Is he obliged to destroy it? No, if he does not wish to destroy it, he may, if he does not delay beyond a month, either give it to someone who has permission to keep it, or obtain that permission for himself.
(c) In the third place, those "use" a forbidden writing who communicate it to others--for example, those who make presents of works that are on the Index, who lend such books to others, or place them where others will read them, who read to others pa.s.sages or write out excerpts for them. It is lawful, however, for professors in theological and other cla.s.ses of sacred science to read from forbidden works to their student body, if a suitable explanation and refutation exclude all danger.
(d) Lastly, those fall under the law as violators who co-operate in the production or distribution of forbidden literature--for example, publishers, owners, authors, translators, booksellers, printers, etc.
(cfr. 976 sqq., on coperation in Worship).
863. The church law on forbidden literature affects all Catholics not excepted by law, no matter how learned they may be, what position they may hold, or how immune from danger they may seem, unless they obtain permission to read such literature from the Holy See, the Ordinary, or their regular Superior (Canon 1402). Those excepted by law and who do not need to seek such permission are certain prelates and students. (a) Cardinals, Bishops, and other Ordinaries (Canon 1401), and likewise major superiors in exempt clerical orders (Canon 198, 1) are not bound by the church prohibition of books dangerous to faith; (b) those who are pursuing theological or biblical studies may use forbidden editions of scripture, provided these are correct and complete as to the text, and contain no attacks on Catholic teaching in the introductions and annotations (Canon 1400). This permission extends not only to seminarians, but also to lay students; not only to those who are at school, but also to those who are really studying outside of school, such as professors, writers and those who are preparing lectures or dissertations.
864. When the necessity of reading a forbidden book is urgent, and the opportunity of asking permission from the Holy See or Ordinary is lacking, a person whose duties call for acquaintance with such a book may consider that the law does not bind in his particular case (see 411-417 on _epieikeia_). (a) A professor, editor, critic, etc., who had not yet received permission might read a forbidden book, if, being called upon to criticize it, he could not await the permission; (b) a confessor, pastor, etc., in similar circ.u.mstances could read a forbidden book in order to be able to refute it.
865. Those who have received permission to read books forbidden as generally dangerous to faith, may also read papers and periodicals of the same character, and they may use the permission given them anywhere, since it is a personal indult (see 446). The following restrictions, however, are understood in the grant of permission:
(a) Permission to read, no matter by whom granted, does not make it lawful to read what is really a danger to one"s faith, for this (as explained above in 849-850) is contrary to natural law. Moreover, those who have received an apostolic indult may not read or retain books proscribed by their Ordinaries, unless the indult extends even to this.
(b) Permission to retain does not make it lawful to keep forbidden books in such a way that they will fall into the hands of those who have no right to read them. On the contrary, there is a grave obligation arising from the natural law to prevent such a thing from happening. Hence, those who have permission to keep writings dangerous to faith should not place them on shelves to which there is general access, or else they should label them as dangerous and forbidden (see Canons 1405, 1, and 1403, 2).
866. According to Canon 2318, the following censures are incurred through the use of forbidden books:
(a) Excommunication specially reserved to the Apostolic See is incurred _ipso facto_ by those who offer to the public books, even of a non-religious character, written by apostates, schismatics, or heretics in systematic defense of heresy or schism. This censure applies, first, to the chief causes of publicity of the work--i.e., to the author who offers it for publication, and to the publisher and printer (owner or manager of the press) who accept it for that purpose--not, however, to remote coperators or helpers; secondly, to such chief causes as understand the character of the book, either from the word of the author or from the contents. It is not incurred, if the work is not published (i.e., if it remains in ma.n.u.script, or is circulated only privately), or if it is published in other than book form (e.g., as a pamphlet, leaflet or article). Ignorance, if not cra.s.s or supine (see 27), excuses from this censure (Canon 2229, 3, n. 1).
(b) The same censure is incurred by those who defend the aforementioned books, either materially (e.g., by saving them from destruction) or morally (e.g., by defending, praising, or recommending them). Ignorance excuses here as in the case of publishers.
(c) The same censure is incurred by those who defend books of any author condemned by name through Apostolic letters. Hence, the censure does not apply to books condemned by a pontifical congregation nor to books condemned in a Papal Letter, if their t.i.tle is not mentioned.
Ignorance excuses here as in the previous case.
(d) The same censure is incurred by those who knowingly keep or read any of the forbidden books mentioned so far in this paragraph. The sense to be attached to the words "keep or read" has been given above (see 862). Even cra.s.s and supine ignorance of law or penalty, provided it be not affected, as well as other causes that lessen imputability (see 40), excuse from this censure (Canon 2229, 1, 2).
(e) Excommunication not reserved is incurred _ipso facto_ by authors and publishers who are responsible for the printing without due authorization of books of Holy Writ, or of notes or commentaries on the Bible, even though the text be correct and the explanation orthodox.
This censure is not incurred by those who are not responsible for the printing done, such as typesetters and readers. Ignorance, if not cra.s.s and supine, excuses here (Canon 2229, 3).
867. Dangerous Schools.--With reference to their danger to faith, schools are of three kinds:
(a) sectarian schools, in which heresy or infidelity is prescribed as part of the curriculum, and a.s.sistance at non-Catholic rites is required. Examples are colleges and universities supported by Protestant denominations, sectarian Sunday schools, Bible cla.s.ses;
(b) neutral schools (i.e., schools in which all religious teaching is forbidden and no recognition given to any denomination) whose spirit and teaching in secular branches is anti-religious or anti-Catholic.
Examples are non-sectarian colleges or universities in which materialism is incidentally taught, or in which the faculty are freethinkers or bigots;
(c) neutral schools in which no positive offense is given to religion or the Church. Examples are public schools in which only the profane sciences are taught, and care is exercised that neither the text-books nor the teachers shall be irreligious or interfere with the religious beliefs of others. Reducible to this category are mixed schools, that is, those which are open also to non-Catholics (Canon 1374).
868. The danger of the foregoing kinds of schools to the faith of pupils is as follows:
(a) in the sectarian schools there is danger of heresy or infidelity, since the pupils are obliged to hear the defense of false doctrine and to join in the services of a false religion;
(b) in the neutral schools of an anti-religious spirit the danger is the same, for the pupils must attend courses in which the interpretations given to history, science, philosophy, letters, etc., are unfriendly to the faith;
(c) in the neutral schools whose spirit is not anti-religious, there is a danger of Indifferentism that arises from the system itself; for the very fact that religion is slighted tends to impress the students with the idea that it is unimportant or unrelated to other matters of life, and this prepares the way for doubt and scepticism. Moreover, since example teaches more effectively than the printed or spoken word, the neglect or contempt of religion by professors and fellow-pupils in mixed schools is a danger to faith.
869. The lawfulness or unlawfulness of attending or patronizing schools dangerous to faith must be decided according to the principles given above on the occasions of sin (see 263 sqq.).
(a) If the danger to faith is voluntary, the use of such schools is not lawful, for those who are able are bound to seek or provide religious education both in elementary and higher schooling (see Canon 1373).
Example: In the town of X there are good parochial and Catholic high schools. Semp.r.o.nius could easily send his children to these schools, but he thinks that certain select schools offer greater social and financial advantages, and so he chooses them. His conduct is not lawful.
(b) If the danger to faith is necessary, the use of such schools is lawful, provided the needed precautions are duly observed. Example: In the country district of Y there is no school except the public school, and therefore Balbus sends his children to that school. His conduct is lawful, but he must see that his children receive religious instruction outside of school.
870. The danger to faith is necessary when there is no Catholic school, or none that is sufficient for the needs of individual students, and their parents are unable to send them elsewhere. In such a case it is lawful to attend a school that is neutral, but means must be used to make the proximate danger remote. Such means are the following: (a) religious instruction must be taken outside of school, as in special week-day cla.s.ses, Sunday school, home study, etc.; (b) special attention must be given to the strengthening of faith on those points that are attacked or slighted in the neutral school; (c) parents, guardians, or others responsible must see that the reading and the a.s.sociates of their wards in the neutral schools are good, and that they are faithful to their religious duties.
871. Is attendance at non-Catholic schools sometimes unlawful, even when there are serious reasons in its favor?
(a) It is unlawful, if the schools are sectarian, and then no excuse can justify such attendance; for, in addition to scandal and coperation in false worship, there is present a proximate danger to faith that is not made remote. Parents or guardians who knowingly send their children to schools for education in a non-Catholic religion are suspected of heresy and incur excommunication _ipso facto_, reserved to the Ordinary (see Canon 2319). Example: t.i.tus sends his daughter to a sectarian academy because it is nearer and cheaper than the Catholic academy. He claims that she is old enough not to lose her religion, that opposition will make her faith stronger, etc. t.i.tus" arguments are fallacious and his conduct gravely sinful.
(b) Attendance at non-Catholic schools is unlawful, if the schools are neutral in theory, but so dangerous in practice that loss of faith is practically certain if one attends. Example: Balbus sends his son to an undenominational university which is regarded as a hotbed of atheism, and whose students practically to a man lose all religion.
872. Absolution should be denied in some cases to those who send their children to non-Catholic schools, if they refuse to change.
(a) Absolution should be denied on account of lack of faith in the parents themselves, if they send their children to non-Catholic schools on account of their own ideas that are contrary to the teachings of the Church. Example: Semp.r.o.nius refuses to send his children to parochial schools, because he thinks each one should judge about religion for himself, and not receive it from instructors.
(b) Absolution should be denied on account of the danger caused to the faith of the children, when the children are sent to sectarian schools, or when they are sent to neutral schools and sufficient efforts are not used to counteract the evil influence there felt.
(c) Absolution should be refused on account of scandal or coperation in evil, if, while the parents themselves are sound in faith and prevent all danger of perversion of their children, they send them to non-Catholic schools without sufficient reason, to the grave disedification of others, or the great a.s.sistance of unchristian education.
873. Absolution should not be denied in the following cases: (a) when the parents have a sufficient reason for sending their children to non-Catholic schools (i.e., a reason approved by the local Ordinary as sufficient). It belongs only to the Ordinary to decide in what circ.u.mstances and with what precautions attendance at such schools is allowable (Canon 1374; for application to the United States, see Holy Office, 24 Nov., 1875; Council of Baltimore, III, n. 199, in regard to elementary and high schools. As to colleges and universities, see _S.C.Prop.Fid_., 7 Apr., 1860; _Fontes_, n. 4649, Vol VII, p. 381; n.4868, Vol. VII, p.405; also S.C.Prop.Fid., 6 Aug., 1867); (b) when the parents have no sufficient reason, but there is no lack of faith on their part, no danger of perversion of the children, no grave scandal or sinful co-operation in evil.
874. The presence of Catholics as teachers in non-Catholic schools is beneficial, since it lessens to some extent the evil influence of such schools; but there is also the danger that it may cause scandal or create the impression that attendance at Catholic schools is not necessary. Hence, it has been permitted by the Church in certain cases but only when danger of scandal or wrong impression is absent. (a) The secular sciences may be taught by laymen in non-Catholic schools of higher or lower education, if there is no scandal, no unlawful coperation, and no immediate danger of perversion. (b) Christian doctrine may be taught by priests to Catholic students of neutral schools, either in the school building or elsewhere (as in a church), and certain priests may be appointed as chaplains for this work (Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to Bishops of Switzerland, March 26, 1866).
875. Dangerous Marriages.--The following kinds of marriage are dangerous to the faith of Catholics: (a) marriage with non-Catholics, unbaptized or bigoted persons (mixed marriages); (b) marriage with fallen-away Catholics (that is, with those who have given up the Catholic religion, although they have not joined another), or with those who belong to societies forbidden by the Church.
876. The danger to faith in the aforesaid kinds of marriage are serious and proximate, and hence such unions are forbidden by divine law, as long as the danger is not removed or made remote through the use of precautions. The dangers are for the Catholic party and the children.
(a) The Catholic party is in serious danger of losing the faith (i.e., of joining the religion or sharing the ideas of the other party), or of doubting the truth of the Church, or of taking refuge in Indifferentism. For, if domestic life is peaceful, the Catholic may easily be led in time to regard with favor the other party"s religion or views; if it is not peaceful, the Catholic through fear or annoyance may make compromises or sacrifices in matters of faith, or else suffer temptations that could have been avoided.
(b) The children born are in serious danger of being deprived of the faith (i.e., of not being brought up as Catholics), or of having their faith weakened by the example of parents who do not agree in the matter of religion. If the non-Catholic or fallen-away Catholic interferes with the religion of the children, their baptism, religious education, attendance at church, etc., will be forbidden or impeded; if that party does not interfere, there will be at least the example during impressionable years of one parent who does not accept the Catholic faith or who disregards its requirements. Statistics indicate that one of the chief sources of leakage in the Church today is mixed marriages.
877. Dangerous marriages are also forbidden by the law of the Church.
(a) Lack of baptism in the non-Catholic party causes the diriment impediment of disparity of worship (Canon 1070); (b) membership of the non-Catholic party in an heretical or schismatical sect causes the prohibitive impediment of mixed religion (Canon 1060); (c) unworthiness of one of the parties, on account of notorious apostasy or affiliation with forbidden societies (see 945 sqq.), prevents the pastor from a.s.sisting at the marriage without permission from the Ordinary (Canon 1065).
878. No one may enter into any of the dangerous marriages here considered, unless the requirements of the natural and ecclesiastical laws be complied with. (a) The natural law requires under pain of grave sin that the danger of perversion be removed, that no non-Catholic ceremony take place, and that the Catholic spouse work prudently for the conversion of the other party. (b) The ecclesiastical law requires under grave sin that guarantees be given that the requirements of the natural law shall be fulfilled (Canons 1061, 1071); that there be grave and urgent reasons for the marriage (ibid.); that dispensations from the impediments be obtained, or permission, in the case of unworthiness of one of the parties, to a.s.sist at the marriage be granted by the Ordinary (Canons 1036, 1065).
879. The canonical consequences of dangerous marriages illegally contracted are as follows: (a) Those who knowingly contract a mixed marriage without dispensation are _ipso facto_ excluded from legitimate ecclesiastical acts, (e.g., the office of G.o.dparent), and from the use of sacramentals, until a dispensation has been obtained from the Ordinary (Canon 2375). Marriage contracted with the impediment of disparity of worship is invalid, whether the parties are in ignorance or not (Canon 1070, 16). (b) Catholics who enter into marriage before a non-Catholic minister acting in a religious capacity or who contract marriage with the implicit or explicit understanding that any or all of the children will be educated outside the Church incur excommunication _lat sententi_ reserved to the Ordinary (Canon 2319).
880. The prenuptial guarantees required by church law in case of mixed or other dangerous marriages are as follows: (a) According to the Code, no dispensation for mixed marriages will be granted unless the non-Catholic party gives a guarantee that the danger of perversion for the Catholic party shall be removed, and both parties promise that all the children shall be baptized and brought up only in the Catholic faith. There must be moral certainty that the promises will be kept, and as a rule they should be demanded in writing (Canons 1061, 1071).
The permission for marriage with fallen-away Catholics is not granted until the Ordinary has satisfied himself that the danger to the Catholic and the children has been removed (Canon 1065, 2). (b) The pre-Code legislation further required that both parties promise that there would be no non-Catholic ceremony and that the Catholic promise to work for the conversion of the other party. Canons 1062-1063 speak of these obligations, but do not exact promises.
881. Remedies against mixed and other dangerous marriages are the following: (a) Before engagement Catholics should be instructed and encouraged to marry those of their own faith. Thus, confessors can discourage company-keeping with non-Catholics, parents can provide their children with opportunities for meeting suitable Catholics, and, above all, pastors should frequently speak and preach to old and young on the evils of mixed marriages. (b) After engagement to a non-Catholic has been made, the non-Catholic should be persuaded to accept the Catholic religion, if he or she can do this with sincerity; otherwise, the Catholic should be warned of the danger of the marriage, and the pastor should refuse to seek a dispensation unless there is a really serious cause (see Canon 1064; II Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 336; III Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 133).
882. Dangerous Communication.--Mixed marriages are mentioned specially among the communications with non-Catholic that are dangerous to faith, because marriage is a lifelong and intimate a.s.sociation. But there are other communications with unbelievers that can easily corrupt faith, the less dangerous being communication in matters that are not religious, and the more dangerous being communication in religious matters. (a) Non-religious or civil communication is a.s.sociation with non-Catholics in secular affairs, such as business, social life, education, politics. (b) Religious communication is a.s.sociation with non-Catholics in sacred services or divine worship.
883. Non-religious communication is sinful as follows: (a) It is sinful according to natural law, when in a particular case it would be a proximate danger of perversion freely chosen, or an involuntary danger against which one does not employ sufficient precaution. Examples: t.i.tus chooses infidels and freethinkers for his friends and intimates, understanding their character and bad influence. Balba on account of her poverty is obliged to work in a place where all her companions are unbelievers who scoff at religion and try in every way to win her over to their errors; yet she is not concerned to arm herself more strongly in faith.
(b) According to ecclesiastical law, civil communication is forbidden with those who have been excommunicated as persons to be avoided (Canon 2267). Such persons are those who lay violent hands on the Roman Pontiff (Canon 2343), or who have been excommunicated by individual name and as persons to be avoided through public decree or sentence of the Apostolic See (Canon 2258). Exception is made, however, for husband and wife, children, servants, subjects, and for others in case of necessity.