Jump to content

Talk:Index Librorum Prohibitorum/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Vagueness

The article seems slightly vague about the current status of the Index.

"The index as an official list was relaxed in 1966 under Pope Paul VI following the end of the Second Vatican Council and largely due to practical considerations. It remains a sin for Catholics to read books which are injurious to faith and/or morals."

What does "relaxed" mean exactly? Does the Index still exist? Presumably "practical considerations" means that there are now too many books published to keep up with? Is it still in force but no longer has books added to it? It would be great to have some clarification from someone out there who knows about these things.

Flapdragon 12:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Editorializing and Current Status

On the 3rd of July user 86.129.90.225 (removed (inaccurate!) editorializing conclusion) i.e.:

Practically every great Western philosopher is included on the list - even those that did believe in God, such as Descartes, Kant, Berkeley and Malebranche. Oddly, some atheists, such as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, are not included.

I am going to put it back in and formally asking user 86.129.90.225 to log in before deleting any wikipedian voice or he will be reported. This will maybe put this voice as a "disputed one". Anyway user 86.129.90.225 is asked to discuss the changes before.

Thanks. User Little_Guru.


I've changed 'great' to 'modern' in the above passage. Generally, a list of 'great Western philosophers' would be assumed to start with Plato and Aristotle and to include Aquinas -- none of whome, clearly, were on the Index. However, it is certainly true that just about every major philosopher since the Enlightenment spent time on the Index. Brendanhodge 21:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


  • To flapdragon.

Since 1966 the index is indeed no longer updated and has no longer "force of law". But it is still considered a valuable guideline for catholics: one can read the works "historically" so to speak, to take knowledge of the contents of a work, but one should be aware that the content or part of it has been blamed by church authorities for not being in line with church doctrine or, more generally, the catholic religion.

Thanks very much. Perhaps you might like to edit the entry to correct and clarify the paragraph I quoted above? For example, from what you say it's no longer considered a sin for Catholics to read books on the Index. Flapdragon 6 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)

  • I agree. What is the current church teaching on this, officially (or is there one)? Would it really be "immoral" or forbidden for say, a Catholic bookstore to carry one or more of the books on the 1966 list? Or for a Catholic to read or purchase a copy for study? Incidentally, an anti-Opus Dei website claims that the Opus Dei prelature still adheres to the Index. Anybody have any info on this?


  • I refer to http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFRYDN2.HTM and I literally took the sentence of part II, which is, I think at the same time more general and more accurate as to the present position of the Church. I also refer to the "forcefull" comment of Tarcisio card. Bertone, former secretary of the Holy Office, against the Da Vinci-Code: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4350625.stm and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/16/world/main680446.shtml The reasons for Bertone's action are exactly the same as those why books were forbidden in former times: those who are "unaware" can be (and in fact are) easily mislead. But as you will see, the Church has no "legal" means to prohibit the book; therefore Bertone can only unmask the lies by organising a seminar on the subject and launch an "appeal" to the Christians. It is no formal sin to read this book... as long as you keep the distance and don't mix fiction with (religious) facts or doctrine. - But I warn you, I'm neither a trained theologian, nor a priest.


  • To Ringbang

I have put back the old passage about the political aims of the censorship and added some NAZI-works that were (ore were not) forbidden in the 1930's. The original phrasing was more neutral.

Heretical works of non-Catholics is not correct: every work of a non-Catholic was forbidden, and heretical was the same as non-Catholic in the rules of the Index.

"every work of a non-Catholic was forbidden" This is, as should be obvious, wrong. Catholic priests provided some of the earliest translations of Confucian thinkers into European languages. Catholic literary critics and others certainly read books by non-Catholics as would be easy to prove. Added to that the Congregation of the Index had separate rules on dealing with Catholic and non-Catholic authors. If "every work of a non-Catholic" was forbidden that would have been unnecessary. This isn't still in the article itself is it?(I'll do the favor of removing it if so.)--T. Anthony 01:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
a translation of Confucius by a roman-catholic priest, was not a-priori forbidden, because: the translator was a catholic. A translation of St.Augustine by, say, a calvinist preacher was a priori forbidden, because: the translator was a non-catholic. So: the Congregation of the Index only occupied herselve with examining the translation of the catholic priest (at least if someone bothered to defer it as "dangerous") and eventually published a ban and included the title in the Index of forbidden books. The translation of the calvinist was, ipso facto (because a calvinist was a heretic), forbidden and a special mention on the list was not necessary. You would find this in the acts of the Congregation, f.e.: nothing has to be done because already foreseen by the second rule (=the second of the tridentine rules). However, my statement was too simple: every book of a non-Catholic author that had tot do with religion was forbidden, the others were permitted, but only after mature examination (this was added because many "heretics" had published valuable scientific treatises and editions of classical authors). The statement that heretic meant non-(Roman)catholic however, is true.
Not every work of a non-Catholic was forbidden, but only, among others, every work on religion by a non-Catholic.
I don't know whether the Opus Dei adheres to the index or, as it is said, censures new books, but I may say that if, it wouldn't be to blame for it. It has every right over its membership and followers, until forbidden so by the Holy See, that the Holy See itself had over all the Church when it did publish the index.
Though this has been officially denied, I believe the action of H. Em. Bertone against the Da Vinci Code was not far from censuring, and a quite just censuring too according to what one hears about its content (I actually didn't read it, Michael Crichton is better).
That Nietzsche was not included (I'm not sure about Schopenhauer) has I believe the easy reason that there was no need of clarification that his works are non-Catholic, and so "on the index" by general rule without any need of explicity. Of course theoretically, those books Kant wrote on religion (and that includes the Critic of pure r.) would be implicitly on the index as well because he was not a Catholic, but from the very fact that he did believe in God, the Congregation may have felt the status of his books, from the Catholic point of view, needed further clarification. Also, not every work of Kant was listed.
As to its importance as of now, I agree (as a layman and non-theologian) that reading some of the books today not only does not lead to ecclesiastic penalties (as should be sure) but also is not sinful in itself, as no longer any disobedience to Church law (likewise, of course, as to Card. Bertone's semi-censuring) but it may be dangerous and thus imprudent, which can be not free from sin. (?) --84.154.109.57 (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

List moved

I've moved the list to a separate article. Previously there were several arbitrary lists scattered throughout the article. Unfortunately, many of these neglected to note whether the author's complete works or only one work were listed (let alone which version of the list). Moreover, the sourcing was a tad lacking. Hopefully this can be made more complete, more organized, and less repetitive in the separate list.

However, for a list that went through many iterations over hundred of years and in different geographies, it doesn't make sense to interrupt the flow to give shout outs to specific works and authors. This article should be able the overall trends, patterns, and functions of the list. Specific examples of course can be mentioned if their importance is attested to and explained by sources. Savidan 04:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Imprimatur, after the fact

It is important to have an example that shows that some books that were on the Index have received imprimaturs from Roman Catholic Bishops after the Index was abolished. People may yet debate the content of the books for years, but the fact that the imprimatur was issued, is a key fact on its own, (independent of the debate) and must be mentioned in the article on the Index. It is an example of discord with the Index, and must be mentioned, since it is fully referenced and the image of the original imprimatur is also available online. History2007 (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Imprimatur, after the fact: A Response

The Poem of the Man-God is a highly debated book series that has not received official recognition by the Church. It is questionable as to whether the Bishop who granted the imprimatur had the authority to grant it.

As is stated on the Index of Forbidden Books page, the actual June 14th, 1966 Notification only removed the legal force of the Index. The Notification did NOT remove the Indexs moral authority. In fact, the Notification was explicit in saying that the Index would continue as a reminder of the moral law.

Thus, any book on the Index of Forbidden Books is and remains forbidden for Catholics to read, this includes disseminating any such book(s).

Much as to my knowledge, this includes Maria Valtorta's The Poem of the Man-God and explains why the 'imprimatur' from the Bishop is in question.

I previously deleted the references to Maria Valtorta because I questioned the neutrality of the information. Furthermore, Valtorta's followers have been known to twist the documents from Rome (I can prove this) and it is best not to reference Valtorta until the issue is definitively cleared-up by Rome. BenedictKJS (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR and referenced text

Well, that is not how Wikipedia works my friend. My suggestion is for you to spend some time and become familiar with Wikipedia policies before removing large sections of referenced text. As the discussion continues, your removal of the referenced text based on "your knowledge and opinion" is not permitted. I will therefore have to restore the said text, add even more references to support it, and will add some more text to address the issues that you indirectly refer to.

It is important to separate the general issues from the content of Maria Valtorta's writings. From what I see, your intent is to avoid (shall I say censor) the word Valtorta from appearing on the page for the Index because her book has had controversy. But given that the controversy involves the Index, it is therefore relevant to the Index, as it shows that the Index is not free of controversy. The fact that the Index is now fully engulfed in controversy and vagueness can (and must) be mentioned, since it can be referenced.

I used the word "censor" because not only did you remove the text about Valtorta from the article, but you carefully edited the title of the reference for Cardinal Ratzinger's letter of January 31, 1985 because the letter was about Maria Valtorta. I think in time you will realize that that left on its own, in a few days a Wikipedia automated Bot would have reverted your deletion of the title of the reference, and regenerated the title by itself. Wiki-bots do not like references with no title.

What you will also realize after studying Wikipedia policies is that Wikipedia is not about what you or I personally believe to be correct, but what can be said based on referenced items. Your statement about "Much as to my knowledge" is against the WP:OR (original research) policy. It matters not what your/my knowledge is, and what you/I believe to be true, but what referenced literature says - on both sides.

To see an example of a balanced approach by a good editor, please carefuy read the talk page for Talk:Crucifixion of Jesus. The user Ἀλήθεια who happens to be very knowledgeable on that topic sets a good example of not stepping over WP:OR. He states that he ‘’personally’’ believes that Jesus entered Jerusalem on Sunday Nisan 10, but does not add that to the article. He avoids adding the statement despite the fact that he is clearly an expert on the topic. I think you should learn from him to keep personal opinions separate from referenced statements.

The text you removed was carefully worded to make it clear that many of the issues were "reported" without stating if they were true or not. The fact that they were reported can not be disputed, as it is well documented. Look at it one by one:

1. Was it reported that Pope Pius XII gave his permission for the book Poem of the Man God to be printed, saying "whoever will read it will understand"?

Yes, it is clearly documented that the three Servite priests reported that and an affidavit was signed to that effect. An image of the affidavit is available as well, and hence the fact that there was a report by the priests can be included in Wikipedia, without saying whether the report was true or not.

2. Did Pius XII really give his approval or did the priests make it up?

I was, unfortunately, not present during that meeting at the Vatican and hence can not say. My guess is that you were probably not in Rome that day with your tape recorder either. But it really matters not what you/I think. For Wikipedia what matters is that there is a well document report and hence the text can be included. Is the report subject to controversy? Indeed so, and that fact should also be included.

Now a more general issue and a key question about the Index.

Question A: "Has there ever been a book that was/is on the Index that later received an imprimatur from a Bishop?"

This is indeed a relevant question that goes to the very heart of what an imprimatur means once the Index was abolished. Hence this question must be answered by the article. The answer to Question A is clearly "yes", and is well documented. Hence it can be included in Wikipedia.

Question B: "What was the name of that book in Question A and who was the author?"

The book was Poem of the Man God by Maria Valtorta. Again, a well documented fact that can be included.

Question C: "Did the Bishop have the authority to grant the imprimatur?"

In fact there have been other Bishops, but let us just focus on one for now. You state that "it is questionable if he had the authority" but provide no references. If you do have references, I will be glad to add that fact myself. Until then, your opinion is against WP:OR again and gives no reason for deletion.

You also accuse various supporters of Valtorta of distorting documents. That goes against the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. You can not just say "I can prove it" in passing and assume bad faith. That is not how Wikipedia works.

Now, your comment about "moral force" is already clearly included in the article, in two separate places. However, your assertion that: " Thus, any book on the Index of Forbidden Books is and remains forbidden for Catholics to read" has no reference. Do you have a reference for that statement? Indeed one important fact that the article clearly quotes is from Cardinal Ratzinger himself, saying in 1985 that the Index retains some form of moral force for the "more unprepared faithful." That is a key fact that the article must include. That brings about the next question:

Question D: When and how did Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) say that the Index continues to have some moral force?

Answer: In a letter on January 31 1985 to to the Archbishop of Genoa, regarding the writings of (you guessed it) Maria Valtorta. Hence the writings of Maria Valtorta and the situation of interpreting what the Index was/is are inherently interconnected and the name of Maria Valtorta needs to appear within the Wikipedia article on the Index, and should not be censored.

What is really ironic is that there is this debate about the censorship of the name of an author from a Wikipedia article about a now abolished Index whose main goal was the censorship of authors! History2007 (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Response ToWP:OR and referenced text

History2007, thank you for your clarification and response. While I understand your position, I would like to clarify mine. Please excuse me if I come across as direct or blunt but I do not want to waste anyone's time.

While I do not wish to make this a "my guns are bigger than your guns" type of argument, I do wish to say something in defense of my credentials. I am educated in Catholic theology and hold two degrees in the subject. I also have not a few years experience in the area of private revelation. My deletions of references to Maria Valtorta were not based upon personal opinion but rather simple knowledge of the facts, rooted in a moral responsibility not to mislead people.

I think we can work together on this and so I offer the following for your consideration:

1) Maria Valtorta's works have been placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, which still retains its moral force according to Rome in its June 14th, 1966 Decree.

2) Under Natural Law, no one is allowed to read or disseminate books containing matter contrary to faith and good morals (cf. the June 14th, 1966 Decree).

3) The validity of the Imprimatur (or Imprimaturs) is, thus, in question.

4) We have a grave moral responsibility to inform people of the truth of a given matter.

The above said, I am agreeable to an amendation of this entry that would inform the reader of the controversy behind Maria Valtorta's works that still continues to this day. Also, that it is not advisable to refer to her works as a definitive case of a (later) Imprimatur being given to a book that is on the Index. BenedictKJS (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have changed some things in the text that fine-tuned the entry. I found the opening third paragraph to be a bit convoluted. For instance, I thought the original syntax suggested that Maria Valtorta was a Saint or declared a Saint by the Church. I changed that around to reflect that she is not declared a Saint.

I also clarified the reference to St. Faustina. The original wording was not precise enough so I changed it a bit to reflect the proceedings of her case better.

I also changed the word "abolished" in a few places in the text. As I further clarified, the original June 14, 1966 Decree does not use the word "abolish" in the official Latin text. In fact, as another user noted several lines down, Cardinal Ottaviani states in that Decree that the Index retains "its moral value" (suum vigorem moralem), thus the word "abolish" is in question. BenedictKJS (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC

To what extent exists this moral binding force of the abolished Index? I don't know what was stated in the Notification. It should be clear that no Christian may read what endangers his faith and morals, by natural law. But the question whether a given book does endanger one's faith and morals is, of natural law if no positive law is given, a question to the reader's personal prudence. (Or isn't it?) I have read an introduction to a book about the index, written at a time when it was in force, that explicitly dealt with the argument "it doesn't endanger me, so I may read it" and stated that this does not allow to break a Church law. Most correct, but the Church law as such is no longer in force. (Or is it and have only the penalties been removed?) Also I think, that sometimes there was censuring out of ecclesiastical government prudence, not necessarily implying that the censured book contains immoral passages or erroneous sentences that allow of no inerroneous explanation. (Or wasn't that so?) Separated from this: Does the fact of papal imprimatur-denial, documented by the Index even if the Index is no longer in force, hinder episcopal imprimatur or was the putting-on-the-Index only a papal approval of an episcopal imprimatur-denial that could, though not even then necessarily, allow a future episcopal imprimatur? Another question: If, as you say, the abolishing of 1966 is in question, wasn't it abolished in 1983 by being overpassed in the new Code? (My questions in brackets are not rhethoric.) --84.154.109.57 (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Logic of Change

Ok, first things first. I take it that you no longer want to abolish the word Valtorta from this page, because it is now clear that the book is relevant to the Index - so that is good progress. But you do suggest that reading any book that was on the Index is still forbidden. So let us focus on that as a fundamental issue about the Index. The logical form of your argument in predicate logic is as follows:

  • Assertion A: Any Book X that used to be on the Index still cntains material against faith and morals, because Cardinal Ratzinger said that the Index retains its moral force.
  • Assertion B: By virtue of the Decree of June 14th, 1966, any book X that contains material against faith and morals can not be read or distributed by Roman Catholics.
  • Conclusion C: Any book X that used to be on the Index can not be read or distributed by Roman Catholics.

So now, let us ask a few questions:

  • Question series Q: Can Roman Catholics read Kepler's New Astronomy? How about his Epitome of Copernican Astronomy? Are these books still forbidden? How about Jean Paul Sartre or Blaise Pascal? Are they still forbidden? How about the distribution of these books? Are libraries in Catholic universities forbidden from having these books on their shelves?

It is easy to see that these books are available within Catholic universities in the united states. So Assertion C can not be universally quantified and is therefore false. Hence proof by contradition implies that one of the assertions A or B must be false.

  • Given that Assertion B is a decree and can not be false, I conclude that Assertion A is false.

But then, leaving logic aside, please provide a reference (Wikipedia works on references, not the size of guns or number of years of experience an editor has) that clearly states that Assertion A is true. Do you have solid references for this? If so, please provide them. Else, that argument has to be deleted.

Now, on separate issues, Rice University's webpage (also Cambridge university) clearly uses the term abolished, as do other universities[1] hence that term may be used based on the fact that the universities said so. Do you have a referenec that sayd it was not abolished? I think there is need for a section called Has the Indexc been abolished? if you have references that say it has not. Most universities say that it has been abolished, and that fact must remain unless you have other references.

As for the imprimatur the real debate should be on teh page for imprimatur itself. Do you have references that say that the imprimatur issued was invalid? Else, your suggestion that it is questionable is just WP:OR, original research again, and must be deleted.

As for Faustina, please look on her page, as to why there is debate about the faulty translation being an escape goat argument, for an article in the National Catholic Reporter suggests that the ban stemmed from more serious theological issues. For instance, her claim that Jesus had promised a complete remission of sin for certain devotional acts that only the sacraments can offer, and what Vatican evaluators felt to be an excessive focus on Faustina herself ran contrary to the views at the Holy Office.[2]

After this debate, I will try to balance those issues based on references again. Cheers History2007 (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: I did a few searches and many sources including OSV's encyclopedia of Catholic history do use the term abolished. hence the tatement that it is not clear that the Index was abolished without a clear reference can not be supported, since it is your own deduction, and can not be included in Wikipedia. The main issue that Ineed to stress is that Wikipedia does not work based on debate but on references. If you want to debate it, my suggestion would be this: let us meet in Campo de' Fiori next June when the weather will be nice, I will buy you a nice coffee and pastries, and convince you that the Index was abolished, as we debate it. If we don't agree, we will just walk to the Holy Office and ask them to mediate. But Wikipedia is not the forum for debating it. I will just have to modify those debate based WP:OR changes.

I did, however, get a chuckle out of the Ottaviani comment you added that the Holy Office did not have time (between 1940 and 1960, i.e. 20 years) to keep up with contemporary literature and add Hitler to the Index. I just wonder what they were doing all those years if they were too busy to add Hitler - after all he was not exactly an unknown. I wonder who else they added in that time frame? Does Valtorta ring a bell? Does Kowalska ring a bell? The logic of that just makes me smile. I think we should have that coffee near the Holy Office and invite Cardinal Levada to join us for a nice debate. But that is outside the scope of Wikipedia.

Cheers. History2007 (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Valtorta & Cardinal Ottaviani

I would like to make a note on a paragraph in this article on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

The paragraph in question comes from the section entitled, "Listed works and authors" and reads as follows:

Some books were added to the Index by the Holy Office during the reign of one Pope after they had reportedly received verbal papal approval from the previous Pope. An example is the book Poem of the Man God which received praise from Pope Pius XII's confessor (Augustin Bea), and was presented to Pius XII during a special audience in 1948 in which he reportedly approved it, and the Servite priests present signed an affidavit to that effect. But Cardinal Ottaviani at the Holy Office ordered the Servite priests to total silence in 1948 and waited over 10 years to add the book to the Index soon after the death of Pius XII.

I wish to point out that I do not think it fair to characterize Cardinal Ottaviani as he is above. By implication, it is portraying Ottaviani as being devious and just waiting for the death of Pope Pius XII so as to accomplish his (Ottaviani's) own will regarding Valtorta and her writings.

Furthermore, most of this discussion hinges upon a statement attributed to Pope Pius XII in note 26 in this article. Pius XII is alleged to have said (according to note 26):

"Publish this work as it is. There is no need to give an opinion about its origin, whether it be extraordinary or not. Who reads it, will understand. One hears of many visions and revelations. I will not say they are all authentic; but there are some of which it could be said that they are."

The problem with the "quote" is that it is way too subjective. The audience was not recorded, thus no context for the quote is provided. Only this pithy and isolated statement is given and which stands upon the witness of one priest, Fr. Berti (and presumably backed by the other two priests with him at the time of the audience), who was the one who wrote it down. Thus, to construct an entire argument about an alleged "Supreme Pontifical Imprimatur" is entirely suspect.

Is it historically verifiable that Fr. Berti wrote this down? Yes. Is Fr. Berti's claim to context and understanding verifiable? No. The reader is at the mercy of Fr. Berti's interpretation of the isolated quote. This is why, in note 26 of this Wikipedia entry, Fr. Mitch Pacwa provides an alternative context, which makes sense given the history of Valtorta's writings.

Again, I contend that Ottaviani was not out to do his own will against that of a Pope and I believe it highly unfair to characterize him as he is in the above quote. Unless someone can provide a reference that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ottaviani was doing such, then I think it advisable to somehow rework this paragraph so as to be more neutral than what it is currently.

BenedictKJS (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it is getting close to June. My invitation for a nice coffee near the Vatican is still open. As for Ottaviani and Berti, it is back to the same issue: what I think and what you think matter not in Wikipedia, it is a question of references. But since this is a really minor issue, I will try to rework that paragraph. It is, of course, impossible to know what goes on in a person's head, so only God knows what Ottaviani was thinking anyway. That paragraph does make him sound like he was plotting and maybe he was, maybe he was not. He sure waited for a few years. Anyway, we should stop kicking poor Ottaviani, however hard that may be, and let him rest in peace. Cheers History2007 (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ottaviani

"Hi, it is getting close to June. My invitation for a nice coffee near the Vatican is still open.

All snarkiness aside and in all sobriety and charity, "Let me make you an offer you can't refuse." I would be happy to go again to Rome if you are also offering to pay my airfare. I can get you a good deal.

Meanwhile, for my part and if the above is agreeable to you, I would be glad to utilize a contact of mine and see if Cardinal Levada is available for a coffee shop chat (I am not lying, I do have such an ability). If it is possible, I would be most happy to sit at Campo dei Fiore (I have some business there anyway) and discuss (not debate) the Index of Forbidden Books.


As for Ottaviani and Berti, it is back to the same issue: what I think and what you think matter not in Wikipedia, it is a question of references. But since this is a really minor issue, I will try to rework that paragraph. It is, of course, impossible to know what goes on in a person's head, so only God knows what Ottaviani was thinking anyway. That paragraph does make him sound like he was plotting and maybe he was, maybe he was not. He sure waited for a few years."

Whether Ottaviani was or was not plotting, and again, I say this in all charity, if you can not provide the reference that proves Ottaviani was being devious, it is only just not to portray him as devious. Do unto others as you would want done unto you, lest ye fall and perish on your own sword.


I am glad to see you have reworked the paragraph. It looks good, but if I may offer the following suggestion:

"Some books were added to the Index by the Holy Office during the reign of one Pope after they had reportedly received verbal papal approval from the previous Pope. An example is the book Poem of the Man God which received praise from Pope Pius XII's confessor (Augustin Bea), and was presented to Pius XII during a special audience in 1948 in which he reportedly approved it, and the Servite priests present signed an affidavit to that effect.[26] 10 years later, however, the book was added to the Index.[27][28][29][30]"

You will note that I have held intact all references. I only cleaned up the syntax and grammar of the sentence ("the the" & "however") and removed the reference to Pius XII. By doing this, the article keeps the integrity of neutrality as the sole reference to Pius XII (even without mentioning Cardinal Ottaviani) still carries some of the tone of "plotting." I believe this to be more effective as the reader is left with the question, "Why was it placed on the Index later on?" They can then research the issue more fully and neither you or I have subliminally implanted ideas in their head.

It is also possible to put a footnote at the end of that sentence and talk about the debate over Ottaviani, Pius XII and John XXIII. That is, it would seem, the more appropriate place for a "minor issue" as you call it. By placing such a footnote, the reader has access to more materials from which to make an informed decision as well as to do further research.

Let's work together and not against each other. I am sure we can come up with a very fair and balanced article.

Also, when it is said in the beginning, "some books were added..." since this is in the plural, can you provide a reference to other books to which this has happened or are you referring to the series of volumes in the one writing that is "Poem of the Man-God"? If the latter, I suggest the opening line be rephrased as well.

BenedictKJS (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I rephrased it as you suggested. It was no big deal really and removes the possible reading between the lines that someone at the Vatican was "plotting" something - Heaven forbid. On that note, let me assure you that I have never touched the page on Marcinkus, as the edit history there will clearly show, so I am totally innocent of any plotting discussions therein. May he rest in peace too. As for coffee and pastries, I did offer it for June, and it stands, but I did not offer a plane ticket. Anyway, if there is a key issue to convince Levada about, it is to put up more encyclicals on the web, and reorganize their own website. At the moment, Wikipedia is doing a better job than the Vatican website, e.g. see the page I had to build, because their web site can not handle it right: Marian papal encyclicals and Apostolic Letters. By the time I have finished telling Levada about their website problems he will probably call the Swiss Guard to come out and beat me up. But seriously, Wikipedia is already a better source for organized encyclicals than the Holy See website, and if you have time to add more to Wikipedia, I would encourage you to do so. The Apostolic Letters are the ones that really need help. Cheers History2007 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Re: Ottaviani:

"Ok, I rephrased it as you suggested. It was no big deal really and removes the possible reading between the lines that someone at the Vatican was "plotting" something - Heaven forbid."

Deo gratias.

"On that note, let me assure you that I have never touched the page on Marcinkus, as the edit history there will clearly show, so I am totally innocent of any plotting discussions therein. May he rest in peace too."

I have no idea what you are talking about, so I'll let the remarks pass.

"As for coffee and pastries, I did offer it for June, and it stands, but I did not offer a plane ticket."

Then I'm afraid I can't afford it. I am but a poor high school religion teacher with debts to pay and can not afford a plane ticket to Rome during the summer.

"Anyway, if there is a key issue to convince Levada about, it is to put up more encyclicals on the web, and reorganize their own website."

Levada does not handle the web site. It's actually a nun (Sister Judith Zoebelein).[1]

"At the moment, Wikipedia is doing a better job than the Vatican website, e.g. see the page I had to build, because their web site can not handle it right: Marian papal encyclicals and Apostolic Letters. By the time I have finished telling Levada about their website problems he will probably call the Swiss Guard to come out and beat me up. But seriously, Wikipedia is already a better source for organized encyclicals than the Holy See website, and if you have time to add more to Wikipedia, I would encourage you to do so. The Apostolic Letters are the ones that really need help. Cheers History2007"

Speaking for myself, I would rather talk to the Vatican about their English translations of various documents, but that is another story for another time.

If you are interested, I highly recommend papalencyclicals.net. I know that not every Encyclical is on the Internet but also bear in mind that the Papal Encyclical tradition started in the 1740's with Pope Benedict XIV.

Also, may I ask what exactly is your role with Wikipedia? Are you a moderator, owner or just another regular user?

BenedictKJS (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no major problems with the clarification you added, since the term abolition (as the universities use it) was maintained. However, "papalencyclicals.net" does not have much more info than anywhere else, and there is a need for all relevant encyclicals to be online from the Holy See itself, with MUCH better search facilities and better categorizations. What is the point in popes saying things if the faithful can not read them? And now they want to charge for it, but that is another story. Cheers History2007 (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The term "abolition" is indeed used and apparently even by the Vatican's own web site in the Italian (though not the Latin, as I noted). I question whether or not this is an appropriate term but that is a finer-edge than should not be entered into at this time. I think some clarification on this from the Vatican should come someday, but for now we must wait. I should tell you that I have more updating to do in that entry but have decided to wait for something first before such updating.
Again, may I ask what exactly is your role with Wikipedia? Are you a moderator, owner or just another regular user? BenedictKJS (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I responded on your talk page. Please see there. And there are no "moderators" but admins on Wikipedia, and I am not an admin, as on your talk page. History2007 (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Modern day irrelevance section biased

The first paragraph in this section makes several implications: that the Librorum Prohibitorum prevented incredible numbers of books from being published and that the Librorum Prohibitorum prevented incredible numbers of "immoral" books from being published. The NYT article cited for the first implication says nothing about the L.P., and, though I haven't read either of the two books cited for the second implication, neither seems to be focused on the L.P.'s effects. Should this first paragraph be amended or deleted altogether? SQ_Minion (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if it seemed confusing to you, obviously it had to be edited. The first fact is independent of the Index Lib and I fixed it as such. Everyone knows that a lot of books are published, regardless of the Index. The second paragraph is also independent of the Index Lib but provides a background, namely a photo in a swimsuit is no longer considered immoral, but it used to be. That is also well known, regardless of the Index. I added a ref for that which is on Google books, so you can see that. History2007 (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph of the page, it is stated that the document was "formally abolished on 14 June 1966" - yet the second paragraph of this section begins "The Index now includes..." This is either an implication that the document is still in official use, or a poorly worded attempt to reference the most recent additions to the list prior to its abolition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.255.56.240 (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone fixes it up, the whole section would be best deleted: of course something that has been abolished is no longer relevant. So why devote a whole section to saying it is now irrelevant? Esoglou (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I wish everyone used logic, as you do. Alas, the problem is the of course deduction. Before becoming the current Pope Cardinal Ratzinger went on record saying that although "no longer in effect" or something like that, the Index retains moral force. So their logic seems to be that abolished is one thing, retaining moral force is another. I call it "in denial" but who am I to argue with the Pope? They can send the Swiss guard out any minute now. History2007 (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose that, even when the Index was in force, they would send the Swiss Guard out to enforce it! :) The only sanctions were spiritual ones. These have been done away with completely. The moral force that remains lies in the presumption that a book that was once forbidden as dangerous to faith or morals should be treated with caution, in spite of no longer being forbidden. But perhaps we are straying from the point of the discussion here, which is on one particular section of the article, which I think should either be fixed or removed. The anonymous user rightly pointed out a contradiction between the statement (and fact) that the Index has been abolished and the statement that "the Index now includes ..." Some books included in one edition of the Index were removed in later editions, and other books were added in later editions. What is this Index that "now includes"? Deletion of the section may be the only way to get someone to decide either to fix it or to let the omission be. Esoglou (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Is the fix you suggest based on a few sentence changes in the section? If so, would you like to fix them? Or can you suggest what they are so I can fix them? It would be less effort to fix them than discuss it at too much length probably. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I have found it easier to revise the section on the continued moral obligation to beware of the books listed and of all books considered dangerous to faith or morals. The section on its present irrelevance is best omitted: what does it really add to the section that I have revised? At the time of the abolition of the prohibition of the books, the still recently valid Index continued to serve, as the Congregation said, as a pointer to that moral obligation. Now that the Index is a piece of increasingly distant history, can it be said to be still a pointer to something? Esoglou (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you made a very good edit, but the section title is so long now that it really needs to be shortened. I just don't feel like throwing away "all that text below", so maybe in a day or so, I will try to just keep a few sentences from that and merge the two together. That section actually has a point that some people may not have immediately thought of: that there is sooooo much out there that any index can never even hope to scratch the surface, and that was the real reason the Holy office gave up in the first place: they needed 10 million proof readers. I will make an attempt at serious reduction with a possible shorter title. The first sentence that has a "who" on it needs to drop anyway. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Update: The whole pile of text you deleted had some KEY facts in it, e.g. Ratzinger's statement, use within Cath universities, etc. regardless of moral force , with NO warning on reading Kepler. It had to be restored in a shorter format. And it is important to have there, for it answers many questions about the Index that were already posed above on this talk page. No reason for deleting this referenced text. History2007 (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I have given Ratzinger's statement, which was not really present in the former version. Catholic universities did not suddenly begin in 1966 to use books that at one time or other were included in the Index, and Kepler didn't have to wait till 1966. The reason I deleted the section was, as I had earlier stated above, to get someone to try and fix it. Thanks for responding. Esoglou (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No worries, "someone" usually ends up being yours truly. I am absolutely going to ask for a 15% salary increase now. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You asked in summary if Danylak's approval matters. Actually it does, and he is not the only one - there are other bishops, archbishops etc. who have sent approval letters and the images are on the web, we can add those links as well. This is fully relevant because the Poem is at the very center of the discussion about the Index, because the only letter sent about the Index from the Holy Office and signed by someone with "theological muscle" was Ratzinger's 1985 letter. Now, after that the situation in the world, which the article should reflect, is that other Bishops (and Archbishops) are basically shrugging shoulders about the 1985 letter and supporting the book about which the 1985 letter was issued. This goes to demonstrate the irrelevance of the Index in the modern world. And the real demonstration of the irrelevance of the situation is the 3rd paragraph of the article itself: "Canon law still recommends that works concerning sacred Scripture, theology, canon law, church history, and any writings which specially concern religion or good morals, be submitted to the judgement of the local Ordinary." This means that Canon law lives in yesterday's world, for in a world where a new book is printed every hour, this can never happen, as the modern day use section discusses. So to reflect the state of the world with respect to the Index, these issues need to be clarified. History2007 (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly not say that canon law lives in yesterday's world. It adapts to changing situations. A simple example is the one you yourself have given. Canon law now only recommends that Catholics submit the writings you mention to the judgement of the local Ordinary. In yesterday's world it could require Catholics to do so. Today it doesn't; and no censure is incurred, not even a perhaps excusable act of disobedience occurs, if a Catholic publishes such writings without submitting them to the local Ordinary's judgement. Authors can and do see an advantage in being able to publish their work accompanied not just by a recommendation, but by an official attestation by a bishop competent to give it (unlike Danylak in 2001) that the work is free of doctrinal and moral error:; they would surely regret it if canon law abolished the procedure that enables them to get this official attestation. What is yesterday's-worldly about this non-obligatory facility? Any suggestion in the article's modern-day-use section, if there is any, that there is something oppressive in providing this facility should surely be eliminated. And I don't understand what is meant by saying that "this can never happen". It does happen. People do ask for and get an imprimatur for their work.
As for the Poem of the Man-God, I feel no urge to study it. I am unsure what bishops you are referring to when you speak generically of "other (than Danylak) Bishops and Archbishops (who) are basically shrugging shoulders about the 1985 letter and supporting the book". The only case that I know of is an approval by someone with the authority to give official approval (again unlike Danylak) of its publication together with an indication that the putting of its words into the mouth of Jesus himself is a literary device used by the author. In that form the book can doubtless be an excellent aid to devotion and prayer. In that form it is not forbidden. But if the alleged direct dictation of the words by Jesus is judged not to be credible, then there was and is very good reason for the pastors of the Church to warn against what is presented as the work of Jesus himself. While it is only because of canon law that the Church's pastors are obliged to grant a requested imprimatur or else to explain in writing their reasons for refusing it, they have an obligation that arises from no enactment of canon law but from their very position to warn against books that seem to be harmful to faith and morals. Esoglou (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
First, my apologies about the Canon law comment, because I read that too quickly as "Canon law requires" rather than recommends. But then, I do not understand what it means for a "law" to recommend something, e.g. a law that recommends not stealing things does not seem like a law but a guideline. As for the Poem of Man God a discussion of its content is probably beside the point here. Some people like it, some do not. What is relevant to this page is that it was the centerpiece of the 1985 Ratzinger opinion and that it is not followed by all clergy. A few other bishops have also shrugged their shoulders on the Index issue and written support letters, so Danylak was not alone. Now returning to the imprimatur issue, and the Index it is indeed the case that some authors today still ask for and receive imprimaturs but it is very unclear (I have seen no research) of what percentage of books on Catholic topics have them these days, and if Catholics at large pay any attention to that fact before they read a book. Personally, I find it very hard to get any information for myself if I restrict myself to those books, but I have seen no general research. So the facts are: the Index was there, it was abolished, Ratzinger wrote a letter saying it still has force, and in some cases people have shrugged their shoulders at the letter. But at a larger level, I am not sure if Jean Paul Sartre is still on the "bad boy list" or not. It is actually hard to know who remains on the Index, and I have not seen a "forbidden list" on teh shelves of Catholic universities. I think several actually carry Sartre books, as well as René Descartes, Francis Bacon, etc. But the fact that the Holy Office could not "keep up" with the increasing pace of publications is important to mention. That trend will make any index practically hard to manage, if not impossible. In fact the last sentence in the article seems to suggest that Ottaviani gave that as an excuse for not having time to read Hitler and put him on the Index. Well, at least he was inventive. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that someone who thinks of canon law as structured exactly like civil law would indeed find it hard to envisage how it could "recommend" something. But the Church's relation to its members is very different from that of a state to its citizens. If you look up this concordance, you will find that an English translation of the Code of Canon Law has 17 canons with the word "recommended" (in several cases, "strongly recommended" or "earnestly recommended" or "highly recommended"). You remind me of what a member of the Jewish committee that was discussing with the Holy See the problem of the monastery of Carmelite nuns inside the Auschwitz concentration camp ruins once told me: they had to learn how false was their idea that, when the Pope says "Jump", all Catholics immediately jump!
You also seem to have a false idea of what "being on the Index" meant: for instance, when the Index was still in force, the seminary textbooks explained that, where it indicated that "opera omnia" (all the works) or "omnia opera amatoria" (all the novels) of a particular writer were forbidden, it did not necessarily mean that each and every thing or every thing in that category that he had written was forbidden: it only meant that there was a presumption that they were all forbidden, but that presumption could be overturned in the case of particular works. Difficult to imagine, obviously, for someone who thinks of canon law as just like civil law (or should I say, who thinks of canon law as cannon law?!)
I fear you also fail to recognize the essential difference between presentation of the same words as actually spoken by Jesus and presenting them as being put in his mouth merely as a literary device. Ratzinger was referring to the first presentation of the Poem. The inclusion of the Poem in the Index - not in the published Index, since the last edition was published a decade or so before, but it was forbidden - was and is an indication that, in that form, there is something wrong with it. In that sense the Index still has a certain moral force, though it has no legal force. The Poem, presented in that way, is forbidden for faithful Catholics, not because of the Index, which is no longer in force, but because of its own nature, to which the Index, without being a prohibition, was/is a pointer. If on the other hand the Poem is presented as the Italian Bishops Conference permitted it to be presented, with an explicit indication of its literary character, the Poem does not fall under the same prohibition (cf. seminary textbooks of half a century ago). Although our old friend Danylak did not explicitly make that distinction, he seems to me to have certainly interpreted the Poem as a work composed by Maria Valtorta, not as a work that she had taken down from the lips of Jesus himself. The problem, as I understand it, was/is that the Poem, as it stood/stands, presented/presents itself as the second kind of work. In editing Wikipedia articles, do we not have to be careful to write "Writer A says that Jesus is X", and to refrain from writing simply "Jesus is X"? And is it not true that, in a Wikipedia article, it is forbidden to write simply: "Jesus is X"? In this matter, the Catholic Church may be far more like Wikipedia than we could have imagined! Esoglou (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting discussion, and the Jump story was funny. But that discussion is about the Poem and not the Index. And I do not really have access to either Ratzinger or Danylak's head to know what they were really thinking. So I would like to pass on the discussion of the contents of the Poem, but focus on the Index. What I am still trying to point out is the issue of Sartre Descartes and Francis Bacon being on the "bad boy list" if the Indx has moral force. But I already mentioned that above. If I seem brief, it is because I am actually trying to do less talking and more doing, and I was building Aspects of the Christian meditation which could probably benefit from your knowledge to be sure it does not have errors. I will appreciate that, for I think it is important. [User:History2007|History2007]] (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sourced content removal

In this edit and editor removed sourced content as irrelevant. I think that is not the case at all. What the Cardinal said was "about the Index", hence it is totally relevant to the Index and the determination of his putting his foot in his mouth is a user assessment which has no place in Wikipedia. Those two statements probably need better sourcing, but their removal based on irrelevance is not justified. History2007 (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No answer for 5 days, so will restore with details. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Effects outside the Catholic world

The article currently states:

The effects of the Index were at times felt throughout much of the Roman Catholic world. From Quebec to Poland it was, for many years, very difficult to find copies of banned works, especially outside of major cities. It had little effect, outside Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland or Bohemia, in countries where the great majority of the population were not members of the Catholic Church. Isaac Newton used the work of Kepler, then on the Index, as the foundation for his theory of universal gravitation, which in turn significantly influenced the formation of modern physics.

I don't know what the sentence "It had little effect, outside Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland or Bohemia, in countries where the great majority of the population were not members of the Catholic Church" means. Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, and Bohemia are all traditionally majority-Catholic countries, but the way that the sentence is phrased, it implies that those countries were the non-Catholic countries where being listed on the Index would cause availability of a book to be limited. Maybe the writer meant the sentence the opposite way: that books on the Index were rarely found in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, and Bohemia, but in other majority-Catholic countries like France and Ireland, the Index was ignored and listed books were available. But that would contradict the previous sentence, which says that the banned books were difficult to find in much of Quebec. (In any event, the reference to Newton seems mostly irrelevant -- Newton was from England, which was not a Catholic country during his lifetime.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Such sentences have usually been altered over time. On 3 November 2010 (bottom of first history page) it said: " The Index, however, had little effect outside Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland or Bohemia, as it lacked an effective means of enforcement." which is clear enough. We should go back to that. When were the "many years"? I find it hard to believe Quebec was much affected after the British took it over. Johnbod (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The paragraph has since been revised by User:Esoglou and makes more sense now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

I think there is a basic misunderstanding in the obdurate reinsertion of the statement "indeed, many of the books, both theological and scientific, that were once on the Index have for centuries been routinely taught at most universities (including Catholic universities) in the world." A controversial statement cannot be fixed with a "citation needed" tag. That tag is as good as nobody doubts what is written, and nobody can't be arsed to find a source. If somebody does doubt it, and I certainly do, mostly because the oldest catholic university I know of has been around since 1834, hardly "for centuries" and there is no evidence whatsoever in the article that it used any forbidden book, the statement has to be removed until proved true. This also excludes personal research: finding a bunch of universities and looking up their reading list is not enough: you have to find somebody who has done it before, has drawn the conclusion and has published it in a reliable, neutral source (i.e., not the Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance). As a sign of good faith, I'll let 24 hours pass in order for whoever wants to find a source, but afterwards, I'll delete the controversial statement again. I'll remind everybody, since this kind of statement seems to pop up specifically on Catholicism articles, that wikipedia is committed to a neutral point of view; trying to sweeten such a concept as the Index is the opposite of that. complainer (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"The oldest Catholic university has been around since 1834" - where have you got that nonsense from? Even in the (latecoming to Catholicism) United States, Georgetown University has been active since the 18th century. Sapienza was founded by the Pope in 1303, the Old University of Leuven and its successor the Catholic University of Leuven has existed since 1425, and if you count the University of Bologna as Catholic (since along with everything else in Italy, it's historically been dominated by the RCC), then you're over 700 years out. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Noting that that that ip is not me; mentioning as I edited logged out last night. Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly - Bologna was run by the church until relatively recently, as were most if not all medieval universities. Relatively few of them still are directly run by the church but in Catholic countries the transition often took a long time. One might rephrase to "the theories in the many of the books" as Galileo etc have not been the actual textbooks used for basic courses for a long time. I think it's clear who has the POV here. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Bologna was founded, if wikipedia is to be believed, by Barbarossa; anyhow, mediaeval universities don't count: the index is post-mediaeval, which makes it logically impossible for them to have taught forbidden books. Not that it matters, anyway, you need a source mentioning forbidden books being taught at catholic universities, otherwise you are doing personal research. The statement is, in any case, misleading, portraying the index as a formality catholic teachers simply ignored: it is hardly so today, and it certainly hasn't been "for centuries".complainer (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
But medieval universities (nearly all) continued in later periods, and most are still around, if no longer run by the CC. You were complaining that "for centuries" was impossible for any "Catholic university" in the context of the Index, but it clearly isn't. To take one example, versions of Galileo's works were allowed for study by the early C18, and all the works themselves removed from the Index in 1754 or some such date. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Confused about this sentence about Giordano Bruno

In the introductory section of the article it states that "Giordano Bruno, whose entire works were placed on the Index on 8 February 1600,[12] was burned alive at the stake[13] (albeit after being turned over to the secular authorities for teaching the heresy of pantheism, not for heliocentrism or other scientific views)." I'm confused as to whether this means he was burned at the stake by the secular authorities or if he was burned at the stake by he Vatican? 21:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.1.242 (talk)

"Turning over to the secular authority (or arm)" is the technical term for when the ecclesial court said "we no longer have the means to deal with this offender with our own means". This was independent of the question whether the secular authority happened to be "by coincidence" an ecclesial leader. In this case, the Pope-as-Head-of-the-Papal-States, or the Prince-Bishop, would execute the offender, not the Pope-as-Pope or the Bishop-as-Bishop. In Giordano Bruno's case, he was (as is well known) burned in Rome at the Campo de' fiori, so, "by the Vatican".
The point the sentence apparently intended to make was that Giordano Bruno was not burned for being a scientific researcher, but for being a heretic (and unscientific) fabulator. Just because they happened to agree on the unimportant issue of heliocentrism, few things could be farther away from the truth that to put him into one camp with Galileo (who, of course, was not burned: because he was not a heretic).--131.159.76.45 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Giordano Bruno

Giordano Bruno is a better place to describe his ideas, a New Yorker article isn't enough.Xx236 (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Will H. Hays was Presbyterian

Now you claim that Roman-Catholics censored the movies. Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

H.P. Lovecraft's Mad Arab

Did anyone else notice that the current last author on this list is fictional? What else on this page might be inacurrate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.159.195 (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nihil Obstat/Imprimatur?

Would it be worthwhile to link this article to those terms? Since it seems we're discussing what Catholics should/ought to/be allowed to read, according to their teachers.Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Patrick O'Brien

Does 'Patrick O'Brien' Perhaps refer to Patrick O'Brian?Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The Poem of the Man-God

There is a basic difference between a book and a kind of new holy script. The article doesn't explain it.Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

NEEDS MORE INFO ABOUT SPECIFIC WORKS THAT APPEARED ON THE INDEX

I suggest a section on notable books that were banned at various times and some discussion for the reasons they were banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.146.196 (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

THE BIBLE ON THE INDEX

I think it would be useful to add a section on the Index's repression of translations of the Bible in the vernacular. On a number of occasions these translations were added to various editions of the Index. For example the 1558 Index, promulgated by the Roman Inquisition, "banned complete translation of the Old and New Testaments in all languages" (see Fragnito, Gigliola, La Bibbia al rogo. La censura ecclesiastica e i volgarizzamenti della Scrittura (1471-1605), 1997. pages 75-198). Those who are better informed than me on the matter might like to contribute.Campolongo (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

If it was in 1558, it appears to be before the Index Librorum Prohibitorum that this article is about. Esoglou (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I mean in the series of editions of 1559, under Paul IV, then 1564 and 1596. The 1559 edition was apparently "affisso" on December 30 1558, which is perhaps why e.g. the Italian Wikipedia speaks of it as the 1558 edition. However, the fact remains that each of these indexes contained varying prohibitions on the reading of Old and New Testaments in the vernacular. There seems to be abundant information about this topic, which also strikes me as important and relevant to the subject of this entry. What do others think? I'm no historian but there must be plenty of well-informed historians capable of adding a few sentences to the topic.Campolongo (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Campolongo (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You know that the Italian Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia (any more than the English Wikipedia is). Would you please quote the statement in the book you refer to that some edition(s) of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum banned (all?) translations of the Bible? – surely not the Bible itself, as the heading you have placed on this section and indeed the title of the book you refer to (La Bibbia al rogo) would suggest. There is a risk that whatever that book says may be no more than a gross over-simplification or distortion of the third and fourth general rules in the 1559 Index (whenever affisso) that can be consulted here. These rules limited the use of translations but, as far as I can see, did not ban their production or reproduction. Esoglou (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia is riddled with errors and nonsense, like many printed books and encyclopaedias (sigh). On the other hand, the statement made above seems to have some basis in fact: for example The Observatio on the Index issued under Pope Clement VIII (Observatio circa quartam regulam) reads: “Sia noto riguardo alla quarta regola dell’Indice di Pio IV di felice memoria che con questa stampa e edizione non viene concessa di nuovo alcuna facoltà a Vescovi, o Inquisitori o superiori di Regolari, di rilasciare licenze per l’acquisto, la lettura o il possesso di Bibbie stampate in volgare, poiché finora per ordine e uso della Santa Romana e universale Inquisizione è stata loro revocata la facoltà di concedere licenze per la lettura e il possesso di Bibbie volgari o di parti della Sacra Scrittura, sia del Nuovo che del Vecchio testamento, stampate in qualsiasi lingua vernacolare; e inoltre dei sommari e compendi anche storici delle stesse Bibbie ovvero libri della Sacra Scrittura scritti in qualsiasi lingua volgare: il che dovrà esser inviolabilmente osservato.” (quoted in JEAN-LOUIS QUANTIN et JEAN-CLAUDE WAQUET (eds.) "Papes, princes et savants dans l'Europe moderne..." Other sources for similar statements from reasonably institutional and scholarly sources can be found. I'm not an expert but I think it is worth trying to put together something on this topic.Campolongo (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

So we await something that is not merely "seems to have some basis" about a banning of the Bible itself. As for translations, Regula III of the 1569 ediction said: "Librorum autem veteris Testamenti versiones viris tantum doctis et piis iudicio Episcopi concedi poterunt ..." Esoglou (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly: as your quotation shows, one of the concerns of the various editions of the Index and the ways it was interpreted at various times was to regulate who had access to the bible and in which editions. One of the points made by scholars is that the faculty conceded to bishops to license the reading of the Bible (as in your quotation) seems to have been opposed by the Roman Inquisition, as in the passage quoted above. Surely this topic is direct relevance to an entry on the Inquistion. Since you, Esoglou, seem to be more of a scholar than me, why not write a brief addition for Wikipedia?Campolongo (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bible - that is the Hebrew Old Testament, the Septuaginta, and the New Testament in its original language Greek - was not banned. Hence it is nonsense to say that "the Bible itself was banned".
Translations of the Bible were, as far as I am aware, not mentioned specifically because the method was "vice-versa": all such translations had to be "whitelisted"; if not accepted by the Catholic Church they were banned. See also can. 2318 § 2 of the 1917 CIC.
Which is logical enough, because we do know how much a translator can do. Martin Luther's translation is not "the Bible". The KJV is not "the Bible" - even though this rumour is actually present among some lesser logical Protestants.
That means that, of course, a German Catholic could not (without permission) read Luther's Bible as long as the Index was in vigour.
However, while the Index was in vigour, the Church never tried to keep any language purposely without any translation. (There may have been some occasional laws in that direction in the Middle Ages by diocesan bishops.)--131.159.76.45 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

SPANISH VERSION

Spain's version of the Index was the "Index Librorum et Expurgatorium", which contain, not only forbidden books, but also books who had parts that were forbidden, not the entire work. An example is the second part of Don Quixote, of which one sentence was censured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eni2dad (talk • contribs) 15:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://galileo.rice.edu/chr/congregation.html
  2. ^ A Saint despite the vatican National Catholic Reporter-August 30, 2002 also [2]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum/Archive_1&oldid=963658957"