StanJ said:
I'm pretty sure I don't miss understand but if you want to equivocate about it I'm not really interested. As far as I'm concerned it means; a certification by an official censor that a book is not objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds. To me that's official despite the equivocal nature of this statement.
For those reading this let me explain in more detail - at least this is my understanding.
If some writing is given to a bishop for a nihil obstat/imprimatur the bishop gives the writing to a theologian to check that it contains no doctrinal error against
defined doctrines (faith or morals). It doesn't matter whether the theologian agrees with it. Nor does anything that concerns only practices or disciplines come under his scrutiny. If he finds nothing against defined Church teaching (i.e. no heresy) then he is obliged to give it a
nihil obstat (nothing obstructs). He then gives it back to the bishop. Again it doesn't matter whether the bishop agrees with it or not; he will give it an
imprimatur (let it be printed) unless there is some serious reason why he should reject it.
Let me give an example. The Assumption of Mary is a defined dogma. However the Church has never defined whether she was assumed into heaven before or after death.
I could write a tract arguing that she died before being assumed into heaven and it could get a nihil obstat/imprimatur.
I could also write a tract arguing that she did not die before being assumed into heaven and it could get a nihil obstat/imprimatur.
Neither of these viewpoints are the official teaching of the Church, indeed they contradict each other.
On the other hand if I wrote a tract denying that Mary was assumed into heaven it would be denied a nihil obstat/imprimatur.