Not sure what the term for this is...but it's my understanding GK Chesterton and others used to get permission from the local bishop to teach catholic teaching. Is this not required now?

Also, some Catholics profit from this and I'm wondering if there is any moral obligation here.

Just seems wrong to profit from constant smear campaigns of the Church, Popes, etc.

I've never heard that, re: Chesterton, if this means some form of apostolate. Chesterton often discussed stuff with RC clergy friends and would obviously not like to be wrong on any position related to the Church, but formal permission?

Any source on this?

Note: I went and checked the first title that came to mind on such a thing, and THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CONVERSION does have a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. So there's that.

Think I'll check a few more.

Unless you are referring to the imprimatur for some )bit not all) printed works, (which only means that a bishop has examined the work and determined that it says nothing came contrary to the faith,) l have no idea what you are talking about. No one has ever needed to "ask permission" to speak or write to a popular audience about the faith and such a rule could only be detrimental and severely restrict the ability of the Church to react to controversy.

Can you provide examples of 'smear campaigns'?

I checked a few more likely titles. Nothing.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CONVERSION copy I have is a reprint. The Imprimatur is from the Archbishop of New York, 1926; the American edition, from MacMillian, apparently is the true first.

My 1929 edition published by Burnes Oates & Washburne, LTD. Publisher to the Holy See. It says.

I don't have any recollection of reading about anything like this, but perhaps GKC got permission from the local bishop for publishing things like his Distributist newspapers (the titles of which slip my mind), insofar as he held them to be presenting Catholic teaching.

I'd say there's a significant difference between profiting from smear campaigns, on the one hand, and accepting payment for services, on the other. If an apologist travels somewhere to give a talk, he deserves to be paid for his time and his learning, ISTM. I mean, priests get paid a salary. It's not like there's something wrong with getting paid for work you're doing in the Lord's service. St. Paul was clear about that.

I doubt it.

His publication was G. K.'S WEEKLY.

It came from a conversation a buddy of mine had with a priest and noted their was something in canon law about faculties being extend to laity with regard to teaching.

Doesn’t sound like it’s a real thing. Perhaps I or him misunderstood the priest.

Lay people teaching theology in the university ought to have the Mandatum. I don't know if there's a similar deal for high school teachers of theology.

I was thinking of other Distributist publications like The Cross and the Plough, but I guess GKC wasn't really behind those.

I was thinking of the Taylor Marshall's, etc.

No, as far as I know.

I thought perhaps you had G.K.'s WEEKLY predecessors in mind, THE EYE WITNESS/THE NEW WITNESS, which were Belloc's and Cecil Chesterton's, until his death, with GKC making contributions. I think he also managed THE NEW WITNESS after Cecil entered the army.

After GKC died, the paper bearing his name continued for a while as THE WEEKLY REVIEW.

I have a vague impression that there was something in the old (pre-1983) Code of Canon Law, but searching for it would be an arduous task I am not ready to undertake. PED might know.

As far as the current Code goes:

Can. 216 Since they share the Church's mission, all Christ's faithful have the right to promote and support apostolic action, by their own initiative, undertaken according to their state and condition. No initiative, however, can lay claim to the title 'catholic' without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.

I think it's the use of the title "Catholic" that's in question; Michael Voris was instructed to stop using it a few years ago and obeyed. The National Catholic Distorter has also been told to stop, but they have not obeyed.

My timing was impeccable.

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/bishop-barron-wants-more-control-over-catholic-social-media

.....and

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/8910/maronite-patriarch-commands-catholics-to-cease-online-abuse

There are some things alog those lines in this section: "INSTRUMENTS OF SOCIAL COMMUNICATION AND BOOKS IN PARTICULAR (Cann. 822 - 832)"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Q.HTM

That looks like it focuses on publishing and governance within educational bodies.

Bishop Barron:

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2020/01/29/bishop-barron-floats-online-mandatum-for-catholic-teachers/

An internet mandatum.

Canonist Ed Peters strongly disagrees with that.