Chapter XI: The Literary Policy of the Modern Church (2)

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, 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: