Posted on 05/30/2008 9:32:55 PM PDT by Ottofire
Publishing Whatever One Wants To: Rome's Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, and Current Trends in Catholic Apologetics
05/30/2008 - James Swan Over the last few years I've focused on current popular Catholic apologists, that is, those whose names you may hear on Catholic Answers, or find on The Journey Home. In order to be familiar with Catholic argumentation, the best way to do so is to actually hear them make their own arguments and interpretations of Catholic doctrine.
I purchase their books as well. I buy these books because not only am I interested in how they argue, I like to see how they document their claims. I'm sure there are much better well-trained Catholic scholars who present far better argumentation (in books that cost a whole lot more). But the books that sell, and the apologetic book your Catholic friend at work has is probably one of the many books of popular Catholic apologetics put out in the last twenty years.
I have a number of these books on my desk at the moment. For instance I've got Not By Scripture Alone by Robert Sungenis staring back at me. This book was dedicated to John Paul II, and was checked over for accuracy by two Monsignors. Hence, it obtained what is called the "Nihil Obstat" and the "Imprimatur." I'm assuming many Protestants have no idea what these two words mean.They typically appear on one of the first few pages of a Catholic book.
Nihil Obstat: "A Latin phrase meaning that 'nothing stands in the way,' the nihil obstat is a designation that must be given before a book receives impramatur, the Church Permission for publication" [Alfred McBride, O.Praem, Catholic Beliefs From A to Z (Michigan: Servant Publications, 2001), p. 117].
Imprimatur: "From the Latin meaning 'let it be printed,' an imprimatur is given by a bishop for books on certain scriptural or religious topics. It is required for all Catholic versions of sacred Scripture and liturgical texts as well as religious books that will be used as textbooks or for public prayer. Otherwise, an imprimatur is not needed for every religious book" [ibid., p. 86].
I can appreciate Rome's desire to keep some sort of official standard that Catholic writers should abide by. I can even appreciate that Sungenis took the time to obtain these stamps of approval, as well as any others within Rome's walls that do likewise. It was a recent comment in a discussion on Dave Armstrong's blog that got me thinking about this. In yet another episode of "When Catholic Apologists Attack Each Other" someone commented on a recent book by Sungenis:
"Not By Bread Alone didn't ever get an imprimatur, either. Sungenis said it was because of some technical issue, but that wouldn't have stopped him from getting one later."
Armstrong responded, "Sadly, the Imprimatur is not always a safeguard anymore. My books don't have them (except for The New Catholic Answer Bible, and my books are perfectly orthodox. And some that have them are not orthodox."
The same person then asked, "Yeah, imprimaturs don't mean what they used to. Did you submit and get turned down or just never submit them?" He then noted the Catholic Apologetics Study Bible by Sungenis was turned down, as was Not By Bread Alone.
Armstrong: "Sophia Institute Press, the publisher of my three main books, chose not to do it. It wasn't really in my hands. OSV did for the Bible: probably because that seems more 'serious': being a Bible and all."
I'll pass over Armstrong's comment that not all books with the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur are orthodox, which is an interesting Roman authority problem to say the least! Give Sungenis at least this much credit, at least he tried to get the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (by the way, this Catholic blog has some sort of obsession over this issue, and spends ample time documenting every move Robert makes- they claim, "In the end, it is noteworthy that Sungenis has not received an imprimatur on any of his books over the last 10 years"). Armstrong on the other hand, simply puts a disclaimer on his blog, and pretty much stated above he doesn't even try to obtain them.
Well, what's the big deal? "An imprimatur is not needed for every religious book." Well, it could turn out to be a big deal for those apologists serious about their Catholicism. Say you're a Catholic apologist without the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, and a local parish has invited you to give your testimony or an apologetics lecture. You decide to bring some copies of your book to sell. The problem though is, Canon Law says leave them home if you don't have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur:
Can. 827 §4. Books or other writings dealing with questions of religion or morals cannot be exhibited, sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they have been published with the permission of competent ecclesiastical authority or approved by it subsequently.
Canon Law also states:
§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.
Read this whole section of Canon Law here.
One has to wonder how seriously the recent batch of Catholic apologists take the above statement (§3). I just looked through my shelf of Catholic apologetic books, and many of the recent volumes do not have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, while the older ones typically do. If Canon Law recommends something, what seems to be the problem for these folks? I'm tempted to say for some of them, their continual claims of submission to Rome fall short when it comes to having a career as a Catholic apologist. Sure, they say they submit to Rome, but they don't submit all their books for ecclesiastical approval.
It's easy to pick on the failure of Sungenis to attain official approval, and let's face it, he's produced some eclectic material. On the other hand, it seems to me many Catholic apologists don't even try to follow Canon Law on this. Why is the failure of Sungenis such a scandal, while a multitude of Catholic writers not even trying to gain the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur not? It's easy to claim that one's books are "perfectly orthodox," but one wonders if these apologists ignoring Canon Law while complaining about the orthodoxy of a fellow apologist who at least makes some sort of attempt to adhere to it have the right to complain.
I'm not just picking on Armstrong. He simply serves as an example since he's put forth a lot of effort going after Sungenis recently (by the way, Armstrong explains the problem with Sungenis and Gerry Matatics: "'Insufficiently converted from Protestantism' more than amply explains Matatics and Sungenis, as far as I'm concerned. But it's not Protestantism per se: it is an extreme form of fundamentalist Calvinism"). There are many more besides Armstrong that publish books without the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. I'm simply asking why they don't follow the guidelines their teaching authority puts forth- this just happens to be the same authority they defend in their writings.
When you can produce an example of same, you'll have a criticism. Till then, this is nothing but looking for a problem to have.
Here is the #1 apologetical work. No imprimatur needed.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
.... and, it's searchable.
It’s always funny to see a Protestant interpret canon law. I wonder if White will send this little article to his sister?
Apostolic Letter Laetamur Magnopere.
Imprimatur: The Latin term for "let it be printed," which signifies the approval by a bishop of a religious work for publication. Authors are at liberty to obtain the imprimatur either from the bishop where they reside, or where the book is to be published, or where it is printed. Generally the imprimatur, along with the bishop's name and date of approval, is to be shown in the publication. According to a decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1975), "the Pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to be vigilant lest the faith and morals of the faithful be harmed by writings; and consequently even to demand that the publication of writings concerning the faith and morals should be submitted to the Church's approval, and also to condemn books and writings that attack faith or morals." (Etym. Latin imprimere, to impress, stamp imprint.)Nihil Obstat: Approved by the diocesan censor to publish a manuscript dealing with faith or morals. The date of the approval and the name of the person approving (censor deputatus, delegated censor) are normally printed in the front of the book along with a bishop's imprimatur.
From the New Catholic Dictionary
I realize that your purpose in posting this was to mock and deride the Catholic Church, but you do bring up a legitimate point. The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur do not mean what they used to mean 50 or 75 years ago. We have a whole gaggle of liberal bishops in this country (thank you, Archbishop Jadot, former papal nuncio). They can appoint diocesan censors as they choose...and thus approve a whole passel of liberal works, while suppressing more conservative, orthodox works from being given an official sanction (at least within that diocese). (Speaking of McBrides' I would never consider Richard McBride's works as orthodox, with or without an imprimatur).
As to the quality of Catholic Apologetics, it ranges widely (again with or without the imprimatur). So widely that I make a point of not posting an apologetics tract, regardless of author, unless I closely fact check it, to make sure that it is error-free, and verifiably so. I've been burned in the past when doing so and I try not to repeat my mistakes. Methinks a lot of Catholic FReepers would do well to take up that habit (fact checking rather than just accepting). Of course, methinks a lot of Protestant, Evangelical, Restorationist, and Charismatic posters would do well to fact check the tracts they post, as well...as a lot of them are easily refuted, as well.
Swan isn’t totally wrong. More Catholics should probably be submitting for imprimaturs. But like all Protestants who use such circumstances to attempt to undercut the Catholic position vis a vis authority/unity, his argument falls flat if you actually understand the issue. Is Catholic authority/infallibility over all things an absolute guarantee? Of course not. But are we to think that the Catholic model is no better than the Protestant model which has no real authority structure at all to handle and regulate these kinds of issues? That’s a bit like saying “Ha! There are thefts in Greenwich! See, it’s not the safe haven you portray it to be!” while living in Harlem.
So we’re to think we’re better off living in Harlem?
Swan also doesn’t seem to get that there’s a difference between a regular book written by a Catholic and a translation of the Bible with commentary. The first doesn’t have to have an imprimatur but the second does. You’d think a sola scripturist would appreciate the Church’s insistence on protecting the Bible and its translations and not letting just anyone do it.
Unfortunately, some bishops in the West in particular, are too loose in granting imprimaturs (this isn’t a problem everywhere in the Church to my knowledge). I think this makes the denial of Sungenis’ imprimaturs all the more significant. Unlike markomalley, I haven’t heard of “conservatives” being rejected for imprimaturs just for being conservative/orthodox. It may happen, but I haven’t seen or heard of it and I know more than a few conservative authors. Sungenis is well outside the pale. The scandal with him involves a lot more than just his imprimaturs and Swan should know this because he linked to a website that documents some of his problems. Even if the imprimatur isn’t screening out everything, its good that it does screen out at least some things.
Hopefully, with Benedict XVI in charge it’ll work even better with time.
If we say, "We teach some things infallibly," you guys say, "Blasphemy! Nobody is infallible but God!"
If we say, "We teach some things infallibly, but not everything", you guys say, "Ha! You have an interesting 'authority problem', there!"
Which is it? Pick one, because you can't have it both ways.
Oh, and I'm not sure how an erroneous act by an individual bishop is a "Roman authority problem". Is an erroneous act by an individual Presbyterian minister or session a "PCA authority problem" or a "Geneva authority problem"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.