This poor word.
It always reminds me of the Roman Church and its Index of
Forbidden books. A list of Books that those of the Roman
Church were forbidden to read. And if a book on theology to
this day does not have an "imprimatur" (it may be printed)
on it, it is still, more or less forbidden, I guess.
Reminds me of Hitler and the burning of books. Silencing
of teachers. The Roman Church silenced the great theologian
Hans Kung, some years back. Oh well, to each its own.

ETYMOLOGY:
From contraction of Latin phrase in primis (among the first), from in (among) and primus (first). The word was originally used to introduce the first of a number of articles in a list, such as a will, inventory, etc.

I'm glad Marcel Proust was printed (forbidden or unforbidden).
This is a quote environmentalists can write on their banner.

A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust, novelist (1871-1922)

So true: to think any organization, church or whatever has the right to tell
another what to read, or think is so closed-minded. Yet it was and is
done with things like state-sponsored-censuring of TV, movies, news, etc.

not to mention commercial censoring. aka Fox news.

also not to confuse new eyes and news eyes.

huh?

[]

Of course then we have the problem with people believing everything they
hear on Fox news, CNN, etc. "It was in the tabloids, It must be true".
Censorship is not the answer, responsible reporting would be, but I know
of no news agency who is responsible, and not hyperbole-filled and overly
dramatic.

Hasn't the "imprimatur" become more of mark of endorsement or accreditation than the absence of it being a prohibition?

In a day when the codex was a new thing, the concept of prohibition might have been present; but today's plethora of the publishers sweeps that concept away. Why, now, books are considered published even though they have appeared only in a digital electronic mode.

That which is not permitted is forbidden.

But lack of endorsement is not.

Isn't the sign that something has the imprimatur the phrase nihil obstat, {'nothing hinders'}? Sounds like guilty until proven innocent to me.

This is a presumptuous statement: many people need continually new vieuws to experience them "as new". Fewer people ( maybe artist often, philosophers, but in fact anyone)) have the occasional capacity of looking at familiar things with "new eyes". Like they had never seen it before. A totally fresh imprint. A view of something often seen and yet " brand new". (Those are the moments!)

I stand to be corrected as always, but if it is an official book of theology or prayer, or
the like, it must have an Imprimatur, to be recognized. If not then it is not an official
Roman publication (Roman Catholic). I think the "Imprimatur" replaced the Index of
Forbidden books. Does anyone know a Catholic for whom we could get it correct, like a
Bishop or Vicar General???

No, but there's plenty of professional looker-uppers around here who will tell you post haste I'm sure...

I picked up a booklet at a friend's house (he's Roman C.) in which there is inside the
front cover the word IMPRIMATUR; I hereby grant my permission to publish 'booklet's name'
.This is a declaration that said book is is considered to be free of doctrinal or moral
error. (But that is just this one pamphlet.) And then there is Bishop's name.