Forbidden Books

[Crusading_Canuk]

Hi, I have read the Communist Manifesto (I hate marxism though) and The Prince. These books are forbidden by the Church so I confessed this and haven’t read them since. However I may have to read them (and other forbidden texts) for academic purposes. Is there any way to recieve permission to read them from the Church?

 

[Catholic90]

I do not think any book is “forbidden” to be read by the Church. They TRIED to do this, but failed.

The pursuit of knowledge is a good thing. Forbidding books does not work.

 

[Shin]

Talk to your parish priest, Confessor, or spiritual director.

I also recommend Francis S. Betten, S.J. - The Roman Index of Forbidden Books, to read.

It goes into some of the morality necessary to consider before you are ready to open a book or not.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

The Index of Forbidden Books was abolished decades ago. You can read anything you want now unless it will be an occasion of sin.

 

[Shin]

The moral law behind whether one reads or does not read a book is not only whether or not it is an occasion of sin.

All books on the index when it was still being added to, were placed there for reasons of moral law. More than just the famous Roman index contained both lists and general decrees about the moral law regarding books which can or cannot be owned or read.

It is also possible for authorities to still forbid books. Seminarians are forbidden to read various books without permission. People under spiritual direction can be too. Religious. Etc.

“Suppose, on the other hand, there were no Church laws prohibiting pernicious reading. In that case should we be allowed to read any book we pleased? By no means.”

• Francis J. Betten, ‘The Roman Index of Forbidden Books’

Vain and idle curiosity are not good reasons to read books. Academic requirements – well various things have to be considered, including how bad the book actually is.

People need to consider as well whether a book in and of itself with its contents is offensive to God. What would God think of this book? My having it? Whether I read it or not. Are there any extenuating circumstances of necessity? Or none whatsoever. Is it the vice of vain curiosity?

 

[danserr]

The index of banned books, as a previous poster said, was done away with long ago. No books are officially banned. Now the church just says that there are some books that should be read with caution, but the banned books list is not now in effect.

 

[slywakka250]

what ever happened to free speech?

 

[edwest2]

what ever happened to free speech?

“free spech” does not mean anything goes. I refer to recent “hate speech” laws in effect. All material published should be, in some way, edifying and fruitful, suitable for reading. Rants and raves in published form are just as useful as rants and raves on many internet forums. A bond of trust should exist between the writer and potential readers, and there should be some consideration on the writer’s part regarding what he writes. We need to realize that there are heretical writings, propaganda, and books that promote witchcraft, real and not real.

“The Index was a list of books considered dangerous to faith or morals. In establishing the Index the Church intended to protect Catholics from such material. The subject matter of books listed on the Index ranged from heretical treatises to pornography. After Vatican Council II a specific list of books was dropped and a set of guidelines established in its place. The reading of such books is not edifying spiritually or morally. They should not be read out of curiosity. Permission to read objectionable books is given to those whose task it is to refute them and defend the teaching of the Church.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[bogeydogg]

Hi, I have read the Communist Manifesto (I hate marxism though) and The Prince. These books are forbidden by the Church so I confessed this and haven’t read them since. However I may have to read them (and other forbidden texts) for academic purposes. Is there any way to recieve permission to read them from the Church?

All truth is God’s truth any truth you find is from God. You have no need to fear the knowledge of any but study and learn and compare and find your ultimate truth in God.

 

[Katholish]

what ever happened to free speech?

The Church has always condemned such a notion. It is an error of the Enlightenment. Pope Gregory XVI and Blessed Pope Pius IX addressed the issue rather well.

Pope Gregory XVI wrote in Mirari Vos:

1. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?

1. The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books.[23] It may be enough to consult the laws of the fifth Council of the Lateran on this matter and the Constitution which Leo X published afterwards lest “that which has been discovered advantageous for the increase of the faith and the spread of useful arts be converted to the contrary use and work harm for the salvation of the faithful.”[24] This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine.[25] “We must fight valiantly,” Clement XIII says in an encyclical letter about the banning of bad books, “as much as the matter itself demands and must exterminate the deadly poison of so many books; for never will the material for error be withdrawn, unless the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames.”[26] Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it.

 

[Spock]

The Church has always condemned such a notion. It is an error of the Enlightenment. Pope Gregory XVI and Blessed Pope Pius IX addressed the issue rather well.

I am most grateful for your effort to make this post, and substantiated it with your quotation. I only wish that everyone would know about it. It should be posted in every church, it should be displayed on every street corner. Everyone should be aware of this principle of the church to stifle free thought and strangle dissent. The church is very lucky that the Enlighted people are much more tolerant, and they explicitly protect the right of the church to disseminate such a horrifying and insidious agenda. Is anyone still surprised that Enlighted people abhor the idea of theocracy?

 

[Shin]

I fail to see how permitting evil is ‘enlighted’.

 

[slywakka250]

I am most grateful for your effort to make this post, and substantiated it with your quotation. I only wish that everyone would know about it. It should be posted in every church, it should be displayed on every street corner. Everyone should be aware of this principle of the church to stifle free thought and strangle dissent. The church is very lucky that the Enlighted people are much more tolerant, and they explicitly protect the right of the church to disseminate such a horrifying and insidious agenda. Is anyone still surprised that Enlighted people abhor the idea of theocracy?

I agree. This view presented in the above quote seems to advocate a theocracy. Is it really the government’s role to ban books? What if it was the other way around and a different non-Catholic religion came into power and wanted to ban all bibles and all Catholic books, deeming them “poison.”??

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

*Is anyone still surprised that Enlighted people abhor the idea of theocracy? *

After Stalin and Mao and all their banning of religion as insidious and hateful, is there any wonder that people abhor the idea of atheocracy?

By the way, if you study the table of contents of any high school or college literature survey texts, you will likely as not search in vain for any material by Chesterton, or Belloc, or Sheen, or any other of the best Catholic writers of the 20th century.

This is a form of censorship that publishers will never admit to, though it easily rivals the Index of Forbidden Books. At least the Index identifies books not to be read. Textbook publishers today make sure young people never even hear of the writers, never mind include lists of their writing that should not be read.

 

[Corki]

what ever happened to free speech?

Do you mean the Constitutional right to free speech?

That right means that *the government *cannot abridge your right to speak your mind and publish your thoughts (free press).

It has absolutely nothing to do with the Church telling you that a given book or piece of media might be dangerous to your spiritual well being.

By the way, the index was not abolished. It’s just not currently maintained. The books on it can still be considered to be problematic. I don’t believe reading them carries any penalty of sin unless you do so as an act of defiance against the Church.

 

[edwest2]

I agree. This view presented in the above quote seems to advocate a theocracy. Is it really the government’s role to ban books? What if it was the other way around and a different non-Catholic religion came into power and wanted to ban all bibles and all Catholic books, deeming them “poison.”??

Oh brother. Here comes the Theocracy. The words from Rome are directed towards Catholics and all men of good will. Where - was GOVERNMENT - mentioned? It wasn’t.

And also that word I hate: Power. Which only means: I can force you to do whatever I want.

Fear mongering is not an argument.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Katholish]

I am most grateful for your effort to make this post, and substantiated it with your quotation. I only wish that everyone would know about it. It should be posted in every church, it should be displayed on every street corner. Everyone should be aware of this principle of the church to stifle free thought and strangle dissent. The church is very lucky that the Enlighted people are much more tolerant, and they explicitly protect the right of the church to disseminate such a horrifying and insidious agenda. Is anyone still surprised that Enlighted people abhor the idea of theocracy?

Your welcome. The Church makes a very radical claim to the truth, and in the same motion points out the great evil of error. The phrase “stifling free thought” is perhaps inaccurate. What is freedom after all? What happens when my “freedom” becomes injurious to others? Does my free speech extend to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater? There is also a difference between being morally free to do something and being physically free. Does freedom mean that there are no consequences of action? I am not trying to brush off your complaint, but merely pointing out the complexity of the terminology used. I wouldn’t want us to waste time talking at cross points. What do you mean by “free thought”? Let’s discuss it further.

The Enlightenment has created an environment of indifferentism in which countless opposing groups can claim to have the truth, and society at large essentially doesn’t care. Essentially the Enlightenment jumped to the conclusion that the is no real truth in religion. Are we better off? Not only does society deny the truth, but denies that there is truth, such a condition can only be considered gravely disordered. As for theocracy, the idea is somewhat antithetical to Catholicism. We are the ones, in fact, who really introduced the distinction between the religious and the secular spheres of power when all previous societies, including ancient Rome under paganism, were essentially theocracies.

 

[Spock]

The Church makes a very radical claim to the truth, and in the same motion points out the great evil of error.

No doubt. Of course “claims” are dime a dozen.

The phrase “stifling free thought” is perhaps inaccurate.

Yes, it was inaccurate, and that was my fault. It should have said: “stifling the free dissemination of thoughts”. Fortunately 1984 is just a novel, we do not have the wherewithal to monitor thought processes. But in your post and the quotation you made it clear that the church is against the free marketplace of ideas, and that is what I find insidious.

What is freedom after all? What happens when my “freedom” becomes injurious to others? Does my free speech extend to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater?

Doubting and expessing that doubt is hardly equivalent to crying “fire” in a crowded theater.

The Enlightenment has created an environment of indifferentism in which countless opposing groups can claim to have the truth, and society at large essentially doesn’t care. Essentially the Enlightenment jumped to the conclusion that the is no real truth in religion. Are we better off?

Yes we are. We are much better off. The free marketplace of ideas, the free dissemination of what one considers “truth” helps everyone. Only those people are scared of the free marketplace, whose ideas cannot stand the light of reason, whose ideas must be upheld by transcendental threats and rewards. Also you are wrong is assuming that the Enlightment was responsible for “creating” the countless groups introducing the divergent ideas. The opposing ideas were there, all right, and people conducted wars over them.

As for theocracy, the idea is somewhat antithetical to Catholicism. We are the ones, in fact, who really introduced the distinction between the religious and the secular spheres of power when all previous societies, including ancient Rome under paganism, were essentially theocracies.

If someone can control the information and can control the free flow of information, that is despotism. Theocracy is just one form of despotism.

 

[Katholish]

Spock,

No doubt. Of course “claims” are dime a dozen.

I know it appears that way. If we were honestly convinced that we did have the truth, the only point I am trying to make is that it would be rational for us to act accordingly. In reality, the only reason someone would promote a “free marketplace” of “competing truths” is if you were operating under the presupposition that there is no objective truth, or that if there is, that its discovery is not critically important for mankind. I just think it is important for both of us to recognize the hidden premises in our respective positions.

Yes, it was inaccurate, and that was my fault. It should have said: “stifling the free dissemination of thoughts”. Fortunately 1984 is just a novel, we do not have the wherewithal to monitor thought processes. But in your post and the quotation you made it clear that the church is against the free marketplace of ideas, and that is what I find insidious.

Doubting and expessing that doubt is hardly equivalent to crying “fire” in a crowded theater.

Ah, but my question regarding freedom comes into play. No one honestly holds to a complete and utter doctrine of the free dissemination of thoughts. Should I be allowed to preach a return to racially-based slavery? or advocate the killing of everyone who considers themselves homosexual? No. Even in todays “free marketplace of thoughts” there are limits…hence it is not totally free as you would seem to define it. Why do would forbid the dissemination of some thoughts? Because we view them as intrinsically harmful to the person who hears them, and those who might be unwilling victims of that influence.

The Catholic Church has never condemned simple doubt. The material that she has forbidden in the past as to do with teachings she thinks are intrinsically harmful to mankind and her action is taken with a mind to protect innocent people from the bad influence of these thoughts. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is against the law because it might create a reaction resulting in the loss of someone’s like, but some of the thoughts out in the free marketplace not only have the threat of destroying the body, but also the soul. Now, clearly you would not agree with the Church on this matter, but operating from the position that man does in fact have an immortal soul, which is directly affected by his moral decisions, is not the Church’s position completely rational?

Yes we are. We are much better off. The free marketplace of ideas, the free dissemination of what one considers “truth” helps everyone. Only those people are scared of the free marketplace, whose ideas cannot stand the light of reason, whose ideas must be upheld by transcendental threats and rewards. Also you are wrong is assuming that the Enlightment was responsible for “creating” the countless groups introducing the divergent ideas. The opposing ideas were there, all right, and people conducted wars over them.

I never suggested that the Enlightenment was responsible for the divergent positions, only for their co-existence in a “free marketplace”, which in turn was really a result of the 30-Years War in Europe between Protestants and Catholics. There have been heresies within the Catholic Church, though, since the First Century.

As for being better off in the free marketplace, again, one would only say that if they pre-supposed that the truth had not already been found. Once you know that 2+2=4, what benefit is there to have a majority of people disagree with that truth and try to convince you otherwise? Yes, you could claim that having to defend your position would only make you stronger, but what of those who are by nature intellectually weaker? Surely many would be swayed by the crowd into disbelieveing in basic Math. Indeed, some of the truths questioned today are those which would be considered self-evident first principles. Questioning those could serve no purpose at all, especially since there is no way to rationally convince someone of their truth because they are prior to rational demonstration.
The marketplace tends to only weaken one’s grasp on the truth and even encourages the view that there is no truth, and no one is better off from that.

 

[edwest2]

A true marketplace of ideas would quickly remove bad ideas. There’s no money in stability though. A confused population, looking for actual truth, might be inclined to join this group or that group, or get the feeling that doing something immoral might be OK. Those grounded in actual truth see this quite clearly.

The Church, which protects both revealed and other truths, offers its wisdom to the faithful and men of good will. But the con man is out there. The confidence man that says, “Trust me. This new thing will be good for you.” Those who are not truly veresed in the truth might be deceived. Deception is the devil’s game.

Certain specialized publications will offer you crystals and all sorts of simple ways to solve your problems. There is no science behind this, just nice artwork and a low price. People who lack wisdom and do not understand that there are absolutes, are more inclined to fall for “another way.” The Catholic Church is the greatest truth telling institution on earth.

Peace,
Ed