chapter 10

, is the instruction: “While it is the duty of all believers, and particularly of the educated Catholic, to bring to the attention of the authorities of the Curia or of the bishops, books believed to be dangerous, this responsibility rests more particularly upon the nuncios, the Apostolic delegates, and the rectors and associates of the higher schools.” The word denunciation has a serious sound and yet such a word may be applied as describing the duty of any magistrate acting under the law of the land. “The Index is not,” continues Hilgers, “and never has claimed to be, a systematic and comprehensive collection of the titles of each class of prohibited books. It is no more just on this ground, however, that the Index should be charged with lack of system, plan, or consistency than that the civil authority should be criticised because, under the actual working of the law, there may not be each year examples of the imposition of penalties for all the offences specified.... It is further to be borne in mind that the influence of any particular work is naturally not the same during different periods or under different conditions; a book which at the time when certain issues were pending might have exercised a seriously pernicious influence, could for later generations, under different conditions, be studied safely simply as an historical record. It is the purpose of the Index as of the _Decreta Generalia_ to protect and defend the true Faith, sound morality, and wholesome conduct. The censorship prohibitions constitute one means by which those to whom has been confided the care of the flock of the faithful may be enabled to fulfil their responsibilities.”

“In case there may be question of the accusation of any person for heretical doctrine the examination of the matter or the control of the case is held not under the direction of the Congregation of the Index, but under that of the Roman Inquisition. The condemnation of the book does not in itself carry with it a condemnation of the individual.”[165]

The Reverend Spencer Jones, in his treatise _England and the Holy See_, printed in London, 1902, remarks that, in such cases, “when a teacher is silenced and his books have been placed upon the Index a large proportion of the public are apt to entertain pity for him, which is natural; but feel little concern for those on whose behalf the Church has interfered, which shows want of sympathy and contempt for the authorities, which is for the most part unjust; the assumption being that because they judge it right to stay the treatise, they therefore wish to stop the truth.”[166]

A further criticism has been made against the Index on the ground of the indignity caused to works of science and to productions of literature of thought in associating these under condemnation with vulgar erotic romances or with the passing pamphlet of the moment. The Catholic answer is very simple: the Church is responsible for the correction of error in whatsoever form such error may take. Such

## action in regard to an error, whether this be a thought or form of

expression, does not of necessity imply that the writer is himself unworthy. The Church may properly honour and does honour a faithful believer and great thinker like Fénelon, and may at the same time, in its watchfulness over sound thought and precise expression, find it necessary to correct some single utterance of Fénelon. The true Faith has to do not only with understanding but with the preservation of the purity of the soul and of right feeling.

It may be at once admitted that the regulations of the Congregation of the Index do not claim for themselves an infallible authority concerning matters of doctrine. The book prohibitions, while approved by the pope, do not (unless with rare exceptions) emanate directly from him and do not, therefore, partake of the infallibility of his Office. The pope can of course, in the cases in which it seems to him right so to do, decide with his own infallible judgment that the doctrine of a

## book is heretical and such a decision must carry with it full weight.

The general prohibitions of the Index are, however, to be considered as simply an expression or conclusion concerning dogma in the narrower sense of the word. Such prohibitions may be considered as coming from the ecclesiastical court before which the book in question has been under trial and through such judgment the book is either condemned or passed upon as not a subject for disapproval.[167]

Hilgers calls attention to the method of procedure under which the successive Indexes collected into their lists the titles of books that had been condemned (in certain cases many years before) in specific decrees. The Index authorities have, he says, been criticised for bringing into condemnation books having to do with controversial questions, years after these questions have been practically adjusted or were no longer vital matters. The answer is that the literature was considered at the proper time under a separate decree and the Index merely presents a summary of such decrees. The Index of Leo XIII makes clear in its record of condemnations of earlier date the immediate source for each condemnation; whether this took the form of a papal brief or bull or whether it was arrived at through the decision of one of the papal Congregations. The books which have been condemned under a separate Apostolic edict (brief or bull) comprise in all a hundred and forty titles and these have been printed in each Leonine Index with a cross. During the three centuries between 1600 and 1900, the Congregation of the Holy Office, that is to say, the Roman Inquisition, has issued in all nine hundred book prohibitions. These are entered in the Leonine lists with the words: _Decr. S. Off._ During the same period, the Congregation of Rites has prohibited in all but three books. The Congregation of Dispensations has issued two condemnation decrees. It is clear from the above reference that each Congregation has been charged with the supervision of the literature belonging to its own special subject-matter. The Congregation of the Index, however, is concerned with the books in every division of literature because its subject is the examination and determination of works classed as suspected. The entries for which the Congregation of the Index is responsible during the three centuries in question aggregate about three thousand. As before stated, the power rests with the pope to examine and to pass judgment upon any book without the intervention of any one of the Congregations.

The Leonine Index repeats but two prohibitions back of the date of 1600. The first, bearing date 1575, makes entry of the title of the _Chronicon_ of Conrad of Lichtenau, and the second, under the date of 1580, the title of _Il Salmista secondo la Bibbia_, etc. During the above specified period, covering three centuries, the lists comprise some four thousand titles, but this number includes a hundred and eight authors whose entire writings (under the entry of _Opera omnia_) came under condemnation. If the works of these writers were added separately to the schedule, the titles would aggregate about five thousand. Of these titles, some fifteen hundred belong to the 17th century, twelve hundred to the 18th, and thirteen hundred to the 19th; while from the publications of the last decade of the 19th have been selected but one hundred and thirty-one titles. This last group includes, however, the _Opera omnia_ of Zola. The writers of the 19th century who have been distinguished through the condemnation of their entire works comprise the following: Sue, 1852; Dumas (father and son), 1863; Sand (Dudévant), 1863; Balzac, 1864; Champfleury (Fleury-Husson), 1864; Feydeau, 1864; Murger, 1864; Soulié, 1864; Hume (David), 1827; Morado, 1821; Plancy, 1827; Proudhon, 1852; Spaventa, 1856; Vira, 1876; Ferrari, 1879; Zola, 1895.

The omission from the Leonine Index of a long list of names, which appeared in earlier Indexes connected with the term _Opera omnia_, is to be understood as giving permission to the faithful for the use of such books of these writers as do not appear under specific condemnation or as cannot at once be classed under the general prohibitions. All of the books of writers of this first class which do not antagonise either the true Faith or good morality are now free for Catholic readers. This exception would of course continue to rule out the writings of the leaders of the original Reformation, Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, and the rest, although the names of these writers do not find place in the Leonine lists. The Index of Benedict (who from the liberal character of his convictions and policy was sometimes spoken of as the free-thinking Pope) strengthened the prohibitions against some fifty authors. The names of these authors, which had previously been connected only with specific books, are entered in the Index of 1758 with _Opera omnia_. Hilgers emphasises the greater liberality of Leo XIII in recalling these authors from the _Opera omnia_ classification and in leaving condemned only certain specific works. He gives as another example of the liberality of Leo the freeing from condemnation of the famous treatise by Grotius, _De Jure Belli ac Pacis_. This had previously been condemned with a _d.c._ but the objectionable portions had never been specified and no corrected edition had ever been attempted. Another work of this class, previously condemned but now left free by Leo, is the _Paradise Lost_ of Milton, and a third author whose condemnation has in like manner been cancelled is Leibnitz.

The Index of Leo concerns itself, further, with the correction of certain condemnations that had been made, under general decrees, of books having to do with questions that had finally been adjusted through some later utterances of the Church. In 1661, Alexander VII had condemned in a general decree all writings having to do with (either for question or for defence) the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. In 1854, this doctrine was accepted by the Church as a dogma and the decree of Alexander was thereby cancelled. The Index of Leo recalls the prohibition of the books previously condemned which had defended the doctrine.

The great number of Italian books which swell, in the Leonine Index, the list of modern publications, are very largely concerned with the issues, that have been fought over and that are not yet adjusted, which arose from the development of the Kingdom of Italy. The condemnation in 1871 of two essays by Lord Acton was due to the approval given by Acton to the doctrines of the group of Catholic reformers led by Döllinger. The comparatively small selection that has been made in this Index and in those that more immediately preceded it of works from the countries outside of Italy was due to the fact that the examiners of the Congregation have felt under responsibility to pass upon only those books which were directly brought to their attention.

“The Index,” says Hilgers, “has never given consideration to the person or authority of the author. The decision has always been arrived at purely on the basis of the influence, bad or good, of the book. It has not hesitated to condemn utterances of the theological faculty of the University of Paris on the one hand, or acts of the Parliament of Paris on the other. It was ready to condemn ordinances of Duke Leopold I of Lorraine, the treatises of James I of England, and the works of the ‘Philosopher of Sans-Souci.’ It would be difficult in fact to contend that the material contained in these last was not likely to exert a pernicious influence. The royal writer of Sans-Souci scoffs at the immortality of the soul and, with his leader Voltaire, defends a religious nihilism. He who is concerned with maintenance whether of the throne, the altar, or the State, who feels a responsibility for the welfare of the people, will hardly guide his actions by the philosopher Voltaire.”[168]

In December, 1901, a journal printed in Rome for English-speaking readers, under the title of the _Roman World_, prints the following comment on the Index of Leo, a copy of which had, as the writer of the article reports, been placed in his hands by a book collector of New York:

“One of the great book collectors of New York has recently secured from his foreign agent a copy of the new edition of the Index _Librorum prohibitorum_ issued under the directions of Leo XIII. It is seldom that a copy of an official Index or record of books, the perusal of which is prohibited to Catholics, comes into the hands of an outsider. The copies printed are reserved for the use of the readers of the Church. It is necessary in order to secure a copy, to pay a high price. This particular copy, for instance, was estimated as worth from $40 to $50, while a little later, in connection with the greater difficulty of securing copies, it might easily have cost $400. The history of the famous Index is interesting. Its intellectual originator was the Emperor Charles V of Spain whose production bears date about 1550. In 1554, the Pope Paul IV took into his own hands the matter of the supervision of literature. This has since been retained under the direct control of the pope. Many hundreds of books which are not specified and mentioned in the catalogue are prohibited under the general decrees, which decrees, first issued by Benedict XIV in 1744, from that date on are repeated in the succeeding Indexes. It is well known that no Catholic ventures, under penalty of excommunication, to possess or read books which are contained in the Index unless he may secure a specific privilege or permission. It is not so well known that the catalogue is itself three centuries old and that it contains thus far the name of no single American writer, not even Thomas Paine or Robert Ingersoll. There are, however, in the lists dozens of works of the English classics and hundreds of French books which belong to the world’s classics. Here for instance are to be found Bossuet and Pascal. The latter always believed himself to be a good Catholic. Among the English names placed under the ban are Gibbon, Hume, Hallam, and Goldsmith.”[169]

Hilgers amuses himself, and with justice, with the mass of errors that have been crowded into the few paragraphs cited from the article. It is his conclusion that if an American writing in the city of Rome could be so thoroughly ignorant of matters that were easily within his reach, the impressions of Americans elsewhere and of Protestants generally concerning the purpose, the history, and the nature of the Index are probably equally erroneous.

The conclusions of the German Jesuit concerning the literary policy of the Church of Rome as expressed in its latest Index, may conveniently be supplemented by a statement (written in November, 1898) by a scholarly American priest, on the present policy and methods of the Roman censorship. This statement comes in a personal letter to myself and I am, therefore, not at liberty to bring into print the name of the writer.

“The action of the Index is meant to be both preventive and repressive. Its preventive action is exercised through the diocesan censor, that is, there is in every well constituted diocese an officer known as the _censor deputatus_, to whom the bishop can hand over, before they come into print, all works written by Catholics which deal with religion or morals. This officer gives his opinion in writing to the bishop, who thereby issues an _imprimatur_ (permission) or a _nihil obstat_ (no reason to the contrary). There is, moreover, at Rome a similar censorship on a somewhat wider scale which is to-day, as through the past centuries, exercised through the master of the sacred palace. This official continues to be a Dominican friar. The greater part of the works submitted to this censor are of course books printed in the city of Rome or at least within the territory of the old papal States.

“As far as the repressive action of the Index is concerned, this is performed by the Congregation itself. I may recall, however, that at the Council of the Vatican, many bishops from France, Germany, and Italy asked that the ‘Ten Rules of the Index’ be revised. They asserted that the changed social and literary conditions in these countries made it impossible to continue to enforce these ‘Rules’ with the former strictness. The further request was made public that books should no longer be censured (condemned) at Rome until the local episcopal authorities had been heard in the matter so that the author might have his errors pointed out, and that, if he were writing in good faith, he might thus be afforded an opportunity of recalling his erroneous statements and thus save himself from the disgrace that from a Catholic point of view would of necessity have come upon him through the condemnation of his book. The text of this document may be found in the _Acta Sacrorum Conciliorum Recentiorum, Collectio Lacensis_, volume viii, 843–844. On pages 11, 79, and 780 will be found a petition of certain Catholic laymen for the abrogation of the Index.

“The application of the legislation of the Index is made by the refusal of the permission to print, or by condemnation of the printed book and the insertion of its title on the catalogue of prohibited books. This latter act is accomplished by means of special decrees in which one or more works may be specified.... As far as the positive legislation of the Index goes, it may be said that this is, as a matter of principle, everywhere obligatory in that it emanates from the supreme ecclesiastical authority. Nevertheless, it may in certain places be modified by use or by non-use. Sometimes it is not strictly applied or insisted upon; still, it does not lose its binding force although the consciences of Catholics may thereby to some extent be relieved. In certain countries, and undoubtedly in English-speaking countries, the Index legislation has not been strictly observed. I must say, however, that within the last year (1898) a formal enquiry having been sent to the Roman authorities as to whether in these English-speaking countries the legislation of the Index was to be considered as in force, an affirmative reply was returned to the questioners.

“Publishers and booksellers, if they be Catholics, are in like manner bound to the observance of this ecclesiastical legislation. Inasmuch as the legislation is preventive, it is looked upon by them as a security and moreover in general it offers a _présomption d’innocuité_ [presumption of innocuousness] to the book, which is of importance for those who furnish the capital for its publication. [This remark of the American Father is, it may be pointed out, in line with the conclusion submitted sixty years earlier by the Englishman Mendham to the effect that if a book were not included in an Index of its period, those interested in its publication had a right to assume that it contained nothing considered as objectionable by the authorities of the Church.]

“The repressive action of the Index may of course from time to time occasion losses to writers, publishers, and to booksellers. An author whose book has been placed upon the Index is under obligation to withdraw the book from circulation or to modify its text. [It is of course the case, although the Father does not mention it, that any modification of the text of the original edition calls for the cancellation of the copies of this edition and involves the outlay of printing further copies with the revised text]. Publishers and booksellers, if they be Catholics, are bound, as is the author, by the action of the Index authorities. If they be not Catholics and do not pay any attention to ecclesiastical legislation, they may still, in case the work has been written by a Catholic and is addressed to a Catholic reading public, expect to see its sale blocked or diminished through the censorship....

“It may be said in general that the Index legislation, as formulated by Leo XIII, is no longer as severe as formerly; it has been modified in the sense of mitigation. For example, a book written by an American for the purpose of education or instruction for instance in the Scriptures, is no longer _ipso facto_ forbidden. As far as the Index is concerned, such books may be freely read by Catholics who may need them.... The famous ‘Ten Rules’ of the Index issued under the authority of Pius IV (1564) are to be interpreted to-day by the Constitution ‘_Apostolicae Sedis_’ issued by Pius IX, a Constitution which reformed considerably the well-known system of censures, excommunication, and the like, and which is to-day the juridical source of general ecclesiastical censures of all kinds. In the _Compendium Juris Ecclesiastici ad usum cleri_, written by the Austrian Bishop, Simon Archner, Bishop of Brixen, (the sixth edition of which was printed in 1887), you will find (on page 521) the following passage:

“‘The ecclesiastical prohibition of books, whether placed _nominatim_ on the Index or forbidden by its general rules, whether forbidden by the natural law or by the positive law, remains still intact. Therefore, such prohibited books cannot be printed, read, or kept _sine peccato_. But, at the same time, certain modifications of these prohibitions remain also in force, modifications which have doubtless been introduced in various regions through legitimate custom. As to Germany, authors of authority mentioned by the Council of Vienna have maintained that profane books written by heretics, on special subjects, as law, medicine, philosophy, history, etc., although they may contain one or more heresies scattered throughout the text, heresies held by the authors _obiter tantum_, do not fall under the ecclesiastical prohibition. They say the same of those writings of Catholic authors, otherwise worthy books, which contain one or more doctrines that are not entirely in accord with Catholic theology, the sacred canons, and the constitutions of the popes, and which in certain matters may exceed the proper limits in comment on subjects that the writers ought not to touch. This moderation is extended also to the rules of the Index which are scarcely anywhere received in their entirety, and which still less can be republished in this century _ex integro_. Finally, in Germany, even those writings of non-Catholics may, generally speaking, be safely read by Catholics which speak of religious matters in a manner conformable to the doctrine of the Church; and especially is this the case with the works of writers who may seem to be nearing conversion to the Catholic religion. On the other hand, no such license can be given to writings which treat of obscene matter, superstitions, magic, incantations, and the like; such works, even though written by Catholics, are forbidden in Germany, and rightly so. It is further to be noted that even bishops can issue and are under obligations to issue positive precepts by which, even under pain of censure, they may forbid the reading of books if they are satisfied that such reading would bring danger of perversion. In such case, they will declare that the reading of the works in question is forbidden under the law of nature. In regard to this point, Pius IX on the 24th of August, 1868, renewed the injunction of Leo XII, urging the bishops to proceed in this matter not only by their own episcopal rights but also as delegates of the Apostolic See.’

“The work of the Congregation of the Index is continued at Rome practically under the same routine as in former centuries, modified only by the late legislation of Leo XIII.... The prohibitions of the Index are, as a rule, made known by being published in the _Osservatore Romano_. I am not able to say how the individual author learns of the condemnation of his work and whether it is customary to write a letter to the bishop of his diocese or whether the publication in the _Osservatore_ is looked upon as sufficient; nor can I say whether there is any earlier or more juridical means of promulgation than that mentioned. As a matter of fact, such condemnations are first more widely published by means of the Catholic press; but there is no law or usage compelling further publicity than that specified. Indeed, I doubt whether the fact of the condemnation of a book by a decree, or the fact that it has been placed on the Index, is always known to the Catholic world in general or even to those Catholics who speak the language in which the book is printed.... It may be well to remember that, in practice, the condemnations of the Index probably affect very much less than is generally imagined the actual sale or distribution of the books condemned; partly because of ignorance of the condemnation, which is often very general, partly because of the accepted and increasing modification of the legislation, and partly because the persons for whom such books were chiefly intended are often by privilege or by dispensation provided with the authority to read the same.”

At the time of the completion of the proof-reading of this division of my treatise (March 1907), there does not appear to be any prospect of the production, under the direction of Pius X, of any later issue of the Index. Books that are brought to the attention of the Secretary of the Congregation, or of the Master of the Palace, are, however, condemned from time to time by separate decrees. Among other recent similar condemnations, may be cited: Schell, Hermann (of Wurzburg), _Treatise on Catholicism_, (and three other works) 1899. Loisy, the Abbé, _L’Évangile et l’Église_, 1903. Horitin, the Abbé, _La Question Biblique chez les Catholiques_, etc., 1903.

The writings of these three authors gave rise to fierce controversies during the years between 1898 and 1903. Schell and Loisy submitted themselves. The treatise by Ehrhart, _Catholicism and the Twentieth Century_, published in 1901, and that by the Protestant, Harnack, _What is Christianity_, published in 1900, escaped condemnation. In July, 1906, a condemnation was made of _The Saint_ (_Il Santo_) by Senator Antonio Fogazzaro. The author, who is reported to be a devout Catholic, is said to have “submitted himself” in regular course, but his submission could not prevent the continued sale of the book in the Italian as well as in the foreign editions.

I am informed by the publishers of the American edition that the prohibition by the Roman authorities was duly respected by the publishers of the leading Catholic papers of America, which declined to accept advertisements of the book.

##