Good books listed on Index Librorum Prohibitorum

[Madaglan]

A few days ago I was curious as to which books were on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. I understood that the Index was no longer in active use, but I was nontheless curious to see which books I should not be reading. Well, I was surprised to learn that a fair number of the books on the list I have read, and indeed have even regarded as some of the best literature ever. Here are some authors whose works I have read and who I was horrified to find on the list:

1. Montaigne
2. Descartes
3. Pascal
4. Montisquieu
5. Voltaire
6. Rousseau
7. Stendhal
8. Hugo
9. John Milton
10. David Hume
11. Jonathan Swift
12. J.S. Mill
13. John Locke
14. Thomas Hobbes
15. Francis Bacon
16. Immanuel Kant

Some of these books I can understand being on the Index. For example, Voltaire was vehemently anti-clerical. Stendhal, in his Red or the Black wrote about a young seminarian who seeks the affection of a married woman. Montaigne clashes with the Catholic Church on a few issues, including confession; Hobbes dedicates a third of his *Leviathan *to a refutation of Catholic beliefs.

However, despite any heterodox notions, I’m surprised that works by these writers should have been considered banned reading for Catholics. Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables is one of my favorite novels. Michel de Montaigne likewise has some very interesting philosophical essays. Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense just to put a discretionary notice that the books do not contain teachings in conformation with the Catholic Church?

Does anyone else feel that the Index, although already suppressed, should be completely done away with in a world in which more and more people are having access to formal education beyond high school?

I just see the Index the same way as I see the American drafting system: now suppressed but still a present reality that may come back at any time.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Does anyone else feel that the Index, although already suppressed, should be completely done away with in a world in which more and more people are having access to formal education beyond high school?

This is exactly what the Church has done.

Keep in mind, too, that Catholic academics were obviously allowed to read these books, as I assume were students in Catholic universities. It was felt at the time (and with good reason) that these works were harmful to the common Catholic, most of whom non-to-long-ago couldn’t even read, let alone read the books with the proper mindset and with a view as to context.

 

[mercygate]

DominvsVobiscvm:

This is exactly what the Church has done.

Keep in mind, too, that Catholic academics were obviously allowed to read these books, as I assume were students in Catholic universities. It was felt at the time (and with good reason) that these works were harmful to the common Catholic, most of whom non-to-long-ago couldn’t even read, let alone read the books with the proper mindset and with a view as to context.

In the 1960s my husband asked his confessor for permission to read James Joyce as a student in his secular university (which was free). The request was denied and absolution was refused. The Priest told him he should be going to a Catholic school.

An extreme case of bad judgment, perhaps, but it drove my husband out of the Church for 30 years.

 

[FrmrTrad]

In this day and age people are very prone to think, “Oh, there’s no problem with those books, why some of them are downright interesting!” It is also heard that “people used to be pretty stupid, so the prohibitions were needed to protect the innocent.” In truth, literature not rooted in the Faith is more of a danger than people recognize, and people were smarter than is acknowledged. But ultimately the Church can’t make the faithful believe; conversion is interior. As faith deepens, entertainment that circumvents faith becomes inherently less interesting; it becomes less interesting to see things without the light of faith.

Disciplines that don’t help the faithful to convert are not good disciplines; this is probably why the Index was canceled. The faithful became implicitly insistent on relying upon their own consciences, so that the Index would be alienating instead of informative. Are the faithful better off today? The Catholic faithful are no longer distinct from the rest of the population. Some Catholics turn on the Church and blame the rites, but this cannot be the source of the difficulty. No, I think it is important to remember that individual people convert, or do not convert. Was the abolition of the Index a renunciation of authority, or a rejection of authority? How should the Church best shepherd the faithful?

 

[Madaglan]

Personally I believe that the Church should follow a middle-of-the-path approach to books that contradict or oppose the Faith. Instead of reinstalling a list of banned books, the Catholic Church should instead commission a group of bishops to review the books and to write commentaries showing how certain non-Catholic views are incorrect. In other words, instead of banning the books, allow the layperson to read the book, both from the author’s perspective and the perspective of the priests who comment on the books. I think this is a more balanced approach and allows the individual to decide in good conscience whom to follow.

Maybe some Catholic presses can publish classical works under slightly altered titles. For example, John Calvin’s The Institutes of the Christian Religion: Catholic Version.

Of course, I have no authority in the matter; but I think that’s a good idea. :yup:

 

[Madaglan]

Oh, btw, I didn’t know that the Index of Banned Books didn’t apply to Catholic academics (except to the clergy of course). I thought that the Book Ban applied to ALL Catholics, whether in college or not. The Index, therefore, isn’t as bad seeming to me as I had originally thought, although I still do not fully agree with it, since it would mean that even really smart people who were not attending Catholic school would be forbidden from reading from books on it.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

I didn’t know that the Index of Banned Books didn’t apply to Catholic academics (except to the clergy of course).

This is my understanding. You might want to confirm with someone else.

 

[FrmrTrad]

Madaglan:

…the Catholic Church should instead commission a group of bishops to review the books and to write commentaries showing how certain non-Catholic views are incorrect.

I’m not sure bishops have enough time, but they can always give imprimaturs to apologetical works that do the same thing…

 

[nordskoven]

That merciful mystic, St. John Bosco, had a vision of the Church persecuted. One grand ship, the Barque of Peter, was surrounded by friendly smaller boats, all under fire from a pursuing armada. These enemies were firing shot and shell and books! The Pope was slain, but another replaced him immediately, and all tied up safely at twin pillars.

One pillar was topped by the Blessed Virgin, and I like to think of this image as the living tabernacle hiding Jesus Christ within, the lesson of the Virgin of Guadalupe image. The other, larger pillar was topped by a massive monstrance displaying the Real Presence, Jesus hidden, as the Fatima children would say, under the form of Bread. “God with us.” Emmanuel.

Karl Marx’s writings were collected by Pastor Richard Wurmbrand, a friend of Bishop Sheen’s, and a pastor imprisoned and tortured under the Soviet regime. Wurmbrand’s book is most informative, called MARX AND SATAN, and is available online. Wurmbrand shows that Karl Marx was, by his own words, a satanist. For example, here’s an excerpt from Marx’s poem “Oulanem” (a distortion of Emmanuel): “I will hurl civilization into the abyss, and follow after, howling.” That’s no economist. But only now is his true intent even beginning to be revealed.

Karl Marx had his family buried in Paris as near as possible to the grave of the bishop of Paris killed in the “Les Miserables” anti-Catholic uprisings. Victor Hugo was a master propagandist, and one may be forgiven for warning of his canting the “bad news” as some kind of populist movement, something Marx and his cronies did, comrade.

“Fahrenheit 9-11” is a “good movie” only in considering production values. Movie reviewers call it propaganda, and Moore has taken it out of the “documentary” category for Oscar nominations. It has earned Moore millions, and deceived many. Propaganda is poisonous. The elect will not be fooled.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by nordskoven:

Propaganda is in most cases poisonous. The elect will not be fooled.

Propaganda is poisonous. However, I think it is necessary that we at least look at these works and test them. If they contain anything good, then let us retain what is good in them. Frederich Nietzche comes down very hard on Christianity; and we should ignore him when he speaks about the superman, how God is dead, etc.; but he has a lot to say about Christian hypocrisy; and we can learn from him more about how we act ourselves.