Exactly what constitutes a forbidden book in Catholicism

[dear_dogma]

It is my understanding that the original Roman “librorum prohibitorum” (published 1559 under Pope IV) was rescinded yet certain books remain forbidden.

I understand completely the restriction of the reading of lurid material and even fantasy books that incite impure thoughts, but what I’m talking about here is anti-Catholic/anti-Theistic propaganda.

How am I to offer a legitimate counter to an atheist who touts the "brilliance" of Richard Dawkins, if I am restricted from reading "The God Delusion"?  How can I effectively rebuke Secular Humanism if I'm ignorant of the writings of the likes of Hitchens and Hume?

Now I’m confident that Thomist Natural Law Theory offers a reasonable counter to these relativists and their ideologies, and that perhaps there could be a danger to me if I am ignorant of the Catholic teaching that counters them, but the Catholic teaching either stands up or it doesn’t. It either presents a rational truth or a falsehood doesn’t it?

Exactly what constitutes a forbidden book in Catholicism?

 

[mafh]

I’m not a Catholic, but as nobody else has responded yet, I thought I’d take a stab at answering this. I’m pretty sure I’ve read on this site that there are no forbidden books anymore. Even with offensive/morally problematic/anti-Catholic books, there is no issue with reading them if you are doing so for a serious purpose, and surely apologetics would qualify.

 

[BartholomewB]

How am I to offer a legitimate counter to an atheist who touts the “brilliance” of Richard Dawkins, if I am restricted from reading “The God Delusion”? :

Is Richard Dawkins “brilliant”? I once read a few pages of The God Delusion standing up in a bookstore and found it very poor stuff, not nearly as interesting Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian. Not nearly as well-written, either.

 

[agnes_therese]

It is my understanding that the original Roman “librorum prohibitorum” (published 1559 under Pope IV) was rescinded yet certain books remain forbidden.

I understand completely the restriction of the reading of lurid material and even fantasy books that incite impure thoughts, but what I’m talking about here is anti-Catholic/anti-Theistic propaganda.

How am I to offer a legitimate counter to an atheist who touts the "brilliance" of Richard Dawkins, if I am restricted from reading "The God Delusion"?  How can I effectively rebuke Secular Humanism if I'm ignorant of the writings of the likes of Hitchens and Hume?

Now I’m confident that Thomist Natural Law Theory offers a reasonable counter to these relativists and their ideologies, and that perhaps there could be a danger to me if I am ignorant of the Catholic teaching that counters them, but the Catholic teaching either stands up or it doesn’t. It either presents a rational truth or a falsehood doesn’t it?

Exactly what constitutes a forbidden book in Catholicism?

I’ve never seen anything that says we are forbidden to read Hawkins, etc. Some say that the last edition of the Index, the one in effect at the time of it’s abrogation, is still in effect. However:

1. I believe that was before Hawkins, etc. started publishing, so you’re still in the clear; and
2. None of them have provided a link or any other way to view that last Index. I seriously doubt that the Church is telling us “You are forbidden to read certain books, but we’re not going to tell you which books those are.”

Having said that, one should use good judgment. Someone who is not well-educated in their faith, or whose faith is weak, should be very careful about reading anti-Catholic works.

 

[Bonnie]

It is my understanding that the original Roman “librorum prohibitorum” (published 1559 under Pope IV) was rescinded yet certain books remain forbidden.

If there is no list of forbidden books, how can any book be forbidden?

I think it’s a very individual thing. If the subject matter would be a danger to your spiritual life, don’t read it. If not, you’re good to go.

 

[KP3243]

I don’t know what books are banned if any but I doubt it includes books from people who do not like Catholics or religion, I would think it would more include books that are incredibly theologically unsound. banning books now a days is almost impossible and Pope John Paul II read Marx and Lenin and all sorts of Communist doctrine to the point the Soviets feared meeting with him because he knew more than they did about it. There is nothing wrong with knowing what the enemy believes.

 

[edwest2]

It is my understanding that the original Roman “librorum prohibitorum” (published 1559 under Pope IV) was rescinded yet certain books remain forbidden.

I understand completely the restriction of the reading of lurid material and even fantasy books that incite impure thoughts, but what I’m talking about here is anti-Catholic/anti-Theistic propaganda.

How am I to offer a legitimate counter to an atheist who touts the "brilliance" of Richard Dawkins, if I am restricted from reading "The God Delusion"?  How can I effectively rebuke Secular Humanism if I'm ignorant of the writings of the likes of Hitchens and Hume?

Now I’m confident that Thomist Natural Law Theory offers a reasonable counter to these relativists and their ideologies, and that perhaps there could be a danger to me if I am ignorant of the Catholic teaching that counters them, but the Catholic teaching either stands up or it doesn’t. It either presents a rational truth or a falsehood doesn’t it?

Exactly what constitutes a forbidden book in Catholicism?

An answer from Catholic Answers:

catholic.com/quickquestions/what-was-the-index-of-forbidden-books-and-is-it-ok-to-read-those-books-now

And a book suggestion:

amazon.com/God-No-Delusion-Refutation-Richard/dp/158617231X

Best,
Ed

 

[808Catholic]

It is my understanding that the original Roman “librorum prohibitorum” (published 1559 under Pope IV) was rescinded yet certain books remain forbidden.

I understand completely the restriction of the reading of lurid material and even fantasy books that incite impure thoughts, but what I’m talking about here is anti-Catholic/anti-Theistic propaganda.

How am I to offer a legitimate counter to an atheist who touts the "brilliance" of Richard Dawkins, if I am restricted from reading "The God Delusion"?  How can I effectively rebuke Secular Humanism if I'm ignorant of the writings of the likes of Hitchens and Hume?

Now I’m confident that Thomist Natural Law Theory offers a reasonable counter to these relativists and their ideologies, and that perhaps there could be a danger to me if I am ignorant of the Catholic teaching that counters them, but the Catholic teaching either stands up or it doesn’t. It either presents a rational truth or a falsehood doesn’t it?

Exactly what constitutes a forbidden book in Catholicism?

My advice is to remember what we believe and why when reading any books. I personally wouldn’t buy any book that’s anti-Christian or anti-Catholic because that supports the author/publisher financially. I also wouldn’t own these book or read them in public because others may misunderstand your intent and believe you are endorsing the opinions contained in the book. To rebuke topics like human secularism is to simply restate what the church believes and know the Biblical background for our belief. Whatever Mr. Dawkins and others like him are saying have been said before; atheism is not new, creative, thought provoking, or unique. It doesn’t take much to deny something that is difficult to grasp.

 

[Leo2014]

My advice is to remember what we believe and why when reading any books. I personally wouldn’t buy any book that’s anti-Christian or anti-Catholic because that supports the author/publisher financially. I also wouldn’t own these book or read them in public because others may misunderstand your intent and believe you are endorsing the opinions contained in the book. To rebuke topics like human secularism is to simply restate what the church believes and know the Biblical background for our belief. Whatever Mr. Dawkins and others like him are saying have been said before; atheism is not new, creative, thought provoking, or unique. It doesn’t take much to deny something that is difficult to grasp.

There is discernment…

Here is an area were the Church cannot be expected to keep up with the volume of information published. Besides, if a publication didn’t appear on the list of “banded” material, many would take this to imply that the Church approved the unlisted material when it could have been a situation of something being overlooked.

In reality, how many Catholics would even browse such a list. More people watch movies than read books; we should have a list for movies. Movies are a media that captures a large segment of the public. Yes, many of them graphically display images that are not accepted Christian teaching(s).

However, in regards to the printed publication; I do not believe we should be ignorant of opposing views and beliefs. Many ideas that have been presented by those holding opposing view have little tangible evidence to support their premise and they are also depending on a form of faith. Besides, college will introduce you to many of these thinkers.

 

[dear_dogma]

I came across this link to a declaration of the council of Trent regarding the methods of discernment concerning forbidden books;

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENTBKS.HTM

If taken at face value, this document would seem to forbid the reading of any moral theology camped in atheistic thought. A link was provided earlier in the post to a brief apologetic response from Catholic answers that mentioned the “Librorum Prohibitorum” being replaced by a set of groundrules established at VII. I can’t seem to find anything from VII that makes this reference. If I read the attached link correctly I shouldn’t be reading Kant or Hume, let alone Hitchens and Dawkins.

Help me out here;

Exactly what constitutes a forbidden book in Catholicism?

 

[Bonnie]

Help me out here;

Exactly what constitutes a forbidden book in Catholicism?

If you are a child, ask your parents for guidelines. If you are an adult, decide for yourself. If you can’t make up your mind about a particular book, ask your priest. He might think you’re nuts, but if he knows you well enough, he might know if the book could be harmful to you.

 

[punisherthunder]

I’ll go out on a limb and say things like the Satanic Bible or Wiccan/Magick books.

 

[Bonnie]

I’ll go out on a limb and say things like the Satanic Bible or Wiccan/Magick books.

But they might be a perfect antidote to conversion. Many years ago I read as much of the Book of Mormon that I could stay awake for; it was so boring it cured me of any possible desire to be Mormon!

 

[punisherthunder]

But they might be a perfect antidote to conversion. Many years ago I read as much of the Book of Mormon that I could stay awake for; it was so boring it cured me of any possible desire to be Mormon!

I’d almost agree with you, but classifying other religious texts that veer in and out of the positive arena as viewed by us is slightly skewed. A Book of Mormon, Koran, or Bagvadhgita while different than the Bible, do not overly encourage the slippery slope of witchcraft, demonology, etc. Satanic Bibles and Magick books are inherently against the Bible. Other religious texts are still on a positive side.

 

[Leo2014]

I came across this link to a declaration of the council of Trent regarding the methods of discernment concerning forbidden books;

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENTBKS.HTM

If I read the attached link correctly I shouldn’t be reading Kant or Hume, let alone Hitchens and Dawkins.

Help me out here;

Exactly what constitutes a forbidden book in Catholicism?

As I mentioned before; there is discernment…

Think about it? If you interrupt what you have just referenced; you should not be reading Harry Potter? Come-to-think-of-it, you should not be reading any books published by heathens? But I am not telling you to intentionally read a book that you find will challenge your faith.

I have read books by Kant and Hume. If you have taken philosophy, you had been most likely required to read material by these two philosophers. However, more than likely you have read this material as an intellectual process and not one in an effort to find information for confronting Church leaders. If that is not the case, than maybe you should avoid the material.

I was mentioning before that we should be more concern with discriminating the type of televisions and movies we watch. They are more popular, capture a larger audience and present material in a manner that will more effectively challenge our teaching.

 

[Bonnie]

I’d almost agree with you, but classifying other religious texts that veer in and out of the positive arena as viewed by us is slightly skewed.

I was giving that as an example of reading material being an “inoculation” against what the adherents would have one believe, not saying that it was that sort of book.

I’ve also read Kant, to no effect. Except that now even the mention of philosophy can make me nod off.

 

[dear_dogma]

As I mentioned before; there is discernment…

Think about it? If you interrupt what you have just referenced; you should not be reading Harry Potter? Come-to-think-of-it, you should not be reading any books published by heathens? But I am not telling you to intentionally read a book that you find will challenge your faith.

I have read books by Kant and Hume. If you have taken philosophy, you had been most likely required to read material by these two philosophers. However, more than likely you have read this material as an intellectual process and not one in an effort to find information for confronting Church leaders. If that is not the case, than maybe you should avoid the material.

I was mentioning before that we should be more concern with discriminating the type of televisions and movies we watch. They are more popular, capture a larger audience and present material in a manner that will more effectively challenge our teaching.

I'm afraid that no matter how I word this it may seem confrontational, but I'm begging you not to take this personally Leo2014. I'm only singling out your post because it makes getting my point across easy. 

Everyone seems to have missed the point here. 

Your post is riddled with "I" statements on how you perceive the church council documents to be considered. How you suggest I discern. Now usually "I" statements are a good thing, especially in a forum where posts can easily be confused, but not in this case "I think";)  I recognize that there must be some discernment of motives on my part when selecting reading materials, however that's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking if the link I provided sets the standard for discernment or if it changed at VII?

In other words, I’m not asking what you think it means… I’m asking what the church officially teaches.
I'm asking for help to find the official church document that sets the standard for discernment. Have I found it with the Council of Trent link I provided? or is there a later official church document on discerning which (types) of books are acceptable to read without approval from the bishop?:confused:

 

[punisherthunder]

I was giving that as an example of reading material being an “inoculation” against what the adherents would have one believe, not saying that it was that sort of book.

I’ve also read Kant, to no effect. Except that now even the mention of philosophy can make me nod off.

Again I say that texts like the Satanic Bible and Magick/Wicca/spell casting are 100% bad. Things like Kant, well that’s just a matter of degree and whether or not the reader can NOT let the book corrupt them.

 

[Leo2014]

Everyone seems to have missed the point here.

In other words, I’m not asking what you think it means… I’m asking what the church officially teaches.

Remember that this is a discussion forum. Whenever I have questions regarding the official position of the faith; I reference NewAdvent.org. I image you can post a message in the “Ask an Apologist” section.

It appeared to me that you were starting a discussion? You referenced; “librorum prohibitorum” and you even mentioned that you found that it has been mitigated to a lesser decree. I think by the time any decisions arisen from Vatican II, it became apparent that reviewing published material was going to be a difficult task for the Church - there is just too much to review (this is my opinion).

To me your question sounds a bit pedantic, you answered your question regarding offensive material and ones that will place impure thoughts (I totally agree with you). But when you questioned the material that falls under academic research (philosophy)? What is it that you are exactly seeking? You can start by being familiar with the writings from those during the early period in Church history (St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, etc.). Than with a philosophical foundation, understand opposing views as an academic pursue.

Hence, you mentioned, Hume. If you’re a college student or have gone through college; there is a good chance that you had to read it. No one is going to excommunicate you for reading the material. It is my hope that you are not going to finish reading the book and proclaim that you are no longer Catholic?

Now this is just my opinion; but I would not read propaganda that is just directed at offending me. If someone has a faith or opinion that is different than my belief, I’ll listen if it is presented in a civilized manner. But I am a believer in the Socratic method of debates. However, it still comes down to discernment.