COMMENTARY
1. The Index.
In 1901, a reviewer of the Roman Index of Forbidden Books opened his
criticism by congratulating himself upon having before him a genuine
copy of that book, of which, he says, only a very limited number were
printed for the exclusive use of “the leaders of the Church.” Owing to
its scarcity, he thinks, the owner of the volume, which he had
borrowed, must have paid at least two hundred dollars for it. He could
have bought a brand new copy for $2.25. The Index of which he speaks,
issued by order of Leo XIII, in 1900, is for sale in this country by
B. Herder, St. Louis, Mo. So are the three later editions (1901,
1904, 1907), the last two issued under, and by order of, our
gloriously reigning Pontiff, Pius X. When the critic felt his heart
beat with joy upon being allowed to view with his own blessed eyes a
book so rare, so expensive, and so jealously guarded by “the leaders
of the Church,” a whole edition of that same book had already been
sold, and a second was about to be put on the market. Its title is
now:
_Index librorum prohibitorum, Leonis XIII Sum. Pont. auctoritate
recognitus SS. D. N. Pii P. X iussu editus. Præmittuntur
Constitutiones Apostolicæ de examine et prohibitione librorum._ (Index
of forbidden books, revised by the authority of Pope Leo XIII, and
issued by order of His Holiness Pope Pius X. Preceded by the Apostolic
Constitutions on the examination and prohibition of books.)
A glance at the neatly printed volume will disclose the reason why it
is called “Index”;—almost nine-tenths of it consists of a catalogue of
books condemned by the Roman authorities. Of still greater importance
than this catalogue are the first thirty-four pages, which give, in
the “Apostolic Constitutions,” the general laws of the Church
regarding books.
There are only two “Constitutions.” But the whole work is introduced
by a brief of Leo XIII, in which the Pontiff declares that this
edition is to be the authentic one for the whole Church. _It is to be
binding on all the faithful of the universe, regardless of race or
language, nationality or country, education, learning or station in
life._ In a preface headed “Lectori S.,” the Secretary of the Roman
“Congregatio Indicis” compares this edition of the “Index” with the
former ones, points out the changes that were made, and explains the
technical arrangement of the book.
After these preliminaries follow the “Constitutions.” The first is the
“Officiorum ac munerum” of Leo XIII, dated Jan. 25, 1896. This
document recasts the whole legislation of the Church regarding the
production, dissemination, reprinting and prohibition of such books as
the Church may and must concern herself with. It abrogates all former
laws and regulations of General Councils as well as of Sovereign
Pontiffs, with one exception: the Constitution Sollicita ac provida
of Benedict XIV, also reprinted here, by which this great pope
established or rather sanctioned a method—the one still in use—of
examining and passing sentence on the books submitted to the Roman
authorities.
These two Constitutions contain the entire general legislation of the
Church on the head of books.
There is no “Index expurgatorius.” If there were, it would consist of
books condemned conditionally, _donec corrigatur_, “until amended.”
But such books are all entered in the ordinary Index, with those two
Latin words added. In Pope Leo’s edition they are, besides, marked
with an asterisk.
2. The Power of the Church.
That the Church has the right to legislate on the publication and use
of all books that touch on questions of faith and morals, must be
evident to every Catholic. It is a truth clearly contained in the
words of Christ to St. Peter: “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep,” and in
the duty imposed on the Apostles of “teaching the faithful to observe
all, whatsoever I have commanded you.”
The fact that general councils as well as many popes have issued laws
and decrees regarding books, is sufficient evidence of their power and
of their commission to do this. This very fact must also convince us
that the observation of these laws must be salutary and conducive to
the welfare of the Church at large and of the individual Christian.
The inventions, discoveries and progress of our times can introduce no
change in this respect. The human mind is still as prone to err and as
much subject to the persuasive influence of books as it ever was.
Good books are as useful to-day as they were in olden times, and
objectionable writings have the same deplorable effects they had a
thousand years ago.
Nor can the Church, possessing the power to watch over our reading,
neglect to make use of this power when the salvation of souls calls
for its exercise. Bad literature is one of the worst enemies of
mankind. The Church can never allow it to corrupt the hearts of her
children or to undermine the foundation of their faith, without at
least raising a warning voice.
How great are the precautions the civil authorities take in case of an
epidemic; yet, no matter how seriously the precautions hamper traffic
and trade, we find them reasonable. We should even censure our
executive and legislative officers if they omitted to take proper
precautions. But, says Pope Leo, in the Constitution Officiorum ac
munerum, nothing can be conceived more pernicious, more apt to defile
souls than uncurbed license in the writing and disseminating of bad
books. “Therefore,” he continues, “the Church, whose office it is to
watch over the integrity of faith and morals, has ever striven, as far
as in her power lay, to restrain the faithful from the reading of bad
books as from a deadly poison.”
3. Book Prohibitions Antedating the Roman Index.
“The early days of the Church witnessed the earnest zeal of St. Paul,”
when the Christians at Ephesus brought together all the superstitious
books they had in their possession and burned them publicly. This
example of loyalty to the Church cost them, as Holy Scripture says,
between eight and nine thousand dollars. Such was the policy in regard
to bad books at Ephesus at a time when the Apostle whom many love to
call the most liberal and broadminded, ruled that part of the Church.
Every subsequent age records similar measures of vigilance. The first
General Council of Nicæa, in 325, besides proscribing the heresy of
Arius, also issued a decree prohibiting the use of Arius’ book
_Thalia_, which contained his heresy; indeed, at all times the
condemnation of a heresy by the Church entailed the prohibition of
the works propagating it. Pope St. Leo the Great, 440–461, does not
hesitate to declare that one who reads forbidden books cannot be
considered a Catholic.
In the early days the Church had to direct her attention largely to
the many so-called apocryphal books, falsely claimed to have been
inspired by God and to form part of Holy Scripture. In 496, Pope
Gelasius issued his famous decree, in which he enumerates the true
books of the Bible, a number of the writings of the Fathers, (which he
recommends,) together with a short list of apocryphal and heretical
books, the reading of which he forbids.
In 745, by order of the Pope, a Roman synod examined and forbade a
number of superstitious books sent by St. Boniface, who had found them
among the Germans.
In fact, already in those days the entire present-day book legislation
of the Church existed in all its essential features, though there were
few written decrees. It seems the loyal Christian’s duty of avoiding
bad books, and the power of the Church to prohibit them, were held to
be so self-evident that the need of written laws was not felt.
The necessity of watching over the mental food of the faithful became
more urgent when, in the fifteenth century, was invented _printing_,
which popes and bishops hailed as a “divine art” and eulogised as the
greatest blessing of God’s providence in the natural order. It spread
rapidly. Before the year 1500, the city of Rome alone had one hundred
and ninety printing establishments. The oldest of them, in the first
seven years of its existence, produced not less than twenty-eight
works in forty-seven editions, the total number of pages being one
hundred and twenty-four millions.
As to the moral quality of the books printed at that period, a German,
Wimpheling, writes with pardonable pride in 1507: “We Germans
practically control the whole intellectual market of civilized Europe;
_the books, however, which we bring to this market are for the most
part high-class works, tending to the honor of God, the salvation of
souls, and the civilisation of the people_.” How soon, alas, was this
to change! Even while these words were written, the evil was already
striking root, and steps had been taken by the civil as well as by the
ecclesiastical power, to prevent the printing and spreading of
noxious books.
But it was not until the beginning of the so-called Reformation that
the boundless increase of heretical and other pernicious literature
called for radical and extensive measures. They began in 1520 with the
solemn condemnation of Luther’s doctrine and the prohibition of his
writings. About that time the first indexes or catalogues of forbidden
books appeared. They were not issued by the popes, but emanated mostly
from bishops, provincial councils, or universities. The civil power
was expected to enforce them. In some cases the princes themselves or
the magistrates of cities and republics issued their own indexes, in
full harmony and after consultation with the clergy.
As the object of these measures was to safeguard the faithful against
imminent danger, we can easily understand that catalogues of forbidden
books were most numerous in those countries that were most exposed to
heresy, namely, Germany, Belgium, France, and Northern Italy.
It is remarkable that Henry VIII of England, who afterwards fell away
from the Church, was among the first to legislate against heretical
books, his index of forbidden books appearing as early as 1526. After
his apostasy he continued with increased severity the policy of
prohibiting books which he deemed objectionable.
4. The Roman Index.
More than thirty years after the first index of Henry VIII had
appeared, the first Roman Index of Forbidden Books was compiled and
issued by order of Paul IV. It remained in force only a few years,
till 1564, when the so-called Tridentine Index was published under
Pius IV. It was called “Tridentine,” because it had been drawn up by a
commission appointed for this purpose by the Council of Trent. It was
milder than the Index of Paul IV, and contained divers “Index rules,”
the forerunners of the general decrees embodied in the Constitution
“Officiorum ac munerum.”
The Tridentine Index remained _the_ Roman Index for more than three
hundred years. Its “rules” were occasionally modified, new
regulations were added or old ones abrogated, other books were
inserted in the catalogue; but the essential features remained the
same.
In 1897, Leo XIII took the matter up again. The index of forbidden
books was thoroughly revised. About a thousand were dropped. The
“rules,” too, were overhauled, “to make them milder, without altering
their nature, so that it cannot be difficult or irksome for any person
of good will to obey them.”
This, then, represents the whole book legislation of the Church. There
are no other documents, except the decrees by which, as occasion
demanded, individual books were forbidden. The encyclical of Pius X on
Modernism merely enjoins on the bishops special vigilance in regard to
publications infected with modernistic views.
This universal legislation, however, does not preclude the local
prohibition of books by bishops or other ecclesiastical authorities.
Thus Spain had, until 1820, its own Index, controlled by the Spanish
Inquisition.
5. Books Forbidden by General or Particular Decrees.
As we have already mentioned, the Constitution “Officiorum ac munerum”
establishes the general laws by which books are forbidden. As will be
seen in our Summary, these laws deal with classes of books. The only
one named expressly is the Bible. But all the books clearly contained
in these classes are as strictly, and sometimes even more strictly,
condemned than those listed singly in the second part of the Index.
Pope Leo changed the Tridentine rules “without altering their nature.”
It is, indeed, difficult to see how the nature of these regulations
could have been changed. They simply express the point of view from
which the Church must look upon objectionable publications. While
opposing and condemning spoken error, the Church surely cannot allow
full sway to the printed. In regard to the second part, or Index
proper, many wrong notions are current. One of these is, that this
Index contains _all_ the books forbidden by the Church, and that there
are no others which we are obliged to avoid. From the foregoing
remarks, it must, on the contrary, be concluded that there are many
other books forbidden by the laws of the Church. The worst of them are
not in this special Index at all, because they fall under the general
decrees.
It is by no means the intention of the Roman authorities to catalogue
all the literary virus that has been vomited forth by printing presses
all over the world in the course of four and a half centuries. By
means of the general laws laid down in the “Officiorum ac munerum” we
are in all cases able to see our duty.
There are especially two purposes for which books are prohibited
separately and by name.
Whenever there is a doubt about the nature of a book, recourse may be
had to Rome; sometimes the Roman authorities appointed for this
purpose, will take up the matter without being appealed to. They will
investigate and decide by putting the book on the Index, or, by
dismissing it. This is the case with most books publicly censured.
It was the case with the books of Schell and Loisy, which, it was
strongly urged by learned men, propagated ideas contrary, or at least
dangerous, to the faith, though a host of followers admired them as
orthodox masterpieces. Rome had to speak, and settled the controversy
by condemning the books in question.
Dismissal does not always mean that a book is unobjectionable. The
authorities may refrain from pronouncing deserved condemnation for
reasons of prudence and expediency.
Sometimes the preservation of discipline or religious unity
necessitates this step. Thus about two hundred years ago the Pope had
imposed silence on two factions that were carrying on a theological
feud. This silence was violated on both sides, a book appearing for
the defence of either position. What was more natural than that both
books should be put on the Index? These and similar cases could not be
covered so clearly by the general decrees.
What has thus far been said, offers a partial solution of another
current error. The Index is not a studiously selected, not even a
systematically arranged catalogue of objectionable books. It was the
need of the moment, doctrinal blunders, cavillations and heresies,
grievous trespasses against discipline and charity, proceeding from
animosity or want of tact, that caused the insertion of most of the
books. In nearly all cases the Roman authorities confine themselves to
books concerning which they are appealed to; and as there is no system
in the making of these appeals, there can be no system in the
condemnations. In the new Leonine edition of the Index the books are
enumerated alphabetically by authors or pseudonyms; anonymous books
are listed according to titles.
It must now be obvious to the attentive reader why most of the books
put on the Index are works on theology, or on the history and
government of the Church, and why (as may be expected in the case of
such publications), a considerable percentage are written in Latin.
However, a goodly number of books are on the Index because they are
detrimental to good morals. There are very few there which treat of
the natural sciences. The Index will not busy itself with publications
on electricity or X-rays, unless an author on a subject of this sort
devote a considerable part of his work to attacks upon religion.
There are some well-meaning people who, while agreeing that the
productions of Zola, Dumas and other writers of the same sort, fully
deserve condemnation, cannot understand why works like Ranke’s
_History of the Popes_, which is an acknowledged authority in its
line, should be proscribed. Such works are not on the Index for the
good things they contain, but for the poison they mix with the
wholesome food so cleverly that it takes more than ordinary
scholarship and discretion to separate the one from the other.
The Roman Committee of Cardinals, which has charge of this part of
ecclesiastical discipline, is not at all bent on proscribing books.
Works like the one mentioned are never put on the Index unless it is
quite clear that the mischief to be feared from them will far outweigh
the good they may do. Scholars and students well grounded in their
faith, who have a real and legitimate cause for reading a forbidden
book can easily obtain a dispensation.
It is clear from the preceding explanations that a book may sometimes
be dropped from the Index. This is done when a book has long ceased
to be dangerous, or a cause of dissension, or if it has fallen into
oblivion. Thus Pope Leo XIII caused to be expunged about a thousand
titles. This does not imply a reproach for the authorities of former
centuries, much less the giving up of an iota of the old principles.
6. Duties Imposed by Law and by Nature.
Suppose a person were so well grounded in faith and virtue, so
thoroughly versed in theology, philosophy, and the natural sciences,
that the reading of books e. g. on Christian Science, or the works of
Voltaire, would not harm him. The Index prohibits these books; would
he whom they could not harm be allowed to read them? As we put the
case, he would, by reading them, not commit the sin of seriously
endangering his soul. Yet he would sin by disregarding a positive law
of the Church. These laws are like the precautionary measures taken by
the civil authorities in times of epidemic; if they are to have the
desired effect, they must be observed by all. When the community is
under quarantine, those who declare themselves free from the disease
must observe the regulations as well as the rest.
Let those who think they have _a good reason_ for reading a forbidden
book, and who are not mistaken in supposing that there is no danger
for them, humbly ask for permission, as did the Saints. By doing so
they declare that the standpoint of the Church is theirs, and that
they willingly submit to a power which was entrusted with the care of
“teaching to observe whatsoever I have commanded you.” “We have to
develop a loving habit of loyalty and obedience to the Church as to
Christ, our Savior.”
Suppose, on the other hand, there were no Church laws prohibiting
pernicious reading. In that case should we be allowed to read any book
we pleased? By no means. We should then, it is true, by reading,
e. g., Zola’s novels, not commit an act of disobedience to the Church.
But, as already hinted, there is another duty imposed on us by God
Himself—the grave duty to guard our soul from serious danger. This
duty does not depend on any positive law or decree of authority, and
it equally binds the Christian and the non-Christian. It is expressed
in the fifth commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” This duty corresponds
on our part to what we ask of God in the sixth petition of the Our
Father: “Lead us not into temptation.” We should undoubtedly violate
it by reading Zola’s filthy works. The prohibition of these works by
the Church merely adds another obligation to that imposed by the
natural law, thereby considerably strengthening our will and enabling
us to resist every enticement to read what can be read only at a
serious risk to our soul.
This grave duty, therefore, is not imposed by the Church and cannot be
taken away by the Church. It is a natural duty and as such remains in
force even after we are granted a formal permission, which is neither
intended nor able to suppress temptations that may arise from the
perusal of bad books. If we have a good reason to apply for
permission—curiosity is not a good reason—then and then only can we
expect a special protection from Divine Providence. Of course, this
protection does not dispense us from the necessity of using all the
means of self-protection, both natural and supernatural.
I know of a priest who was in every way a model man. He fell suddenly
away from the Church, married, and is now a foremost champion in the
ranks of the enemy. His apostasy is, not without reason, attributed to
the reading of infidel books, though no doubt he had the necessary
dispensation.
There was another priest, who has meanwhile died the death of the
just, a celebrated author and art critic. In writing a work on
Voltaire he had to study the books of that arch-agnostic. He obtained
the requisite permission, but, while perusing Voltaire’s writings, he
was on his knees, to implore, as it were, by this humble posture the
protection of God against the wicked influence to which he was
exposed.
St. Francis of Sales, the great and learned Bishop of Geneva, had
obtained permission to read the books of heretics in order to refute
them, and he is careful to let his readers know the fact, at the same
time thanking God in pathetic words that his soul had suffered no harm
in so great a danger.
This grave natural duty in the choice of our reading matter extends
much farther than the legislation of the Church. Parents and priests
do not comply with their obligation of controlling the reading of
their charges if they merely look up the Index to see whether a
certain book is mentioned there. If an otherwise unobjectionable book
contains an obscene passage of a page or so, no one will claim that it
falls under the general law prohibiting obscene books. Nor is it
likely to be put on the Index. Yet such a book is apt to work havoc in
the innocent soul of your daughter or son, perhaps in your own. As
long as that passage is in it, the book—even though it is not on the
Index—cannot and must not, under pain of sin, be allowed in the hands
of children.
Would that this twofold duty were always faithfully complied with,
especially in our large cities, where books of every sort are within
easy reach. Do not many, perhaps all, public libraries offer among
other books such as are “derogatory to the Church, the hierarchy, the
religious state,” and especially novels which “defend as lawful or
tolerable, freemasonry, suicide, divorce”? How can we expect our young
people to have Catholic views on courtship and marriage, on the
priesthood, on the veneration of the saints, if we allow them to
imbibe the ideas of such writers as Balzac or Dumas? It is deplorable
enough that the modern novel is the catechism of millions outside of
the Church. We must not allow it to displace the Catholic catechism or
to unteach, totally or in part, the truths taught by it.
7. Who Puts Books On The Index?
The popes have at all times exercised the prerogative of their supreme
office as guardians of the faith by condemning books opposed to the
faith. The latest of such condemnations is that, in 1862, of the works
of the Munich professor, Frohschammer, who answered this condemnation
by falling away from the Church. There are in all 144 books that were
individually proscribed by a papal document. In Pope Leo’s edition
they are marked with a dagger. Yet only in cases of the utmost
importance did the popes act themselves. To facilitate the government
of the world-wide Church, in the course of centuries special
committees of cardinals were appointed, to whom part of the pontiff’s
various duties were entrusted. These committees are styled
Congregations. A larger or smaller number of learned priests and
bishops, generally called Consultors, assist the cardinals and
practically do the greater part of the work, though the final decision
in all cases is reserved to the cardinals.
The highest of these Roman Congregations is the _Sacrum Officium_ or
“General Inquisition,” called also the “Congregation of the Holy
Office,” of which the Pope himself is Prefect. Its purpose is
especially to watch over the purity of faith. It is this august body
that, after the Pope himself, is in the first place called to judge
the doctrines propounded in any book. It was this Congregation that
performed the preparatory work for the first Index of Paul IV, and,
although another congregation for the examining of books was soon
after established, the _Sacrum Officium_ continued to exercise the
same power. As may be expected, especially such works as seemed to
affect the integrity of the faith, were submitted to this supreme
court. In our days the works of the French priest Loisy were
proscribed by the _Sacrum Officium_.
But the bulk of this work is at present performed by the _Congregatio
Indicis librorum prohibitorum_, or “Congregation of the Index of
Forbidden Books.” It was founded by Saint Pius V in 1571, seven years
after the publication of the Tridentine Index. Since then about eighty
per cent. of all individual prohibitions of books have emanated from
it. Its Prefect is a cardinal. The present one is Cardinal Segna. The
perpetual assistant and secretary are always members of the Dominican
order. Besides the seven or ten cardinals there are about thirty
consultors, many of whom are bishops.
Though three or four prohibitions of books have emanated from other
Roman authorities, the practice has been to let either the _Sacrum
Officium_ or the Congregation of the Index decide in all cases. The
latter Congregation, moreover, had to register all condemnations
pronounced by any of the legitimate authorities and to see that they
were entered in the new editions of the Index.
Our present Holy Father, Pius X, has lately brought about a long
desired reform in the central government of the Church. The competency
of many of the Roman Congregations has been more clearly defined, and
several of those originally instituted have been either suppressed or
united with others. The Congregation of the Index has received a wider
sphere and greater power. While formerly it passed only on books in
regard to which it was expressly appealed to, it has now become a
regular vigilance committee for the whole Church. The Holy Father
says: “For the future it shall be the province of this Sacred
Congregation not only to examine diligently the books reported to it,
to prohibit them, if this should seem well, and to concede
dispensations; but also to officially investigate in the best
available way whether writings of any kind that should be condemned
are being circulated; and to remind the ordinaries how strictly they
are bound to condemn pernicious writings and to denounce them to the
Holy See.”
On the relation of the Congregation of the Index to that of the
_Sacrum Officium_ (Holy Office) the Pope says: “As the prohibition of
books has very frequently the scope of defense of the Faith, which is
also the object of the Congregation of the Holy Office, we decree that
in future in all things relating to the prohibition of books, and in
those alone, the Cardinals, Consultors and officers of both
congregations, may communicate with one another, and that all of them
shall be bound by the same secret.”
The Roman Congregations are not infallible. But they represent the
Pope in his highest capacity as shepherd of the entire flock of
Christ. Therefore we owe them obedience. Their regulations and orders
must find us even more willing to obey than those of our bishops and
pastors, to whom only a small portion of Christ’s kingdom is
entrusted.
8. The Method of Examination.
Our confidence in the fairness of the verdicts of the S. Congregation
of the Index will be much increased, if we acquaint ourselves with the
method it follows in carrying out its arduous, odious and yet very
important task. This method is practically the same for both the Holy
Office and the Index. The usual procedure is based mainly on the
regulations laid down in the Bull of Pope Benedict XIV, “Sollicita ac
provida.”
When a book is reported to the Index Congregation, the secretary first
tries to ascertain whether it is worth examining. He also inquires by
letter from bishops and other reliable persons about the advisability
of a condemnation. Several consultors assist him in this preliminary
investigation; but the Cardinal Prefect has to ratify their decision.
If they think the book should be examined, it is handed to a
consultor, who has to study it carefully and to draw up a detailed
report, noting exactly the passages which he finds objectionable, and
conscientiously pointing out all redeeming features. His report
together with the book is passed on to other consultors, each of whom
can thus satisfy himself whether the first “examiner’s” verdict is
fair, and has also an opportunity to formulate his own view. One
question they have to answer is, whether the condemnation is likely to
have a good effect.
After comparing the opinions of the consultors, the secretary of the
Congregation draws up an official statement of the reasons for and
against a prohibition, which statement together with the book is
submitted to the Cardinal Prefect, by whose orders it is printed and a
copy sent to each cardinal and consultor of the Congregation.
Next a preparatory meeting of the consultors is called for a previous
discussion. The consultor who examined the book speaks first, then all
the others, beginning with the youngest. The secretary carefully
records the views of each consultor, together with his reasons.
At least ten days must elapse between this meeting and the solemn
session of the whole Congregation, in which the question is finally
decided by a vote of the cardinals.
The decision arrived at is commonly given in one of these four
technical phrases: _Damnetur_, “condemned”; _dimittatur_,
“dismissed”; _donec corrigatur_, “forbidden until amended”; _res
dilata_, “the case is postponed.” The verdict _donec corrigatur_ of
course, can only be given when a book admits of correction; when it is
thoroughly bad (e. g. written for the sole purpose of eulogizing
Freemasonry or maligning Catholic bishops), a _donec corrigatur_ would
have no meaning.
Finally, the secretary of the Congregation lays the whole matter
before the Pope, who, if he sees fit, authorizes the publication of
the decree.
Nobody will deny that this is a very excellent method of procedure.
Under it a book is examined at least three times, and twenty-five or
thirty picked scholars participate in the proceedings, each of whom
has taken a solemn oath never to allow himself to be influenced by
sympathy or antipathy and to have nothing in view but the eternal
welfare of souls.
If the author is a Catholic, he must be informed before the decree is
published. If but a few copies of the book have been sold, and the
author promises either to suppress it, or to issue an amended edition,
if possible, the decree is not published. But even when this cannot be
prevented, e. g. when a whole edition is already in circulation,
credit is given to the author in the decree itself for declaring his
submission, by adding the words: _auctor laudabiliter se subjecit_,
“the author has praiseworthily submitted.”
Great care is taken to have all books examined by men who are not only
well versed in the subject matter, but who also understand thoroughly
the language in which they happen to be written. Nor does the
Congregation in important cases confine itself to its regular
consultors; whenever it seems advisable, the services of other
competent critics are enlisted.
All the members of the Congregation are bound by oath to keep absolute
secrecy with regard to every detail of the official transactions, no
matter whether a book under discussion is finally condemned or not. By
this means each feels more free in giving his opinion, and the
reputation of the author is spared as long and as much as possible.
9. The Spirit of the Congregation of the Index.
As to the spirit that should actuate the members of the Congregation
of the Index, the rules laid down for its consultors by Benedict XIV
in the Bull “Sollicita ac provida” are instructive.
“_Ipsos ... monemus ac vehementer hortamur ut in examine iudicioque
librorum sequentes regulas diligenter inspiciant accurateque
custodiant._” “We wish to admonish and exhort them most urgently to
study carefully and observe accurately the following rules for
examining and judging books:
1. Let them not imagine that it is their duty to use every means to
bring about the condemnation of the books submitted to them. They
ought rather to study such books conscientiously, without passion or
anxiety (sedato animo), in order to furnish such well-found
observations, such objective reasons, as will enable the Congregation
to pass a just verdict.
2. Should a consultor find that he is not competent to judge a book
which he is asked to examine, let him know that he will not be free
from guilt, either before God or man, unless he at once confesses his
incompetence. Far from damaging his reputation with the pope or the
cardinals, such an avowal will rather gain their esteem and praise for
his straightforwardness and honesty.
3. Let them set aside absolutely all prejudice in favor of nation,
family, school or order; let them relinquish all party spirit, and
keep before their minds the undoubted doctrine of the Church, as laid
down in the decrees of the councils, in papal documents, etc., knowing
that there are opinions that, while they seem certain to one nation,
school, or order, are, with the knowledge of the Holy See, opposed by
others; the Holy See leaving all these opinions in their degree of
probability.
4. It must also be borne in mind that it is impossible to judge
fairly the meaning of a passage, unless the entire book is studied,
and unless the various statements found in different sections are
compared with one another, and the whole purpose of the book is
steadily kept in view.
5. If an author who enjoys the reputation of sound theological
learning, has used expressions which might be understood in a wrong as
well as in a right meaning, fairness demands that they be, as far as
possible, interpreted in his favor.
These and similar rules ... must be kept before the minds of the
consultors, in order that they may have due regard for their own
conscience, the good name of authors, the interests of the Church, and
the welfare of souls.”
10. Further Explanations.
A. Why an Author is Not Permitted to Defend His Book.
If an author could accompany every copy of his work that leaves the
bookstore or library, he would be able to explain obscure passages
and to show what meaning he wished doubtful phrases to convey to the
reader. It is precisely because he cannot multiply himself that he
employs printer’s ink to convey his ideas to others. It must,
therefore, be supposed that his words mean what he intends to say. The
reader, at any rate, has no corrective. He has only the book, not the
author to fall back upon. It is impossible to recur to the author when
there is question of the correctness or incorrectness of a book. If
the author has to be called upon to explain the meaning of his book,
he should have left it unprinted.
Moreover, it is hardly credible, as Pope Benedict XIV points out, that
anything an author might advance in his favor, should escape so many
examiners without receiving due attention and emphasis.
The whole procedure is primarily not intended as a measure against the
author, although pecuniary loss _may_ ensue, but to protect the
faithful. A condemnation is rather a warning to the would-be reader,
than a punishment inflicted upon the author. It is not an act of
jurisdiction. Were the author’s personal views under investigation, he
would be summoned personally before another tribunal and tried
according to a method that would give him the amplest opportunity to
defend himself.
These considerations also show that the condemnation of a book after
its author’s death is not unreasonable. A book remains what it is
independently of its author. Nor would it change the nature of a book
were the author afterwards to prove his orthodoxy to the satisfaction
of the authorities, or to do penance in sackcloth and ashes, or for
the rest of his mortal life consort with the Trappists. Were it
morally certain, however, that almost all the copies of a book were
destroyed, a prohibitory decree would fail of its purpose.
B. The Index Does Not Advertise Bad Books.
Now and then there is expressed an apprehension lest the Index, far
from suppressing, rather advertises bad books and arouses a desire to
read them. It is even maintained that in some cases evil-minded
authors have intentionally written so as to get their books put on the
Index.
Now, every prohibitory law may have the effect of increasing the
inclination of men towards the prohibited thing or act. Thus a person
may possibly feel a stronger appetite for meat on Friday than on any
other day of the week. We have inherited this tendency from Eve, who,
when tempted, saw that the forbidden fruit “_was good to eat and fair
to the eye and delightful to behold_,” and then proceeded to violate
the first prohibitory law ever given. But is that a reason to do away
with every prohibitory law?
Who does not see at once that the Index must prove a very poor
advertising medium? Those who have it are certainly not the
prospective buyers of immoral novels or of works which propagate
heretical views in theology; while those who hanker after
sensationalism or doubtful theology will not invest $2.25 for a book
list which contains, e. g. for the year 1898, fully eight titles,
four of which are German, and for 1903 fifteen, all French.
This side of the question, as we have remarked elsewhere, is also in
each case carefully weighed by the Sacred Congregation, before it
resolves upon a prohibition.
Even if the sale of a book should be increased by the fact of its
condemnation, the Index would nevertheless achieve its main purpose,
namely, to warn the faithful that the ideas advocated in the
proscribed book are contrary to faith and morals. This is enough for
all men of good will to enable them to shun the poison. Those who
refuse to heed the warning will have to blame their own ignorance or
malice if the reading of a condemned book results in spiritual hurt.
C. Index Decisions Not Omitted for Fear of Apostasies.
A book, we are reminded, often represents the opinions not only of its
author, but of many of his disciples and admirers. By forbidding it
and thus branding such opinions as erroneous, it is said, many
influential men may become embittered and may even be driven into an
attitude of open hostility.
However, the Church is in duty bound to exercise her guardianship;
which she cannot do if every one is to have his own way. Nor can the
Church neglect the mass of her children in order to accommodate this
or that coterie or school, whose opinions are manifestly wrong.
Moreover, to be a trustworthy guide, the Church must state the truth
clearly and unmistakably. The faithful are not guided by ambiguous
circumlocutions, by terms that may be understood in two or perhaps
more ways. Neither may she keep exclusively in the lofty heights of
theory; but she must instruct with regard to the facts of everyday
life. The dangers arising from books are _concrete_ not _abstract_,
and they must be met by concrete measures. This can be done
effectively only by an energetic and unmistakable “thou shalt not,”
which makes men realize that they are “under authority.”
No one has ever stated the truth more clearly, more unmistakably than
Christ our Lord. Was it not precisely for this very fact that “many of
His disciples went back and walked no more with Him”? (John 6, 67.)
D. The “Good Catholic.”
“I am a Catholic. I live up to my religion and go regularly to the
sacraments. I have had a good Catholic education and hear a sermon
every Sunday. I do not see why I should be afraid to read any book,
even if it belonged to those forbidden by the Index.”
You may do so; but you may fare in consequence as David fared—David
who was a saint and yet committed adultery and murder. If you read a
forbidden book without permission, you are as good a Catholic as one
who eats meat on Friday. The object of the law of abstinence is to
make sure that every Christian performs at least a certain minimum of
penance. Now there are saintly persons who, in imitation of our
crucified Savior, do more penance on ordinary days than the average
Catholic does by abstaining from meat on twenty or more Fridays; and
yet they are not exempted from the law of abstinence and would be the
last to claim such an exemption.
Similarly the object of the Index is to make sure that every Christian
avoids at least the worst books. By obeying its laws we declare that
our standpoint is that of the Church of God. This result cannot be
obtained unless the prohibition is made universal, exempting no one,
no matter how pious or learned he may be. Therefore, _all_ Christians,
good and bad, priests, religious and lay people, students and
professors, unless they have a dispensation, are bound by the
ecclesiastical laws regarding books. By asking for a dispensation we
implicitly acknowledge and approve of the official position of the
Church on the subject of wicked books, and, so far as in us lies,
ratify and sanction the reasons which lead to their condemnation.
You say you are a good Catholic, and therefore this law does not bind
you. Are there any commandments of the Church that bind only bad
Catholics?
E. A Mortal Sin.
“I am told that a transgression of the Index law is a mortal sin. Can
it be true that the Church, the kindest of mothers, should load us
down with such a severe obligation?”
According to the theologians, the reading of a forbidden book, or of a
considerable part of it, _is_ a mortal sin. The selection of the books
on which our souls feed is a matter of no small importance. True, the
Church is the kindest of mothers; but she is also the wisest. To
direct the consciences of her children and “_to restrain them from the
reading of bad books as from a deadly poison_,” is the great object of
her legislation. Under the leadership of a mastermind like that of
Leo XIII, the Roman authorities have labored for years in formulating
the present ecclesiastical laws about books. These laws are the voice
of the supreme pastor, the successor of St. Peter. Let us not spurn
it like the heathen and the publican.
F. The Galileo Case.
The Roman Congregations are no more infallible than our bishops and
pastors. And yet there is practically but one case, during more than
three centuries, in which they are accused of having made a mistake.
It is the condemnation, by both the Holy Office and the Index, of
_Galileo Galilei Linceo_ (died 1639) for defending the theory that the
earth moves around its own axis and around the sun.
This teaching was according to the common belief of Catholics and
Protestants, at that time, clearly opposed to Holy Scripture, which
the Church was bound to vindicate. If Galileo’s theory was true, the
traditional interpretation of sundry Bible texts would have had to be
abandoned.
The Church had weighty reasons for not allowing this. The new theory
was not at all certain. Galileo himself admitted he could not
establish more than a probability. Several very obvious objections he
was unable to explain satisfactorily. None of the real proofs used in
our days were known to him. He was told by the Jesuit Cardinal
Bellarmin, if he could advance any convincing proof for his theory,
the traditional interpretation of those passages would be given up.
But all Galileo had to offer was an ingenious hypothesis. Had he
advocated it as such with due respect for the time-honored
interpretation of the Book of Books, had he not used bold, sometimes
bitter and defying language, no steps would have been taken against
him, who had until then been a favorite of the pope and of many
dignitaries. As matters stood, “the Church could wait for the
education of a physical system, but she could not allow a change in
the universally accepted interpretation of Scripture, before the
necessity of such a change was proved.” (Guggenberger, _History of the
Christian Era_. Vol. II, pp. 456, etc.)
“The marvelous unanimity of the enemies of the Church in concentrating
all their attacks against the Roman Congregation on the case of
Galileo, is a striking negative testimony to the value of the
decisions of courts which have been at work for centuries.” (_Rome._)
G. State and Protestant Book Laws.
As we have already remarked, Henry VIII continued his policy of
proscribing books opposed to his views long after he had constituted
himself the head of the English Church. Between 1526 and 1546 there
were issued by the King’s authority nine catalogues of books which
Englishmen were forbidden to read. Among these books were the works of
the continental “reformers”; for some years the English Bible; also
writings against the King’s matrimonial projects.
The Protestants on the continent followed the same system. Calvin
condemned a Spanish physician, who happened to come to Geneva, to
be burned at the stake, because he had written a heretical book.
The Protestant princes and republics had each its special
book-legislation, which was made to serve not only religious but also
political purposes.
After the middle of the eighteenth century, in almost all Catholic
countries, the civil power usurped the monopoly of proscribing books,
and practiced it in a truly despotic way. Thus in Austria 639 books
were forbidden within five years. No book was allowed to be printed
without _previous_ permission, not even on forestry or cattle-raising.
Bishops were severely reproved for enforcing the prohibitions of the
Roman Index in their seminaries.
_Napoleon I_ had a publisher shot, practically without trial, for
issuing a work contrary to his political plans. One book was publicly
burned because it contained the picture of Pius VII. To enable the
authorities to control the book trade more effectively, no printing
establishment was allowed to have, in Paris more than four, and in the
provinces more than two, presses.
Needless to remark, the civil authorities _have_ the right to prohibit
books that seriously endanger the common welfare. If they use this
right in a reasonable way, their measures are likely to bring about
good and prevent evil. We all have occasional opportunities to observe
this in the measures taken against immoral literature by the police or
the post-office department.
H. Some Examples of Submission to the Index.
The first Roman Index, that of 1559, was considered rather severe. One
of the influential men who tried hard to have its provisions softened,
was _Blessed Peter Canisius_, the “Second Apostle of Germany.” Yet the
very letters he wrote to Rome for this purpose show that he
scrupulously observed all the regulations, though he himself, called
the “Hammer of Heretics,” surely incurred little personal risk by
reading forbidden books.
About 1698, a book by _Archbishop Fénelon_ was under investigation at
Rome. Fénelon was a great scholar and one of the greatest preachers of
all centuries, but he was also a loyal son of the Church. He knew a
condemnation of his book would mean his own condemnation in the eyes
of Catholic France. His friends as well as his antagonists were
eagerly awaiting Rome’s decision on one of the great churchman’s
books. At last the verdict was pronounced in the most solemn way by
the Pope himself, and it was a condemnation. Fénelon was just
ascending his pulpit, March 25, 1699, when his brother broke the news
to him. The great Archbishop at once proceeded to read to his own
flock the papal document and preached an eloquent sermon on the
obedience every Christian owes to his superiors. We can imagine what a
profound impression his words must have made. His was a truly heroic
example of self-abnegation.
In 1861 there died in Munich _Ernest von Lasaulx_, a famous professor
of the University. In his writings he had now and then been very bold,
and it was rumored that the Congregation of the Index thought of
censuring some of his books. Von Lasaulx knew this. A few weeks before
his death he made an implicit retraction of the errors he might have
involuntarily committed, which was forwarded to Rome by his friends.
Already some years before he had declared that he had never intended
to contravene the doctrine of the Church, but that he feared there
were many errors in his books. “If Rome would think it advisable to
put my books on the Index, I should consider the verdict perfectly
just, _since I firmly believe that such measures are truly in the
interest of the Catholic Church in our times_.” Four of his books were
really condemned after his death.
In July, 1906, an Italian novel, _Il Santo_, (The Saint) by Fogazzaro,
was put on the Index. The author “submitted himself.” An American
edition of the book had meanwhile appeared; “but the prohibition by
the Roman authorities was duly respected by the publishers of the
leading Catholic papers of America, which declined to accept
advertisements of the book.” (Putnam.)