Chapter VI

THE ROMAN INQUISITION AND THE CONGREGATION OF THE INDEX.

1. =The Institution of the Roman Inquisition, 1542.=--The year 1542 marks the beginning of formal regulations framed in Rome itself for the suppression of heretical literature and for the supervision and control of the work of the printers. The English catalogues of 1542 and later, and the edicts of Charles V, published between 1526 and 1540, while having for their expressed purpose the maintenance of the doctrines of the Church, were issued under the authority of the State. These earlier censorship measures do not appear even to have been the result of any direct initiative or suggestion from Rome. It may be remembered, indeed, that the _Bulla Coenae_ presents, in its successive forms, a very forcible expression of the policy of the Church in regard to the spread of heresies through literature and of the intention of controlling the production and distribution of books, and this Bull in its original form (as issued by Urban V in 1364) antedates the operation of the printing-press by nearly a century. But the formulation of the measures by which the fight against this perilous ally of heresy was to be carried on, had to wait for the reorganisation, in 1542, of the Roman Inquisition, which reorganisation was the direct result of the revolt of Luther and his associates.

In the present study, I am concerned with the Inquisition only in so far as this was brought into direct relations with the work of censorship. The Inquisition as an institution was not brought into existence at any one date but had a gradual development. Lea refers to the

“gradual organisation of the Inquisition as being the result of
an evolution arising from the mutual reaction of certain social
forces. The triumph of the Church in the suppression of the
Albigensian crusades had increased its responsibilities, while
the imperfection of the means at its command for discharging
these responsibilities was evidenced by the enormous spread of
heresy during the 12th century.”[94]

The responsibility for the discovery and the control of heresy had from the earlier years of the Church rested in the hands of the bishops. For many years after the central authorities undertook to exercise a direct control over heresy and heretics by means of inquisitors appointed from Rome, the bishops continued to enforce their own jurisdiction in the matter of the trial of heretics, sometimes apart from the inquisitors and sometimes in conjunction with them. The spiritual courts which came to be attached to their episcopates, and which exercised exclusive jurisdiction over a constantly widening jurisprudence, arose gradually during the troubles that followed the division of the Carlovingian empire. All errors of faith and charges of heresy necessarily came within the purview of these spiritual courts.[95] Following in the traces of the civil law, there were in these spiritual courts three forms of action in criminal cases: _accusatio_, _denunciato_, and _inquisitio_. In _accusatio_ there was an accuser who formally inscribed himself as responsible and who in case of failure was subject to the _taglio_. _Denunciatio_ was the official act of a public officer, such as the archdeacon, who summoned the court to take action against the offenders coming within his official knowledge. In _inquisitio_, the Ordinary arrested the suspected criminal, imprisoning him if necessary. The indictment, or _capitula inquisitionis_, was communicated to him and he was interrogated thereupon with the proviso that nothing extraneous to the indictment could be subsequently brought into the case to aggravate it. The verdict was finally given by the Ordinary. The first inquisitors may be considered as in a measure successors to the _Missi Dominici_ of Charlemagne, officials commissioned to traverse the empire making inquisition into all cases of disorder, crime, and injustice. We find in Verona, in 1228, “inquisitors” and “manifestors” employed by the State for the “detection and punishment of blasphemy.”[96] Under Clement, the bishops were ordered to make diligent visitations throughout their dioceses investigating all offences, and with the growth of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, this inquisitorial duty was perfected and organised. In 1227, the Council of Narbonne commanded all bishops to institute in every parish _testes synodales_ who should investigate heresy and other offences.

The popes had endeavoured to overcome episcopal indifference to the matter of heresy by a somewhat irregular “Legatine Inquisition.” It would appear, however, as if up to the beginning of the 13th century this whole business of the discovery and the correction of heresy had been cared for by the Church authorities in an unsystematic manner and with no consistency of policy. The more conscientious and more forcible rulers of the Church recognised that heresy must be exterminated at whatever cost, but the measures for its extermination proved to be difficult to bring into organisation. “The institution of the mendicant orders,” says Lea, “placed at the disposal of the Church groups of workers who possessed exceptional facilities for the task to be undertaken. The Dominicans and the Franciscans were peculiarly devoted to the Papacy, and the papal authority placed in their hands to carry on in its larger development the work of the Inquisition, proved to be a powerful instrument to extend the influence of Rome and to lessen the independence of the local churches.”[97]

The consecutive history of the Inquisition as a definite organisation may be said to date from the Council of Toulouse in 1229. The Spanish Inquisition, which proved to be by far the most persistent, the most effective, and the most terrible of the Inquisition organisations of the world, dates from 1480. Curiously enough, the most complete and pitiless of the acts of persecution that were based upon the Lateran canons was the work of one of the fiercest opponents of the Church, the Emperor Frederick II. It became necessary, on more grounds than one, for the Emperor to meet the charges of heresy that had been freely brought against him, and for this purpose, he found it convenient to manifest special zeal in the persecution of heretics. The edicts putting this persecution into form were issued between the years 1220 and 1239. In 1232, Frederick placed at the command of the papal inquisitors the whole machinery of the State, for the purpose of tracing heresy and of capturing and condemning heretics. Frederick’s coronation edict against heretics, issued in 1220, was sent by Pope Honorius to the University of Bologna to be taught as a part of practical law. The whole series of Frederick’s edicts was subsequently promulgated by successive popes in repeated Bulls. The substance of these edicts was finally incorporated in the _Corpus Juris_ as part of the canon law itself, and their regulations may, technically speaking, be regarded as in force in the present day.[98]

The commission issued in 1227 by Gregory IX may be conveniently accepted as constituting the foundation of the papal Inquisition. From this date, the policy of the Church in the great work of the suppression of heresy was pushed forward with a consistency on the part of the central organisation that had not before been possible. In April, 1233, Gregory IX issued two Bulls making the persecution of heresy the special function of the Dominicans. The plan, arrived at by Gregory, for the selection by the provincial churches of certain brethren who exercised within their several provinces the delegated authority of the Holy See in searching out and examining heretics, was accepted as a permanent basis of the Inquisition. The bishops continued from time to time to protest against the invasion by these papal inquisitors of their territories and of their responsibilities, but the power of the Inquisition continued to strengthen itself through the centuries. The germ of the Inquisition lies in the duty of searching out and correcting error. It was, therefore, natural that when the new art of printing had largely increased the risk of the spread of error, the Inquisition should have claimed and should have secured a large share of the responsibility for the control of the printing-press.

The chief original authority for the system of the earlier Inquisition is the _Directorium Inquisitorium_ of Nicholas Eymeric, who was Inquisitor-General for Castile in 1316. Eymeric left, among other works, the manuscript of a _Liber Sententiarum_, or Book of Judgments, which presents the early rules of procedure. In 1252, Innocent IV issued the Bull _Ad Extirpanda_, addressed to the potentates and rulers of Italy, which presented an elaborate law for the establishing of machinery for systematic persecution in every city and in every State. In 1265, Urban IV renewed an order, originally issued in 1257 by Alexander IV, under which the local authorities were forbidden to interfere in any way with the action of the Inquisition. The Inquisition was made supreme in all lands and it became an accepted maxim of law that all legislation interfering with its free action was void and that all who enacted such laws were to be punished. When a monarch like Philip the Fair undertook to protect his subjects against inquisitorial processes, he risked incurring Divine vengeance. Under the canon law, any one, from the meanest to the highest, who opposed, or who impeded in any way, the functions of the inquisitor, or who gave aid or counsel to others so acting, became at once, _ipso facto_, excommunicate. In England, the statute _de haeretico comburendo_, enacted in 1400, for the first time secured for that country the penalty of death as a punishment for heresy. It was under this statute that dissemination of heretical opinions by preaching or by books was prohibited and controlled. In 1262, Urban IV instituted the office of inquisitor-general, the first occupant of which was Cajetano Orsini, who became Pope as Nicholas III. After the 13th century, however, the post remained vacant. The Spanish Inquisition retained in its organisation, from the beginning, the post of inquisitor-general, and under such direction as that of Torquemada and of Ximenes, the prosecution of heresy secured in Spain a consistency and finality of action which were not to be found in any other State.

“The papal Inquisition was an instrument of infinitely greater
efficiency for the work in hand than any inquisitorial machinery
controlled by the bishops. However zealous an episcopal official
might be, his efforts were necessarily isolated, temporary, and
spasmodic. The papal Inquisition, on the other hand, constituted
a chain of tribunals throughout continental Europe, perpetually
manned by those who had no other work to attend to. Not only
therefore did persecution in their hands assume the aspect of
belonging to the endless and inevitable operations of nature,
which was necessary to accomplish its end and which rendered the
heretic hopeless that time would bring relief, but by constant
interchange of documents and mutual co-operation these tribunals
covered Christendom with a network that rendered escape nearly
hopeless. The Inquisition had a long arm and a sleepless memory
and it is not difficult to understand the terror inspired by
the secrecy of its operations and by its almost supernatural
vigilance.”[99]

In July, 1542, under a Bull of Paul III, a new organisation was given to the Roman Inquisition. Six cardinals were appointed inquisitors-general, the list including Caraffa who was in 1555 to become Pope under the name of Paul IV, and who had already taken an active part in the fight against heresy.

The six inquisitors were empowered to take such measures as they found necessary, with or without the co-operation of the local bishops, for the detection and punishment of heretics, the examination of suspected persons, the destruction of pernicious literature, and generally for the suppression of heresy. They were also to appoint delegates or sub-inquisitors, and to take action on appeals from all the lower tribunals of the Inquisition. In 1558, Paul IV ordered that the inquisitor-general or chief should always be a cardinal, and that he should be charged with the supervision of all matters of faith, proceedings against heretics, etc. He was to retain this special authority during any vacancy in the Papacy. The Cardinal of Alexandria, Ghislieri, was, however, the only one who held this sole authority. When, in 1566, he was chosen Pope as Pius V, he appointed four cardinals as inquisitors-general. Lea points out that the purpose of the institution of the Inquisition was not merely the suppression of heresy, but the reform of corruption and the correction of the immoralities that had sprung up within the Church. Lea is speaking more directly of the Inquisition in Spain, but the statement apparently holds good also for the Inquisition of Rome, which charged itself later particularly with the work of carrying out the reforms ordered by the Council of Trent.

_1543._ _The Inquisitors-general_ issue an edict for the suppression of heretical literature and of books written by heretics. The book-dealers throughout Italy are forbidden, under penalty of excommunication and of a fine of 1000 ducats, and of other punishments to be determined in the several cases, to sell or to possess any books written by heretics, or tainted with heresies. They are further ordered to place in readiness for inspection all books then in stock or later received, and thereafter to sell no books that have not been examined and approved by inspectors appointed for the purpose. Similar instructions are issued for the printers concerning the printing of books condemned. The inquisitor of Ferrara and Bologna is delegated to arrange for the inspection of printing-offices, bookshops, libraries, convents, churches, and private houses, and to make destruction of all books to be classed as heretical, and to report the names of all printers, dealers, librarians, or others who refuse or evade co-operation in such search.

_1550._ _Pope Julius III_, in a Bull issued in April, recalls and cancels all permissions or dispensations at that time in force, for the reading or possession of prohibited books. These permissions had for the most part been issued to scholarly ecclesiastics whose studies appeared to call for some knowledge of heretical literature. The Bull repeats also the previous prohibitions, specifications of penalties, etc., against printers, booksellers, or others, who may produce, sell, buy, possess, or read such books. The Bull was to be read at St. Peter’s and at the Lateran, and its provisions became binding, sixty days later, on all persons.

The possession or the reading of forbidden books constitutes one of the most frequent charges in the Inquisition trials of the 16th century.[100]

The scheme for the development of the Roman Inquisition so that its organisation should cover as with a comprehensive network the whole of the territory that accepted the authority of the Church, was never brought to completion. The Inquisition of Spain, the most Catholic of the Catholic States, retained from the outset its independence from Rome. The Spanish Inquisition, in form at least, worked under the authority of the king, while in fact, except in the case of strong-willed monarchs like Charles V and Philip II, it dominated the throne as well as the country. France, in company with the other Catholic States north of the Alps, in like manner refused to accept as binding instructions from Rome for the direction of the operations of the local inquisition. In France as in England, the control of the machinery rested practically with the king, while in the several States of Germany, the authority was for the most part exercised by the archbishops and bishops. Even in Italy, the Roman Inquisition did not succeed in securing a general acceptance of its authority. Venice was able to retain, during the greater part of the centuries, liberty of action, particularly in the control of the printing-press; Sicily was under the control of Spain, and there were from time to time protests and revolts in Florence and Milan.[101] The influence of the Inquisition of Rome was, however, more extended and more important than would be indicated by the range of acceptance of the authority of its edicts and orders. The decisions of its courts and the policy emphasised in its edicts were very largely followed by the inquisitors in Spain, France, and elsewhere, and they helped to secure some measure of consistency throughout the Catholic States in the treatment of heresy and in the supervision of heretical literature.

_1550._ _Ghislieri, Inquisitor at Como_ (who became Pope as Pius V) excommunicated the vicar and chapter because they had taken part with certain book-dealers of whose stock twelve bales of books, classed as heretical, had been confiscated. By direction of the vicar and chapter of Como, the books had been returned to the importers. Como was at that time being used as a port of entry for Northern Italy for books from Germany and Switzerland. The sympathies of the town were with the book-dealers and the Inquisition was said to have escaped with difficulty the vengeance of the injured parties.[102]

_1563._ _Pius IV_ issues a Bull giving authority to the Inquisition to proceed, in regard to heresy, against prelates as well as laymen. The action of the Roman Inquisition was as a rule much less severe than that of the Spanish organisation, and there was, therefore fierce and effective opposition when Spanish monarchs, in connection with their control of Italian territory, attempted from time to time to introduce the Spanish regulations into Naples and Milan.

_1595._ _Decrees of the Roman Inquisition_ order the inquisitors, or in their absence the bishop, to make search for heretical books in the cargoes of all incoming ships. The books found are to be confiscated and burned. In the Inquisition of Rome, as also in the Congregation of the Index, the Dominicans had from the beginning exercised a very large influence, and were in fact for the greater part of the time in full control. From the beginning of the 16th century, this Order had taken the leading part in the work of extirpating heresy. It was at the instance of Cardinal Caraffa that a Dominican was associated with the six cardinals as “Commissary” and became the actual executive of the board. Many of the edicts and orders, and particularly those in regard to books, soon came to be issued on the sole responsibility of the “Commissary.”[103] In the selection of the authors to be condemned and of the phases of doctrine to be brought into disrepute, the old-time antagonism of the Dominicans against the Franciscans and the Jesuits speedily became apparent. The generals of the Franciscans emphasised with the popes the evil that was caused to the influence of the Church by confiding to ignorant and prejudiced monks the supervision of literature and the determination of heresies. It is not clear, however, that the management of the Inquisition became more judicious or the supervision of the censorship more discriminating at the times (comparatively infrequent) when the control of the Dominicans was replaced by that of the more scholarly, but no less bitter and partisan, influence of the Jesuits.

The chaplain of Philip II declared it as his opinion that the purification of Spain from heretics was due to the deaths brought about under the regulations of the Index, and the prosecution of heretics by the Inquisition. Cardinal Pallavicino, in his eulogy on Paul IV, lays special emphasis on the Pope’s zealous attachment to the Inquisition, and claims that the preservation of Italy from the infection of invading heresies was due to the activity of the holy tribunal, and particularly to its work in supervising the Index.[104] Paramo asserts that the Holy Office of the Inquisition originated in Paradise and that its record can be traced through the succeeding ages of Jewish and of Christian history.

=2. Trials under the Inquisition in the 17th Century.=--The most noteworthy of the trials directed by the Inquisition during the first half of the 17th century is that of Galileo. In connection with a denunciation that had been submitted to the authorities concerning the teachings of Galileo, the Inquisition secured from its theological counsellors an examination of and a formal opinion concerning two propositions which presented the Copernican theory. One of these was declared to be heretical, while the other was characterised as simply erroneous. As a result of this report, given in March, 1616, the Congregation of the Index condemned, with a _d. c._, the treatise by Copernicus, _De revolutionibus orbium coelestium_, and also the “Commentary on Job” by Didacus of Stunica. The latter had been issued in Italy in 1584, and reprinted in Rome in 1592. The same list included the prohibition of a volume by Foscarini entitled _Lettera sopra l’opiniones de’ Pittagorici e del Copernico_, printed in Naples in 1615. A general prohibition was added of all writings which presented similar teachings. This condemnation of the Copernican theories was, under the instruction of the pope, communicated by Cardinal Bellarmin to Galileo, who was at that time in Rome, and, according to the record, the astronomer promised to correct his errors. In 1632, however, he published a monograph entitled _Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo Tolemaicho e Copernicano_, in which was made substantially evident the acceptance by Galileo of the Copernican system. This publication caused the Inquisition to institute proceedings against Galileo and, in June, 1633, he was ordered to abjure as error and as heresy the Copernican doctrine. The _Dialogo_ was in August, 1634, formally condemned and prohibited. Back of these proceedings, in 1620, the Index Congregation had published a _Monitum_ in which were specified the eliminations and corrections that had to be made in the writings of Copernicus before any further printing of these writings could be permitted. The changes ordered in the text caused the theories of Copernicus to be presented not as a conclusion but as an hypothesis. In 1619, the Congregation prohibited the _Epitome astronomiae Copernicae_ of John Kepler. The above appear to be the only works upon the Copernican doctrine which on that ground simply, and specifically by title, were placed in the Index. It is the case, however, that the _Raccolta_ of 1624, the _Elenchus_ of some years later, and the succeeding Indexes up to the time of Benedict XIV, all contain, under the heading of _libri_, a general prohibition covering all books which teach the movement of the earth and the fixity of the sun. The Index of Benedict XIV omits this general prohibition. Since that date, various books have come into print in Rome in which the Copernican doctrine is openly explained and maintained. It was, however, not until September, 1822, that the Inquisition gave formal permission for the printing in Rome of books maintaining the theory of the movement of the earth about the sun, in accordance with the accepted views of modern astronomy. This conclusion was, on the 25th of September, 1822, confirmed by Pius VII and in the next edition of the Index, in 1835, the names of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Foscarini, and Stunica were omitted. The account of the condemnation of Galileo is given in Chapter X, in the record of the Index of 1664.

In 1623, under Urban VIII, Mark Antonio de Dominis, formerly Archbishop of Spalatro, was brought to trial by the Inquisition and died in the same year while in prison. He was condemned, after his death, as a backsliding heretic, and his body, his portrait, and his books were burned. He had in 1616 joined the Anglican Church, but in 1622 had returned to Rome and had abjured his heresy. The most important of his writings that were at this time condemned was the treatise _de Republica ecclesiastico_, which was prohibited before it had come into print. In 1626, the English Benedictine, John Barnes, was, under the command of Urban VIII, arrested in Paris, brought to Rome, and condemned by the Inquisition to imprisonment for life. He died after thirty years’ confinement, in a state of idiocy. Among the writings of Barnes which have been placed in the Index, the most important is the treatise entitled _Romano Catholicus pacificus_, which was first published in England after the death of the author. In 1622, was prohibited a treatise by Vecchietti under the title of _De anno primitivo ab exordio mundi ad annum Julianum_, etc., the author of which had for a long series of years been imprisoned under the order of the Inquisition, because he refused to take back an opinion concerning the date of the Last Supper. His theory was, however, later adopted quite generally without further criticism. Cesari Cremonini, a professor in Padua, was ordered more than once by the Inquisition to report to Rome for trial. He refused obedience, however, and was protected by the Republic of Venice. The Inquisition could take no further action than to secure the prohibition of one of his books. In 1644, Pallavicini was executed in Avignon under the authority not of the Inquisition but of the papal legate. The ground for his condemnation was a pasquil written against Urban VIII. The pasquil itself, doubtless through oversight, escaped condemnation in the Index.

=3. The Congregation of the Index.=--In 1571, Pius V instituted the Congregation of the Index, which was made up of certain cardinals selected by the Pope and was charged with the work of continuing the series of Indexes and of shaping the regulations for the prohibition and supervision of books. The original order or edict of Pius appears not to have been preserved. The organisation of the Congregation was completed in 1572 by the Bull of Gregory XIII. In 1588, fifteen congregations of cardinals were instituted by Sixtus V for various objects. Of these, the seventh had for its function _pro Indici librorum prohibitorum_. The Congregation is at this date (1906) still carrying on its labours, although, under the later policy of the Curia, its responsibilities have been somewhat restricted.

Benedict XIV, in the introduction to the _Bulla Solicita_, issued in 1753, says:

“There are two Congregations which have been charged by the
Curia with the work of supervising pernicious and doubtful
books, of reprinting those which by means of expurgation can
be rendered suitable for preservation, and of indicating which
must be condemned. Paul IV placed this task in the hands of
the Congregation of the Inquisition, and still to-day (1753)
the Inquisition gives judgment in regard to books of certain
classes. The Congregation of the Index was, however, instituted
by Pius V, and the responsibilities of this body were confirmed
and extended by Gregory XIII, Sixtus V, and Clement VIII. The
special duty of the Congregation is to make examination of
books concerning the authorisation, the correction, or the
prohibition of which question has arisen.”

As first constituted, the Congregation comprised four cardinals and nine councillors. Under a Bull issued in 1572, by Gregory XIII, the Congregation was made up of seven cardinals, of whom Sirleto was named as chief. The Pope states as follows the grounds for the institution of the Congregation:

“In order to put a stop to the circulation of pernicious
opinions, and as far as practicable to bring certainty and
protection to the faithful, it is our desire to bring the Index
of prohibited books into a condition of completeness, so that
Christians may be able to know what books it is safe for them
to read and what they must avoid, and that there may be in
this matter no occasion for doubt or question.... Therefore we
give to you or to the majority of your body, full authority
and powers to take action in regard to the examination and the
classification of books, and to secure for aid in such work
the service of learned men, ecclesiastics and laymen, who have
knowledge of theology and of the canons; and to permit or to
prohibit the use of books so examined, all authority given by
my predecessors to their bodies or individuals for the carrying
on of the work. It shall also be the duty of your body to
elucidate or eliminate all difficulties or incongruities in the
existing Indexes; to arrange for the correction or expurgation
of all texts containing instructions of value, the service of
which is marred by erroneous and pernicious material; to add to
the Index the titles of all works found to be unworthy; and to
prohibit the production and the use of all books so condemned;
and to give permission for the reading of books approved and of
books corrected and freed from error; and for the purpose of
facilitating your task, you shall enjoin upon all bishops ...
doctors, masters, printers, booksellers, magistrates, and others
to coöperate with your body in carrying out the regulations
formulated by your body for the supervision, control, and
improvement of literature, and for the protection of the
faithful against heresy.”

In the Bull _Immensa_ of Sixtus V, January, 1587, the Congregation of the Index is directed to secure co-operation from the universities of Paris, Bologna, Salamanca, and Louvain, and other trustworthy institutions, in the work of examining and correcting books. (The selection of the universities recommended is interesting.) The Congregation is empowered to give permissions, exclusively for use in connection with the Index, to the scholars selected from these universities, and to other scholars whose service is utilised, to read the forbidden books without a special papal dispensation.

The _Magister_ of the papal palace (who was always a Dominican) was the standing counsel of the Inquisition and of the Congregation of the Index. The _Magister_ held at one time the office of papal chaplain, and later served as the personal adviser of the pope in theological matters. Leo X assigned to the _Magister_ (acting in conjunction with the cardinal vicar) the control of the censorship for Rome of books to be printed, and this function is still retained by him.[105] In 1600, Clement VIII decides (through Cardinal Baronius) that the Congregation has jurisdiction not only over books, but also over the authors, printers, and readers of the same; but that it must not interfere in the matters of heresy reserved for the control of the Inquisition.[106]

Latinus (1593, later counsellor of the Congregation) relates that having occasion to read a volume by Paschasius, he had inadvertently proceeded with the reading of a treatise by Bertram which was bound in with this, forgetting that the latter was on the Index. On recognising his error, he threw away the book, and appealed to the Cardinal of Ermland, Grand Penitentiary, for absolution. His sin had brought him under the “reserved excommunication.” Later, the secretary of the Congregation had authority to give permission for the reading of prohibited books (with a few exceptions), but for no term longer than three years, and only in connection with an application on certificate from a bishop, vicar-general, or general of an order.

The first _Magister_ of the palace was St. Dominic. The office was held more than once by cardinals. Since the beginning of the 17th century, the _Magister_ or his associate (_Socius_) is empowered, for the city of Rome, to prohibit the printing and the reading of books. Both officials have also the authority to permit the use of books other than the works of authors placed in Class I, or of books which treat of theological matters. For instance, in 1574, the _Magister_ Constabile gave permission to the scholar, Pierre Morin, to make use of the Greek lexicon of Stephanus (Estienne).

Doctor Shahan (of the Catholic University of America) gives me the following statement concerning the organisation and the work of the Congregation:

“The Congregation of the Index has, since its formal
organisation, always had for its Secretary a member of the
Dominican Order. The ‘Master of the Sacred Palace’ is also,
_ex officio_, a member of the Congregation with the title
of Perpetual Assistant. The usage under which the office of the
Secretary and the office of Perpetual Assistant are always held
by Dominicans is explained as follows:

“When St. Dominic was at Rome, he was wont to interpret the
Holy Scriptures in the presence of the papal Court, and from
that time one of his brethren has always continued to hold this
office. A Dominican historian of the 18th century, Echard,[107]
tells us that the duty placed upon this Dominican consisted
_in Scholae Romanae et Pontificiae regimine et in publica
Sacrae Scripturae expositione_, i. e., ‘in the government of
the Roman and pontifical school and in the public interpretation
of the Scripture.’ This would mean, in the 13th and 14th
centuries, the headmastership of all theological teaching and
preaching in the papal Curia (_Sacrum Palatium_). The
theological sciences were not then differentiated after their
present manner. Doctrinal theology was largely Bible-commentary.
Thus, the Roman ecclesiastical official who had formal charge
of Bible-study and public teaching in the papal Curia, would
naturally be expected to control the public utterances of
his own disciples and of others, to exercise a revision of
theological and Scriptural manuscripts, and to detect and
denounce current heresies, where these might be propagated
orally or made known in writing. As a matter of fact, such
duties belong yet to the office of the ‘Master of the Sacred
Palace.’ It is he who selects the preachers for solemn
pontifical occasions, and revises their sermons, and he is the
official censor of all books printed at Rome. This office is
the principal historical source of the Dominican influence in
the Index. It meant from the 13th century an official duty and
right of revision of all public ecclesiastical teaching, and
the immediate practical decisions as to the conformity of such
teaching with the teachings of the Scripture and of the Holy
See.

“There never has been in Rome a theological faculty
corresponding in character to the theological faculties of Paris
and of Oxford; but it would appear that the popes of the 13th
century had hoped to be able in one way or the other to bring
about the organisation of such an institution at Rome. There
were always at the papal Curia theologians of distinction, both
Italian and foreign, and the subject of ecclesiastical studies
was naturally a matter of constant attention and concern. It
was during this particular period of more or less unorganised
theological activity at Rome in the 13th century that the Master
of the Sacred Palace acquired and held all the privileges that
then went with the office of the head schoolmaster, or head of
the school (_Magister Scholae_). In other words, he was,
as may be said, the equivalent of the head or rector of the
theological faculty at Rome. I take it that had the political
circumstances of the 14th and 15th centuries permitted the
development at Rome of a good school of theological studies, our
Master of the Sacred Palace would have taken on the character
of the chancellor of the university, with such duties as are
exercised by the chancellor at Paris and at Oxford. Probably
too, like these officials, he would have met with prejudice and
opposition and would have been compelled to share more generally
the functions of his office. This was, however, the period of
the Avignon Papacy, the Great Schism, and the preponderating
political interests of the 15th century. So it came about
that at the time of the Reformation, the Master of the Sacred
Palace had for fully two centuries been an office reserved
for a Dominican. The Order was in possession of a place quite
closely related to its original purpose and its historical
development. The Dominicans had also, during the first quarter
of the 16th century, been intimately connected with the work for
the repression of heresy. It was still the period of influence
for the old and influential Aristotelian scholasticism and of
this school of thought the Dominicans remained the most learned
representatives. The Dominicans held also important theological
chairs in many of the Catholic universities of Europe. They
were very learned men of the severe traditional type, with a
long record for fidelity to the Holy See, for opposition to
heresy, and for opposition also even to the new learning that
had led astray so many Churchmen. For these reasons, when in the
latter quarter of the 16th century, it was the question of the
reorganisation of the Inquisition and of the creation of the
Index, the Dominican Order was able to put forth an indisputable
claim for the representation of both. Possibly also the enormous
influence of Spain at this period had something to do with the
actual constitution of these Congregations. Spain was always
wont to look very closely after its ecclesiastical interests at
Rome.”

[Sidenote: The Denunciation of Books.]

The present regulations of the Index provide official channels for the denunciation of books.

In Title I, Chapter X, it is stated that the duty of the denunciation of books to the Congregation belongs to the papal nuncios, the apostolic delegates, the ordinaries (Diocesan bishops), and the rectors of the more important (Catholic) universities. It is requested that on such occasions not only the title of the book, but the reason for its condemnation should be given, and at the same time absolute secrecy is promised as regards the sources of such denunciation.[108]

Mendham contends that the Italian Church seems to have acted on the presumption that, not when she condemned and executed (whether the innocent or the guilty), but only when she acquitted and allowed to escape, she did wrong. And, therefore, the power of condemning supposed heretical books was permitted to any of the superior ecclesiastical authorities.

The pope, as head of the Church, claimed the individual right to the control of literary production. A similar authority was likewise allowed to, and exercised by, public ecclesiastical bodies, such as the theological faculties of the Sorbonne and of Louvain, by individual superior ecclesiastics, and even by the supreme civil magistrate. There were from time to time protests, on the part more particularly of the Jesuits and the Dominicans, against the exercise of censorship by any bodies or individuals not explicitly authorised by the head of the Church, or carrying some such general authorisation as that held by the Inquisition. The Jesuit Raynaud[109] denies the authority of the bishops; and his opinion of the censorship authority of the universities is contemptuous. If, he argues, this power resides not in an individual doctor as such, how can it reside in a collective body of doctors? If Aesop’s ass, though in a lion’s skin, was still but an ass, would a whole herd of such animals form an assembly of lions?

Van Espen, in a tract concerning the Congregation of the Inquisition, states that the censure or condemnation of the books in the Index is often to be resolved into the examination and judgment of a single consultor, as he is called. Not a few true Romanists whose works were thus transfixed have protested against the injustice of being, on the judgment of a single examiner, classified as heretics.[110]

[Sidenote: Damages under Censorship]

I have not been able to find that the ecclesiastical authorities now take, or ever have taken, any official notice of the damages brought upon a publisher or a printer as a result of the condemnation of books brought into print by him. I may assume that an Italian or a Spanish publisher who had reason to suspect the denunciation of a work in which he was interested, would see to it that the author either himself bore the entire risk and expense for the production and publication of the book, or that the author placed himself under bond of some kind for the protection and possible reimbursement of his publisher.