but those who openly display themselves as being Catholics, and most of all those who adorn shops with the Catholic name: librairie catholique.

Reason of the special precept

Why a peculiar precept is directed to them, the chief cause does not seem to be that they are hoped to be more teachable, but because by a special danger of scandal they are prohibited more than the rest from violating these precepts.

Concerning obscene books

4. They are simply prohibited from selling, giving on loan, retaining books treating expressly of obscene matters.

What sort these books are, cf. above, n. 72.

What if the works are classics

What if they have been classics? They indeed will not be able in themselves to retain these, unless, from article 10, they are excused by reason of office or teaching. Nevertheless they will be able prudently to procure those works for those to whom it is permitted to read them.

Concerning other prohibited books

5. In order that they may have the rest of the prohibited books for sale, they need permission, which is to be obtained from the Sacred Congregation of the Index through the Ordinary.

What is it to have books for sale?

But they have books for sale both who equip their shops with them for the sake of selling, and who propose books, bought from all sides in their own name, to be bought either at a price defined in a catalogue (livres d'occasion) or sell them at public auction (vente publique) through auctioneers.

Therefore they need seek no peculiar license in order accidentally, or from a special mandate, to buy the same works when they are about to sell them.

To whom they can sell

6. But whether they have their shops habitually equipped with these works, or whether they execute a special mandate, they cannot sell prohibited works here and there, with no selection of persons made, but only to those whom they can prudently judge legitimately to be seeking them.

Therefore they must not specially ask buyers concerning a license; but it suffices that, their quality having been considered, it appear probable that they legitimately seek them. For a broader obligation would impose too disagreeable a burden on booksellers. Moreover, a proportionate cause will also be able to excuse them if they sell a work to others, especially to those to whom the faculty of reading would not be denied by the Holy See.

Concerning an auction held in another's name

But can they hold an auction in another's name, of which prohibited books are a part, for example, pertaining to the library of a deceased person? Heymans¹ now seems to indulge this. Except, unless we are mistaken, those obscene books which are not commended by elegance of speech, so that morally they have no lawful use. Then at least a graver cause will be required in order that you cooperate in this sale. But concerning an official who from office presides over an auction, the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide responded, June 26, 1820, that he is not bound to investigate whether among the goods ... there are found books of heretics or others containing obscene matters. "But if by chance he has known this, and can impede bad books from coming to bidders who will abuse them, let him indeed do this, etc." Cf. Collectanea Prop. Fidei, n. 1874.

The rest are governed by natural law

6. Besides this precept, which obliges booksellers and regards the sale of all prohibited books, and, however, the lending of obscene ones, acts of selling or giving on loan are governed by natural law alone, whose force we weighed above, n. 47, 59, 60.

¹ Cited work, n. 356.

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

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

They are honorable between betrothed persons;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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