The censorship of the Church of Rome and its influence upon the production and distribution of literature, volume 1 (of 2)Putnam, George Haven
History
The censorship of the Church of Rome and its influence upon the production and distribution of literature, volume 1 (of 2)
Putnam, George Haven
Freedom of the press; Liberty of conscience; Prohibited books
wont to look very closely after its ecclesiastical interests at
Rome.”
[Sidenote: The Denunciation of Books.]
The present regulations of the Index provide official channels for the
denunciation of books.
In Title I, Chapter X, it is stated that the duty of the denunciation
of books to the Congregation belongs to the papal nuncios, the
apostolic delegates, the ordinaries (Diocesan bishops), and the rectors
of the more important (Catholic) universities. It is requested that on
such occasions not only the title of the book, but the reason for its
condemnation should be given, and at the same time absolute secrecy is
promised as regards the sources of such denunciation.[108]
Mendham contends that the Italian Church seems to have acted on the
presumption that, not when she condemned and executed (whether the
innocent or the guilty), but only when she acquitted and allowed to
escape, she did wrong. And, therefore, the power of condemning supposed
heretical books was permitted to any of the superior ecclesiastical
authorities.
The pope, as head of the Church, claimed the individual right to the
control of literary production. A similar authority was likewise
allowed to, and exercised by, public ecclesiastical bodies, such as the
theological faculties of the Sorbonne and of Louvain, by individual
superior ecclesiastics, and even by the supreme civil magistrate.
There were from time to time protests, on the part more particularly
of the Jesuits and the Dominicans, against the exercise of censorship
by any bodies or individuals not explicitly authorised by the head
of the Church, or carrying some such general authorisation as that
held by the Inquisition. The Jesuit Raynaud[109] denies the authority
of the bishops; and his opinion of the censorship authority of the
universities is contemptuous. If, he argues, this power resides not in
an individual doctor as such, how can it reside in a collective body of
doctors? If Aesop’s ass, though in a lion’s skin, was still but an ass,
would a whole herd of such animals form an assembly of lions?
Van Espen, in a tract concerning the Congregation of the Inquisition,
states that the censure or condemnation of the books in the Index is
often to be resolved into the examination and judgment of a single
consultor, as he is called. Not a few true Romanists whose works were
thus transfixed have protested against the injustice of being, on the
judgment of a single examiner, classified as heretics.[110]
[Sidenote: Damages under Censorship]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account