Library books or sharing is a bit more borderline.  When you buy a physical book, it's like any other physical item you buy.  At some point someone has to buy the book, and there can be only one copy circulating at a time.  Meanswhile, with a digital, you can have 10,000 people reading it at the same time.

Difference of degree cannot render a moral action immoral.
It must be a difference of kind.

Difference of degree cannot render a moral action immoral.
It must be a difference of kind.

No, it's about the intent of the author or the owner of the IP.

So, for instance, an author could refuse to sell his book to a Library.

This is typical to how movie studios work.  Initially they release the movie to theaters, where the stand to make the most money, but don't allow other distribution channels.  Then they'll put a DVD on sale.  With DVDs they make less money, as for the price of about two tickets to the theater, an unlimited number of people can watch the movie (even if not at the same time).  Then after a while they'll make the video available for rental or for streaming rental.

If they didn't release first to theaters, most movies would lose money.

So, if Dr. Sungenis wanted to sell the book to libraries, that would be his choice, knowing that he'd get less revenue from the book.

At local libraries now, they're hooked up into eBook rental services, but nearly all the eBooks have a limit on the number of people who can "check them out" and no doubt they have to pay for each available copy.

So all this puts some kind of a throttle on the amount of sharing that can take place.

In theory, Dr. Sungenis could even put a notice in the book about his not authorizing lending the book to someone who has not purchased it.  But most authors don't go there.  Not only would it be bad PR, but sometimes lending a good book is a way to encourage a sale.  I've ended up buying some books that someone else has lent me.

So, since Dr. Sungenis owns the content, he could make his will known about how he would permit it to be used (apart from "Fair Use" citations).  If he were to tell this website to pull his book, they would have to comply, both morally and legally (he could in theory sue them for posting it).

So there's no difference in degree here, as it's all driven by the same principle, the author's intent.

‘Does the Bible want us to read it like a science textbook using scientific language? Or is it meant to be read in another way? The answer is obvious from the very beginning of the Bible, which presents serious challenges for anyone seeking to find properly scientific information about the formation of the world, at least anyone possessing today’s knowledge of the universe’s true architecture.’ –Fr P. Robinson.-A Realist Guide to Religion and Science, Gracewing pp, 2018, p.248.

Comment: Now any priest teaching Thomism should know what the Saint said; that the creative act of God was supernatural so cannot be described by human reason, and not by way of ‘today’s knowledge of the universe’s true architecture’ which of course is a 13.5 billion year evolution.

‘That the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science.’ --- St. Thomas Aquinas, (Summa theologiae (I.46.2)

‘From a scientific perspective [which I hold], it [the universe] began its infancy at time 0, 13.72 billion years ago, it is now in its middle age and is heading towards old age billions of years in the distant future.’… Fr Paul Robinson.

Comment:Had Fr Robinson tasted the wine changed immediately by Christ at the wedding feast he would have concluded, ‘this wine is so good it tastes matured so could not have been changed from water instantly.’ Similarly, if the light from the sun, moon and stars, no matter their distances in space, were made instantly visible to us on Earth at God’s Creation, as revealed in Genesis 1:14-16, then, on the word of God, no such delayed billions of years of star-times exist or ever existed. God created the universe with one time-zone for all, a 24-hour universal time zone.

In his 1913 book Galileo and his Condemnation, the Jesuit Fr Hull SJ. (1863-1952) demonstrated how the Galilean reformation made inroads to evolution, reinterpretation of the Bible and the modernism in the Church since 1820.
 
‘Down to a generation or two ago it was the general belief of Christians that the deluge of Noah covered the whole Earth, and that it is so described in the most explicit terms in the Bible. Certain new considerations, mainly drawn from geology, led specialists to the contrary conclusion that the deluge was by no means universal, but was a comparatively local phenomenon; widespread enough to cover the area occupied by mankind at that time, but not much more….. The partial-deluge-view gradually came to look more feasible, and the possibility of interpreting Scripture accordingly became more evident. The new view gradually filtered down from learned circles to the man in the street, so that nowadays the partiality of the deluge is a matter of commonplace knowledge among all educated Christians, and taught to the rising generation in elementary schools.’--- Fr Ernest R. Hull, SJ: Galileo and his Condemnation, Catholic Truth Society, 1913, p.71.

'This position of the Flood as being geographically universal meets with serious scientific difficulties. For one, how can you get enough rain to cover the entire earth?... In other words, the laws operating on the Earth today cannot be applied to the time of Noah… One of the motivations for Brown  to postulate water coming from below [the Earth] is that the Bible describes the waters of the Flood as coming both from the ‘fountains of great deep’ and the ‘floodgates of Heaven’ (see Gen, 8:2) …. Clearly this is a popular, but not a scientific description.’ --- Fr Paul Robinson

Comment:Is this priest actually questioning God’s ability to flood the Earth with water as revealed in Genesis? Is Fr Paul telling us the following is not a true history?

‘[4] I will rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will destroy every substance that I have made, from the face of the earth. And the flood was forty days upon the earth, and the waters increased. [11]  all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened: [12] And the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. [18] For they overflowed exceedingly: and filled all on the face of the earth: [19] And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains were covered. [20] The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered.’ --- (Genesis Ch 7 and 8)

The false gods however, supposedly saved Egypt and her ancient buildings, temples and sanctuaries from all these ‘local’ floods. Here we see good reason why the Egyptians falsified the ages of their buildings. Contained in these ancient temples and sanctuaries was preserved knowledge of the origin of the world when man had fraternised with their pagan gods.

Comment:Again, we see Catholics divided into two; the learned educated Catholics who know the Genesis flood was local and the unscientific ‘retards’ as the two Catholic priests above call those who take Genesis chapters 6-8 literally, as Moses recorded in the Bible. Fr Paul Robinson SSPX, 100 years after Fr Hull, dismisses the Flood as a supernatural act of God, making it comply with the limits of human reason. Why then, according to Genesis, did God tell Noah to build a massive Ark over many years, a barge as big as a modern cruise ship, a barge to spend a year afloat on a local flooded plain when he and his family could have simply moved with horse and cart to a dry region in the same way as Moses was advised to move out of Egypt to save his people? Moreover, why did Genesis tell us Noah was told to take so many animals, birds etc. in the Ark to preserve such kinds on Earth after the waters receded? If there were ‘regions’ that were not flooded, then surely such creatures on them would have made God’s order to Noah totally unnecessary.

An Earth-wide flood would also result in massive mountains of earth-crust movement as well as liquid sediments made up of pieces of rock, earth, dust and other particles, into which all living creatures would fall into and become fossilised. Isn’t that what we find; 75% of the Earth’s surface is sedimentary rock strata filled with billions of similar fossils the rest made up of igneous rock and metamorphic rock. Just how many ‘local-floods’ would have been necessary to account for such global topography? So, which Noah’s Flood are Catholics now taught, the Biblical revelation or the ‘educated’ nonsense? 

‘Deluge. The great flood which covered the whole land or region in which Noe lived (Gen. 6:1-9:19). God sent this flood to destroy all men in this region because of their wickedness. Noe and his family alone were spared (Gen. 6:1-8). Scriptural scholars say that the flood did not necessarily cover the whole Earth as we know it today; some even hold that it not necessarily destroyed all the people on the Earth.’ ----- The Holy Bible: The Catholic Press Inc. Chicago, 1951.

So much for the dogma: ‘no salvation outside the Catholic Church (the Ark).’

‘The leader of the Bolshevik Revolution, Vladimir Lenin had been born into a Christian home but lost his faith as a teenager and embraced evolutionary materialism.  On his desk sat a sculpture of a chimpanzee sitting on a pile of books, including Darwin’s Origin of Species, contemplating a human skull.  Lenin coolly sat in the presence of that sculpture, overseeing the murders of millions of innocent people, all in the name of evolutionary progress.  Lenin’s successor as communist dictator of the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin, also lost his faith in God as a seminarian after reading about Darwin’s evolution and Lyell’s uniformitarianism.  He oversaw the murder of more than twenty million people, all in the name of evolutionary progress.  When communism then spread to China, Mao Tse Tung’s forces held compulsory seminars in every town they captured, not in the teachings of Marx, Lenin, or Mao, but in evolutionism, because, in the words of Passionist missionary bishop Cuthbert O’Gara, evolutionary theory could be used to destroy people’s faith in God, in the [eternal] soul, and in the after-life, and communism could then take root in the minds of the people. The evolutionary hypothesis provided a rationale for communist movements all over the world.  It also provided a pseudoscientific rationale for the eugenics movement in the United States, Germany and elsewhere. Evolutionary theory was used to justify genocide in the German colony of Namibia in the early twentieth century and to justify the ideology of the nαzι party which took power in Germany in 1933… According to Adolf Hitler, the purpose of the nαzι Party was to advance evolution.’ --- Kolbe Center report 17/7/2017.

Here below is an example of this fossil evolution propaganda coming from a Catholic priest in an interview to theistic-evolution fans in 2019, inferring Lenin’s, Stalin’s, Mao’s and Hitler’s evolution was God’s way of creation.   

‘In the fossil record, there is a series of simple to complex. Yes, it does shows there is a progression from simple to complex but it doesn’t show us how that progression happened. It could have happened through animation [evolution] by natural selection, or could have been something else [like what, miracles?].’--Fr Paul Robinson SSPX

Comment: Imagine a Catholic priest preferring a billion miracles to have his evolution rather than abide with a supernatural creation of all immediately as revealed in Genesis.

‘Since Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), Catholic exegetes have abandoned the idea that the Bible is meant to teach science, adding this principle to the age-old Catholic principle that the Bible must be reconciled with science, at least with settled science. Pope Leo explicitly states that: Sacred Scripture speaks in a popular language that describes physical things as they appear to the senses, and so does not describe them with scientific exactitude. The Fathers of the Church were mistaken in some of their opinions about questions of science. Catholics are only obliged to follow the opinion of the Fathers when they were unanimous on questions of faith and morals, where they did not err, and not on questions of science, where they sometimes erred.’ --- Fr Paul Robinson, SSPX. 

Comment: Pope Leo XIII was a post-1820 pope whose predecessors had decreed heliocentrism (according to modern astronomers)  was not to be forbidden by any Catholic teaching. In his Providentissimus Deus he wrote: ‘18: The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith, what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,” according to the saying of St. Thomas Aquinas.’

We see then, by 1893, a new hermeneutics and theology had grown in the womb of the Church based on the excuses and sophistry used to try to excuse and explain how the Church ‘got it so wrong’ when reading and defining the geocentric revelation of Scripture. Given the Galileo case is the only one of its kind in the history of such an exegesis above, all future comments on the case refer to Providentissimus Deus as ‘Church teaching’ on faith and ‘science.’

‘The Society of Saint Pius X holds no such position [Biblical geocentrism]. The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”)’ --- SSPX press release, 30/8/2011.

Comment: All the above from Leo XIII was based on the ILLUSION that the 1616 decree defining and declaring had been falsified. It never was. But now Catholic teaching for Fr Robinson, the SSPX, and 200 years of Catholic faith and reason has been based on the HERESY never ABROGATED..

SSPX:  The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. 

This is a complete and total lie, the false premise out of the gate that everything follows.  By claiming this, they smear St. Robert Bellarmine and the others who judged heliocentrism to be heresy based on its contradiction with Sacred Scripture, as interpreted by the Church Fathers.

Yes, he absolutely is.  That's why he's a Modernist heretic.  One of the hallmarks of the Modernist approach to Sacred Scripture is the refusal to acknowledge that God works miracles that might defy the laws of nature.  So they try to come up with naturalistic explanations for eveything.  So, for instance, the parting of the Red Sea was just a low tide that revealed a sand bar that allowed the Jєωs to pass through.  God's miracle consisted mostly of working out the timing of the whole thing.

It's the same Deism that Lyell promoted, and also Descartes, that God's roll in creation was simply to "kick off" the entire process (which Pasteur rightly took him to task over).

This reminds me of the exchange I had with the Modernist heretic Van Beeck at Loyola University.  VB:  "We know that the Gospels were all written after 70 A.D."  I: "Why do you say that the Gospels were written after 70 A.D.?  What's the evidence for that?"  VB:  "That's because there are references in the Gospels to the fall of Jerusalem, which took place in 70."  I :  "Ah, so you mean where Jesus foretold the fall of Jerualem.  So, you're saying that Jesus isn't God and can't know the future."  VB:  Angry scowl.

Robinson is as bad as any of the Modernist heretics that I battled for 8 years in Jesuit schools.

Agree Ladislaus. Do you know who was King of evolution crap being the way God created. The Protestant  who pretended to convert to Catholicism, became the Patron Saint of Evolution, and of Vatican II? None other than Henry Newman.

https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/a-patron-saint-of-evolution/