Summa Theologiae Moralis, vol. I: De Principiis

S. Th. II-II, q. 10, a. 7 and 9.

752. Communication with infidels and heretics is of two kinds :

1) Civil, in things profane and civil pertaining to social commerce, such as purchases, sales, banquets, cohabitation, conversation, familiarity, service, etc. : this is lawful provided there be no scandal and danger of perversion¹] ; and provided the heretics are not excommunicated to be avoided, in which last case can. 2267 is to be heeded.

2) Religious, in things sacred pertaining to religion, such as rites, dogmata, sacrifices, prayers, etc., and in mixed things insofar as they pertain to religion, e.g. in the religious rite of marriage or of funerals. This can be considered either on the part of infidels and heretics, or on the part of the faithful, and on either part it can be active or passive.

753. On the communication of infidels and heretics with Catholics is to be said : Infidels and heretics can passively assist not only at the preaching of the word of God but also at other offices of public worship, yet not actively participate in them, because this would rightly be considered as a sign of religious unity. Hence they are excluded from the sacraments (can. 731, § 2), from the sacramentals which are administered individually publicly in church²] , from ecclesiastical burial (can. 1240), from enrollment in pious associations (can. 693) and the like ; consequently it is also generally forbidden that they use the same church simultaneously with Catholics, or vice versa. If they are apostates or heretics, and therefore excommunicated, can. 2259 also applies.

There are several decisions of the Holy Office on this matter, which does not enact a positive ecclesiastical law, but interprets or applies the natural and divine law itself in this matter and in similar questions :

a) It is illicit in sacred functions to invite heretics into the choir, to chant alternately with them, to give them peace, sacred ashes, blessed candles and palms, and other things of this kind of external worship, which are rightly considered as indications of an inner bond and consent (8 June 1859).

b) It is not lawful to admit heretics, schismatics, or Jews, even if they are boys or girls, to sing at liturgical functions in the choir musically in Catholic churches (1 May 1889) ; however, this, given special circumstances, may be tolerated for schismatics (24 Jan. 1906) ; but it is lawful to allow non-Catholics to play the organ at liturgical functions in a Catholic church, if no scandal is to be feared from it (23 Feb. 1820).

c) It is not lawful to allow non-Catholics to carry torches or lights at Catholic liturgical functions (20 Nov. 1850) ; nor to serve at Mass (ibid. ; 30 June and 7 July 1864) ; or to act as godparents (3 May 1893 ; 27 June 1900 ; can. 765) ; nor to be used as witnesses in a Catholic marriage, although sometimes it may be tolerated with scandal removed (19 Aug. 1891).

d) It is not lawful to allow heretics or schismatics to celebrate their rites in Catholic churches (10 May 1753), nor that Catholics perform sacred things in their temples (can. 823, § 1 and 2) ; for this is the same as consenting to their rites, or at least giving Catholics the occasion to communicate with non-Catholics in sacred things (10 May 1753 ; 13 Aug. 1627 ; 5 June 1889) ; however this may sometimes be tolerated, if it is otherwise impossible, and conditions render religious confusion impossible, and scandal is absent (5 June 1889). So for a graver reason, to more easily promote the conversion of schismatics and infidels, on the lookout for sacred ceremonies, a missionary is sometimes allowed the faculty of celebrating Mass in the Catholic rite on an altar in heretical or schismatic temples, « so that the same altars are used only for bare tables, and are arranged in the Catholic manner with a consecrated stone, cloths, an image of the holy³] Crucifix, candlesticks, and other necessary furnishings for the use of the holy sacrifice of Mass in the aforesaid rite » (12 Apr. 1704).

754. On the religious communication of the faithful with infidels or non-Catholics is to be said :

Active communication, or participation in their sacred things, i.e. public worship, is illicit, because it is an implicit approval of the exercise of the worship and of the acknowledged sect ; passive communication is generally illicit, but sometimes can be lawful for a grave reason. Hence :

a) If it is with heretics (or schismatics), by natural and ecclesiastical law it is of itself and as a rule gravely illicit for the faithful « either on account of the danger of perversion in the Catholic faith, or on account of the danger of participation in a heretical rite, or on account of the danger and occasion of scandal or seduction⁴] », or on account of the appearance of adherence to a false sect which it of itself signifies (Rom. XVI, 17 ; Tit. III, 10).

b) Accidentally, however, and extraordinarily it can be lawful, provided the action is not intrinsically evil, and there is a proportionate cause, which is required to be all the more grave the greater the importance of the sacred thing in which the communication takes place, and the closer the action comes to worship.

c) With infidels, a fortiori it is illicit, especially because their worship is wont to be false and superstitious.

Hence canon 1258 : « § 1. It is not lawful for the faithful in any way to take active part or to have a share in the sacred things of non-Catholics.

§ 2. Passive or merely material presence, for the sake of civil duty or honor, can be tolerated, for a grave reason to be approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided the danger of perversion and scandal is absent » (cf. can. 2316).

755. Especially with regard to the sacraments, the general principle is that they may be illicitly sought from a heretical (schismatic or sworn) minister

1) It is never lawful to seek them from one who would administer them in a manner foreign to the Catholic rite and whom the Church discerns as such, because it would be immediate participation in illicit worship, and an implicit profession of a false sect.

2) It is also not lawful, if he administers in the Catholic rite, except in extreme necessity for Baptism (namely, if a layman is lacking) and Penance only (S. Off., 7 July 1864), and this being lacking, for Extreme Unction, provided the circumstance of necessity causes (which ordinarily happens) the petition to no longer be considered as acknowledgment of the sect ; otherwise it would still be illicit⁵].

3) It is never lawful to act as godparent in heretics' baptism, either personally or by proxy, because in the name of the one baptized he asks Baptism from the minister (10 May 1770 ; 7 July 1864 ; 3 Jan. 1871).

4) Indeed, as a rule it is not lawful to assist at such a baptism or materially hold the child in it, except for a grave reason and with scandal removed (10 May 1770).

756. With regard to sacramentals and the nuptial blessing the same principle holds : it is illicit to seek them from a non-Catholic minister as such

1) It is never lawful to seek sacred things, such as blessings, prayers, etc., from a heretical (or schismatic) minister, nor the nuptial blessing, nor to give or renew matrimonial consent before him, even if the marriage has already been contracted before the parish priest (29 Jan. 1817), and this under pain of excommunication reserved to the Ordinary (can. 2319 ; 1063, § 1).

2) To enter a civil contract before a heretical minister acting only as a civil minister, is lawful (29 Nov. 1762 ; can. 1063, § 3).

3) It is never lawful, in a marriage celebrated before a heretical minister, to act in the role of witness, or of best man leading the groom, not to the bride, but to the altar or to the minister, because, by participating in the ceremony itself, and by lending the witness's authority to the contract, he implicitly acknowledges the minister's authority.

4) As a rule it is not lawful to assist at such a marriage, except for a grave reason, with scandal and contempt of ecclesiastical authority removed, and only for the sake of civil honor and duty⁶] (10 May 1770 ; 14 Jan. 1874 ; can. 1258, § 2).

757. With regard to disputations with infidels and heretics :

1. To dispute as one doubting about the faith and intending to test the truth of faith by arguments, is a sin and indeed one of infidelity.

2. To dispute for private exercise, of itself is lawful, unless it is dangerous for the disputant or the hearers.

3. To dispute in order to confute errors is of itself lawful, provided the disputant is firm in the faith, sufficiently learned, and it is judged that the disputation will at least be profitable to the hearers ; which, however, will rarely happen in practice.

4. Nevertheless by positive law all are forbidden from public disputation « without the consent of ecclesiastical authority (can. 1325, § 3). Cf. S. C. de Prop. Fide, 8 March 1625 ; 7 Feb. 1645 ; 18 Dec. 1662 ; S. Off., 19 Jan. 1664 ; S. C. Conc., 6 March 1625 ; and 8 March 1658.

758. With regard to entering the temples of heretics and assisting at their offices, the general principle is that it is not lawful to assist at the offices

1) Simple entrance into a temple is of itself an indifferent thing, whence it is lawful if it is made (with scandal removed) to visit the temple, to avoid rain or attack, etc. (S. Off., 13 Jan. 1818).

2) Participation in their offices, psalmody, prayers, rites, by which one behaves like the heretics and joins with them, is never lawful, even if demanded by public authority (S. C. P. F., 6 Aug. 1764 ; S. Off., 13 Jan. 1818 ; 26 Apr. 1894) ; — it is, however, lawful privately to pray before the Blessed Sacrament or statues of the Saints, or to show reverence to the Most Holy, provided it sufficiently appears that the one acting thus does not formally unite with those standing by ; likewise privately to pray together with heretics, if the prayers are good⁷].

3) Co-operation in the very offices of heretics, whether by singing, by directing the chant, or by musical instruments, even if done voluntarily or only out of greed for gain, is never lawful, because it pertains to the very exercise of worship, or is even a simulation of false faith⁸] (S. Off., 19 June and S. C. P. F., 8 July 1889).

4) Mere material assistance at offices or sermons, from mere curiosity and without any reason, because it has the appearance of evil, is a sin (S. Off., 7 Aug. 1704 ; 10 May 1770 ; instr. Card. Vic. of the City, 12 July 1878), probably however only venial, unless peculiar circumstances are added, or a special prohibition, as was made in Rome (Card. Vic. of the City, 12 July 1878) ; whence, with scandal removed, if it is done for a good end it will be lawful, e.g. to confute heretics.

Hence a) in places where Catholics have long lived mingled with non-Catholics, such assistance is commonly not considered a grave fault, provided scandal is absent, participation in rites or prayers, and danger of perversion.

b) In places altogether Catholic where heretics, a short time ago almost unknown, have now settled, erected temples, and seek disciples, such assistance easily causes scandal and is held as a favor to the sect or a sign of communion with it, whence it will easily be gravely evil and is to be more strictly forbidden.

c) If it is demanded by a private person or by public authority in hatred of religion or in favor of heresy, it is never lawful ; for thus one would be held to fulfill what is demanded by the superior. — If, however, it is demanded for another reason (e.g. for family, sailors, soldiers, prisoners), it is lawful to avoid grave inconvenience (Paul V, 1606).

d) Yet in every case, assiduous attendance will rarely be excused from mortal sin, because of the danger or scandal.

759. Corollary. — On assistance at funerals or burial :

1) If they are heretical (pagan, Mohammedan, Jewish...), it is lawful for Catholics to assist at them materially, for the sake of civil duty, because of grave harm, provided they do not communicate in the rites or sacred ceremonies of the sect in any way (prayers, lights, listening to a sermon) and there is no danger of scandal⁹] (S. Off. 13 Jan. 1818 ; 7 July 1871).

2) If they are strictly civil and in no way anti-Catholic, assistance or co-operation does not seem illicit, if it is done to show civil duty, or for some other reason even of friendship alone : so it is sometimes done for a deceased unbaptized person, or for a suicide to whom the Church denies burial.

3) If they are (as often happens) civil and at the same time anti-religious, e.g. if they are a demonstration against the burial denied by the Church, or against religion, as happens if great solemnity, a gathering of enemies of the Church, signs of Freemasons, spiritists, free-thinkers are used, or even if the deceased baptized person wished to die as an apostate, or bound himself by some contract to do so, even if he died piously : formal co-operation or participation in ceremonies, if done, is never lawful ; and material co-operation or assistance will not be lawful unless a) it does not signify approval and all danger of scandal is absent, b) it is not greater or longer than necessity requires, and c) there is a very grave reason, such as is ordinarily not simple gratitude, ordinary friendship, invitation, gain, artistic association, human fear ; — however, close kinship, complete subjection or coercion, loss of office with great temporal harm suffice especially where such a reason could easily be recognized by all (letter of Pius IX to the Archbishop of Paris, 26 Oct. 1865).

4) To go to the funeral home to show civil courtesy and urbanity is lawful.

760. Observations. — 1. The gravity of sin in assisting at non-Catholic offices, baptisms, marriages, and funerals depends on circumstances : it is to be weighed from the gravity or character of the evil, the scandal, the approval given, and from the insufficiency of the motive. For which also the quality of the person assisting, the necessity or convenience of assisting, the significance of the solemnity, and the hostile intention are to be considered.

2. Danger for the faith can also arise from frequenting non-Catholic schools, and from mixed marriages ; about which it will be spoken in the respective treatises concerning these questions.

761. Co-operation in infidelity or heresy is the assistance given to them. It is of two kinds : one immediate, which is participation in their very constitution, propagation, and worship : this is intrinsically evil and always illicit ; the other mediate, which is the supply of matter, facility, or means for their preservation, propagation, or worship. This of itself is illicit, because it gives to another the means or occasion of sinning, which we are bound rather to turn him away from, and in this it is evil ; accidentally it can be lawful, if the action of the co-operator is not intrinsically evil, and there is a proportionately grave cause, namely, a good which compensates the evil, that is, the occasion of sinning given. Hence the cause is required to be all the more grave the graver the evil to which the co-operation is given, and the closer and more influential the co-operation is in it (n. 489-490).

762. With regard to the sacraments : 1) It is never lawful for parents to positively co-operate or permit (e.g. by asking, or willing, or consenting) that their children be baptized by a heretical (schismatic, sworn) minister, because to ask or to will baptism from heretics is an implicit acknowledgment of the sect, which is intrinsically evil (S. O., 26 Sept. 1668 ; 29 Nov. 1672 ; can. 2319) ; but to permit this negatively and to remain passive will not be lawful except for a very grave inconvenience, because the co-operation is for a very grave evil.

2) Similarly, for Catholics, even those serving in a hospital, it is illicit, at the request of a heretical sick person, directly to call upon the ministers of his sect to receive the helps of religion (likewise for a minister to perform funeral rites) : so S. O., 14 May 1848 and 26 Dec. 1898 ; for this, however, they can make use of a person belonging to that same sect (31 Jan. 1872).

In case such a person is lacking, according to some it is lawful to call the minister by saying : such a one wishes to speak with you, or something similar, but only for the common good, in a non-ordinary case, namely to avoid great public hatred against the Catholic religion, or the cessation of many goods to be performed by those serving in the hospital ; otherwise not, because it concerns the greatest evil of a private person, namely the eternal harm of the dying person¹.

763. With regard to offices of worship and sermons of heretics :

1) It is never lawful to co-operate by singing or musical instruments in the offices of heretics, as was said in the preceding article (n. 758, 3°), because the co-operation is immediate, i.e. participation in the very exercise of worship.

2) Nor is it lawful to invite others to the offices or sermons of heretics, whether by persuasion, or by authority or counsel, or by any other invitations, because it is directly inducing to sin, which is intrinsically evil.

3) Indeed to ring the bell as a sign that the heretical office or sermon is beginning (on the contrary in honor of the king), because ordinarily it is taken for an invitation, or altogether closely coheres with an invitation ; unless perhaps one should show that he acts thus for a very grave reason, e.g. in grave or almost extreme necessity.

764. With regard to the construction of temples and altars :

1) It is never lawful to adorn idols and their altars or temples, because it is intrinsically evil.

2) To build their temples or altars is illicit in general, because it is wont to be held as a sign of profession of false faith and to excite scandal (S. O., 7 Dec. 1626 ; 5 Sept. 1736 ; 8 Jan. 1851) ; otherwise it will not be lawful except for a most grave cause, because it is about an altogether evil thing (2 July 1827).

3) To build Mohammedan temples, with scandal excluded, is lawful for fear of a grave evil (P. F., 21 Nov. 1837).

4) To build temples of heretics, Jews, schismatics

a) it is lawful for masons and subordinate workmen for a lighter reason, provided it is not taken as a profession or approval of heresy, scandal is absent, and it is not demanded in contempt of religion, because the co-operation is remote and secondary (S. O., 13 Jan. 1818 ; 7 July 1864) ;

b) but for architects, contractors, foremen of works, in places where Catholics and non-Catholics have long lived mingled together, it is not lawful except for a grave cause, which mere gain is not, because the co-operation is more principal ;

c) for the same, in places altogether Catholic, in general it is gravely illicit (instr. Card. Vic. of the City, 12 July 1878).

5) The same seems to be said of the lodges of Freemasons or other impious society.

6) To let, however, a house that it may serve the worship of heretics or the meeting of Freemasons or of another impious sect, requires a graver cause, because the co-operation is closer.

765. With regard to the making and selling of things destined for false worship :

1) If they cannot have any other good or indifferent use, it is never lawful, because it is intrinsically evil.

2) If they can have another use but must serve false worship, it can be lawful for a motive so much the graver as the co-operation is greater.

In particular a) in general it is lawful, for a lighter reason, to make organs, chairs, altars, vestments for heretics, because the co-operation is remote ;

b) but if they are expressly and formally requested for an evil use, it will not be lawful except for a grave cause, because the co-operation is closer ; indeed sometimes a most grave cause is required, if the thing is most grave, e.g. to make or sell hosts which the enemies of the Church will abuse ;

c) finally, it is illicit to manufacture idols, sacred vestments destined for superstitious use, superstitious signs, signs and emblems of Freemasons, since these things almost never have a good use ;

d) if these are made for an indifferent or good use, it is lawful, as to make an idol for ornamenting a garden or for stage plays.

766. With regard to non-Catholic religious works or those ordered to false religion :

1) To give them money, either voluntarily, or because they pertain to religion, is never lawful, because it is formally to protect, which is intrinsically evil.

2) To do this under compulsion and without evil intention, if the works are religious (e.g. temple, festivities, ceremonies), as a rule is illicit, unless a) for a very grave cause, because to favor false religion is a co-operation sufficiently close and closer than the building of a temple, and b) provided it is evident that one does not consent to false superstitions or ceremonies (S. C. P. F., 2 July 1827 ; S. O., 21 Apr. 1847) : as e.g. Catholics may do to free themselves from simultaneousness of worship (S. Poen., 1822), and deputies who for the sake of public peace publicly contribute from the public treasury to heretical works as to Catholic works.

3) If they are not ordered only to religion, but have another good end, e.g. education, care of the sick, the poor..., a grave cause would suffice, provided it is not considered as a favor to heresy, scandal is absent, and the money is not used for perverting Catholics. Which will more easily be lawful in places long mixed, than in places altogether Catholic.

4) The same seems to be said of the works of other enemies of the Church, e.g. of liberals, socialists, in regions where these words indicate opposition to the Church.

5) However, it is illicit to give one's name to such societies as directly have an evil end ; but if they are only indirectly ordered to an evil end, and have a directly good end, e.g. economic, it will be lawful for a grave cause and with scandal removed.

So it is illicit to give one's name to theosophical societies (4 July 1919), likewise to the London society « for promoting Christian unity » (18 July 1919), or even to the Y. M. C. A. (5 Nov. 1920), which spreads indifferentism of religions.

767. With regard to evil or prohibited writings : books, periodicals, dictionaries, encyclopedias, magazines, newspapers, and other things of this kind².

A. to be composed : 1) For editors to defend false principles and according to those principles to compose writings is never lawful, because it is immediate cooperation and always a grave sin.

2) To co-operate with articles in themselves indifferent (e.g. on literary, scientific, artistic matters) and indeed frequently or ordinarily is a more or less close co-operation, according as the evil writing is thereby more or less commended and propagated, and therefore it is not lawful except, with scandal removed, and for a more or less grave cause, which is not greater gain, but only gain necessary for sustenance.

3) Sometimes and extraordinarily to insert indifferent articles is a remote co-operation, which, however, is not lawful without cause, but for which a moderately grave cause suffices, which certainly is occasionally to expose or defend good principles or to impede an evil article, provided the reputation of the evil writing is not thereby increased, nor a most evil writing promoted with great scandal to the faithful (can. 1386, § 2).

B. to be printed : 1) It is never lawful for the editor or the owner of the printing house to undertake the printing, because it is not only to co-operate closely but also to induce others to co-operate (can. 2318, § 1).

2) To co-operate most closely in the impression, by directing the typography, setting the types, correcting the printed sheets, is not lawful except in the rarest case, for a short time, and for a grave necessity (which dismissal from service is not) ; except in the case where the book is so evil that it cannot have a good end (12 July 1878).

3) To co-operate more remotely, though quite closely, by placing paper on the type, turning the press, preparing paper or ink, arranging and joining the printed sheets, or delivering them to buyers, moving and caring for the machine, is lawful for a lesser but always grave cause.

4) To act most remotely, e.g. by selling ink, paper, machines, and other things necessary for printing, is lawful for the sake of gain alone.

Hence it follows that there is an obligation to leave a printing house in which almost only evil books and evil periodicals are printed : absolutely for those who co-operate altogether closely ; indeed for those who co-operate more remotely, as for those who work in printing houses in which good and evil books are printed indiscriminately, if they can leave without notable detriment.

C. to be sold (a fortiori to be rented, distributed, conceded) : 1) To sell a prohibited writing which is altogether evil, so that it has no good use, is in no way lawful, except to one who is certainly known to be reading it by office, e.g. an inquisitor.

2) Those which are not evil in every part but contain useful things, either to one who will abuse them, or indiscriminately to all, to expose and sell in offices or in public ways is not lawful except for an very grave inconvenience, and until another means of gaining a livelihood is available³.

3) A fortiori to invite or positively induce to the buying of evil writings is illicit, because it is inducing to sin, and therefore intrinsically evil.

4) To sell copies separately can be lawful for a lesser cause, namely, moderately grave (not for gain alone, or for competition alone) ; indeed it will in no way be illicit if it can be presumed that the buyer has a just cause for reading.

It should be noted, however, that booksellers are not bound to inquire for what purpose books are bought, but they may sell them to all those whom, given the quality of the books, it can be prudently judged they are asking for them ; otherwise too heavy a burden would be imposed (cf. can. 1404).

D. to be exposed : 1) For tavern keepers, innkeepers, hotel owners, barbers to expose altogether evil writings (which are scarcely not adverse to faith or morals) to be read is a grave sin, even if they are asked for by many who for that reason would desert the tavern : the grave harm does not sufficiently compensate for the spiritual ruin of many.

2) It is lawful, to avoid grave harm, to hand over writings which seldom contain something evil, to those who ask to read.

3) For those whom experience shows almost all such writings are asking, and who would otherwise leave the tavern, it will not be illicit to expose them publicly ; it is better to expose good ones at the same time.

E. to be promoted and sustained : 1) To give one's name and buy shares in order to constitute a society for publishing or propagating evil writings⁴, likewise to subscribe to their publication and to sustain it with money, is illicit, because no necessity seems to justify the co-operation ; which is most certain if the writings are expressly impious or evil, or if without the co-operation the society would not be constituted.

2) To subscribe to an already existing society or to a writing already being published, since it is a close co-operation, will not be lawful unless there is a grave cause proportionate to the influence of the co-operation and to the evil to be feared, the danger of scandal and perversion is absent, and the writing is not published manifestly in hatred of religion.

3) To buy a separate issue or a special copy is a remote co-operation, for which, scandal being excluded, a reasonable and even slight cause suffices, e.g. the usefulness of the reading ; and a little greater if it is done frequently. It should be noted, however, that the reading itself is illicit, if it is positively forbidden.

4) To give indifferent announcements about things to be sold, rented, bought, etc. is not lawful unless scandal is excluded, and for a just cause, so much the greater as the announcements cause the writings to be propagated more widely and more easily sustained. When it contributes little, a less grave reason suffices.

768. With regard to the elections of deputies to the assemblies of the realm, province, municipality :

1) Willingly, i.e. from conviction and approval, to elect a candidate hostile to the Church, is gravely illicit, because it is formal co-operation, and therefore intrinsically evil.

2) Merely materially and under compulsion, from fear of evil, to elect such a one is not intrinsically evil, because the mandate which the elector confers is not determined to evil, but the malice or abuse of the elected is ordered to evil ; whence the elector is not the true cause but only the occasion of inflicting evil. Since, however, it is about the very grave evil of religion and society, no cause of utility can excuse such co-operation, but only a grave necessity (which loss of office can be), especially if the outcome of the election appears truly doubtful and perhaps depends on few votes ; in which case at least it will be mortal sin, because then the suffrage can exercise a great influence on a great evil. Therefore friendship of the candidate, or greater expertise, or the benefit hoped for from his election, is not enough ; these do not compensate for the assistance given to a grave harm to the Church or the republic.

3) To abstain from voting is illicit for the same reasons, if, namely, the election of the unworthy can probably be impeded : for it is the negative co-operation of one who does not do what he is bound by office to do, namely legal justice ; indeed it is a grave sin when from this it can probably be feared that a sufficient number of good candidates will not be elected and so great evil be perpetrated by the wicked, or if the abstainer is of such authority that he would lead many by his example and effectively influence the outcome of the election (which rarely happens).

4) To elect a neutral candidate is illicit if from this the election of a good one is probably impeded, or the election of an unworthy one is not impeded ; indeed it can be a grave sin, in the same way as was said in the preceding solution.

5) For a candidate who is asking and compelling, to promise the suffrage but with an internal restriction (as much as I can, and that you may have a right), or to answer in acquiescence, is lawful to avoid grave inconvenience, because then the circumstances suffice to indicate the sense of the answer, namely, that the respondent only intends to free himself from importunate compulsion. Such a promise evidently does not bind.

6) To elect an evil or unworthy candidate, a fortiori a neutral one, can accidentally be lawful, e.g. if there is no hope that the list of good ones will be elected without the evil ones who are contained in the same list also being elected ; likewise if the candidates to be elected are only evil ones ; then indeed the less evil one can be elected, especially if so a greater evil to be feared from others is to be averted.

769. Both by natural law and by positive law writings dangerous for faith or for Christian life are prohibited in different ways. — By natural law we are obliged to avoid every danger of grave moment for faith and morals; whence, apart from all human and ecclesiastical laws, it is regularly illicit to publish or to read writings dangerous for faith or good morals. Hence:

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

2) Even if books be not prohibited by human and ecclesiastical law, they can nevertheless be dangerous and prohibited for a particular person by reason of a special danger, e.g. for a young person.

3) Whence, if books are not listed in the Index, they can be forbidden by natural law either generally or for a particular person.

4) And even if some have obtained the faculty to read prohibited books, or if the laws of the Index are not in force in some place, they nevertheless cannot read everything, if namely by their own nature they are dangerous for all, or if they know or experience that such reading is harmful to them, or proximately dangerous, e.g. 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 more rigorous opinions, says S. Alphonsus, when namely it is a question of avoiding a proximate danger of formal sin.

6) But furthermore by ecclesiastical law, e.g. of the Index, writings can be forbidden by name by the Holy Father or by a bishop¹ (can. 1395); and then, even if they were read without danger, they nevertheless remain prohibited: by natural law indeed they are prohibited on account of the very danger of perversion in particular, but by positive law on account of the presumption of common danger (n. 345, and can. 21).

Concerning this positive law of the Index and its general and special rules it is now to be treated in particular, which prohibits three kinds of writings, pertaining namely to Holy Scripture — or to faith and morals — or to worship, devotion and liturgy.

770. As regards Holy Scripture, by general rule, by the law itself are prohibited:

1) "Editions of the original text and of the ancient Catholic versions of sacred Scripture, even of the Eastern Church, published by any non-Catholics" (can. 1399, § 1).

2) "Versions of the same in any language, made or published by the same" (can. 1399, § 1).

3) "Books of Holy Scripture or annotations and commentaries on the same, if they have been published without observance of the prescriptions of the canons" (can. 1385, § 1, and 1399, § 5), i.e. without previous censorship even by laymen.

4) "Versions of Holy Scripture in the vernacular... unless they have been approved by the Apostolic See, or unless they are published under the vigilance of Bishops and with annotations¹, especially taken from the holy Fathers of the Church and from learned and Catholic writers²" (can. 1391 and 1399, § 5). This holds for editions after the year 1897: for the law does not have retroactive effect; before the year 1897, however, the bishop's approval was not required but a version with annotations sufficed for Catholic editions.

Note however a) the exception of can. 1400: "The use of the (aforesaid) books... is permitted only to those who are engaged in theological or biblical studies in any way, provided the same books have been faithfully and completely published and the dogmas of the Catholic faith are not impugned in their prolegomena or annotations." They are permitted namely to professors, and to students, and to those who, after completing their studies, continue to study Scripture; whoever namely habitually, not by a merely passing act, whether in schools or privately, pursues these studies;

b) that there is no longer any prohibition of reading Scripture in the vernacular, nor any obligation of seeking permission from the parish priest or confessor, provided the edition is approved.

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

1. That which must be taken jointly (com. int. 20 May 1923). — Versions with annotations seem to be assimilated to paraphrastic versions.
2. Annotations which set forth profane knowledge: geography, archaeology, etc., may be drawn from profane authors.

1) "Books of any writers (even Catholics), propagating heresy or schism² (i.e. not only enunciating them in passing, briefly and as if doing something else, but attempting to persuade by reasons added, proving or defending them); — or striving in any way (whether directly, by reasons, or indirectly, by insults, or by serious imagination, or even by jokes and derisions) to overthrow the very foundations of religion" (can. 1399, § 2).

Heresy is an error against the Catholic faith. By schism is understood a perfect and complete schism, by which one refuses obedience to the Holy Father; not however 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 ground the Catholic religion (e.g. the possibility of miracles, prophecy, revelation, or motives of credibility in general, etc.) or ground every religion (e.g. the existence of God, the spirituality of the soul); hence books propagating atheism, pantheism, scepticism, agnosticism, positivism, theosophy (16 June 1919), and many modern philosophical works are prohibited.

2) "Books which deliberately attack religion (Catholic, or at least natural) or good morals" (can. 1399, § 3), i.e. they do not touch on them in passing but impugns them professedly or from intention and of set purpose, which can be manifested either explicitly or by multiplied attacks because it is done in a notable part, e.g. several times, or through several pages or an entire chapter.

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

3) "Books of any non-Catholics (namely apostates, heretics, schismatics, or unbaptized) who treat ex professo (i.e. with the intention of teaching, principally, in a notable part, e.g. one chapter) of religion; unless it is clear that nothing (of any moment) against the Catholic faith is contained in them" (can. 1399, § 4).

Books of non-Catholics treating of sacred doctrine, of dogmatic or moral matter, of canon law or ecclesiastical history, of philosophical truths which are the foundation of religion and theology are presumed to be erroneous and dangerous in faith, unless the contrary is clear, as e.g. for Leibniz: "Systema theologiae", for Hugo Grotius: "De Religione". They are therefore not to be read without previous information. — On the contrary, the works of Catholics who later became heretics.

4) "Books which in any way (even in a single instance) (not only deny but also) attack (with arguments) or deride any of the Catholic dogmas, — which uphold errors proscribed by the Apostolic See (whether immediately by the Holy Father or mediately by a Sacred Congregation with pontifical approval, e.g. the errors of the Syllabus: so S.C. Ind., 23 May 1898) (i.e. defend them ex professo), — which detract from divine worship (not in passing but notably, so that its fame is harmed or it is held in less esteem), — which strive (i.e. intend ex professo to change and to shake) to overthrow ecclesiastical discipline (e.g. celibacy, the Index), — and which deliberately (studiously, deliberately, of set purpose) attack with insults (or contumelies) the ecclesiastical hierarchy (whether of order or of jurisdiction), or the clerical or religious state (not as private persons but because they belong to the hierarchy or state)" (can. 1399, § 6).

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

Such are those which teach the effects of the demon, methods which would be known to be insufficient without the intervention of the demon, or true spiritism whereby the evocation of spirits or commerce with them is intended, — but not books which set forth merely natural occultism.

6) "Books which hold as licit (laid down in conscience) (i.e. they do not merely affirm in passing but attempt to demonstrate by reasons) dueling, or suicide, or divorce (not only the civil contract but the bond of marriage itself), — which, treating of Masonic sects or other societies of the same kind, contend that they are useful and not harmful to the Church and to civil society" not incidentally but in a notable part (can. 1399, § 8).

Societies of this kind are clandestine sects such as the Carbonari, the Nihilists, the Anarchists, etc., even the Fenians (S. O. 12 Jan. 1870), — but not the Socialists who form a political sect, unless however they secretly unite to overthrow the State.

7) "Books which treat, narrate (vividly so as to allure, e.g. pornographic books), or teach, i.e. theoretically approve, e.g. free love, Malthusianism, contraceptive means (can. 1399, § 9), lascivious or obscene matters ex professo (not in passing, but principally, or directly and notably). — Not however theological, scientific, surgical works, unless under the pretext of science they appear written to feed nefarious curiosity or to excite venereal appetite.

Note that formerly there was 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 ex officio, let him seek permission; if however he must immediately read it, he could suppose, for this sole case, that the law does not bind and that its obligation here and now ceases.

772. As regards worship, devotion, liturgy, by general rule, by the law itself are prohibited:

1) "Books and booklets which narrate new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, miracles (as supernatural) (i.e. not in passing through a grating but ex professo or in a notable part), or which introduce new devotions (notably different from the ancient and approved ones), even under the pretext that they are private, if they have been published without observance of the prescriptions of the canons" (can. 1399, § 5).

This holds for books published after 1897, for the law has no retroactive effect. Books of prayers, of devotion, or of theological and religious, moral, ascetic or mystical instruction, are no longer prohibited: without approval they can also be read and retained. Neither does the canon hold for apparitions approved by the Church, such as that of the B. V. M. Immaculate at Lourdes, the revelations of S. Brigid, of S. Margaret Mary, etc.

But many have been reprobated for their novelty: the cult of the Blood of Mary (13 Jan. 1875), the title of Friend of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (4 May 1892), the title of B. V. M. Lady of the Sacred Heart because she exercises empire over the Son (23 Feb. 1875), the special cult to be given to the Face of the Redeemer in the manner proposed by the priests of the Holy Face (4 May 1892), the title of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Penitent (9 July 1893), the prayer for the empire of Christ and of Mary Immaculate over all creatures (19 June 1895), the private cult of the divine hands of Christ (17 Apr. 1896 ind.), the image of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus (27 May 1891), the image of the B. V. M. clothed in sacerdotal vestments (8 Apr. 1916).

2) "Editions of liturgical books (e.g. missal, breviary, ritual, pontifical and ceremonial of bishops) approved by the Apostolic See, in which anything has been changed, so that they do not agree with the authentic editions approved by the Holy See" (can. 1399, § 10).

3) "Books by which apocryphal indulgences or those proscribed or revoked by the Holy See are made known" (can. 1399, § 11). Hence even small leaves with apocryphal indulgences are prohibited (can. 1388, § 1).

4) "Images impressed in any way (by typography properly so called, engraving, photography, lithography, phototype, etc.) of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the B. V. M., of Angels and of Saints or of other Servants of God, alien from the mind and decrees of the Church" (can. 1399, § 12).

Statues or painted images are not prohibited³; nor artistic images whose principal end is to reproduce art; but pious ones, destined for public or private worship. Nor are they prohibited when they are merely not approved, but when they are new. Whether coins are comprised is uncertain, because they are rather struck than printed.

773. What is prohibited under the name of books? — Under the name of books do not come manuscripts (even lithographic or polygraphic) unless they are published and made of public right, being handed over or sold; but "what... is prescribed about books applies to publications, newspapers, periodicals and any other published writings, unless the contrary is clear" (can. 1384). Hence:

1) Periodicals, encyclopaedias, etc., if the general rules of the Index are touched upon in passing, in one or another article, are not considered prohibited; — on the contrary, if ordinarily or in a notable or greater part they have such as their object: then not only the fascicles collected into a volume but each one also is a prospectus. However, separata from periodicals (tirés à part) are not prohibited, which contain things good or indifferent.

2) If a prohibited work consists of several volumes, all are prohibited, if they treat of the same subject and that indivisibly; only the volume which contains the error or dangerous part is prohibited, if different volumes treat of different subjects, or of the same indeed but divisible, as is e.g. a universal history, because in this case they are considered different books.

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

4) Mere citations from a bad book, especially for the purpose of refuting them, are not prohibited; unless they are so long that they would be a reproduction.

774. Special prohibition of writings. — Besides books prohibited by the general rules, others also are specially and by name listed in the Index, or otherwise prohibited by the Apostolic See. This prohibition effects

1) that all editions already made are prohibited, unless the prohibition is limited to a particular edition⁴; likewise all future editions "unless, with corrections made, he gives permission who prohibited the book or his superior or successor" (can. 1398, § 2);

2) that all are prohibited in versions, for "the prohibition of books has this effect, that the book without due permission... cannot even be translated into another language..." (can. 1398, § 1), unless however only the version has been listed in the Index;

3) that all the works, if the works of any author are prohibited, are understood to mean not the later, but the earlier ones which exist at the moment of condemnation. From the preface of the Catalogue of the Index published in the year 1940 we further have that "when the opera omnia of any writer are condemned, all and singular the works of the same are considered condemned" and not only those which are prohibited by the general rules. Which norm, since it is modifying, has no retroactive value, so that for condemnations issued before the day of 2 January 1940 opera omnia are only those which are prohibited by the general rules. There is however a presumption and suspicion against others, whence in practice they are to be subjected to examination.

4) that if love stories of any one are all prohibited, they are understood to mean all and singular also, if the condemnation was issued after the year 1940; otherwise only those which are prohibited by the general rules.

5) that chrestomathies are also prohibited if they reproduce one or several for the greater part condemned writings.

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 to be warded off from the faithful, the danger which threatens from reading, is graver, and for this end the law contributes much; which is also clear from the penalties. It obliges the faithful, so that

a) they are bound everywhere on earth (can. 1396), unless however a special indult has been obtained somewhere;

b) even those for whom there is no danger (can. 21);

c) and so that "the book without due permission cannot be published, read, retained, sold, nor translated into another language, nor communicated in any way to others" (can. 1398, § 1).

One cannot

1) publish it, i.e. make it of public right, which is done by: the author if he delivers the book to that end that it be published, the editor who takes care to publish it, and the owner of the typographical press who undertakes to print it; — not however, probably, the correctors or the typographers themselves;

2) nor read it in the proper sense, which is done by those who with their own eyes running over the book understand what has been written, — not however by those who hear another reading, nor those who recite from memory, nor those who with their own eyes running over it through ignorance of the language do not understand, nor probably those who hear the reader whom by prayers or command they have induced to read.

There is grave matter and mortal sin a) by reason of quality, when a very bad passage is read, or an article in newspapers, even if it fills only one or another page; b) by reason of quantity, if one reads indiscriminately everything, or a notable part of a writing of unknown nature, because one exposes oneself commonly to great danger: what a notable part is, is difficult to determine, whether 6, 10 or even perhaps 20 pages, according to the badness or bulk of the writing and the gravity of the danger; for newspapers however there is a custom of reading; c) to read what is certainly innocent, not only for the reader but by its own nature and commonly for all, is venial, unless there is danger of contracting the habit and reading other things; d) it is venial to read that which is only prohibited because it has been published without approval;

3) nor keep it, which is done by: either the owner who keeps his book with himself, even if he does so not for reading but for mere ornament, even if he does not understand the language, — or the depositary who keeps another's book with himself, — or the depositor who keeps his own with another, provided he does not deposit it with the pact of not recovering it except after obtaining permission; — not however the bookbinder (at least if it is not done for a long time), nor the keeper or librarian, provided he does not remove the books and transfer them to his own house.

It is a grave sin to keep it for a notable time, e.g. for several weeks or for a month; if however one awaits an opportune occasion of seeking permission, the books can be retained for somewhat longer;

4) nor sell it. Hence can. 1404: "Sellers of books are not to sell, readily retain, books which treat of obscene matters ex professo; nor are they to have other prohibited books for sale, unless they have obtained due permission from the Apostolic See, nor to sell them to anyone, unless they can prudently judge that the buyer has legitimately sought it." They also sell who procure the book;

5) nor translate it into another language;

6) nor communicate it to others, e.g. by propagating, lending, renting, etc. (can. 1403, § 2).

776. Penalties on transgressors. — Penalties are also inflicted on some transgressors, namely according to can. 2318:

1) "Those who, by a public work having become of public right, editors (i.e. those who make the book of public right and take care to publish it, as ordinarily are the author and the owner of the typographical press) of books of apostates, heretics and schismatics (not however Catholics, who propagate apostasy, heresy, schism (with arguments added); — likewise defenders of these same books or of others (of any writer even Catholic) by Apostolic letters (in the form of bull, brief, encyclical, etc., not by a mere decree of the Index, but by the Holy Father himself) by name (so that the proper title is expressed and not only the name of the author) prohibited (in deed or word, privately or publicly, concealing e.g. the book so that it is not denounced, persuading it to be unjustly condemned, bestowing praise on the doctrine, physically or morally impeding the destruction of the book), — or those who, knowing (so that ignorance excuses, even crass, but not affected), without due permission read or retain" — incur ipso facto excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner.

2) "Authors and editors who without due permission take care that the books of sacred Scripture or their annotations or commentaries be printed, incur ipso facto excommunication reserved to no one."

In which, in contrast to title XXIII, can. 1384, § 2 (n. 773), books are to be understood in the stricter sense, namely writings published by the press which consist of some volume and are not so small in weight of bulk, that they are wont to be called by another name rather than books. Periodicals are therefore not comprised, — nor periodicals, or small fascicles, unless these are bound together into one (S. Off., 3 Jan. 1892).

777. The following can prohibit books: the Holy Father; the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, to which the Index of books now pertains, per se; per accidens other Congregations over books of matter competent to them; — particular Councils; — Ordinaries of places⁵ (can. 1395); whence can. 1403, § 1:

«They who have obtained the apostolic faculty of reading and retaining prohibited books, cannot therefore read any books proscribed by their own Ordinaries, unless in the apostolic indult the power of reading and retaining books condemned by any has been expressly granted to them.»

Likewise those who have obtained this general permission of reading books listed in the Index, or the faculty of granting it, cannot therefore read, or grant general permission of reading, writings prohibited by the motu proprio of the Holy Father, as is clear from the recent declaration concerning the well-known prohibited periodical: L'Action française, years 1927-39; but these must altogether obtain a special one.

The power of granting permission to read belongs to those who prohibited the books, their superiors and those delegated by them for this purpose. Hence Ordinaries do not have power per se to grant general permission to read books condemned by the Apostolic See, but only if they receive a special faculty; however in this matter can. 1402 is to be observed:

«§ 1. Ordinaries can grant permission, as regards books prohibited by the law itself or by decree of the Apostolic See, to their subjects only for individual books and only in urgent cases.»

§ 2. If they have obtained from the Apostolic See a general faculty of permitting their subjects to retain and read proscribed books, let them grant it with selection and with just and reasonable cause.

Which faculty of reading, since it is a personal privilege, is valid everywhere.

778. Publication and censorship of books. — For the publication of certain writings also, previous censorship or permission is required: A. For all, even laymen, according to can. 1385:

§ 1. Unless ecclesiastical censorship has preceded, let them not be published, even by laymen:

1° Books of sacred Scripture or annotations and commentaries on the same;

2° Books which treat of sacred Scripture, sacred theology, ecclesiastical history, canon law, natural theology, ethics or other religious and moral disciplines of this kind; books and booklets of prayers, of devotion and of religious, moral, ascetic, mystical instruction and doctrine, and other things of this kind, although they seem to conduce to fostering piety; and in general writings in which there is something that particularly pertains to religion and the honesty of morals;

3° Sacred images to be printed in any way, whether they have prayers attached, or are published without them.

§ 2. The permission to publish the books and images mentioned in § 1 can be given either by the proper local Ordinary of the author, or by the Ordinary of the place in which the books or images become of public right, or by the Ordinary of the place in which they are printed, in such a way that, if any one of these Ordinaries has denied permission, the author cannot seek it from another Ordinary, unless he has informed the same of the permission denied by the other.

B. Especially for religious and clerics:

Religious must also obtain beforehand the permission of their major Superior (can. 1385, § 3).

Clerics are forbidden, without the consent of their Ordinaries, and religious without the permission of their major Superior and of the local Ordinary, to publish even books which treat of profane matters, and to write in or moderate newspapers, leaflets or periodicals (1386, § 1).

And indeed 1. sometimes the permission of the Holy See is required, namely:

a) for those things which pertain to the causes of beatification and canonization (can. 1387);

b) for authentic collections of prayers and pious works to which the Apostolic See has attached indulgences, the catalogue of apostolic indulgences, and summaries of indulgences either now collected for the first time, or not yet approved (can. 1388, § 2);

c) for collections of decrees of Roman Congregations (can. 1389);

d) for versions of holy Scripture without annotations to be printed in the vernacular (can. 1391), for approving liturgical books (can. 1257) and new litanies to be publicly recited (can. 1259, § 2).

2. sometimes the permission of him who prohibited, namely:

for prohibited writings (can. 1398, § 2).

3. sometimes the permission of the local Ordinary:

a) for books of Scripture or their annotations and commentaries, books treating of religious or moral matter, and sacred images (can. 1385, § 2);

b) for indulgence books, summaries or leaflets of indulgences already granted to be published (can. 1388, § 1);

c) for publishing liturgical books or litanies approved by the Holy See in order to bring them into agreement with the approved edition (can. 1390);

d) for versions of Holy Scripture with annotations to be published in the vernacular (can. 1391).

779. Observations. — 1°. "The approval of the original text of any work neither favors its translation into another language nor other editions; whence both translations and new editions of an approved work need to be fortified with new approval" (can. 1392, § 1).

2°. "Excerpts from periodicals published separately under their own head are not considered new editions and therefore do not need new approval" (can. 1392, § 2).

3°. "Permission, which gives the Ordinary the power to publish, is to be granted in writing, to be printed at the beginning or end of the book, leaflet or image, expressing the name of the grantor, and also the place and time of the concession" (can. 1394, § 1).

In this however one can sometimes, for just cause, be dispensed, or a great inconvenience excused; nay, says Vermeersch, Th. M. III, n. 896, for many writings, truly of lesser bulk or moment, it is practically admitted that there be merely placed: "with ecclesiastical approval".

780. Doctrines dangerous for faith. — Besides the sin of infidelity which is directly opposed to faith, and which brings with it the loss of faith itself, there are other things indirectly opposed to it. For the virtue forbids not only that by which it is destroyed, but also that one expose himself or others to the danger of losing it or not obtaining it. Hence occasional causes which lead to its loss are prohibited. The virtue of faith itself therefore forbids under grave obligation not only the external occasions of which we have already spoken, namely the reading of writings against faith, communication and friendship with infidels, heretics, apostates, impious persons, indifferentists, etc., frequenting their societies or schools, participation in their rites; co-operation toward infidelity and heresy, if they constitute a notable danger for faith; but also

1) internal adhesion to propositions censured by the infallible authority of the Church as erroneous and false or rash, because such propositions logically cohere with the negation of faith or at least dispose and lead to this negation; likewise the negation of facts infallibly defined by the Church which are connected with revealed truths, because this negation leads to the negation of the dogma itself. These contain grave injury toward the authority of the Church, and are a sin directly opposed to the virtue of studiousness, indirectly against faith (C. Vat., sess. 3, c. 4; prop. 7 Mod.; can. 1324; Litt. of Pius IX to the bp. of Munich, 11 Dec. 1862);

2) the doctrinal enunciation before others, or the defense of the foregoing (can. 1399, § 6), or even of propositions which are infallibly censured as savoring of heresy or error, sounding ill, offensive to pious ears, scandalous (in doctrine): these are directly sin against modesty in speech, indirectly against the confession of faith when they dispose others to sin against faith (can. 1399, § 6). Hence the Church urges this under penalties (can. 2317);

3) indeed per se, the negation of those things which are indeed not with infallible authority but still with authority taught by the Roman Pontiff as head of all the Churches, or by Roman Congregations, or by the common consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals as certain or to be held: per se indeed it involves rashness, because it despises a doctrine, not infallible, but practically certain (Pius IX to the bp. of Munich, 21 Dec. 1863; prop. 8 Mod.).

It is said: per se, because while the Church does not teach with infallible authority, the doctrine proposed of itself is not irreformable; whence, if per accidens, in a case however most rare, after diligent examination, the gravest reasons against the doctrine thus proposed seemed to someone, it would be lawful without rashness to suspend internal assent; externally however, out of reverence toward the Church, reverent silence would be required.