MIRARI VOS: ON LIBERALISM AND RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM

Papal Encyclicals Online ^ | AUGUST 15, 1832 | POPE GREGORY XVI

[annalex]

MIRARI VOS

ON LIBERALISM AND RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE GREGORY XVI

AUGUST 15, 1832

To All Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World.

Venerable Brothers, Greetings and Apostolic Benediction.

1. We think that you wonder why, from the time of Our assuming the pontificate, We have not yet sent a letter to you as is customary and as Our benevolence for you demanded. We wanted very much to address you by that voice by which We have been commanded, in the person of blessed Peter, to strengthen the brethren.[1] You know what storms of evil and toil, at the beginning of Our pontificate, drove Us suddenly into the depths of the sea. If the right hand of God had not given Us strength, We would have drowned as the result of the terrible conspiracy of impious men. The mind recoils from renewing this by enumerating so many dangers; instead We bless the Father of consolation Who, having overthrown all enemies, snatched Us from the present danger. When He had calmed this violent storm, He gave Us relief from fear. At once We decided to advise you on healing the wounds of Israel; but the mountain of concerns We needed to address in order to restore public order delayed Us.

2. In the meantime We were again delayed because of the insolent and factious men who endeavored to raise the standard of treason. Eventually, We had to use Our God-given authority to restrain the great obstinacy of these men with the rod.[2] Before We did, their unbridled rage seemed to grow from continued impunity and Our considerable indulgence. For these reasons Our duties have been heavy.

3. But when We had assumed Our pontificate according to the custom and institution of Our predecessors and when all delays had been laid aside, We hastened to you. So We now present the letter and testimony of Our good will toward you on this happy day, the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin. Since she has been Our patron and savior amid so many great calamities, We ask her assistance in writing to you and her counsels for the flock of Christ.

4. We come to you grieving and sorrowful because We know that you are concerned for the faith in these difficult times. Now is truly the time in which the powers of darkness winnow the elect like wheat.[3] "The earth mourns and fades away....And the earth is infected by the inhabitants thereof, because they have transgressed the laws, they have changed the ordinances, they have broken the everlasting covenant."[4]

5. We speak of the things which you see with your own eyes, which We both bemoan. Depravity exults; science is impudent; liberty, dissolute. The holiness of the sacred is despised; the majesty of divine worship is not only disapproved by evil men, but defiled and held up to ridicule. Hence sound doctrine is perverted and errors of all kinds spread boldly. The laws of the sacred, the rights, institutions, and discipline -- none are safe from the audacity of those speaking evil. Our Roman See is harassed violently and the bonds of unity are daily loosened and severed. The divine authority of the Church is opposed and her rights shorn off. She is subjected to human reason and with the greatest injustice exposed to the hatred of the people and reduced to vile servitude. The obedience due bishops is denied and their rights are trampled underfoot. Furthermore, academies and schools resound with new, monstrous opinions, which openly attack the Catholic faith; this horrible and nefarious war is openly and even publicly waged. Thus, by institutions and by the example of teachers, the minds of the youth are corrupted and a tremendous blow is dealt to religion and the perversion of morals is spread. So the restraints of religion are thrown off, by which alone kingdoms stand. We see the destruction of public order, the fall of principalities, and the overturning of all legitimate power approaching. Indeed this great mass of calamities had its inception in the heretical societies and sects in which all that is sacrilegious, infamous, and blasphemous has gathered as bilge water in a ship's hold, a congealed mass of all filth.

6. These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

7. Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty"[5] and the admonition of Pope Agatho: "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning."[6] Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings.[7] To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church."[8]

8. In this you must labor and diligently take care that the faith may be preserved amidst this great conspiracy of impious men who attempt to tear it down and destroy it. May all remember the judgment concerning sound doctrine with which the people are to be instructed. Remember also that the government and administration of the whole Church rests with the Roman Pontiff to whom, in the words of the Fathers of the Council of Florence, "the full power of nourishing, ruling, and governing the universal Church was given by Christ the Lord."[9] It is the duty of individual bishops to cling to the See of Peter faithfully, to guard the faith piously and religiously, and to feed their flock. It behooves priests to be subject to the bishops, whom "they are to look upon as the parents of their souls," as Jerome admonishes.[10] Nor may the priests ever forget that they are forbidden by ancient canons to undertake ministry and to assume the tasks of teaching and preaching "without the permission of their bishop to whom the people have been entrusted; an accounting for the souls of the people will be demanded from the bishop."[11] Finally let them understand that all those who struggle against this established order disturb the position of the Church.

9. Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced.

10. To use the words of the fathers of Trent, it is certain that the Church "was instructed by Jesus Christ and His Apostles and that all truth was daily taught it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."[12] Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain "restoration and regeneration" for her as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune. Indeed these authors of novelties consider that a "foundation may be laid of a new human institution," and what Cyprian detested may come to pass, that what was a divine thing "may become a human church."[13] Let those who devise such plans be aware that, according to the testimony of St. Leo, "the right to grant dispensation from the canons is given" only to the Roman Pontiff. He alone, and no private person, can decide anything "about the rules of the Church Fathers." As St. Gelasius writes: "It is the papal responsibility to keep the canonical decrees in their place and to evaluate the precepts of previous popes so that when the times demand relaxation in order to rejuvenate the churches, they may be adjusted after diligent consideration."[14]

11. Now, however, We want you to rally to combat the abominable conspiracy against clerical celibacy. This conspiracy spreads daily and is promoted by profligate philosophers, some even from the clerical order. They have forgotten their person and office, and have been carried away by the enticements of pleasure. They have even dared to make repeated public demands to the princes for the abolition of that most holy discipline. But it is disgusting to dwell on these evil attempts at length. Rather, We ask that you strive with all your might to justify and to defend the law of clerical celibacy as prescribed by the sacred canons, against which the arrows of the lascivious are directed from every side.

12. Now the honorable marriage of Christians, which Paul calls "a great sacrament in Christ and the Church,"[15] demands our shared concern lest anything contrary to its sanctity and indissolubility is proposed. Our predecessor Pius VIII would recommend to you his own letters on the subject. However, troublesome efforts against this sacrament still continue to be made. The people therefore must be zealously taught that a marriage rightly entered upon cannot be dissolved; for those joined in matrimony God has ordained a perpetual companionship for life and a knot of necessity which cannot be loosed except by death. Recalling that matrimony is a sacrament and therefore subject to the Church, let them consider and observe the laws of the Church concerning it. Let them take care lest for any reason they permit that which is an obstruction to the teachings of the canons and the decrees of the councils. They should be aware that those marriages will have an unhappy end which are entered upon contrary to the discipline of the Church or without God's favor or because of concupiscence alone, with no thought of the sacrament and of the mysteries signified by it.

13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism"[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him,"[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate."[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me."[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"[20]

14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit"[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

15. 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?

16. 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.

17. We have learned that certain teachings are being spread among the common people in writings which attack the trust and submission due to princes; the torches of treason are being lit everywhere. Care must be taken lest the people, being deceived, are led away from the straight path. May all recall, according to the admonition of the apostle that "there is no authority except from God; what authority there is has been appointed by God. Therefore he who resists authority resists the ordinances of God; and those who resist bring on themselves condemnation."[27] Therefore both divine and human laws cry out against those who strive by treason and sedition to drive the people from confidence in their princes and force them from their government.

18. And it is for this reason that the early Christians, lest they should be stained by such great infamy deserved well of the emperors and of the safety of the state even while persecution raged. This they proved splendidly by their fidelity in performing perfectly and promptly whatever they were commanded which was not opposed to their religion, and even more by their constancy and the shedding of their blood in battle. "Christian soldiers," says St. Augustine, "served an infidel emperor. When the issue of Christ was raised, they acknowledged no one but the One who is in heaven. They distinguished the eternal Lord from the temporal lord, but were also subject to the temporal lord for the sake of the eternal Lord."[28] St. Mauritius, the unconquered martyr and leader of the Theban legion had this in mind when, as St. Eucharius reports, he answered the emperor in these words: "We are your soldiers, Emperor, but also servants of God, and this we confess freely . . . and now this final necessity of life has not driven us into rebellion: I see, we are armed and we do not resist, because we wish rather to die than to be killed."[29] Indeed the faith of the early Christians shines more brightly, if with Tertullian we consider that since the Christians were not lacking in numbers and in troops, they could have acted as foreign enemies. "We are but of yesterday," he says, "yet we have filled all your cities, islands, fortresses, municipalities, assembly places, the camps themselves, the tribes, the divisions, the palace, the senate, the forum....For what war should we not have been fit and ready even if unequal in forces -- we who are so glad to be cut to pieces -- were it not, of course, that in our doctrine we would have been permitted more to be killed rather than to kill?...If so great a multitude of people should have deserted to some remote spot on earth, it would surely have covered your domination with shame because of the loss of so many citizens, and it would even have punished you by this very desertion. Without a doubt you would have been terrified at your solitude.... You would have sought whom you might rule; more enemies than citizens would have remained for you. Now however you have fewer enemies because of the multitude of Christians."[30]

19. These beautiful examples of the unchanging subjection to the princes necessarily proceeded from the most holy precepts of the Christian religion. They condemn the detestable insolence and improbity of those who, consumed with the unbridled lust for freedom, are entirely devoted to impairing and destroying all rights of dominion while bringing servitude to the people under the slogan of liberty. Here surely belong the infamous and wild plans of the Waldensians, the Beghards, the Wycliffites, and other such sons of Belial, who were the sores and disgrace of the human race; they often received a richly deserved anathema from the Holy See. For no other reason do experienced deceivers devote their efforts, except so that they, along with Luther, might joyfully deem themselves "free of all." To attain this end more easily and quickly, they undertake with audacity any infamous plan whatever.

20. Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty.

21. But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.

22. We write these things to you with grieving mind but trusting in Him who commands the winds and makes them still. Take up the shield of faith and fight the battles of the Lord vigorously. You especially must stand as a wall against every height which raises itself against the knowledge of God. Unsheath the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God, and may those who hunger after justice receive bread from you. Having been called so that you might be diligent cultivators in the vineyard of the Lord, do this one thing, and labor in it together, so that every root of bitterness may be removed from your field, all seeds of vice destroyed, and a happy crop of virtues may take root and grow. The first to be embraced with paternal affection are those who apply themselves to the sacred sciences and to philosophical studies. For them may you be exhorter and supporter, lest trusting only in their own talents and strength, they may imprudently wander away from the path of truth onto the road of the impious. Let them remember that God is the guide to wisdom and the director of the wise.[31] It is impossible to know God without God who teaches men to know Himself by His word.[32] It is the proud, or rather foolish, men who examine the mysteries of faith which surpass all understanding with the faculties of the human mind, and rely on human reason which by the condition of man's nature, is weak and infirm.

23. May Our dear sons in Christ, the princes, support these Our desires for the welfare of Church and State with their resources and authority. May they understand that they received their authority not only for the government of the world, but especially for the defense of the Church. They should diligently consider that whatever work they do for the welfare of the Church accrues to their rule and peace. Indeed let them persuade themselves that they owe more to the cause of the faith than to their kingdom. Let them consider it something very great for themselves as We say with Pope St. Leo, "if in addition to their royal diadem the crown of faith may be added." Placed as if they were parents and teachers of the people, they will bring them true peace and tranquility, if they take special care that religion and piety remain safe. God, after all, calls Himself "King of kings and Lord of lords."

24. That all of this may come to pass prosperously and happily, let Us raise Our eyes and hands to the most holy Virgin Mary, who alone crushes all heresies, and is Our greatest reliance and the whole reason for Our hope.[33] May she implore by her patronage a successful outcome for Our plans and actions. Let Us humbly ask of the Prince of the Apostles, Peter and his co-apostle Paul that all of you may stand as a wall lest a foundation be laid other than that which has already been laid. Relying on this happy hope, We trust that the Author and Crown of Our faith Jesus Christ will console Us in all these Our tribulations. We lovingly impart the apostolic benediction to you, venerable brothers, and to the sheep committed to your care as a sign of heavenly aid.

Given in Rome at St. Mary Major, on August 15, the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin, in the year of Our Lord 1832, the second year of Our Pontificate.

---

1. Lk 22.32. 2. I Cor 4.21. 3. Lk 22.53. 4. Is 24.5. 5. St. Celestine, Pope, epistle 21 to Bishop Galliar. 6. St. Agatho, Pope, epistle to the emperor, apud Labb., ed. Mansi, vol. 2, p. 235. 7. St. Innocent, epistle 11 apud Constat. 8. St. Cyprian, de unitate eccles. 9. Council of Florence, session 25, in definit. apud Labb., ed. Venet., vol. 18, col. 527. 10. St. Jerome, epistle 2 to Nepot. a. 1, 24. 11. From canon ap. 38 apud Labb., ed Mansi, vol. 1, p. 38. 12. Council of Trent, session 13 on the Eucharist, prooemium . 13. St. Cyprian, epistle 52, ed. Baluz. 14. St. Gelasius, Pope, in epistle to the bishop of Lucaniae. 15. Heb 13.4. 16. Eph 4.5. 17. Lk 11.23. 18. Symbol .s. Athanasius. 19. St. Jerome, epistle 57. 20. St. Augustine, in psalm. contra part. Donat. 21. St. Augustine, epistle 166. 22. Ap 9.3. 23. Acts 19. 24. Acts of the Lateran Council 5, session 10, where the constitution of Leo X is mentioned; the earlier constitution of Alexander VI, Inter multiplices, ought to be read, in which there are many things on this point. 25. Council of Trent, sessions 18 and 25. 26. Letter of Clement XIII, Christianae, 25 November 1766. 27. Rom 13.2. 28. St. Augustine in psalt. 124, n. 7. 29. St. Euchenius apud Ruinart. Acts of the Holy Martyrs concerning Saint Maurius and his companions, n. 4. 30. Tertullian, in apologet., chap. 37. 31. Wis 7.15. 32. St. Irenaeus, bk. 14, chap. 10. 33. St. Bernard, serm de nat. b.M.v., sect. 7.

[annalex]

More Religious Right material.

[NewJerseyJoe]

You can't post Mirari Vos -- it goes against the "spirit of Vatican II"!

[annalex]

:)))

Precisely.

[narses]

I ping often. I do not often say this. This is something that all must read, must ponder and must email to all that are on our lists. This is imperative. God Bless.

[annalex]

Thank you.

I don’t know who first said it, but it is a memorable dictum: error has no rights.

[steve-b]

Totalitarian screeds would be more appropriately posted to the DUmpster.

[steve-b]

Separated At Birth:

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.
--Gregory XVI

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?
--Josef Stalin

[annalex]

Thank you for posting. I was disappointed that this important and pertinent to our times encyclical received so little reaction, despite being deeply countercultural today.

I think everyone can agree that ideas are more powerful than guns. No one could say that with greater authority than Stalin, who once dismissed one pope with “how many divisions does he have?”, and whose oppression of Poland was stopped by a pope a few decades later.

I think, the almost uninterrupted leftward march of any democracy in history, including the US, as well as the desacralization and now collapse of decency standards in the public square all point to a need to rethink the knee-jerk reaction against censorship that most Americans have.

Error has no rights.

[steve-b]

So, you’re on the side of Stalin, then. That tells me all I need to know.

[steve-b]

a need to rethink the knee-jerk reaction against censorship that most Americans have

I wouldn't have thought it possible for your depravity to be worse than what was clear on the surface, but it turns out that it is.

You are publicly urging everyone who ever swore to uphold the United States Constitution to become an oath-breaker.

[annalex]

The extremist left-wing on the 1st Amendment is a complete novelty. I am in good company: censorship in many forms was a part of the American political culture till at least the 1950’s, and it was refreshing to see a call to reconsider censorship about 10 years ago in the Weekly Standard.

Nor have we proven that American-style freedom of conscience combined with the universal electoral franchise can survive the test of history. Basically, there is little doubt in my mind that America enjoyed freedom only so long as social mechanisms that ensured Protestant Christian dominance of the political scene, were intact.

On private fora, as we all know, censorship is a necessary feature. You yourself suggested that this encyclical does not belong to this forum. Was that not a call to censorship?. Without censorship there is no free speech.

Where am I on the side of Stalin?

[steve-b]

censorship in many forms was a part of the American political culture till at least the 1950’s[sic]

Your advocacy of a return to the 1950s isn't exactly arresting your slide into moral depravity.

a call to reconsider censorship about 10 years ago in the Weekly Standard

That is to expected from anti-American publications.

Basically, there is little doubt in my mind that America enjoyed freedom only so long as social mechanisms that ensured Protestant Christian dominance of the political scene, were intact.

I see. It's the fault of the Jooooos....

On private fora, as we all know, censorship is a necessary feature.

Each time you post, it becomes less and less clear why you are here, rather than somewhere more suited to your ignorance or disdain (really, your statements are so incoherent that I am at a loss to tell which, though it's clearly one or the other) for the concept of property rights (which is the fundamental basis of civilized existence).

Where am I on the side of Stalin?

You have reaffirmed that you side with his position, as quoted previously on this thread.

[steve-b]

on the 1st Amendment

Your argument contains so many errors and omissions that I actually missed the most glaring one.

Ultimately, freedom rests on the next amendment down the list.

[annalex]

You made two posts and made references to

- my depravity
- American racism in the 1950’s
- Weekly standard being anti-American
- DU
- my purpose of posting at FR
- the role of the Second Amendment in guarding our freedom.

You said nothing about your taste for cheese. Maybe in your tomorrow’s two?

If you have anything to comment on the substance of the encyclical, please do so as well.

[steve-b]

There is no substance on which to comment. Just the same old gibber-jabber used to dress up the will to power in a high-minded pose of concern for the good of the community. At least Hillary only requires her audience to sift through four words ("It Takes A Village") to convey the same fraudulent message.

This is one of those situations where, as Mencken put it, one horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms.

[annalex]

OK, thanks.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Totalitarian screeds would be more appropriately posted to the DUmpster.

Pardon my curiosity, but why would a meaningless, random blob of protoplasm like you take part in a discussion involving ideals of any kind?

[steve-b]

Stupidity annoys me. Thus, the original post is more or less equivalent to waving a red flag in front of a bull.

[steve-b]

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.

Photographically Documented!

[steve-b]

(Oops, wrong group. Oh, well, getting confused between Group A and Group B when their activities are identical is perfectly understandable....)

[annalex]

Nazis burned books and Stalin understood the power of ideas. Anything else?

[steve-b]

How many proofs of the depravity of your worldview would you like? I can continue as long as you like.

[annalex]

As the Encyclical reminds us, the Apostles burned books in 1c. Some books deserve to be burned.

Gasp for air, continue, please.

[steve-b]

Some books deserve to be burned.

Is that you in the second row, center rear group?

[steve-b]

(My mistake. I overlooked the clue that you need to “gasp for air”. That implies that you are off to the right of the picture, where the smoke is blowing. You ought to have found a vantage point upwind from the blaze.)

[annalex]

Why do your posts always come in twos?

[Zero Sum]

As the Encyclical reminds us, the Apostles burned books in 1c.

Pope Gregory ought to have been ashamed of himself for alleging, for his own autocratic purposes, that the Holy Apostles were guilty of such behavior!

The reference given in the encyclical is to Acts Chapter 19. Here St. Luke tells us that some pagans who had practiced sorcery repented of it, and burned their scrolls as a witness when they converted to Christ. Nowhere does he claim that the Apostles burned any books, and certainly not any books that belonged to others.

In fact, St. Paul (the Apostle involved in Acts 19) made it very clear in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 that it was not his business to judge those outside the Church.

[Zero Sum]

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.

Oh good heavens! You mean that some people actually had this silly notion that it was an abuse of power to suppress ideas with the force of arms, and that bad words could be overcome by good ones? Clearly they must be stopped!

Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty.

Or, one might get the impression that those who call for censorship are afraid that their own views might not hold up very well when exposed to criticism; and that those who wish to yoke themselves to the world by having the State sponsor the Church lack confidence in Christ's promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against her.

Anyway, thanks for the new tagline, Gregory.

[annalex]

The Holy Scripture established the principle that books containing false doctrine are to be burned. Is your objection to the idea of censorship or to the ownership rights? The Encyclical does not seem to address the ownership issue at all. The scripture clearly indicates that the books were the property of the penitents; however, the high cost of the books is mentioned to underscore the significance of the act:

18 And many of them that believed, came confessing and declaring their deeds. 19 And many of them who had followed curious arts, brought together their books, and burnt them before all; and counting the price of them, they found the money to be fifty thousand pieces of silver. 20 So mightily grew the word of God, and was confirmed. (Acts 19)

Pope Leo XIII says

the apostles themselves burned a large number of books

It is true that the burning of the books was voluntary. However, are you prepared to say that the apostles had nothing to do with the burning? It is by their witness that the sorcerers renounced their craft (Acts 19:15). The account of the book burning reads like a story or triumph -- not of oppression, but of conversion.

[annalex]

It is true that it is easier to destroy than to build, and atheism is primarily about destruction. It is then fair to ask that atheistic tracts be required to be on the same intellectual level as the work of the Church. I don't see why that is controversial.

having the State sponsor the Church [who lacks] confidence in Christ's promise

But the promise was never predicated on inaction on the part of the Church. The faith of St.Peter was never a quietist faith: he was a man ready to draw the sword (he had two of them) and defend the Lord. The Church is to either use the state as a tool; not a necessary one, but a tool nonetheless. It is true that the Church will prevail either with the state or despite it. With the knowledge of 20c. history that Gregory XVI did not have, I think, we are going to prevail despite the state that has turned hostile, but I think you cannot in fairness blame him for thinking that perhaps the state could be of some use.

[annalex]

Unfinished sentence:

The Church is to either use the state as a tool ...

... or to confront the state.

[Zero Sum]

The Holy Scripture established the principle that books containing false doctrine are to be burned.

As a general principle? The espisode in Acts speaks of converts burning their old scrolls becuase they wanted nothing more do with their old ways. The general principle here seems to be one of complete and total conversion of heart and an absolute renunciation of wickedness. The burning of the scrolls (on the part of the converts) was incidental.

Is your objection to the idea of censorship or to the ownership rights?

Both. It cannot be considered censorship when the books being destroyed are one's own.

The Encyclical does not seem to address the ownership issue at all. The scripture clearly indicates that the books were the property of the penitents; however, the high cost of the books is mentioned to underscore the significance of the act

To the converts who burned their scrolls, Christ was of infinitely more value than their expensive books on sorcery, which became worse than worthless to them. And, as I said before, the point here is that they repented and completely rejeced their old ways. The problem here is that Gregory XVI claimed that the Apostles burned books and that since the Church was doing this in Apostolic times that censorship and book-burning is done on Apostolic authority. But this isn't what Acts says at all. If you want to argue an Apostolic precedent, you'll have to do so on other grounds.

My beef isn't with the Roman Catholic Church or how she decides to exercise discipline. If the Magisterium wants to forbid Roman Catholics from reading certain books, then that is none of my business even though I might question the value of such censorship. The problem is that Gregory claimed that the power of the State should be used to enforce his rules. And what really aroused my indignation (which was neither directed at you, nor at Roman Catholics, nor even the Papacy in its own right, but solely at Pope Gregory XVI) was that he twisted that story in Acts and alleged that the Holy Apostles were engaging in a medieval sort of censorship when that is not at all what the Scripture tells us. Again, if you want to claim Apostolic authority for this then you'll have to do so on different grounds.

It is true that the burning of the books was voluntary.

And there's the crux of the matter.

However, are you prepared to say that the apostles had nothing to do with the burning?

We don't know whether they did or not. That passage in Acts doesn't tell us how or if St. Paul participated, or if the converts simply destroyed their old scrolls as a natural part of their conversion and as a witness to the same. But the point is that it was not a matter of coercion. "For," as the Fathers tell us, "that which is the result of compulsion has neither reason nor virtue in it."

It is by their witness that the sorcerers renounced their craft (Acts 19:15). The account of the book burning reads like a story or triumph -- not of oppression, but of conversion.

Amen to that. And that is precisely my point.

[Zero Sum]

It is true that it is easier to destroy than to build, and atheism is primarily about destruction.

Then why should the Church be a party to that destruction by burning books that are not theirs to destroy?

It is then fair to ask that atheistic tracts be required to be on the same intellectual level as the work of the Church. I don't see why that is controversial.

Yes, it is fair to ask, and that is not at all controversial. But asking is not coercion. And if they are not on the same intellectual level as the Church's arguments then they will be defeated by the Church's arguments.

But the promise was never predicated on inaction on the part of the Church. The faith of St.Peter was never a quietist faith: he was a man ready to draw the sword (he had two of them) and defend the Lord.

And the Lord rebuked him for it!

The Church is to either use the state as a tool ...

... or to confront the state.

Making the best of any given situation (whether the Church is being persecuted by the State or whether the State is friendly to the Church) is one thing. Using the State as a sort of enforcing arm of the Church is quite another, as is viewing the Church as a sort of revolutionary antithesis to the State. I reject both of these latter views, as I've never seen a compelling argument for either one.

With the knowledge of 20c. history that Gregory XVI did not have, I think, we are going to prevail despite the state that has turned hostile, but I think you cannot in fairness blame him for thinking that perhaps the state could be of some use.

In light of the encyclical that you posted, saying that he was only "thinking that perhaps the state could be of some use" is a bit of an understatement, isn't it? And as I said above, my real beef is with his misuse of the Acts of the Apostles in order to claim an Apostolic basis for draconian behavior.

Thank you for your responses, and for making me think about the matter in greater depth.

[steve-b]

The Encyclical does not seem to address the ownership issue at all.

"Encyclical"? Sounds more like a... what's that word?... oh, yeah -- Manifesto to me, comrade!

[steve-b]

he was a man ready to draw the sword

"Cut off [unbelievers'] heads, and cut off the tips of their fingers" (Sura 8:12)

The Church is to either use the state as a tool

Directly prohibited by Christ Himself -- "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

[annalex]

Thank you for your both posts.

It is difficult for me to imagine how Paul and Apollo could have been in opposition to the book burning that occurred, since they became figures of authority whose appearance prompted the burining and the books were burned "before all". For that reason, I think that the Pope's reference is reasonably accurate: he did not say "the apostles confiscated books from the library and from private collections and burned them", he simply says "the apostles themselves burned bad books".

All these disctinctions of ownership and coercion are simply not addressed by the encyclical. It seems to be written from the assumption that the state is engaged in some form of control over the press; the Church on her part sees it fit to advise the state on how to exercise proper censorship. The thrust of the argument is that some books are "bad". They remain bad no matter who owns them. They are to be detroyed as a matter of sanitation.

On the other hand, the Pope speaks approvingly of legal authority, so from that alone we can presume that pogrom of private property by some vigilante book-burning mob is note what His Holiness was contemplating.

Let us not forget that the near-absolute freedom of the press, as well as the radical separation of Church and state are very recent and on balance, I think, unsuccessful social experiments. The mass slaughter of the 20c, the corrupt decadence of our time bear out the grim predictions Pope Gregory XVI so presciently made in 1832.

We see the destruction of public order, the fall of principalities, and the overturning of all legitimate power approaching. Indeed this great mass of calamities had its inception in the heretical societies and sects in which all that is sacrilegious, infamous, and blasphemous has gathered as bilge water in a ship's hold, a congealed mass of all filth.

I think, when there is still time, America and whatever is left of Europe should rethink the attitude to censorship, separation of church and state, and the limits of obedience to temporal power.

[annalex]

The “render unto Caesar” episode does not negate the utility of the state. The temporal power is described as serving God in Romans 13, and therefore is a tool among many.

Encyclical is a letter sent by the Pope to the bishops of the Catholic Chruch and through them to the laity, that treats a given doctrinal matter. They are authoritative teaching, second in importance only to Apostolic Constitutions.

[steve-b]

All these disctinctions of ownership and coercion are simply not addressed by the encyclical.

Well, then, it is so deficient in basic moral teachings as to be useless. One might as well seek to learn physics from a document that is unclear on the distinction between mass and weight, or learn to distill liquor from a text that fails to distinguish between ethyl and methyl alcohol.

It seems to be written from the assumption that the state is engaged in some form of control over the press

Since that is the proposition that you are advocating, I trust that the circularity of your argument is now obvious.

On the other hand, the Pope speaks approvingly of legal authority, so from that alone we can presume that pogrom of private property by some vigilante book-burning mob is note what His Holiness was contemplating.

On the contrary; the example you cite is one in which none of the parties had any claim to represent legal authority.

Let us not forget that the near-absolute freedom of the press, as well as the radical separation of Church and state are very recent

Yes, they're about the same age as the notions "legally mandated segregation is indefensible" and "'raping your wife' is not a contradiction in terms".

America and whatever is left of Europe should rethink the attitude to censorship, separation of church and state, and the limits of obedience to temporal power.

You contradict yourself. A temporal power that censors or elevates a favored sect above others is engaging in precisely the sorts of abuse that forfeit any claim to obedience.

[steve-b]

The “render unto Caesar” episode does not negate the utility of the state. The temporal power is described as serving God in Romans 13

Obviously, a direct quote from Christ trumps a direct quote from any other author, in Christian theology.

[annalex]

Our legal thinking is that of property rights trumping any other consideration. The Catholic legal thinking is that error has no rights: that the owner of a harmful book should be treated like the owner of an environmental hazard. He perhaps should be compensated for his monetary loss, but if the book is bad, then the book should ideally be destroyed.

I don’t see how that role of the state, as protector from environmental hazards is contradicted by Mt 22:21. That is why we are to pay taxes: to jail thieves, have stable currency, burn bad books... All that is Caesar’s work.

[steve-b]

Our legal thinking is that of property rights trumping any other consideration.

Which brings us back to the question of why you are posting socialistic opposition to property rights on this site.

[steve-b]

he Catholic legal thinking is that error has no rights: that the owner of a harmful book should be treated like the owner of an environmental hazard. He perhaps should be compensated for his monetary loss, but if the book is bad, then the book should ideally be destroyed.

Odd; I keep hearing that the current Pope rejected efforts to recruit him to that project in his youth. Or are you now declaring that to be mere "spin", and "no longer operative"?

[annalex]

I am a conservative, and this is a conservative news and opinion site. I in fact have great sympathy to libertarian ideas that revolve so much around property rights, but it is not the sum total of conservatism, nor even the focus of it. I think that preservation of institutions of society,— church, religion and culture chief among them — is more important than maintaining free market, especially in the sphere of ideas where next to nothing of value has emerged in the past half a century, and that is being charitable. You seem to have a childish idea that conservatism is akin to nazism. You need to grow out of it.

I would, again, remind the reader that the encyclical was given in 1832. Since then, much has changed, especially in the mass culture, and consequently the needs of censorship shifted to things like movies, television and the Internet, and away from books. Another change is that the civilized world was govered by “princes” as His Holiness put it — in other words, by hereditary rulers whose power was a form of property right. We are almost universally governed by elected leaders, and our obligations of loyalty changed accordingly. It is hard, for example, to pledge allegiance naturally owed to a prince, to a team of professional politicians propelled into electability by the media elite, who treat the entire domestic product, it seems, as their own wallet. If we indeed had a free market, property rights system worth preserving, I’d be all for it, but I don’t think we do, and what has remained of it will be soon rendered worthless by the scam artists in DC.

[Zero Sum]

It is difficult for me to imagine how Paul and Apollo could have been in opposition to the book burning that occurred, since they became figures of authority whose appearance prompted the burining and the books were burned "before all". For that reason, I think that the Pope's reference is reasonably accurate: he did not say "the apostles confiscated books from the library and from private collections and burned them", he simply says "the apostles themselves burned bad books".

Indeed, I think we can be pretty certain that Paul was glad about it (as for Apollos, he was in Corinth). But again, that is not the point. The problem is that Gregory was attempting to use Acts 19 to justify censorship on an Apostolic basis. Here is the relevant portion of the encyclical:

15. 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?

16. 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]

The fact is that the burning of scrolls in Acts 19 has nothing to do with the censorship that he advocates.

All these disctinctions of ownership and coercion are simply not addressed by the encyclical.

A major oversight on Gregory's part!

It seems to be written from the assumption that the state is engaged in some form of control over the press; the Church on her part sees it fit to advise the state on how to exercise proper censorship.

No, State control over the press is not a given, because it is the alleged justness of censorship that he is trying to prove. And to bring the Holy Apostles into his argument the way that he did was shameful.

The thrust of the argument is that some books are "bad". They remain bad no matter who owns them. They are to be detroyed as a matter of sanitation.

Ideas can be bad, and books can contain bad ideas, but books are still just ink on paper. And bad ideas can be defeated in argument by good ones. So if the Church's arguments really are superior to all others then why the need for censorship?

On the other hand, the Pope speaks approvingly of legal authority, so from that alone we can presume that pogrom of private property by some vigilante book-burning mob is note what His Holiness was contemplating.

OK.

Let us not forget that the near-absolute freedom of the press, as well as the radical separation of Church and state are very recent and on balance, I think, unsuccessful social experiments. The mass slaughter of the 20c, the corrupt decadence of our time bear out the grim predictions Pope Gregory XVI so presciently made in 1832.

Regarding the mass slaughter of the 20th century, that was done by regimes that made copious and violent use of state censorship to keep people from questioning the myths they were being told in order to cover up the horrible reality.

Do you honestly think that censoring books will make people behave morally? The problem is not freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. The problem is when leftist fools are made tenured professors in taxpayer-funded institutions so that we end up paying them for spouting their bad ideas uncontested to captive audiences. These pinkos certainly have the right to express their so-called "thoughts," but they don't have any "right" to their silliness being subsidized.

[steve-b]

I think that preservation of institutions of society

The separation of society and state is, ultimately, the difference between a free society and a totalitarian regime. In both philosophical and practical terms, people who turn to the state for cultural support are eqivalent to people who turn to the state for financial support. In both cases, the result is to degrade the petitioner, destroy the petitioner's ability to be self-sufficient, and ultimately to destroy the very thing the petitioner is trying to take without earning.

If we indeed had a free market, property rights system worth preserving, I’d be all for it

I am reminded of the hypocrisy of greenies who assert that nuclear power is not viable because of the high cost of building a new plant, when it is their own obstructionism that contributes heavily to those costs in the first place. To cry crocodile tears over government interference with the free market while demanding such interference in the name of culture is no more persuasive.

[steve-b]

And bad ideas can be defeated in argument by good ones. So if the Church's arguments really are superior to all others then why the need for censorship?

Indeed.

Why should God be so jealous of the wooden idols of the heathen? Could he not compete with Baal? Was he envious of the success of the Egyptian magicians? Was it not possible for him to make such a convincing display of his power as to silence forever the voice of unbelief?
--Robert Ingersoll

Frankly, Gregory's rejection of the correct course --opposing ing bad ideas with the Church's (presumably) good ones -- is just plain lazy. Isn't that one of the Seven Deadly Sins?

[steve-b]

Addendum: It has just occurred to me how faulty the following analogy actually is:

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?

In fact, every sane man takes precisely that position. For instance, it is only the insane green extremists who insist on prohibiting the use of DDT in place of the rational course of making it available and providing medical care to individuals who overdose on it or prove unusually susceptible.

[annalex]

the burning of scrolls in Acts 19 has nothing to do with the censorship

But it does. It establishes the fact that a "bad book" (leaving aside the important question of who decides whether it is bad) is better off burned, that is, not distributed. This establishes a barrier to distribution of bad books a good. Censorship is a public good, just like purity of drinking water is a public good. You want to concentrate on process, -- how is the distribution of bad books is to be accomplished, and that is an important question, but before we do that, we need to agree that censorship itself is a public good. It is not an oversight to put the horse in front of the carriage and discuss the important things first, even more so when obedience to laws is urged in the same encyclical.

if the Church's arguments really are superior to all others then why the need for censorship?

The pope spoke for his time and I can with greater confidence speak of mine. These are the evils he mentions:

Depravity exults; science is impudent; liberty, dissolute. The holiness of the sacred is despised; the majesty of divine worship is not only disapproved by evil men, but defiled and held up to ridicule. Hence sound doctrine is perverted and errors of all kinds spread boldly. The laws of the sacred, the rights, institutions, and discipline -- none are safe from the audacity of those speaking evil. Our Roman See is harassed violently and the bonds of unity are daily loosened and severed. The divine authority of the Church is opposed and her rights shorn off. She is subjected to human reason and with the greatest injustice exposed to the hatred of the people and reduced to vile servitude. The obedience due bishops is denied and their rights are trampled underfoot. Furthermore, academies and schools resound with new, monstrous opinions, which openly attack the Catholic faith; this horrible and nefarious war is openly and even publicly waged. Thus, by institutions and by the example of teachers, the minds of the youth are corrupted and a tremendous blow is dealt to religion and the perversion of morals is spread. So the restraints of religion are thrown off, by which alone kingdoms stand. We see the destruction of public order, the fall of principalities, and the overturning of all legitimate power approaching. Indeed this great mass of calamities had its inception in the heretical societies and sects in which all that is sacrilegious, infamous, and blasphemous has gathered as bilge water in a ship's hold, a congealed mass of all filth.

Note that he does not just bemoan academic exercises of philosophers and scientists. The evil he is talking about is not something one can debate and score an intellectual victory. The French Revolution, for example, was a massive anti-Catholic pogrom that killed innocent people by the thousand, desecrated holy places, and stole property. How do you debate that? The evils of nazism and Communism were still a century away but the seed of these evils was sown at the French Revolution and the subsequent unrest that ensued after the Napoleonic wars.

The intellectual, purely academic component can indeed be debated. But a secret society, like, for example, the Lodge, cannot be debated -- it is secret for a reason. And how do you debate the today's public school Komissariat or those champions of 1st Amendment freedoms, the pornographers?

the mass slaughter of the 20th century, that was done by regimes that made copious and violent use of state censorship

That is true, but irrelevant. Naturally, an oppressive society will also oppress free thought. It is like saying that because Hitler had a modern army the US should not have one. The US that helped defeat Hitler had a robust system of censorship of its own.

Do you honestly think that censoring books will make people behave morally?

Television and porn today, primarily, although a return of the Index would be good to guide the certain "ardent" Catholics in Madame Pelosi's mold too. Well, no, just like making sure there is no sewerage in the drinking water is not going to make everyone a picture of health overnight. But protecting the filth in the water, -- and that is what the freedom of speech in the US has defacto become is sure to geve nearly everyone dysentery. I agree, of course, that defunding the entrenched left would be also a very good idea.

[annalex]

The separation of society and state is, ultimately, the difference between a free society and a totalitarian regime.

Well said. I agree: the state is not the society; it is a tool that the society whould use. That includes the Church (a free institution in the society) using the state as it works for the public good. Of course, the state cannot run the Church after the manner of the Anglicans of Calvin's Geneva, anymore than the state can write the Gospels. But the Church can very easily inform the state and in fact has an obligation to do so.