Excommunication for reading about Luther?

[Student09]

I’ve been reading a little about Lutheranism in order to better understand the views of some Lutheran relatives (not because I have any intention of following Luther ) but I just read the papal bull “Exsurge Domine” and towards the end, Pope Leo X says that anyone who reads about Luther’s ideas is automatically excommunicated. Um … is this still in effect? If not … when did it stop being in effect? How do these sort of excommunication decrees work?

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I’ve been reading a little about Lutheranism in order to better understand the views of some Lutheran relatives (not because I have any intention of following Luther ) but I just read the papal bull “Exsurge Domine” and towards the end, Pope Leo X says that anyone who reads about Luther’s ideas is automatically excommunicated. Um … is this still in effect? If not … when did it stop being in effect? How do these sort of excommunication decrees work?

At the time (1517), such decrees were made on a case-by-case basis. Later (after the Council of Trent), an index of forbidden books was established that included all works that were condemned by the Church and forbidden to be read by Catholics. Clerics and those studying at Catholic universities, I believe (this was certainly true by the 20th century, not sure how it was handled between, say 1600 and 1900–my guess is that it was restricted to the clergy until some point) were permitted access to such works in order to understand and condemn their false principles. This index of forbidden books was abrogated sometime in the '60s, I believe, but the principle still holds that no one may read any works supporting heresy, schism, false philosophies, etc., under usual circumstances because it is a danger to the faith.

 

[Student09]

At the time (1517), such decrees were made on a case-by-case basis. Later (after the Council of Trent), an index of forbidden books was established that included all works that were condemned by the Church and forbidden to be read by Catholics. Clerics and those studying at Catholic universities, I believe (this was certainly true by the 20th century, not sure how it was handled between, say 1600 and 1900–my guess is that it was restricted to the clergy until some point) were permitted access to such works in order to understand and condemn their false principles. This index of forbidden books was abrogated sometime in the '60s, I believe, but the principle still holds that no one may read any works supporting heresy, schism, false philosophies, etc., under usual circumstances because it is a danger to the faith.

Hmm … I am a college student studying philosophy, history, theology and we have to read things that are definitely not in line with the Church. Would this be a circumstance in which it is alright? I’m a convert and neophyte and when I mentioned to the priest in RCIA that we read these things, he didn’t say it was a problem. We have also studied Catholic theology and that is a large part of how I ended up in the Church.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Hmm … I am a college student studying philosophy, history, theology and we have to read things that are definitely not in line with the Church. Would this be a circumstance in which it is alright? I’m a convert and neophyte and when I mentioned to the priest in RCIA that we read these things, he didn’t say it was a problem. We have also studied Catholic theology and that is a large part of how I ended up in the Church.

As I mentioned, this is considered permissible for college students, though it is a later development. Those works that are read in their proper context by faithful Catholics at a university or college devoted to the Church should not present a problem. In most other circumstances, it would present a problem. Students are required to read books that were on the index (Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, Leviathan, etc.) even at the most reputable Catholic institutions (Thomas Aquinas, Christendom, Ave Maria, etc.) in the US today.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The 1917 code of canon law contained the following:

Canon 2318 §1. Publishers of the books of apostates, heretics, and schismatics that propagate apostasy, heresy, and schism incur by that fact excommunication specially reserved to the Apostolic See upon the publication being released, and likewise those defending these books or others prohibited by name in apostolic letters, as do those who knowingly and without required permission read and retain them.

This canon was not kept in the 1983 code, and thus is no longer in force. I don’t have any information if this was specifically abrogated prior to 1983.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Canon 2318 is mentioned in AAS 58 (1966), page 1186, but it is in Latin, which I don’t understand, but here it is:

Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale
ACTA SS. CONGREGATIONUM
SACRA CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI
DECRETUM

Post editam « Notificationem » diei 14 iunii c. a. circa « Indicem )>
librorum prohibitorum, quaesitum fuit ab hac S. Congregatione pro
Doctrina Fidei an in suo vigore permaneant can. 1399, quo quidam
libri ipso iure prohibentur, et can. 2318, quo quaedam poenae feruntur
in violatores legum de censura et prohibitione librorum.

Dubiis in plenario conventu fer. IV diei 12 Octobris 1966 propositis,
E/mi Patres rebus Fidei tutandis praepositi respondendum decreverunt :

1. Negative ad utrumque, quoad vim legis ecclesiasticae; iterum
   tamen inculcato valore legis moralis, quae omnino prohibet fidem ac
   bonos mores in discrimen adducere ;
2. eos vero, qui forte innodati fuerint censuris de quibus in
   can. 2318, ab iisdem absolutos habendos esse ipso facto abrogationis
   eiusdem canonis.

Et in Audientia Eimo Cardinali Pro-Praefecto S. Congregationis
pro Doctrina Fidei die 14 eiusdem mensis et anni concessa, praefatum
decretum S. Pontifex Paulus Papa VI benigne adprobare dignatus
est et publici iuris fieri mandavit.

Datum Romae, ex aedibus S. Congregationis pro Doctrina Fidei,
die 15 novembris 1966.

A. Card. OTT AVI ANI, Pro-Praefectus
© P. Parente, Secretarius

 

[IntegraCatholic]

It basically is saying that while the canons regarding what books are forbidden and what penalties readers of such books would incur are abrogated, the moral laws still apply to guard one’s faith from error.

 

[Student09]

It basically is saying that while the canons regarding what books are forbidden and what penalties readers of such books would incur are abrogated, the moral laws still apply to guard one’s faith from error.

Ok, thank you.

 

[Bookcat]

It basically is saying that while the canons regarding what books are forbidden and what penalties readers of such books would incur are abrogated, the moral laws still apply to guard one’s faith from error.

For example…of a book is going to be a near occasion of mortal sin or something…or is going to be a danger to ones faith…etc

 

[didymus]

I’ve been reading a little about Lutheranism in order to better understand the views of some Lutheran relatives (not because I have any intention of following Luther ) but I just read the papal bull “Exsurge Domine” and towards the end, Pope Leo X says that anyone who reads about Luther’s ideas is automatically excommunicated. Um … is this still in effect? If not … when did it stop being in effect? How do these sort of excommunication decrees work?

Funny you should mention Exsurge Domine, Today in Catholic History mentioned that last week ( 15 June) was the anniversary of Pope Leo’s issuing it. Also linked to an article by our own Jimmy Akin exploring the level of condemnation and authority in the bull:

If one examines the *Exsurge Domine’*s condemnation of Luther’s propositions, it is clear that they are being condemned *in globo *rather than in individuo. Pope Leo X wrote, “All and each of the preceding articles or errors, so to speak, as set before you, we condemn, disapprove, and entirely reject as respectively [1] heretical or [2] scandalous or [3] false or [4] offensive to pious ears or [5] seductive of simple minds and [6] in opposition to Catholic truth.” The pontiff lists six different censures, but he doesn’t tell us which of these apply to which of the forty-one propositions.

When one looks at the Latin text of the sentence, this ambiguity is even more obvious. The various censures the pope names—from “heretical” to “offensive to pious ears”—are all joined by the conjunction *aut. * In ecclesiastical Latin the word *aut *tends to have the sense of an exclusive “or”—i.e., it’s this *or *that, not both. This makes it a slam-dunk that one cannot determine the kind of censure being applied to the individual propositions.

One cannot even infer that the pontiff’s mind was that all of the propositions were false. The censures “heretical” and “false” both imply falsity, but “scandalous,” “offensive to pious ears,” and “seductive of simple minds” do not.

Maybe some of Luther’s propositions (say, regarding church corruption) were true but offensive, scandalous & offensive. Other points might have been better discussed safely among theologians than in public before the easily led astray “simple faithful”.

 

[athomas_17]

As I mentioned, this is considered permissible for college students, though it is a later development. Those works that are read in their proper context by faithful Catholics at a university or college devoted to the Church should not present a problem. In most other circumstances, it would present a problem. Students are required to read books that were on the index (Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, Leviathan, etc.) even at the most reputable Catholic institutions (Thomas Aquinas, Christendom, Ave Maria, etc.) in the US today.

So, what about Catholic students studying philosophy at a secular state university? I will be reading Hobbes, Rousseau, and de Beauvoir in a philosophy class in the fall . . . is this an automatic excommunication?

 

[IntegraCatholic]

So, what about Catholic students studying philosophy at a secular state university? I will be reading Hobbes, Rousseau, and de Beauvoir in a philosophy class in the fall . . . is this an automatic excommunication?

We read Hobbes and Rousseau in my political philosophy course at Ave Maria. The former penalties technically have been removed. The mortal sin still exists for endangering one’s faith, which necessarily happens to the uninformed Catholic when reading such works. If you have a strong basis in philosophy and are dedicated to the faith, I assume it shouldn’t be an issue, especially when accompanied by our two outlets to grace, the sacraments and prayer. Still, the Church teaches that we are not permitted to go to a secular school (including modern “Catholic” schools that do not teach and even reject the Catholic faith) without a real necessity. Formerly, this required approval of the local ordinary or at least the parish priest. Unfortunately, unless you have a traditional priest at your parish, it is unlikely he would bat an eye at your attendance at a secular university. If you really are obliged to go to this school, then I wouldn’t worry too much about it so long as you remain faithful to your spiritual life. That’s my personal opinion of the situation, though, as I said, a good priest’s opinion would be better. He has the grace of state to make such judgments.

 

[athomas_17]

Still, the Church teaches that we are not permitted to go to a secular school (including modern “Catholic” schools that do not teach and even reject the Catholic faith) without a real necessity.

Well, to tell the truth, I cannot really afford to attend an orthodox Catholic university. To me, that seems like a necessity. I applied to Franciscan, but the state school I’m attending is very affordable and highly ranked. But I’m starting to rethink my prerogatives - like “Who cares about money when your faith is at stake?” - as I realize I want to study philosophy, so I am considering transferring.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

When I was trying to figure out what to do myself, I was in the same boat. I had a lot of philosophy credits from the time I spent in seminary, but I didn’t know if I wanted to study that. After spending some time at the local secular university on a good scholarship, I decided I wanted to go ahead and get my degree in philosophy, which was why I decided I had to go to a good Catholic school. While Ave Maria wasn’t perfect, they accepted all my seminary credits and gave me a pretty good scholarship (still was paying more than at the secular university). That turned out well for me, and I definitely would recommend something similar to you if you hope to study philosophy. While I think that TAC would be a better choice, I don’t really like their method. Your best bet may be with Christendom, but for all the things I disliked about Ave, the knowledge and intelligence of the professors, especially in the philosophy department, was not one of them. One of the philosophy professors (probably the most accomplished and best philosopher there, in my opinion) is unfortunately a phenomenologist, though. I guess it really depends what you are looking for. If you were considering Steubenville, I think Ave Maria would probably be more in the ballpark of what you want, and I can say that all their departments seemed to be very solid to me, though I didn’t take too many classes there because I had so many transfer credits. Phew. Sorry for such a long message. That’s just my two cents.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Canon 2318 is mentioned in AAS 58 (1966), page 1186, but it is in Latin, which I don’t understand, but here it is:

Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale
ACTA SS. CONGREGATIONUM
SACRA CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI
DECRETUM

Post editam « Notificationem » diei 14 iunii c. a. circa « Indicem )>
librorum prohibitorum, quaesitum fuit ab hac S. Congregatione pro
Doctrina Fidei an in suo vigore permaneant can. 1399, quo quidam
libri ipso iure prohibentur, et can. 2318, quo quaedam poenae feruntur
in violatores legum de censura et prohibitione librorum.

Dubiis in plenario conventu fer. IV diei 12 Octobris 1966 propositis,
E/mi Patres rebus Fidei tutandis praepositi respondendum decreverunt :

1. Negative ad utrumque, quoad vim legis ecclesiasticae; iterum
   tamen inculcato valore legis moralis, quae omnino prohibet fidem ac
   bonos mores in discrimen adducere ;
2. eos vero, qui forte innodati fuerint censuris de quibus in
   can. 2318, ab iisdem absolutos habendos esse ipso facto abrogationis
   eiusdem canonis.

Et in Audientia Eimo Cardinali Pro-Praefecto S. Congregationis
pro Doctrina Fidei die 14 eiusdem mensis et anni concessa, praefatum
decretum S. Pontifex Paulus Papa VI benigne adprobare dignatus
est et publici iuris fieri mandavit.

Datum Romae, ex aedibus S. Congregationis pro Doctrina Fidei,
die 15 novembris 1966.

A. Card. OTT AVI ANI, Pro-Praefectus
© P. Parente, Secretarius

Here is an English translation of the above:

After the publication of the Notification of 14 June of the
current year,1 this Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith was asked:

Question: Whether canon 1399 by which certain books are
forbidden ipso iure, and canon 2318 by which certain penalties
are decreed against those who violate laws concerning the
censure and prohibition of books, remain in effect.

Reply: When these questions were presented in the plenary
session of Wednesday, 12 October, 1966, the Eminent Fathers in
charge of safeguarding matters of faith, decided to reply:

1. In the negative to both, as regards the force of ecclesiastical
   law; inculcating again, however, the validity of the moral law,
   which completely prohibits the endangering of faith and good
   morals;
2. Persons who may have incurred the censures mentioned in
   canon 2318 are to be considered absolved from them ipso facto
   in virtue of the abrogation of that canon.

In the Audience granted to His Eminence the Cardinal ProPrefect
of the S. C. for the Doctrine of the Faith on 14 October
1966, the Supreme Pontiff Pope Paul VI deigned to approve the
aforesaid decree and ordered that it be published.

Given at Rome, from the office of the S. C. for the Doctrine
of the Faith, 15 November, 1966.

 

[jfoges]

I was also a philosophy major and also was led into the Church by the study of philosophy.

Keep in mind everyone that this may be a canon law issue, and we are currently under the code of canon law promulgated in the early 1980’s. There are canons in the 1917 code and earlier codes that do not necessarily carry over. I do not know for sure, but I would venture to guess that the index of forbidden books is an obsolete canonical issue, that is no longer relevant under the current code of canon law.