« Thou Shalt Abort? | Main | Civil Law & Mass Attendance »
December 29, 2005
Imprimaturs
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
I am currently reading your book The Salvation Controversy, which I received as a Christmas gift. I am enjoying it very much by the way. It is very clearly written and easy to understand.
Thanks! Glad you're enjoying it!
My question is why it does not appear to have an imprimatur. I trust your scholarship and your work generally in this area; I’m just wondering whether there is something I don’t understand about principles regarding whether or not an imprimatur should be applied for, and how readers should regard its presence or absence. I always check for the imprimatur in books I am considering reading as a “safety check” on whether the material is reliable from a Catholic perspective.
An imprimatur is not required for a book like The Salvation Controversy. The relevant passage in the Code of Canon Law is as follows:
Can. 827 §1. To be published, catechisms and other writings pertaining to catechetical instruction or their translations require the approval of the local ordinary, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 775, §2.
§2. Books which regard questions pertaining to sacred scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, and religious or moral disciplines cannot be used as texts on which instruction is based in elementary, middle, or higher schools unless they have been published with the approval of competent ecclesiastical authority or have been approved by it subsequently.
§3. It is recommended that books dealing with the matters mentioned in §2, although not used as texts in instruction, as well as writings which especially concern religion or good morals are submitted to the judgment of the local ordinary.
Since The Salvation Controversy is not meant as a textbook for instruction in Catholic schools, it does not require an imprimatur under §2, which puts it under §3.
Works falling under §3 are not required to have an imprimatur, though the Code does recommend that they be submitted for one.
This recommendation is not generally exercised by Catholic publishers because there are far too many books on these subjects written today and dioceses are simply not set up to handle the in a timely manner--which is the reason that the law was changed in the first place. Previously many more books were required to have an imprimatur, but the publishing explosion of the 20th century made this impracticable. The situation has only accelerated in the twenty years since the revised Code was issued in 1983, and dioceses simply couldn't handle the load if all books by Catholic that touched on religious matters were submitted for imprimaturs.
As a result, publishers often only submit books for imprimaturs if the nature of the work requires one or if there is a special marketing reason to do so.
Conversely, dioceses are at times resistant to accepting works into the imprimatur process if the nature of the work doesn't require one, since dioceses don't generally have full-time censors and so each imprimatur-bound project means that a censor must work on the project in and around whatever other work the censor has to do.
Because of the crunch of work that already exists, some dioceses have waiting lists because they only do imprimaturs during certain times of the year (e.g., during a window in the summer when things are slower), which can play havoc with a publisher's ability to get the book to market in a timely manner and hit needed sales windows (e.g., the Christmas window).
As a result, publishers and dioceses try to work together to pursue imprimaturs for the projects that require them, but they both try not to overtax the system, which produces problems for both.
The current situation is the reasult of a historical process that is still in motion. The amount of Catholic publishing is growing and is only going to grow further (e.g., on the Internet and via blogs like this one) and there is simply going to be no way to run it all through the imprimatur process. As a result, the future will generate even greater pressures to submit ONLY those works that require an imprimatur, as well as pressure to decrease the number of KINDS of works that require one and to DECENTRALIZE the granting of them even further than it already has been.
Stay tuned.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Canon Law | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/24994/3929786
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Imprimaturs:
» Phantom Planet MP3 Downloads - Phantom Planet Music Downloads from MP3 Planet
All Full Albums, World Charts, Top 20's, 40's, 50's, 100's, mp3 links... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 17, 2006 11:11:44 PM
Comments
The situation is unfortunate, if the really good books that ought to be used in Catholic education are more and more likely not to have an imprimatur.
Posted by: | Dec 29, 2005 1:14:36 PM
I am working on an Impramatur for a book on mysticism. I wouldn't buy one without an Impramatur and don't think anyone else will either. But the Curio here in Detroit says what you said that its usually only textbooks. But I am pushing it because devout Catholics look for it. It just wont sell without it because it pushes the edge with Mystical Theology. It is "Catholic" but when folks hear rapture they think the left behind series and not St Theresa's descriptions of rapture. I need the Impramatur and am floating in limbo without it.
Posted by: Darin | Dec 29, 2005 2:50:01 PM
Unfortunately, the Imprimatur is a fairly poor indicator of the doctrinal value of the book anyway. The imprimatur is only as strong as the orthodoxy of the diocesan censor. How many diocesan chanceries do you entrust to ensure orthodoxy? Paradoxically, the freedom from an Imprimatur may allow orthodoxy to thrive now, an orthodoxy that would otherwise be repressed by heteredox censors.
Posted by: Breier | Dec 29, 2005 4:10:39 PM
Darin, i tend to let spelling slips in blogs slide, but if you really addressed the Detroit "Curia" (which is an old but recognizable term for offices) as "Curio" (which means, well, oddity) and asked three times for "impramatur" instead of for an "imprimatur", they might have decided your letter would not top their list of those most worthy of being taken seriously. Just a thought.
Posted by: | Dec 29, 2005 4:33:43 PM
Looks like we need to outsource the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur jobs. :))
Posted by: Realist | Dec 29, 2005 5:27:58 PM
Breier is right. I always told my kids to look for the Imprimatur and Nihl Obstat before buying a religious book. My son bought a study bible with the I and NO and the comments were totally hetrodox. The bible was given the ok by the Bishops' Commission of the Philipines with an introduction by one of the bishops. I emailed the Bishops' Commission with a list of my questions re the comments but am still waiting for a reply. (2 years)
Posted by: Sharon | Dec 29, 2005 5:35:11 PM
Breier, hey your right about the spelling. I just looked the IMPRIMATUR and NIHIL OBSTAT that I got for another book in 2003 and yep, your right. The problem is things changed from 2003 to 2005. In 2005 a letter was sent from the Vatican to the Diocese further limiting what gets the "I". This is a very recent change and I guesss I didn't explain myself well enough.
Posted by: Darin | Dec 30, 2005 3:39:07 AM
