CHAPTER XI

THE LITERARY POLICY OF THE MODERN CHURCH

1. The Indexes of Leo XIII 1881–1900. 2. Index Revision and Reform 1868–1880. 3. The Index and the Liberal Catholics, “Romanus” and the “Tablet” 1897. 4. The Present Methods of Roman Censorship

=1. The Indexes of Leo XIII, 1881–1900.=

Rome, 1881, 1884, 1896.--_Index Librorum Prohibitorum sanctissimi Domini nostri Leonis XIII, Pont. Max. Jussu editus, cum appendice usque 1895, Augustae Taurinorum. Typog. pontif. 1896._

Rome, 1900.--_Index Librorum Prohibitorum SSMI D. N. Leonis XIII, jussu et auctoritate recognitus et editus; praemittuntur Constitutiones Apostolicae de examine et prohibitione Librorum. Romae, Typis Vaticanis, 1900._

The two Indexes issued by Leo XIII, the first compiled in 1881 and reprinted in 1884 and 1896 with supplements, and the second in 1900, constitute at the date of this writing (December, 1906) the latest expression of the censorship policy of the Church of Rome. It remains to be seen whether Pius X (who is not credited with any such measure of literary interests as characterised his scholarly predecessor) will undertake the production of any addition to the long series of Roman prohibitory Indexes. The first of the two Indexes of Leo is, bibliographically speaking, a fairly creditable piece of work. The titles are, with few exceptions, correctly presented, and in this respect it makes a noteworthy exception to all the preceding Roman Indexes, excepting only that of Benedict, issued in 1758. Its typography is, however, undignified. The volume contains in all about 6800 entries. The number of separate works considered is, however, very much smaller, as in a large number of instances each book is entered twice in the alphabetical list, once under its own title, and again under the name of the author.

The volume of 1896 presents as front matter:

I. The Preface (signed by Cajetanus Amatus) to the Index of Benedict 1758 II. The Address to the Reader, signed by Saccheri III. The Ten Rules of the Index of Pius IV (Trent) 1564 IV. Observations on the Rules, from the Index of Clement VIII 1585 V. Observations on the Rules from the Index of Alexander VII 1664 VI. The Instruction of Clement VIII VII. The Constitution of Benedict XIV VIII. The Decree _de libris prohibitis_, from the Index of Benedict 1758 IX. The _Mandatum_ from the Index of Leo XII 1825 X. The _Monitum_ of the Congregation of the Index 1828 XI. The _Monitum_ of the Congregation of the Index 1836 XII. The Constitution of Pius IX 1869 XIII. The Declaration of Pius IX (in regard to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) 1854

The Index of 1900 is very attractively printed, and is a credit to the work of the papal printing-office. It is the first of the Roman issues that can be so described. This second Index repeats, with a few omissions, the lists of the volumes of 1896, with the addition of certain titles selected from the publications of the intervening four years.

The prefatory matter of the volume of 1900 is made up as follows:

I. The Papal Brief, which bears the signature of Cardinal Macchi. II. A Preface, with the signature of Esser, Secretary to the Congregation. III. The Constitution of Leo XII. IV. The _Decreta Generalia_. V. The Constitution of Benedict.

I have thought it in order to present the full text of the first four of these documents as fairly representative of the literary policy of the Church at the close of the 19th century.

BRIEF OF LEO XIII

“The Roman pontiffs, to whom, in the person of S. Peter the chief of the Apostles, that great duty was committed of feeding the universal flock of Christ, have all been constant in preserving whole and inviolate the most precious deposit of the Faith, and in nourishing the Christian peoples of the world with the food of sound doctrine. Hence the fervent and provident care continually taken by them that, as good grain from tares, so sound and excellent books may be separated from the alloyed, the apocryphal, and the hurtful, lest Christian men, by using them incautiously or daringly, may injure the integrity of their faith and morals. Under this head, the pontiffs themselves or the councils have been ever careful to provide remedies suitable to the evils, changing these to suit the changes of time. When the invention, in the 15th century, of the new art of printing caused a great increase in the number of books and also a great spread of the pest of evil heresies, it was everywhere deemed necessary to take severe notice of evil writings, both to forestall danger and to repair evil already done. Therefore the Fathers of the Council of Trent, to whom our predecessor Pius IV had entrusted the matter, deemed that the great contagion of heretical books, or of books suspected of the crime of heresy, or of books hurtful to piety and morals, should be attacked in two ways: First, the scholars and theologians, chosen for this purpose by the authority of the same synod, made certain general rules so that it might be easier to decide of what books in general the faithful should beware; and secondly, they compiled an accurate and absolute exposition or Index of books of improper contents. When the synod adjourned, by its own decree, this Index, with the rules above mentioned, was shown to our predecessor, Pius IV, that it might, before publication, receive the support of the Apostolic sanction. The pontiff approved it after it had been worked over again with great diligence, and ordered its observance by all.

“In the nature of the case, his Index required additions as in the course of time new wicked and hurtful books appeared, and every one knows that the Apostolic Chair has attended to this again and again with zealous care. Thus Clement VIII and later Alexander VII and Benedict XIV, our predecessors, by the specification of those books which the popes had proscribed, by Apostolic letters, by the Roman Congregations, and chiefly by the Congregations of the Inquisition and the Index, revised and reshaped the Index proper so that it constituted practically a new compilation. Since (the issue of Benedict) there has been a long interval, almost a hundred and forty years, and the conditions seemed to call for something more comprehensive and more efficient for the present needs....

“(Signed),

“ALOIS. CARD. MACCHI.

“ROME, Sept. 17, 1900.”

“PREFACE

“Behold, worthy reader, a new Index of the prohibited books, revised and published with the greatest care, by direction of His Holiness Leo XIII, P. M.; together with a syllabus of books to be avoided, there are published also the Constitutions of the Apostolic Chair by which the examination and proscription of bad books are at present governed: viz.: the Constitution ‘of Offices and Duties,’ promulgated by Leo, Jan. 25, 1897, and the Constitution ‘_Solicita ac Provida_’ by which Benedict XIV, on July 9, 1753, established clear and firm rules for the use of the Roman and universal Inquisition, and also of the Holy Congregation of the Index, in examining and judging books.

“As to the Constitution of Benedict XIV, it does not apply so much to the faithful in general as to those who are entrusted by the Holy See with the task of examining books. The Constitution of the present Pope has another object, since, revoking the rules of the holy Synod of Trent, ‘it sets forth certain new general Decretals, which are to be obeyed religiously by Catholics everywhere.’

Furthermore, these general Decretals and the Index have this in common, that both exist for the purpose of teaching what books to avoid reading and owning. The Decretals, however, serve this end in one way, the Index in another. For the Decretals prohibit the greatest possible number, indeed almost all, of noxious and tainted books, the reading of which is strongly forbidden by the natural law itself; while the Index reviews and notes but a small part of these. By the Decretals, _genera_ and classes only of bad books are proscribed; by the Index, individual books, each with its title and even the author’s name. Hence it is plain how greatly they err who suppose the whole question of improper books to be decided by the Index alone, as though of the innumerable perverse and pernicious books which have appeared in the course of centuries, those only are prohibited which have been condemned by special decrees and noticed in the catalogue of prohibited books. In fact, any given book can only be safely declared lawful reading when these two conditions are satisfied: it must not occur in the Index nor be contained in any of those classes which are as a whole reprobated and condemned by the Decretals.

“It remains to consider what the character of the Index is and what the object was in planning and compiling it. For a catalogue of prohibited books does not go as far as to note each and every bad book. Obviously this would not be done, nor, if the principle of the Decretals be grasped, does it appear necessary. There must, therefore, be some special reason why the Roman Congregations black-list by special decree a book already included in those classes noted by the Decretals. This reason is furnished in most cases by denunciations, from a bishop or other of the persons specified in _Const. Off. ac Mun._, vv. 27, 28, 29, recommending a given book to the Holy See for examination as destructive or dangerous. Following this clue, and not of set purpose choosing the worst among all the books in existence, the Holy See is very often led to examine other books not included by the Decretals. Therefore, it would be vain to seek in the Index either all noxious and wicked books or those distinguished as it were for wickedness in any department, or to demand that the books in the Index be dealt with in a fixed order based on either the argument or the matter. The only basis of the Index is then this, that it notes those works which for any reason have been prohibited by special decree during the last three centuries, whether by popes in Apostolic letters or by Roman Congregations, and especially the Congregation of the Index, so that neither oblivion nor ignorance may obscure the dangerous character of their contents.

“A few words are needed to explain the principle of the new edition and its chief points of difference from the earlier ones. The intention of the Pope in ordering a thorough revision of the Index was not only to temper the severity of the old rules but also, on behalf of the maternal kindness of the Church, to accommodate the whole spirit of the Index to the times. In the actual compilation of the list of prohibited books some material modification has been shown and the number of books formerly prohibited has been diminished. This can be seen in the first Decretal, by which all books prohibited before the year 1600 are declared to be henceforth expunged from the Index, although they are to be considered as much condemned to-day as they ever were, with the exception of those permitted by the new Decretal. Hence in the case of condemned authors hitherto described in Class I, all of whose works were prohibited, by the present Index those of their works are permitted which either _ex professo_ do not treat of religion, or, if they do treat of it, contain nothing contrary to the Faith, unless they happen to have been prohibited by some general or special decree. And this mitigation may properly be extended to the case of non-Catholic authors whose complete works are expressly prohibited in the Index. This prohibition will not apply in future to those books which touch the Faith either not at all or only incidentally by the way, if these have not been noted by any general or special decree. Therefore the old distinction between ‘all works’ simply and ‘all works treating of religion’ might be cancelled as superfluous. For whenever the complete works of an author are prohibited, those works only are understood which either treat of religion or are proscribed by some general or special decree.

“Moreover, certain books, not a few in number, have been dropped from the Index, which, although they labour under certain defects or have some slight taint, yet have such a reputation for learning or such documentary value that their errors or views seem to be compensated by their usefulness.

“It was also thought best to delete a good many works which deal with the Immaculate Conception, soundly, it is true, but too intemperately or with some offence to adversaries. Again, a number in which domestic controversies and private quarrels were agitated with improper acrimony, to the injury of good feeling and with hardly any gain to truth; and some which deserved prohibition not by defective doctrine nor failure in charity, but by the indiscretion of the author in failing to obey the public injunction to silence for the sake of extinguishing private quarrels. These controversies having become extinct and the injunction to silence having been long ago removed, these books could be dismissed.

“Since certain books, otherwise harmless, had been placed on the Index because they contained offices and litanies of the Church which were disapproved and published contrary to prohibition, it seemed good to expunge these also, since to-day the power is entrusted to Ordinaries to publish litanies and prayers of this kind for the private use of the faithful.

“Certain minor works, frivolous, or absurd or superstitious, and such as cite false and apocryphal indulgences, are omitted. For superstitions and magic are sufficiently excluded by _Dec._ 12, 13, 16, and 17; while for the elimination of apocryphal indulgences, there is at hand for all the authoritative ‘decree of the Holy Congregation in charge of Indulgences and Holy Relics,’ published by command and authority of the Pope, and the decree ‘concerning the discrimination between regular or normal indulgences and apocryphal,’ published by the same Congregation on the 10th of Aug., 1899.

“It happened often that there were placed on the Index works of slight bulk, sometimes of only a few pages, which were full of venom and danger, but which have been so dispersed by the passage of time (as by the wind) that to-day copies are hardly to be found. These have not been placed on the new Index. Under this head are included a series of pamphlets, for the most part scholastic, which were transferred to the Index proper from the appendices to the Indexes of Innocent XI and of Clement XI. Theses, also, which were prepared for public academic discussion, although not free from error and rightly and justly placed on the Index on their first appearance, have been thought fit for omission, the more as oblivion has long ago blotted out most of them. But those prohibited writings, however small in compass, which claim any part in the historic evolution of Catholic theological doctrine, are for this very cause retained in the Index.

“All those works were struck off which had been condemned only by the edicts of the _Magister Palatii_ early in the 17th century, and those in regard to which the Congregation itself decreed that they might or should be omitted by the next decree, as well as certain old collections of declarations, decisions, and interpretations of the Council of the Congregation, which this body proscribed by its decree of April 29, 1621. For although the decrees in these collections are not to be considered authentic simply on the ground of inclusion there, the collections are nevertheless believed to be of some value to-day. Besides, the making of such collections in future has been sufficiently guarded against by _Dec. gen._ 33.

“It happened sometimes that the first volume or volumes of a work were placed in the Index, the later volumes of which followed the publication of the prohibition; or that periodicals were proscribed which continued afterwards to be published; also that all the works of an author were proscribed, who, after the publication of the decree, produced other works. In all these cases, the volumes or numbers published after the latest special decree, although not mentioned in that special decree, are nevertheless held suspicious and are justly presumed to fall under the prohibition of some general decree, unless there is evidence of the author’s change of heart.

“It remains to indicate in a few words, for the readier use of the Index, the method used in arranging and describing books. In order that the issue of Leo might be more correct than its predecessors, and that all corruptions might be eliminated which, in the course of so many editions, (some of them prepared by private authority) had crept in, much zealous labour has been given to the investigation of the records of the Congregation of the Index and of the Inquisition, both Roman and general; and of libraries in Rome and abroad. Books whose authorship is declared in their titles are entered under their titles in alphabetical order, the author’s name being subjoined when possible. These names are always entered in full, lest the omission of a syllable should lead to the confusion of similar ones. Assumed or fraudulent names included in titles are treated on the same basis as real names.

“Italian names prefixed by the syllable _De_, _Del_, _Di_, etc., which appears to be part of the name, always begin with that syllable in this catalogue. The same applies to _Van_ etc., in Dutch names, and to _Des_, etc., and _St._ in French names; but names beginning with the two syllables _De la_ are entered under _La_. When the syllable _De_ alone begins a French name, it is placed after the name in this catalogue unless the name begins with a vowel.[156]...”

There follow certain further bibliographical details. The Preface bears the signature of “Fr. Thomas Esser, Ord. Praed. S. Indicis Congregationis a Secretis.”

THE CONSTITUTION OF POPE LEO XIII, CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION AND CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS

“Of the duties and obligations which ought to be most carefully and faithfully performed in this Apostolic Office, this is the chief and most important matter, namely,--to watch zealously and make every effort that the integrity of the faith and morals of Christians shall not be impaired. If this were ever necessary, it is especially so in this age--when, in the midst of unbounded license of character and morals, almost all the teaching which Jesus Christ, the Saviour of Mankind, entrusted to the care of his Church for the salvation of the human race is attacked, with daily criticism and discussion.

“In this criticism, our opponents use various and innumerable stratagems and artifices for the purpose of causing injury; but especially dangerous is the lack of moderation in their writings and the influence of these pernicious writings among the people. For nothing worse can be imagined for contaminating the minds of men, both by making them despise religion and by suggesting many incentives to sin. Wherefore the Church, the guardian and protector of the integrity of faith and morals, in fear of this great evil, long ago came to the conclusion that measures must be adopted to guard against the danger. To this end, it made continued efforts to prohibit men, as far as practicable, from the reading of pernicious books, which are the worst kind of poison. Even the very remote age of St. Paul saw an eager zeal in this matter. And in like manner, every subsequent generation has witnessed the watchful care of the holy Fathers, the instructions of the bishops, and the decrees of the Church councils.

“Especially do the records of literature bear witness to the care and diligence shown by the Roman pontiffs to prevent the writings of heretics, a constant menace to the community, from making their way unnoticed into circulation. The earlier years are full of examples of this. Anastasius I condemned by a solemn edict the more dangerous writings of Origen; Innocent I did the same with all the works of Pelagius, and Leo the Great with those of the Manichaeans. There are known to be decretal letters about the same matter concerning the acceptance and the non-acceptance of certain books. For one of these letters Gelasius is responsible. Likewise, in the course of years, the decree of the Holy See has condemned the pestilent books of the Monothelites, of Abélard, Marsilius of Padua, of Wyclif, and of Huss.

“But in the 15th century, with the invention of the new art of printing, not only were prohibitions made against wicked books that had actually appeared, but efforts were also made to prevent the publication of any further such books. This foresight was demanded for that age not on any trivial grounds, but by the necessity for the preservation of the public integrity and safety; because an art, most excellent in itself, and the source of very great advantages, which had come into existence originally for the purpose of propagating Christian civilisation, had been speedily perverted by the action of many into a powerful instrument of evil. The great and pernicious influence of wicked writers had more serious and more rapid results because of this very increase in the extent of the circulation of literature. Therefore, by a most wise policy, both Alexander VI and Leo X, my predecessors, made regulations, adapted to the character of the times, to keep publishers in the path of duty.

“Later, as the evil was recognised as more serious, it became necessary to use strict and more strenuous measures to check the contagious spread of wicked heresies. To this end, the same Leo X, and afterwards Clement VII, positively forbade any one to read or to possess the books of Luther. But when, in accordance with the calamities of the age, the foul collection of dangerous books had increased beyond all bounds and had penetrated in every direction, the need of a more far-reaching and more immediate remedy was recognised. This remedy was first opportunely suggested by our predecessor Paul IV, namely, the publication of a list of writers and books, from the perusal of which the faithful were to abstain. Not long afterwards, the Fathers of the Synod of Trent took further measures for checking the increasing license of writing and of reading. In accordance with their wish and instructions, directors and theologians chosen for this purpose took great pains not only in amplifying and perfecting the Index which Paul IV had published, but also in framing rules to be observed in the publishing, reading, and possessing of books. To these rules, Pius IV added the weight of the Apostolic authority.

“But the needs of the public welfare, which in the beginning had caused to be framed the Rules of Trent, promulgated from the council, came in later years to call for further action. Therefore, the Roman pontiffs, and especially Clement VIII, Alexander VII, and Benedict XIV, with full understanding of the requirements and with thoughtful discretion, framed further decrees to explain these rules and to adapt their instruction to the later generations.

“This record shows plainly that the Roman pontiffs have always taken exceptional pains to protect human society from errors of opinion and from influences inimical to morality, and to combat those causes of disaster and ruin to the community which are engendered and distributed from pernicious literature. Good results attended this action as long as, in the administration of public affairs, the Divine law had control of the directing and the prohibiting, and as long as the temporal Rulers of States were in accord with the sacred Authority.

“As to what followed, no one is ignorant. When, in the progress of the ages, the conditions of society had gradually changed, the Church modified with discretion the application of its authority, because, with full understanding of the character of the times, it saw that these regulations were of assistance and service for the guidance of mankind. Several of the rules of the Index, which appeared no longer to be pertinent, were either abolished by decree, or the books therein forbidden were permitted under conditions and with wise judgment on the ground of the increasing importance of antiquarian researches. Of more recent occurrence is the action of Pius IX instructing the archbishops and bishops to modify materially the strictures of Rule V. In addition, in view of the approaching important Vatican Council, Pius IX confided to a group of learned men the task of making a fresh examination of all the rules of the Index with instructions to report as to what action might be necessary in regard to them. They unanimously agreed that certain changes ought to be made. The majority of the Fathers frankly avowed that they were of the same opinion and they submitted to the council a similar recommendation. There are extant letters concerning this matter from the bishops of France, whose opinion was unanimous as to the necessity for immediate action in order that these rules and the entire Index should be framed in an entirely different manner, which would render the regulations better suited to our age and easier to observe. Similar counsel was received from the bishops of Germany, who united in recommending that the rules of the Index should be submitted to a new examination and revision. A great number of the bishops in Italy and in other countries were in accord with this conclusion.

“If one considers the character of the times, and the condition of civil institutions and of popular morals, we must admit that these demands are just and reasonable, and are not out of accord with the purposes or the material affection of the Holy Church. In the rapid development of intellectual activity, there is no field of knowledge in which literature is not produced too freely, with the result of a daily accumulation of foul and of dangerous books. What is still more serious is that this great evil is not only connived at by the civil laws, but even secures under these a great freedom. As a result, therefore, unrestricted license is assured for reading anything whatever, and the minds of many are filled with religious doubts.

“Concluding, therefore, that we must now take measures to remedy these evils, we have decided that there are two things to be done in order that there should be a fixed rule of action in this class of matter, a rule that should be plain to every one. The Index of books forbidden to be read has been gone over again with the utmost care and this revised list shall be published as soon as it is in readiness. Furthermore, we have directed our attention to the rules themselves and have decided, without changing their general character, to make them more lenient, in order that unless a man be really depraved, he shall not find it a difficult matter to obey them. In this we not only follow the examples of our predecessors, but we also imitate the zeal of the Mother Church, which, with loving zeal, takes pains to spare the infirmities of her children.

“Therefore, after mature deliberation and after summoning the cardinals and a holy council to go over the lists of books, we have decided to publish the following general decrees, which are made part of this Constitution. The holy council will in the future make use of these rules only, and Catholics all over the world must obey them scrupulously. We decree that these only shall have the authority of law, and we abrogate the ‘Rules’ published by the order of the very holy Council of Trent, and the ‘observations,’ ‘instructions,’ ‘decrees,’ and ‘precepts,’ and every other statute or law concerning this matter which have been made by our predecessors, except only the ‘Constitution’ of Benedict XIV, which we decree shall remain in force in the future as it has done hitherto.”

GENERAL DECREES CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION AND CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS

ARTICLE I

OF THE PROHIBITION OF BOOKS

I. OF THE PROHIBITED BOOKS OF APOSTATES, HERETICS, SCHISMATICS, AND OTHER WRITERS

1. All books condemned before the year 1600 by the Sovereign Pontiffs, or by Oecumenical Councils, and which are not recorded in the new Index, must be considered as condemned in the same manner as formerly: with the exception of such as are permitted by the present General Decrees.

2. The books of apostates, heretics, schismatics, and all writers whatsoever, defending heresy or schism, or in any way attacking the foundations of religion, are altogether prohibited.

3. Moreover, the books of non-Catholics, _ex professo_ treating of religion, are prohibited, unless they clearly contain nothing contrary to Catholic Faith.

4. The books of the above-mentioned writers, not treating _ex professo_ of religion, but only touching incidentally upon the truths of Faith, are not to be considered as prohibited by ecclesiastical law, unless proscribed by special decree.

II. OF EDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AND OF VERSIONS NOT IN THE VERNACULAR

5. Editions of the original text and of the ancient Catholic versions of Holy Scripture, as well as those of the Eastern Church, if published by non-Catholics, even though apparently edited in a faithful and complete manner, are allowed only to those engaged in theological and biblical studies, provided also that the dogmas of Catholic Faith are not impugned in the prolegomena or annotations.

6. In the same manner, and under the same conditions, other versions of the Holy Bible, whether in Latin, or in any other dead language, published by non-Catholics, are permitted.

III. OF VERNACULAR VERSIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

7. As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the Holy Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without any distinction, more harm than utility is thereby caused, owing to human temerity: all versions in the vernacular, even by Catholics, are altogether prohibited, unless approved by the Holy See, or published, under the vigilant care of the Bishops, with annotations taken from the Fathers of the Church and learned Catholic writers.

8. All versions of the Holy Bible, in any vernacular language, made by non-Catholics, are prohibited; and especially those published by the Bible Societies, which have been more than once condemned by the Roman Pontiffs, because in them the wise laws of the Church concerning the publication of the sacred books are entirely disregarded.

Nevertheless, these versions are permitted to students of theological or biblical science, under the conditions laid down above (No. 5).

IV. OF OBSCENE BOOKS

9. Books which professedly treat of, narrate, or teach lewd or obscene subjects are entirely prohibited, since care must be taken, not only of faith, but also of morals, which are easily corrupted by the reading of such books.

10. The books of classical authors, whether ancient or modern, if disfigured with the same stain of indecency, are, on account of the elegance and beauty of their diction, permitted only to those who are justified on account of their duty or the function of teaching; but on no account may they be placed in the hands of, or taught to, boys or youths, unless carefully expurgated.

V. OF CERTAIN SPECIAL KINDS OF BOOKS

11. Those books are condemned which are derogatory to Almighty God, or to the Blessed Virgin Mary or the Saints, or to the Catholic Church and her worship, or to the Sacraments, or to the Holy See. To the same condemnation are subject those works in which the idea of the inspiration of Holy Scripture is perverted, or its extension too narrowly limited. Those books, moreover, are prohibited which professedly revile the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, or the clerical or religious state.

12. It is forbidden to publish, read, or keep books in which sorcery, divination, magic, the evocation of spirits, and other superstitions of this kind are taught or commended.

13. Books or other writings which narrate new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, miracles, or which introduce new devotions, even under the pretext of being private ones, if published without the legitimate permission of ecclesiastical superiors, are prohibited.

14. Those books, moreover, are prohibited which defend as lawful duelling, suicide, or divorce; which treat of Freemasonry, or other societies of the kind, teaching them to be useful; and not injurious to the Church and to Society; and those which defend errors proscribed by the Apostolic See.

VI. OF SACRED PICTURES AND INDULGENCES

15. Pictures, in any style of printing, of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Angels and Saints, or other Servants of God, which are not conformable to the sense and decrees of the Church, are entirely forbidden. New pictures, whether produced with or without prayers annexed, may not be published without permission of ecclesiastical authority.

16. It is forbidden to all to give publicity in any way to apocryphal indulgences, and to such as have been proscribed or revoked by the Apostolic See. Those which have already been published must be withdrawn from the hands of the faithful.

17. No books of indulgences, or compendiums, pamphlets, leaflets, etc., containing grants of indulgences, may be published without permission of competent authority.

VII. OF LITURGICAL BOOKS AND PRAYER BOOKS

18. In authentic editions of the Missal, Breviary, Ritual, Ceremonial of Bishops, Roman Pontifical, and other liturgical books approved by the Holy Apostolic See, no one shall presume to make any change whatsoever; otherwise such new editions are prohibited.

19. No Litanies--except the ancient and common Litanies contained in the Breviaries, Missals, Pontificals, and Rituals, as well as the Litany of Loreto, and the Litany of the Most Holy Name of Jesus, already approved by the Holy See--may be published without the examination and approbation of the Ordinary.

20. No one, without license of legitimate authority, may publish books or pamphlets of prayers, devotions, or of religious, moral, ascetic, or mystic doctrine and instruction, or others of like nature, even though apparently conducive to the fostering of piety among Christian people; unless issued under license, they are to be considered as prohibited.

VIII. OF NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS

21. Newspapers and periodicals which designedly attack religion or morality are to be held as prohibited, not only by the natural, but also by the ecclesiastical law.

Ordinaries shall take care, whenever it be necessary, that the faithful shall be warned against the danger and injury of reading of this kind.

22. No Catholics, particularly ecclesiastics, shall publish anything in newspapers or periodicals of this character, unless for some just and reasonable cause.

IX. OF PERMISSION TO READ AND KEEP PROHIBITED BOOKS

23. Those only shall be allowed to read and keep books prohibited, either by special decrees, or by these General Decrees, who shall have obtained the necessary permission, either from the Apostolic See or from its delegates.

24. The Roman Pontiffs have placed the power of granting licenses for the reading and keeping of prohibited books in the hands of the Sacred Congregation of the Index. Nevertheless the same power is enjoyed both by the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, and by the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda for the regions subject to its administration. For the city of Rome this power belongs also to the Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace.

25. Bishops and other prelates with quasi-episcopal jurisdiction may grant such license for individual books, and in urgent cases only. But if they have obtained from the Apostolic See a general faculty to grant permission to the faithful to read and keep prohibited books, they must grant this only with discretion and for a just and reasonable cause.

26. Those who have obtained Apostolic faculties to read and keep prohibited books may not on this account read and keep any books whatsoever or periodicals condemned by the local Ordinaries, unless by the Apostolic favour express permission be given to read and keep books by whomsoever prohibited. And those who have obtained permission to read prohibited books must remember that they are bound by grave precept to keep books of this kind in such a manner that they may not fall into the hands of others.

X. OF THE DENUNCIATION OF BAD BOOKS

27. Although all Catholics, especially the more learned, ought to denounce pernicious books either to the Bishops or to the Holy See, this duty belongs more especially to Apostolic Nuncios and Delegates, local Ordinaries, and Rectors of Universities.

28. It is expedient, in denouncing bad books, that not only the title of the book be expressed, but also, as far as possible, the reasons be explained why the book is considered worthy of censure. Those to whom the denunciation is made will remember that it is their duty to keep secret the names of the denouncers.

29. Ordinaries, even as Delegates of the Apostolic See, must be careful to prohibit evil books or other writings published or circulated in their dioceses, and to withdraw them from the hands of the faithful. Such works and writings should be referred by them to the judgment of the Apostolic See as appear to require a more careful examination, or concerning which a decision of the Supreme Authority may seem desirable in order to procure a more salutary effect.

ARTICLE II

OF THE CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS

I. OF THE PRELATES INTRUSTED WITH THE CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS

30. From what has been laid down above (No. 7), it is sufficiently clear what persons have authority to approve or permit editions and translations of the Holy Bible.

31. No one shall venture to republish books condemned by the Apostolic See. If, for a grave and reasonable cause, any

## particular exception appears desirable in this respect, this

can only be allowed on obtaining beforehand a license from the Sacred Congregation of the Index and observing the conditions prescribed by it.

32. Whatsoever pertains in any way to Causes of Beatification and Canonisation of the Servants of God may not be published without the approval of the Congregation of Sacred Rites.

33. The same must be said of Collections of Decrees of the various Roman Congregations: such Collections may not be published without first obtaining the license of the authorities of each Congregation, and observing the conditions by them prescribed.

34. Vicars Apostolic and Missionaries Apostolic shall faithfully observe the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda concerning the publication of books.

35. The approbation of books, of which the censorship is not reserved by the present Decrees either to the Holy See or to the Roman Congregations, belongs to the Ordinary of the place where they are published.

36. Regulars must remember that, in addition to the license of the Bishop, they are bound by a decree of the Sacred Council of Trent to obtain leave for publishing any work from their own Superior. Both permissions must be printed either at the beginning or at the end of the book.

37. If an author, living in Rome, desires to print a book, not in the city of Rome but elsewhere, no other approbation is required beyond that of the Cardinal Vicar and the Master of the Apostolic Palace.

II. OF THE DUTY OF CENSORS IN THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF BOOKS

38. Bishops, whose duty it is to grant permission for the printing of books, shall take care to employ in the examination of them men of acknowledged piety and learning, concerning whose faith and honesty they may feel sure, and that they will show neither favour nor ill-will, but, putting aside all human affections, will look only to the glory of God and the welfare of the people.

39. Censors must understand that, in the matter of various opinions and systems, they are bound to judge with a mind free from all prejudice, according to the precept of Benedict XIV. Therefore they should put away all attachment to their

## particular country, family, school, or institute, and lay

aside all partisan spirit. They must keep before their eyes nothing but the dogmas of Holy Church, and the common Catholic doctrine, as contained in the Decrees of General Councils, the Constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs, and the unanimous teaching of the Doctors of the Church.

40. If after this examination, no objection appears to the publication of the book, the Ordinary shall grant to the author, in writing and without any fee whatsoever, a license to publish, which shall be printed either at the beginning or at the end of the work.

III. OF THE BOOKS TO BE SUBMITTED TO CENSORSHIP

41. All the faithful are bound to submit to preliminary ecclesiastical censorship at least those books which treat of Holy Scripture, Sacred Theology, Ecclesiastical History, Canon Law, Natural Theology, Ethics, and other religious or moral subjects of this character; and in general all writings specially concerned with religion and morality.

42. The secular clergy, in order to give an example of respect towards their Ordinaries, ought not to publish books, even when treating of merely natural arts and sciences, without their knowledge.

They are also prohibited from undertaking the management of newspapers or periodicals without the previous permission of their Ordinaries.

IV. OF PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS OF BOOKS

43. No book liable to ecclesiastical censorship may be printed unless it bear at the beginning the name and surname of both the author and the publisher, together with the place and year of printing and publishing. If in any particular case, owing to a just reason, it appears desirable to suppress the name of the author, this may be permitted by the Ordinary.

44. Printers and publishers should remember that new editions of an approved work require a new approbation; and that an approbation granted to the original text does not suffice for a translation into another language.

45. Books condemned by the Apostolic See are to be considered as prohibited all over the world, and into whatever language they may be translated.

46. Booksellers, especially Catholics, should neither sell, lend, nor keep books professedly treating of obscene subjects. They should not keep for sale other prohibited books, unless they have obtained leave through the Ordinary from the Sacred Congregation of the Index; nor sell such books to any person whom they do not prudently judge to have the right to buy them.

V. OF PENALTIES AGAINST TRANSGRESSORS OF THE GENERAL DECREES

47. All and every one knowingly reading, without authority of the Holy See, the books of apostates and heretics, defending heresy; or books of any author which are by name prohibited by Apostolic Letters; also those keeping, printing, and in any way defending such works; incur _ipso facto_ excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff.

48. Those who, without the approbation of the Ordinary, print, or cause to be printed, books of Holy Scripture, or notes or commentaries on the same, incur _ipso facto_ excommunication, but not reserved.

49. Those who transgress the other prescriptions of these General Decrees shall, according to the gravity of their offence, be seriously warned by the Bishop, and, if it seem expedient, may also be punished by canonical penalties.

We decree that these presents and whatsoever they contain shall at no time be questioned or impugned for any fault of subreption or obreption, or of Our intention, or for any other defect whatsoever; but are and shall be ever valid and efficacious, and to be inviolably observed, both judicially and extrajudicially, by all of whatsoever rank and preëminence. And We declare to be invalid and of no avail, whatsoever may be attempted knowingly or unknowingly contrary to these, by any one, under any authority or pretext whatsoever; all to the contrary notwithstanding.

And We will that the same authority be attributed to copies of these Letters, even if printed, provided they be signed by the hand of a Notary, and confirmed by the seal of some one in ecclesiastical dignity, as to the indication of Our will by the exhibition of these presents.

No man, therefore, may infringe or temerariously venture to contravene this document of Our constitution, ordination, limitation, derogation, and will. If any one shall so presume, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Given at St. Peter’s in Rome, in the year of the Incarnation of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven, on the 25th day of January, in the nineteenth year of Our Pontificate.

A. CARD. MACCHI.

A. PANICI, Subdatary. _Visa._

De Curia: J. DE AQUILA VISCONTI. L. ✠ S.

Registered in the Secretariat of Briefs, I. CUGNONI.

THE LISTS OF THE WORKS CONDEMNED

In the lists (as was the arrangement in the earlier Index of Leo) the date of the decree under which the work was condemned is connected with the title of the book. For the works (a considerable proportion of the entire series) which are entered both under the title and under the name of the author, cross references are given. The number of entries in the second Index of Leo is about 7000, practically the same as that in the earlier volume. Of the publications of the last ten years of the 19th century, 131 works, representing 82 authors, are selected for condemnation. These books of recent date comprise 60 Italian volumes, 47 French, 16 Spanish and Portuguese, 4 German, and 4 English. This selection may be considered as indicative of the lack of familiarity of the examiners with the language or with the modern literature of Germany or of England.

As these two Indexes represent the latest authoritative expression of opinion in regard to the present literary policy of the Church of Rome, it is in order to present with some detail the character of the books selected for examination.

It is with the Leonine Indexes, as with all those that preceded, difficult to arrive at the principle that has guided this selection. The lists include no works of the heresiarchs, and in fact no titles back of the 17th century. Place has been found, however, for reprinting a number of the prohibitions of the early 17th century, as well as for those of the 18th. The Leonine decrees confirm those of the Indexes of Pius IV (Trent), 1564, of Clement VIII, 1596, and of Benedict XIV, 1758, and the lists in these cover, of course, all the important heretical literature from the earliest date of printing. It is not clear on what principle have been selected the works of the 17th century which in the judgment of the Leonine editors were important enough to warrant a reiteration, three centuries later, of the original condemnation. Still more difficult for these editors must have been the selection from the great mass of fiction and of current literature of the past century, and more particularly of the last half of the 19th century, of works that impressed them as sufficiently pernicious in character and abiding in their influence to call for specific condemnation. The result of this selection impresses the student as curiously disproportionate, and in fact as almost haphazard in its character. The fiction which has been condemned is for the most part classed under the description of _fabulae amatoriae_.

I have noted the titles of certain works which seem to be in one way or another typical or which would be likely to prove of interest to the English-speaking readers of to-day.[157] It is doubtless the case that the Italian literature (which constitutes the very large proportion of the lists) possesses for the purposes of the indexer a distinctive importance of its own, but these books are, I judge, less likely to be familiar to the readers who will be reached by my treatise. The dates placed against the titles are those, not of publication, but of the decrees, these decrees being in some cases as far as a century later than the date of the original issue.

_Abrégé de l’histoire ecclésiastique de Fleury._ Decr. 1769.

ACTON, LORD. _Zur Geschichte des vaticanischen Conciles; Sendschreiben an einen deutschen Bischof._ 1871.

ADDISON, JOS. _Remarks on Italy._ 1729.

ALBERTUS MAGNUS. _De Secretis Mulierum._ 1604.

_Alciphron_, by Berkeley. 1742.

_Anglica, Normanica_, etc., _a veteribus scripta_, etc. _d.c._ By Walsingham, etc., edit. Camden. 1605.

These chronicles are, it is to be noted, to be permitted when corrected; but for such corrections they have already waited for centuries.

_Apologie de Jansénius, évesque_, etc. 1654.

There are no less than sixteen entries under the term “Apology.”

ARNAULD ANTOINE (_fils_).

Seventeen works are entered under the name of this Jansenist writer. The decrees are of date 1656–1659.

_Arrest de la cour de Parlement._

Under this term are six entries, covering acts of the Parliament of Paris from 1680–1744, the condemnation of which it is considered important to confirm 250 years later.

_Augustinus._ Janseni. 1654.

A condemnation that recalls a long and bitter doctrinal contest.

BALZAC, _oeuvres de_. 1841, 1842, 1864.

BARONIUS, VINCENTIUS.

Three works. 1672.

BAYLE, PIERRE. _Opera omnia._ 1698 to 1757.

This is followed by entries of four separate works of the same author.

BENTHAM, JEREMIE.

Four works, of which two are entered in the French editions. 1819–1835.

BÉRANGER. _Chansons._ 1834.

BERT, PAUL. _L’Instruction Civile._ 1882.

BLACKWELL, GEORGE, Archpriest of England. Letter to Clement VIII. 1614.

BOILEAU, JACOBUS. _Historia Flagellantium._ 1668.

_Book of Common Prayer._ London. 1714.

BOSSUET, ÉVESQUE. _Résponse à M. de Tencin._ 1745.

BROWNE, THOMAS. _Religio Medici._

BRUNO, GIORDANO. _Opera omnia._ 1600.

BUNSEN, C. C. J. _Hippolytus and his Age._ 1853.

BURNET, GILBERT. _The Reformation of the Church of England._ 1714.

„ „ _History of his own Times._ 1731.

CAMERARIUS, JOHANNES. _Opera omnia._ 1654.

CASAUBONUS, ISAACUS. _De Rebus Sacris_, etc. 1614.

„ „ _Epistolae._ 1640.

_Catechisme, Catechismo, and Catechism._

Under this heading and that of Katechism there are twenty-five entries in the four languages, under dates from 1602 to 1876.

CHARRON, PIERRE. _De la Sagesse._ 1605.

COLLINS, ANTHONY. _On Free Thinking._ 1715.

COMBE, GEORGE. _Manuel de phrénologie._ 1837.

COMTE, AUGUSTE. _Cours de philosophie positive._ 1864.

CONDORCET. _Tableau historique du progrés de l’esprit humain._ 1827.

CUDWORTH, RALPH. _Intellectual System of the Universe._ 1739.

DARWIN, ERASMUS. _Zoönomia._ 1817.

DESCARTES, RENATUS. _Meditationes de prima philosophia._ 1663.

DIDEROT. _Encyclopaedie raisonnée des sciences._ 1804.

_Discovery of a New World._ Wilkins, John. 1701.

DRAPER, JNO. WM. _History of the Conflicts between Science and Religion._ 1876.

The much more comprehensive and incisive work on the same subject by Andrew D. White escapes attention.

DUMAS, ALEXANDRE (_pater_). _Omnes fabulae amatoriae._ 1863.

DUMAS, ALEXANDRE (_filius_). _Omnes fabulae amatoriae._

{ _The Spiritual Body._ } EARLE, JOHN C. { _The Forty Days._ } 1878.

ENFANTIN, BARTHÉLEMY P. _Science de l’homme_. 1859.

ERIGENA, JOHANNES SCOTUS. _De divisione naturae_, etc. 1684.

FÉNELON. _Explication des Maximes des Saintes_, etc. 1665.

FERRI, ENRICO. _Sociologia criminale_ [and four other treatises]. 1895–6.

FERRIÈRE, ÉMILE. _Le Darwinisme_ [and seven other treatises]. 1892–3.

FEYDEAU, ERNEST. _Omnes fabulae amatoriae._ 1864.

FONTENELLE, B. L. _La république des philosophes_, etc. 1779.

FOURIER, CHAS. _Le Nouveau monde industriel et sociétaire._ 1835.

FREDERIC II (of Prussia). _Oeuvres du philosophe de Sans-Souci._ 1760.

FROHSCHAMMER, JACOB. _Ueber den Ursprung der menschlichen Seelen_ [and five other treatises]. 1857–1873.

GANDOLPHY, PETER. _A Defence of the Ancient Faith_, etc. 1818.

GIBBON, E. _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire._ 1783.

GOBLET D’ALVIELLA, E. _L’idée de Dieu d’après l’anthropologie_, etc. 1893.

GOLDSMITH, OLIVER. _Abridged History of England_, etc. 1823.

GREGOROVIUS, F. _Geschichte der Stadt Rom_, etc. 1874.

GROTIUS, HUGO. _Opera omnia theologica_ [and five other works, comprising practically _Opera omnia_]. 1757.

GUICCIARDINI, F. _Loci duo ob rerum_, etc. 1603.

HALLAM, H. _Constitutional History of England._ 1833.

„ „ _View of the State of Europe._ 1833.

HERBERT DE CHERBURY. _De Veritate_, etc. 1633.

_Histoire_, _Historia_, _De Religione_, etc.

Under these terms are entered thirty-six different works.

_History of the Devil, as well ancient as modern._ Defoe, Daniel. 1743.

HOBBES, THOMAS. _Opera omnia._ 1703.

HUGO, VICTOR. _Notre Dame de Paris._ 1834.

„ „ _Les Misérables._ 1864.

JACOB (_filius_) _Chaviv._, etc. By Rabbi Jehuda Arje de Mutina.

The title is reprinted in Hebrew.

JACOBUS I. _Rex Angliae._ [Greek: Basilikon dôron.] 1606.

„ _Meditatio in orationem dominicam_ [and two other treatises]. 1619.

JANSENIUS, C. _Augustinus_, etc. 1641, 1642, 1654.

KANT, I. _Kritik der reinen Vernunft._ 1827.

LAMARTINE, A. _Souvenirs, etc., d’un voyage en Orient_ [and two other works]. 1836.

LAMÉ FLEURY, J. R. _L’Histoire Ancienne_ [and five other histories]. 1857.

LAMENAIS, H. F. R. _Paroles d’un croyant_ [and six other works]. 1834.

LANFREY, PIERRE. _Histoire politique des papes._ 1875.

LANG, ANDREW. _Myth, Ritual, and Religion._[158] 1896.

LAUNOY, J. _Veneranda romanae ecclesiae circa simoniam traditio_ [and no less than twenty-six other works by this much condemned author]. 1688.

LEIGH, EDWARD. _Annotations upon the New Testament_, 1735.

LESSING, G. E. _Religion Saint Simonienne_, etc. 1835.

_Lettre_, _Lettura_, _Letter_, and _Lettres_.

Under these headings are seventy-eight titles.

LIMBORCH, P. _Historia inquisitionis_, etc. [and two other books]. 1694.

LIPSIUS, J. _Orationes_, etc. 1613.

LOCKE, J. _Essay on the Human Understanding._ 1734.

„ _The Reasonableness of Christianity._ 1737.

MACCRIE, TH. _History of the Reformation in Italy._ 1836.

MALEBRANCHE, N. _Traité de la Nature et de la Grâce_ [and six other treatises]. 1689.

_Mandement._

Under this heading are fourteen entries, dating from 1667 to 1729.

MANDEVILLE, B. DE. _The Fable of the Bees_, etc. 1744.

„ „ _Thoughts on Religion._ 1732.

MANSFELD, R. _Diatriba theologica._ 1690.

_Manual, the Catholic Christian’s New Universal_, etc. 1770.

MARMONTEL. _Belisaire_, etc. _d.c._ 1767.

MARVELL, A. _The Growth of Popery and of Arbitrary Power in England._ 1730.

MAURICE, F. D. _Theological Essays._ 1854.

_Mémoire_ and _Memoria_.

Under this heading are thirty-four entries, dating from 1667 to 1817, including several having to do with the Bull _Unigenitus_, the Gallican Church, etc.

Under this title is entered the _Mémoires de la vie du Comte de Grammont_, which was not condemned until 1817.

MERLE D’AUBIGNÉ, J. H. _Histoire de la Réformation_, etc. 1852.

MICHELET, J. _Bible de l’humanité_ [and five other works]. 1840–1896.

MILL, J. S. _Principles of Political Economy._ 1856.

MILTON, JOHN. _Literae pseudo-senatus anglicani_, etc. 1694.

MIVART, ST. GEORGE. _Happiness in Hell._ 1892–1893.

From “Nineteenth Century.”

MOLINOS, M. DE. _Opera omnia._ 1687.

MONTAIGNE, M. DE. _Les Essais._ 1676.

MONTESQUIEU, C. DE S. _Esprit des lois._ 1751.

„ „ _Lettres persanes._ 1751.

MORGAN, LADY S. _Journal of Residence in Italy._ 1822.

MURGER, H. _Omnes fabulae amatoriae._ 1864.

PASCAL, B. _Pensées._ 1789.

POZA, J. B. _Opera omnia._ 1628–1631.

This condemnation represents the confirmation or re-assertion on the part of Leo of the position taken by his predecessors three and a half centuries back, against the contentions of the Spanish Jesuits and of the Spanish Church.

PRESSENSÉ, E. DE. _Le Concile du Vatican._ 1876.

PUFFENDORF, S. VON. _De jure naturae et gentium_ [and four other treatises]. 1711.

QUESNEL, P. 1708–1720.

A series of works comprising practically _Opera omnia_.

QUINET, E. _Le génie des religions._ 1844.

RANKE, L. _Die Römischen Päpste._ 1841.

RENAN, E. _Vie de Jésus_ [and nineteen other works]. 1859–1892.

This entry could more conveniently have been made _Opera omnia_.

RICHARDSON, S. _Pamela._ 1744.

ROCABERTI, H. _Vida y Dottrina_ [and eleven other treatises]. 1688.

ROSCOE, WM. _Life of Leo X._ 1825.

ROSMINI. _Enciclopedia di science e lettere._ 1889.

ROUSSEAU, J. J. _Le Contrat Social_ [and four other works]. 1766.

SABATIER, P. _Vie de S. Francis d’Assisi._ 1894.

SAINT-SIMON, C. H. _Science de l’homme._ 1859.

SAND, GEORGE. _Omnes fabulae amatoriae._ 1840–1863.

SARPI, PAOLO. _Historia sopra gli beneficii ecclesiastici_, [and three other treatises]. 1676.

SCALIGER, J. _Epistolae._ _d.c._ 1633.

SISMONDI, J. C. L. _Histoire des républiques italiennes_, etc. 1817.

SPINOZA, B. DE. _Opera posthuma._ 1690.

STENDHAL, H. B. DE. _Omnes fabulae amatoriae._ 1864.

STEPHANUS, R. _Ad censuras theologorum parisiensium_, etc. 1624.

STERNE, L. _A Sentimental Journey._ 1819.

STRAUSS, D. J. _Das Leben Jesu._ 1838.

STROUD, WM. _The Physical Causes of the Death of Christ._ 1878.

SUE, E. _Omnes fabulae amatoriae._ 1852.

SWEDENBORG, E. _Principia verum naturalium_, etc. 1738.

TAINE, H. A. _Histoire de la littérature anglaise._ 1866.

_Testament, le nouveau_ (printed at Mons), 1668, [together with three other editions in French, one in Dutch, and three in Italian, 1709–1820].

THOMAS KEMPISIUS. _De imitando Christo._ 1723.

TILLOTSON, JEAN. _Sermons, traduits de l’anglois._ 1725.

VOLNEY, C. F. _Les ruines, etc., des empires._ 1821.

VOLTAIRE, F. M. A. _Oeuvres._ 1752.

This entry is followed by thirty-eight separate titles of the books of Voltaire which called for special condemnation.

WHATELY, R. _Elements of Logic._ 1851.

WHITE, THOMAS. _Opera omnia._ 1655–1663.

WILKINS, J. _Discovery of a New World._ 1701.

ZOLA, É. _Opera omnia._ 1894–1898.

ZWICHER, G. _Monks and their Doctrine._ 1898.

=2. Index Revision and Reform, 1868–1880.=--Pomponio Leto reports[159] that Pope Pius IX had instituted, in addition to the six existing commissions of the council, a seventh commission placed under the direction of Cardinal de Luca, which was to be charged with the consideration of biblical material and of the revision of the Index. It appears, however, that this commission held but one or two sessions in 1868 and after 1869 was not again called together.

From time to time suggestions have been submitted for the reform of Index proceedings. In 1870, eleven French bishops took the ground that no work by a Catholic writer should be condemned by the Congregation unless and until the author had had an opportunity of being heard in its defence and of replying to criticisms of any special passages. It seemed to these bishops outrageous that, possibly on the ground of the lack of correct understanding of certain individual passages, important books, representing the serious labour of devout scholars, should be placed under the same class of condemnation as that applied to godless and heretical writings or to books _contra bonos mores_.[160]

The bishops of Germany joined in the demand for a reshaping of the rules of the Index for which in a number of territories it had not been practicable to secure obedience. They also demanded that in the future no book by a Catholic writer should be condemned until a hearing had been given by the bishops to its author. It was contended that by means of such direct action the injury of an official censorship would in a large number of cases be avoided. In a number of monographs printed in 1869 and 1870, the contention was maintained that there should be either a discontinuance of the operations of the Congregation of the Index or a thoroughgoing reform in the whole method of Church censorship.[161]

Segesser says, in his monograph entitled _Am Vorabende des Conciliums_: “We do not admit that the Roman Index as now carried on fulfils the purpose for which it was instituted. It seems to us that the present censorship system, together with the method of securing from repentant authors ‘retractions’ and ‘submissions,’ leads only to serious misapprehensions and confusions of judgment.... The responsibility ought to be left to the bishops to take action, each for his own diocese, concerning the books produced within the territory for which he is responsible.” One of the editors of the _Mainzer Katholik_, writing in 1869, says[162]: “We accept the view which is now being presented very generally throughout the Church, that the reconstitution of the organisation and methods of Roman censorship is essential in order to meet the very great changes in the conditions of literary production which have come about since the time of Benedict XIV.” Writing again later in the year, the same writer says:[163]

“It may well be doubted whether it is practicable, under the present social conditions, to enforce any prohibition in regard to the reading of books and whether, therefore, such prohibitions are not pernicious rather than helpful.... We are inclined to the belief that it would be wiser, in place of leaving the books to be passed upon in Rome, to place the responsibility for their examination in the hands of the bishop of the diocese.... We do not recommend that the Index should be abandoned, but it should certainly be revised in order to meet the new conditions of the present time. We submit with all deference the suggestion that a theological literary organ might properly be published in Bonn, and similar journals, speaking under the authority of the Church, in such centres as Munich and Tübingen. Such journals would, with their conclusions, criticisms, and recommendations, carry weight and wholesome influence among all faithful readers in the Church. A central organ of literature, speaking with all the authority of the Holy See and Church universal, should be published in Rome. In such a journal should be presented the record of theoloical literary activities throughout the whole world. The conclusions and criticisms issued under the official authority of Rome would in themselves constitute a standard of theological orthodoxy and of literary form.... For such an undertaking, the support and the interest of devout Catholics throughout the world would be assured. Its influence would have the effect of an Index or censorship of literature. Such a journal should serve as a guide and an inspiration towards a true Catholic life.”

A periodical which was in existence for a few years during the last decade of the 18th century appears to have had some such purpose as this writer considers important. The _Giornale Ecclesiastico_, a weekly journal published in Rome from July, 1785, to June, 1798, presented, together with Church news and general information, a weekly review of books. The journal included further the decrees issued, during this period of fourteen years, by the censorship authorities of Rome, against the books selected for condemnation. The first volume recorded in these decrees is a treatise entitled _Was ist der Pabst?_ published anonymously but identified as the work of Eybel. It receives the honour of a condemnation, not in the ordinary form, but in an elaborate “constitution” printed over the signature of Pope Pius VI. The treatise had been issued at a critical time when the Pope found ground for alarm at the reformations announced by Joseph II. One of the works condemned in the later decrees was the _Pensées_ of Pascal, with Voltaire’s notes.

[Sidenote: The Infallibility of the Pope]

The criticism has been made more than once on the part of Protestant historians of the Index that the record of the conflicting decisions given by successive popes in regard to literary productions itself constitutes a substantial argument against the reasonableness of the doctrine of infallibility. This doctrine became officially one of the dogmas of the Church at the Council of the Lateran in 1870. It is the understanding that, while the declaration of the dogma was made this year for the first time, under the necessary interpretation of such dogma, it would be held to apply to the utterances of all the popes preceding Pius IX. The orthodox interpreters of Catholic doctrine point out, however, that the claim for infallibility does not cover all classes of papal utterances. Father Searle, for instance (writing in New York, 1895), makes the following statement in regard to the orthodox interpretation of this dogma:

“The special prerogative which Catholics now universally believe to have been conferred on the Pope by the Divine Founder of Christianity has a very special and limited range, although certainly quite complete within its proper domain. It consists in the Pope’s ability to decide questions concerning religion about which there may be room for doubt in the minds of Christians, on account either of the large number of adherents or of the apparently plausible arguments on both sides of the question.... It should be clearly understood that it is not the office of the Pope to act as one inspired or to receive or give to the world any new revelation. It is merely to decide what the original deposit (as we call it) of faith was, as committed by Christ to his Apostles; or in other words to repeat the decision which the Apostles themselves would have made in regard to the doctrines of Christianity. Still less is it the office of the Pope to settle matters of science or ordinary questions of fact. Not but what the domains claimed by science and the domains claimed by faith may sometimes overlap; this may be the case for instance to some extent in the matter of evolution, especially if evolution is supposed to apply to the human soul, or it may apply in the cases in which science asserts that matter existed from all eternity.... And even questions of historical fact may belong to faith by being necessarily connected with some of its dogmas, or by forming part of the inspired record of Holy Scripture. There would, for instance, be a conflict of history or of geology with the Church, if it should be asserted in the name of either of these branches of learning that the account of the Deluge was simply a myth. But conflicts of this sort are rare. Practically no Catholic is impeded in any kind of study or investigation by any fear of papal condemnation.... The impression of Protestants that we Catholics believe the Pope to be incapable of error, no matter what he is speaking about or under what circumstances he expresses his thought, is of course without foundation.... The Catholics do, however, believe that the Pope is able to make infallible decisions with regard to morals as well as to faith.... But it by no means follows that because the Pope can solemnly instruct the faithful infallibly, he always or on all occasions holds or gives utterance to correct views with regard to right or wrong.... We hold simply that God assists the Pope in a special way to prevent him from making a decision at all if the way is not reasonably clear to it; or if God allows the decision to be made, to insure that this decision shall contain nothing contrary to the truth.”[164]

It seems probable from the position taken by Father Searle that in the cases in which the utterances of the Papacy have by later events been shown to be based upon error or have even directly been recalled or corrected by later papal utterances, the Catholic of to-day would take the ground that these erroneous utterances did not belong to the class for which infallibility was claimed. Under this class of exceptions would doubtless be placed the condemnation of Galileo, and also the condemnation of certain Catholic books maintaining doctrines not accepted at the time as dogmas of the Church but which later secured official acceptance.

=3. The Index and the Liberal Catholics, in 1897. “Romanus” and “The Tablet.”=--In October, 1897, after the promulgation of the first Index of Leo XIII and at the time when announcements concerning the scheme of the second Index were being made, a writer in the _Contemporary Review_ undertook to present views in regard to the literary policy of the Church of Rome and its responsibilities towards the intellectual development of the century. The writer subscribes himself “Romanus” and writes as a faithful and conscientious member of the Catholic Church. He claims to be expressing the apprehensions of a large body of educated Catholics in England and on the Continent as to the probable loss of influence on the part of the Church and of the weakening of its hold on men possessing both education and conscience, in case its present rulers should persist in maintaining a mediaeval policy in regard to intellectual matters. “Romanus” insists that the Church must accept and abide by all of the conclusions of modern science the foundations of which are shown to be thoroughly assured, and that unless the Church may make science its own, it must of necessity lose influence with conscientious students throughout the world.

I cite below some of the more noteworthy utterances in this article.

“Leo XIII,” says “Romanus,” “has inspired respect and sympathy even among men who are strongly opposed to Catholicism.” He goes on to speak of Leo as that “gentle, cultured, conciliatory pontiff, the promoter of historical research, the friend of the French Republic.” The main purpose of his article is to show that “liberal Catholicism,” so far from having ceased to exist, has only been transformed into a much more “formidable movement.”

“Liberal Catholics,” says “Romanus,” “are fully aware that the enormous power of the Church for good would be fatally impaired by an injury to its organisation, and they would regard as intrinsically absurd and unscientific any attempt to reverse the process of development. Their desire is, therefore, not to destroy, but to strengthen the authority of the Church by diverting it from proceedings detrimental to its own welfare.... They are profoundly convinced that the Catholic Church is the one great influence for promoting the spiritual welfare of humanity. They believe that there exists no power comparable to it for the promotion of virtue and of all that is highest, noblest, purest, and most self-denying and generous among mankind. They are convinced that it is the most complete--the only complete--organisation for bringing about among all classes, all nations, and all races, obedience to, and fulfilment of, Christ’s two great commandments wherein lay all the law and the prophets--love of God and of our neighbour.

“Such Catholics also believe that the Church supplies, to our minds, as no other yet existing organisation can supply, means of access and address to their Creator through a worship such as the world has never before known--traditional, majestic, soul-satisfying, and, above all, profoundly spiritual, wherein the divine and human meet and _cor ad cor loquitur_.

“By its sacraments, every stage of human life is elevated and sanctified, the wounded conscience renovated and strengthened, the broken and contrite heart comforted and consoled, the various afflictions of life mitigated and its joys, as well as its sorrows, refined and consecrated.... These liberal Catholics not only look upon Catholicity as the special home and the most effective aid to what is good, but also as an influence making for beauty and the culture of art. Its influence with respect to philosophy they regard as of priceless value, nor do they think lightly of its service to literature. Profoundly influenced by such convictions, the adherents to ‘Liberal Catholicism’ must evidently desire to maintain unimpaired that wonderful organisation of which Rome is the head.... Liberal Catholics declare themselves to be devoted to the discovery, the promulgation, and the establishment of truth in every field of knowledge, historical, critical, and scientific, especially in what bears upon religion. Sincere Theists, they are profoundly convinced not only that the God of truth can never be served by a lie, but that the cause of religion can never be promoted by clever dodges, by studiously ambiguous utterances, by hushing up unpleasant truths, or (when such can no longer be hidden) by misrepresenting or minimising their significance--trying by a series of clever devices to disguise the consequences which logically follow from them. As St. Paul strenuously opposed himself to the circumcision of the flesh, so would the Liberal Catholics oppose themselves to the circumcision of the intellect. These believers are not so foolish as to be blind to the fact that a body so vast and complex in structure as the Catholic Church must move slowly. It neither surprises nor shocks them that new astronomical, geological, or physiological truths should not be accepted with alacrity or that discoveries as to the Old and New Testaments and startling facts with respect to the organisation of the Church in the first two centuries should not be welcomed with enthusiasm and loudly proclaimed.... What liberalism does not understand, what it vehemently protests against and deems fatal to the welfare of the Church, is not reticence, but declarations hostile to and condemnatory of ascertained scientific truth. No one in authority would probably now venture to affirm in so many words that Catholics must regard as historical facts such matters as the legend of the Serpent and the Tree, that of the formation of Eve, Noah’s Ark, the destruction of Sodom, the transformation of Lot’s wife, the talking ass, or Jonah and his whale; nevertheless (not only from what is popularly taught, but from what has been put forth in the name of the Supreme Pontiff) it would seem as if Reuss, Welhausen, and Keunen had never written at all, instead of having transformed our whole conception of the Hexateuch. Liberal Catholics need demand no formal disavowals. What they do most strongly deprecate are needless declarations freshly made in the full light of modern science, physical, physiological, historical, or critical, yet futilely hostile thereto. The well-known Syllabus of Pius IX afforded a memorable instance of what is thus objected to.... It was so worded as to make plain men believe that their reasonable liberties had been condemned, and many tender consciences were greatly troubled thereby. A year or two back, Leo XIII, in a letter concerning the Bible, afforded a most amazing example of misleading ambiguity.... It is understood that for this letter he was not personally to blame, his will having been overborne by the influence of the Jesuits of the _Civiltà Cattolica_. This letter contains, to be sure, a certain recognition of modern science; but it broadly declares that the Bible contains no error.... English Catholics have been played with of late in the matter of a new Index in a singularly inept and absurd manner, owing to the fact that the players at Rome are so densely ignorant concerning the state of things in England.

“The old Index was never supposed to be binding on English Catholics and, indeed, its provisions were such that it was practically almost a dead letter on the Continent also.... The new Index is, however, formally declared to be applicable to all countries, and great has been the distress which through its publication arose in the minds of a multitude of timid and scrupulous believers.... Pressure was brought to bear upon Rome, which was forced at last to learn something of the condition of affairs in England, and finally supreme authority has had to draw in its horns and suffer it to be spread about in England that the new reformed Index does not apply here, and that in this happy country every condemned publication can be read, and any work on morals or religion published and circulated, without ecclesiastics having the power to prevent it.... Since the affair of the Index, however, a yet more monstrous act has been perpetrated. Any one who has taken any interest in Scripture knows that for many years past the text in the Epistle of St. John about ‘the three witnesses’ (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in heaven) has been regarded as a spurious addition. An application was lately made to Rome to know whether the authenticity of this well-known text might safely be called in question. The reply was that it might neither be denied nor called in question. Thus authority, in this last act, has shown an utter contempt for historical and critical truth, and that it desires its spiritual subjects should be left to believe that an absolutely unauthentic passage is an inspired statement written ‘by the finger of God.’... We live in a critical period. Dogmatic statements require special care when, thanks to the labours of such men as Harnack and Weiszäcker, so much light has been thrown on the genesis and history of dogma and the earliest condition of the Christian Church. But the diffusion of any such knowledge is but little perilous if only authority will refrain from self-destructive affirmations.... The advance of physical science necessarily carries with it changes in religious belief, as astronomy and geology unquestionably show. But changes in moral science and consequent modifications in human sentiment produce changes of far greater moment.... It is then above all things necessary that ecclesiastical authority should help in the elevation of popular ethical ideals, instead of trying, as the Catholic Church has in many cases already done, to retain these at a lower stage of development.... The scientific teaching now current about the Old and the New Testament, the history of dogma and of the beginnings of the Church, must doubtless disturb the minds of many faithful Catholics now as future discoveries in the field of physiology will disturb the minds of persons who are to come after us. We are and we wish to remain in sympathy with the Church of centuries long gone; but surely we should also wish and strive to pave the way for the triumph of the Church in ages yet to come. We emphasise the importance of attention to past changes and the necessity of great consideration and accommodation on the part of authority at the present time and yet more in the future. We urge this because we are devoted to the cause of the Catholic Church; we urge this as humble followers of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, in the name of Him who was the first great teacher of ‘accommodation’ and who, as the great opponent of pharisaic narrowness, emphatically deserves the honourable title of the first ‘Liberal Catholic’ of the Universal Church of Christ.”

The criticism of “Romanus,” speaking on behalf of the Liberal Catholics, was promptly taken up by an “orthodox” Romanist, evidently a strong opponent of Liberal Catholicism, who is prepared to accept without question the authority and the policy of Pius and Leo in regard to the supervision of literature and the direction of the intellectual life of the Church. The reply of the defender of the papal policy appears in the _Tablet_ (which may, I suppose, be considered as the official organ of the Church in England) in December, 1897. The following extracts will give the main conclusions of this upholder of papal authority.

“The article in the _Contemporary Review_ which claims to represent the views of ‘Liberal Catholicism’ is not entitled to any serious attention on the part of educated Catholics. Its matter and its spirit are well known to them _ad nauseam_, and they easily recognise one and the other as a part of the stock-in-trade of certain writers who not unnaturally conceive that they can attack the Catholic Church more plausibly by affecting to stand within her pale, and while masquerading (anonymously, of course) under the name of Catholic. The only passage in the _Contemporary_ article which is deserving of any present attention is that relating to the modification of the recent Constitution of the Index. In January last, the Holy See was pleased to simplify, and in many respects to modify, the provisions of the Index, and issued a Constitution to that effect. Like all legislation of a general kind, it was issued to the Church as a whole. The Holy See, following its most wise tradition, frames its general law upon the needs of the bulk or majority of its subjects, and makes such law, for the time being, the standard of the community, knowing that if its provisions, in whole or in part, should, owing to peculiar circumstances, become inapplicable to the minority or should press unduly upon them, their case can easily be met either by local modification, or by personal dispensation where they affect an individual or a class. A good deal of cheap rhetoric is often wasted upon the narrowness and intolerance of the authorities of the Index. We are concerned with the law itself and with the principles which underlie this law and with the reasons which justify it. The measure of discretion (or of indiscretion) which characterises the action of the authorities in the administration of the law and in its application to this or that book or opinion deserves separate consideration.... It may safely be asserted that not a little of the ordinary criticism of the regulations of the Index is due in many cases to insularity. Probably out of every hundred Englishmen or Americans who rail against the restrictions of the Index, not a tithe has any direct acquaintance with, or takes any due account of, the flood of bitterly anti-Christian literature, often infidel, immoral, and blasphemous, and almost always insidiously polemical, which is poured over Italy and the Continent generally, by the masonic and anti-clerical press. It is in great measure this degrading abuse of one of the noblest faculties of civilised society, and the need of duly protecting the minds of the masses that the provisions of the Index are specially designed to meet. It is simply a measure of Catholic sanitation. In fact, were a representative collection of such continental literature translated and put into the hands of the average English father, we conceive that he would promptly improvise himself into a domestic Congregation of the Index and take pains to see that all such vehicles of infection were rigidly excluded from his family.... That the Catholic Church, which is necessarily an authoritative and a teaching Church, should be equally solicitous about the members of her family, and that from her standpoint she should extend her solicitude, not only to manifest evils but to assaults upon the faith which she believes to be the logical sub-structure of morality, is a principle which assuredly need not excite our surprise. However much we may feel that, in times like our own, when our best triumphs promise to be gained by guiding, rather than by limiting human liberty, and when necessarily much must be left to the discretion of the conscientious, the practical application of the principle is a matter which calls for the exercise of that generous and tactful delicacy that the Catholic Church knows so well how to use in teaching her children.... No one who looks upon the face of Christendom to-day can fail to note that there exists a clearly marked difference between the whole set of social and political circumstances which obtain in the English-speaking lands and those which obtain in the various countries of the Continent. This difference applies

## particularly to the very circumstances which most affect the use

and application of the provisions of the Index.... We maintain that in English-speaking countries there does not exist upon any large or popular scale such bitter and active propaganda against Christianity and Christian morality as are unhappily at work abroad, nor is there that widespread prevalence of aggressively anti-Christian and pornographic literature which the infidel and anti-clerical press pours forth like a pestilential sewer in certain continental countries. The Church has wisely taken into account the special character and circumstances of Catholics in the English-speaking countries, and the significance which as expressing the more modern development of social and political life they promise to possess in the future. For centuries, the provisions of the Index in their more rigid sense have not been practically applied to these countries, and to a very large measure these provisions have been left in abeyance with the perfect knowledge of the Supreme Authority.... The Constitution published by the Holy See, in January last, was naturally issued to the Church at large, and when it appeared in the Catholic press of England it necessarily elicited from both clergy and laity the question whether this new Constitution was or was not intended to supplant the _status quo_ which had hitherto existed among us. The reply to the enquiry addressed to Rome by the Cardinal Archbishop and bishops of England, conceded the most ample powers for dispensation, so that, owing to the ‘special circumstances of the country,’ the bishops in England were fully authorised ‘to modify the rigour of the law by their prudence and counsel according as the case might demand.’ Rome’s reply was thus as ready and as liberal as could well be desired....

“No Catholic forgets or can ever allow himself to forget that the Index is at most an institution which has been called into existence by the practical prudence of the Holy See to safeguard and to hedge around with specific regulations the observance of a moral law that is as old as Christianity itself and that, even if the regulations of the Index were abolished to-morrow, would remain in all its force in the Catholic Church. If the faithful Catholic in the course of his reading finds by experience that a given book is of a kind to undermine his faith or to work injury to his morals, he knows that he is bound by the very fact to deal with it as he would with a proximate occasion of sin, and to cast it aside. Christianity by its very condition means discipline. In it the unbridled freedom of thinking, saying, reading, and doing what we like is exchanged for the higher and holier freedom of union with the mind and with the life of Christ. The moral law of the Church is everywhere and always with us and every good Christian carries about with him inside of his own conscience a Constitution of the Index....”

This article may, I judge, while now eight years old, fairly be accepted as an authoritative utterance on the part of the thoroughly orthodox Romanists of England, that is to say, of those who accept without question the decisions and the regulations from Rome. The writer in the _Tablet_ declines, or, to speak more precisely, contemptuously refuses, to meet any of the specific criticisms of “Romanus” in regard to this or that text or to the relations of the Church with the conclusions of scientists. He bases his conclusions upon a general and implicit acceptance of the final authority of the Church in all matters and he apparently holds that only in such reverent acceptance and obedience can there be a religious sanity in this world or hope for the world to come.

=4. The Present Methods of Roman Censorship.=--The Papal Consistory may be considered as a direct successor or at least a continuation of the chancellery of the Roman Empire. When (in 328), the Emperor Constantine moved the court to Byzantium, he left the chancellery in Rome and the authority or organisation of this chancellery came to be associated with the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

The term Curia or Holy See is used to represent the Church organisation or final authority of the Church considered more particularly in its relations with foreign States or with outside bodies.

The Congregations date in their final organisation from Sixtus V (1585). The series now comprises eighteen. These Congregations might be compared in the nature and in the exercise of their functions to the standing committees of the United States Senate; excepting that their decisions do not have to be referred to any general body for

## action. These decisions are final unless disapproved by the pope. The

pope retains for himself the official headship of the Congregation of the Index on the ground that the work of this Congregation has to do directly with matters of doctrine. The working body of the Congregation of the Index comprises ten to twelve members with votes, including always a group of cardinals. In addition to these voting members, there is a varying number of _consultores_ (advisers) who are called in as experts in different divisions of knowledge, but who have no votes in the decisions arrived at. The Congregation which bears the name Propaganda is charged with the responsibility of receiving and sifting miscellaneous business, referring each division of such business to its appropriate Congregation. The Congregation of the Index has from the outset been conducted under the influence and under the practical control of the Order of the Dominicans. The secretary, who bears the name “commissarius” and who is always a Dominican, has the general responsibility for the selecting and the shaping of the business of the Congregation. It is to the commissarius that suggestions are submitted by ecclesiastics or others concerning books which, in their judgment, call for the consideration of the Congregation. The commissarius is also himself under obligation to submit titles of doubtful books of which he has personal knowledge. The exceptional influence of the Jesuits in statecraft and in personal relations with the popes and with other of the authorities of the Church is considered as constituting some measure of offset to the influence that the Dominicans have, in their control of the Index, been able to exert concerning the acceptance (or the reprobation) of literature presenting the special doctrines of the Jesuits. The method of thought and of reasoning of the Dominicans is, it is to be borne in mind, based upon the teachings of Thomas of Aquinas and of the Thomists. The Franciscans are described as the commemorators of the mystical spirit of Duns Scotus. The leadership in intellectual activity in the Church is said to rest to-day, as it has rested through the centuries, with the Jesuits. The great Order of the Benedictines and that of the Cistercians are still referred to as making some of the largest and most important contributions to literature that come from Catholic sources.

It is to be remembered that the bishop possesses in his own diocese a very large measure of independent authority, authority which may be considered as increasing in direct proportion to the distance of the diocese from Rome. This local authority is utilised in connection with literary censorship as for other matters affecting the action of believers. This censorship of the bishops is naturally of special importance when it has to do with books originating in languages other than Italian or Latin, as such books are less likely to be brought to the attention of the censorship authorities in Rome.

In regard to the literary policy of the Church to-day as expressed in the Index, the opinion of the Jesuit Father Hilgers is of interest. In reply to the enquiry, “What is the Index?” Hilgers presents (in the treatise before referred to) the following statement, the text of which I have somewhat condensed: “The Index of prohibited books does not contain or undertake to present the entire regulation or body of the enactments of the Church concerning the supervision of literature and the specification of prohibited books. This body of Church law is to be found in the general Decrees or Regulations (_Decreta Generalia_) of the Constitution, known as the _Officiorum ac munerum_. It is of course to be understood that the editions of the Index are controlled by the general prohibitions (that is to say, by the prohibitions which, in place of specifying individual works, express a general literary policy) and also by what may be called the law of nature.... It is not safe for a believer to say, ‘as this book is not found in the Index, I am at liberty to read it.’ It should be understood that the book in question or any similar work may fall under the prohibition of the general rule or may under the law of nature be classed as pernicious. It is undoubtedly the case that many books which are pernicious for faith or for morals are not to be found in the Index. It would of course be a physical impossibility to include in any current lists all of the books of bad character or of bad influence which each year are being brought before the public. The Index is to be considered as itself a portion of the general Church prohibitions. It is not even to be admitted that the most dangerous or pernicious have with certainty found their way into Indexes, either the earlier or those that are now in force. The books which are undeniably bad should so reveal themselves to the conscience of the believer and are in any case clearly indicated by the law of the Church. This is the answer to the criticism that has more than once been made that the Congregation of the Index has concerned itself with the trivial or petty things, leaving without consideration books which are of most serious moment, for instance works belonging to the emphatically bad group. Examples of such are--in literature: those of Carl Gutzkow and Conrad Ferdinand Meyer; in natural science, those of Haeckel and of Krause (Carus-sterne); in philosophy, the writings of Feuerbach and Büchner; in theology, the works of F. C. Baur and of Bruno Bauer, etc. Against names like these, the caution of specific condemnation in the Index ought not to be required by any intelligent reader. There are to-day so-called philosophers whose representative works can be recognised as dangerous by the reason of each intelligent person, and these works it has therefore not been thought necessary to place in the Index. The very fact that the total number of books appearing in the Index is so inconsiderable is to be accepted as evidence that there has been no attempt to make specific condemnation of the whole mass of pernicious literature.” According to the calculation of Hilgers, the Indexes of the last three hundred years contain an average of sixteen new titles only for each year; and these sixteen titles represent the total of the selections made from the literatures of all the countries of the world, principally of course of those of Europe.

The Index presents for us a collection of the utterances of the Church authorities concerning specific condemnations of individual books. It may be said to bear the same relation to the general censorship decrees as that borne, for instance, by a collection of the judgments of a criminal court to the provisions of criminal law. It is the business of the court to arrive at a judgment in each individual case and in each case to determine whether the law has been broken. The Index condemnations, like the court judgments, may be accepted as representative in the one case of the general policy or principles by which the Church is guided and in the other case of the principles and of the provisions of the law. In the Constitution _Officiorum ac munerum_, section I,