Chapter IV: Accusations And Objections (2)

This emancipation from the Christian faith poses mostly under the attractive and deceptive name of “modern progress.” Indeed, it has ever been the pretension of liberalism to look upon itself as the sole harbinger of civilization, to claim the guidance of intellectual life for its aim, and to stigmatize as a foe of culture any one that opposes the dissemination of its anti-Christian humanism. It is also an expert in giving to words a charm and an ambiguous meaning that deceive. Emancipation from religion is “progress” and “enlightenment.” Everything else is reactionary. Its infidelity is freedom of conscience and thought. Everything else is “bondage.” Only its secular schools, its civil marriage, its separation of Church and State are “modern.” Everything else is obsolete, hence no longer warranted. For the Church to defend her rights is arrogance; when the Church uses her God-given authority for the good of the faith, she practises intellectual oppression; the Catholic who lets himself be guided by his Church is called unpatriotic, bereft of his civil spirit.

What striking contrast to the honesty in which the Church presents her doctrines frankly before the whole world, without disguise or artifice. The reason is that she has sufficient interior strength and truth to render it unnecessary for her to take refuge in disguise or present the truth in ambiguity.

The clearest evidence of the Church’s hostility to culture is the
condemnation of the 80th thesis of the _Syllabus_, so it is said.
It is the thesis that the Pope can and must reconcile himself to,
and compromise with, progress, liberalism, and modern
civilization. This is a condemned proposition, hence the contrary
is true: the Pope of Rome cannot, and must not, reconcile himself,
nor compromise with, liberalism and modern civilization. Here we
have the frankly admitted hostility against progress, education,
and science—it is the watchword of the Papacy.

This conclusion can be arrived at only by pushing aside all rules
of scientific interpretation. What progress is this, with what
civilization can the Papacy not be reconciled? The progress of
modern liberalism. The heading of the paragraph containing this
proposition states expressly that “errors of modern liberalism”
are to be condemned. This becomes clear by the Allocution
“Jamdudum cernimus” of March 18, 1861, from which this
condemnation is taken. There it is stated: “It is asked that the
Pope of Rome reconcile himself with progress, to liberalism as
they call it, to the new civilization, and compromise with
them.... But now we ask of those inviting us to be reconciled with
modern civilization, whether the facts be such as to tempt the
Vicar of Christ on earth ... to connect himself with the
civilization of to-day without the greatest injury to this
conscience ... a civilization that has caused the dissemination of
numerous despicable opinions, errors, and principles in conflict
with the Catholic religion and its doctrines.” Of course a
civilization cut off from any true Christianity by education and
science, by family life and political life, a progress, trying to
stop the activity of the Church in every sphere and attacking her
in their speech, in newspapers, and in schools, cannot demand of
the Papacy to join hands with them. No Christian, whether Catholic
or Protestant, can profess this “progress.” We have here at the
same time a specimen of how they proceed in interpreting the
propositions of the Syllabus in order to discover in them all
possible absurdities. Many propositions are short sentences taken
from the work of an author, or from previous Papal declarations.
Hence they must be understood in the sense of those sources.
Furthermore, attention must be paid to what is specially
emphasized. Then, again, we must remember that by repudiating a
proposition only the contradictory is asserted, but not the
contrary; to conclude this would be to conclude too much. For
instance, the seventy-seventh condemned proposition reads: “In our
times it is no longer to any purpose that the Catholic religion
should be the sole religion of the state to the exclusion of all
other confessions.” According to some, _e.g._, _Frins_, the
contradictory is thus formulated: “In our times also it is still
to the purpose....” According to others, however, _e.g._,
_Hoensbroeeh_ and _Goetz_: “In our times also it is
beneficial....” Thus while _Hoensbroech_ and _Goetz_ make the
ecclesiastical doctrine appear to read that it would be beneficial
to hold fast to the Catholic as the sole religion of the state
under all circumstances even to-day, the actual opposite is the
doctrine, that this may be yet to the purpose under certain
circumstances. While no reasonable man could object to the latter,
the former is eagerly exploited against the Church (_Heiner_, Der
Syllabus, 1905, p. 31, _seq._; cf. _Frins_, Kirchenlex, 2d ed.,
XI, 1031; _Hoensbroech_, l. c. 25; _Goetz_, Der Ultramontanismus,
1905, 148).

Of course it may be taken for granted that the Syllabus is distasteful to modern liberalism, which is branded there as one of the errors of the day. Yet the Church cannot be censured for not becoming unfaithful to her vocation of preserving the patrimony of Christianity to mankind, or for acting as the invincible defender of the Christian religion in the universal struggle between truth and error, even though the latter pose with great assurance.

The Condemnation of Modernism.

The great excitement caused in intellectual circles by the Syllabus of _Pius IX._ was aroused again, though not with the same intensity, when some years ago the news of another Syllabus was circulated through the world, and the excitement increased when the rumour was followed by the publication of the encyclical “Pascendi Dominici gregis.” Indeed, the new event was not very unlike the former: in the 60’s Rome’s sentence was directed against the Modernism of that period, which called itself liberalism. The excitement caused by its condemnation was more intense, because it struck directly at the principles governing the liberal politics against the Church, which principles were claimed to be the foundation of the modern state. Now the Modernism repudiated by the Church’s voice was nothing more than the old humanistic, fundamental, errors of liberalism, but put in the form of a religious and philosophical view of the world, and in Catholic garb: it meant man detached from everything supernatural, and dependent alone on himself in his intellectual life, more especially in his religious life.

Now, as then, similar charges were raised: The Church is the irreconcilable foe of modern achievements and the opponent of them; “the encyclical aims at modern intellectual life in all its phases and forms” (XX. Jahrh., 1908, 568). Now, as then, we have the same ambiguity of the terms “modern” and “progress.”

What was condemned by the Church? The document “Lamentabili sane exitu,” issued by the teaching authority of the Church on July 3, 1907, is entitled “A Decree of the Holy Congregation of the Roman and General Inquisition or the Holy Office,” which has to watch over the unadulterated preservation of the faith. The decree soon was christened the “New Syllabus,” because of its similarity with the Syllabus of _Pius IX._ In a similar way it condemns sixty-five propositions against the inspiration and the historical character of Holy Scripture, against the divine origin of revelation and of faith, against the divinity of Christ, His Resurrection and His atoning death, against the Sacraments, and against the Church. These are component parts of the philosophical religious system of thought which soon after was set forth and condemned by the encyclical “Pascendi,” of September 8, 1907.

Modernism is essentially philosophy, combining modern _agnostic-autonomous subjectivism_ with _evolutionism_, and applied to the Christian religion, which thereby becomes disfigured beyond recognition. Its chain of thought, excellently stated by the encyclical, starts with the proposition that the supernatural is beyond the knowledge of man, and hence man cannot know anything of God. The faith which unites us to God is nothing but a feeling, born of a blind impulse, which may be considered a divine revelation. If this religious feeling is expressed in forms, the result is “doctrines of faith”; for Christian “dogmas” are this and nothing more, images and symbols of the noble and divine, hence they are of human origin and are changeable according to the disposition and the degree of learning of the individual, as well as of the times. There is no dogmatic Christianity, in the sense of an immutable religious doctrine, nor is there any absolutely true religion, for religion is but a variable feeling, that has nothing to do with cognition and knowledge. For this reason they never can come in conflict. The Christian religion originally was nothing else but the religious experience of Christ, who was not God but a man; in the course of time it has undergone changes which are reflected in the shaping of Christian dogma. Holy Scripture is, similarly, the expression of the religious experience of its human authors; the Sacraments are symbols, arousing religious sentiments; the Church is not founded by God, and only has the task of regulating the development of Christianity, and of sanctioning at any time whatever religious experiences the changeable spirit of progressive civilization may produce.

This is Modernism, as represented chiefly in France, Italy, and to an extent also in England; in Germany it did not appear as a system, but even there its spirit became quite apparent. Thus, Modernism is nothing else but the systematic arrangement of those ideas which we have hitherto met, in various places, as the fundamental principles of modern religious thought opposed to Christianity. It is subjectivism with its autonomy of the human subject, its agnosticism, its relativism of truth, sailing under the name of “historical method of thought” and “progress,” and, finally, with its freedom of thought and conscience which rejects all authority. It is _Kant_ in the robe of a Catholic theologian. Ultimately it is nothing else but the shocking negation of everything supernatural, hence complete apostasy. “The salient point is recognized,” says _Troeltsch_, “the enemy is the modern historical method of thought, the concept of evolution, the theory of inner experience and relativism as applied to religion, the negation of supernaturalism as taught by the old Church” (l. c. 22). Hence, was it not manifest that the Church had to take measures against this positive denial of Christianity as a whole, the more so as the uneducated could be easily deceived by it? Every organism will throw off excrescences, the more energetically the stronger it is. Any religion lacking this strength is doomed. That the Papal declaration aroused such opposition must not be wondered at; it hit once more the central idea of the anti-Christian view of the world. The judgment was not passed against modern intellectual life, but only against the grave errors inherent in it; the Church did not condemn progress, nor the increase and deepening of knowledge of the truth; not the enrichment of the life of the mind, of feeling, and the will, but only pretended progress; she did not condemn the historical method nor the idea of evolution, but their false application, which dissolved anything and everything in growth, purely natural growth at that, without acknowledging a revelation of absolute truths.

Orthodox Protestants have openly praised this bold deed of the
Pope as highly meritorious for the preservation of the Christian
faith. Thus the South African Church Quarterly Review (Episcopal)
of January, 1908, said: “The Syllabus and Encyclical of _Pius X._
against Modernism are deserving of the respectful consideration of
all Christians.... At the present stage of history the opposing
factors are driving with great speed towards a fierce and resolute
struggle between Christ and anti-Christ. All who sincerely love
Christ, our Lord, must rally under one flag.... Narrow-minded
hostility towards the Pope must give way to the desire to be
united with the great community which is fighting so valiantly for
the old faith of our fathers.... One must be blind, to misjudge
the tremendous influence exerted by the last deed of the Pope in
favour of the faith.”

Even the Evangelical “Kirchenzeitung” admitted that the encyclical
is “directed chiefly against the more or less unchristian modern
views of the world ... which we must combat.... Undoubtedly it is
not only the Pope’s right to lay bare the unchristian tendency of
these ideas and their incompatibility with the Christian faith,
but it is also his duty and his merit” (November 29, 1908, n. 48).

Puny men, entangled in the ideas of their time and surroundings, are easily led to take for their standard the thoughts and actions of their age. They often imagine that they possess not a little strength and independence, when they are intellectually entirely dependent and unable to rise above their time. “It is the fashion, others think that way, therefore I must think so, too”; these are often the principles of their wisdom, and they ask the Church to do likewise. The Church, however, looks back upon a long history, and numerous ideas and opinions she has seen arise and vanish. And whoever can look back upon a great experience, and moreover carries in himself the call to lead the times, feels no restless impulse to be carried away by changing doctrines.

The Index.

Whenever the subject of Rome’s enmity to science and progress of culture is discussed, there invariably appears on the scene, beside Syllabus and _Galileo_, also the Index. The latter is held by many to be Rome’s permanent means of hindering the progress of humanity in general, and the free scientific activity of the Catholic in particular, and to annihilate the freedom of teaching and learning (_Hoensbroech_, Die Kath. theol. Fakultaeten, 1907, 40 _seq._). They say “the Congregation of the Index has no pity nor consideration for the classical works of literature, and condemns in the name of religion the most admirable products of the human intellect” (Grande Dict. univ. du XIX. siècle, IX, 640, apud _J. Hilgers_, Der Index der Verb. Buecher, 1904, 166; much of what we shall say on this topic is taken from this work by _Hilgers_).

This statement again reminds that the accusations against the
Catholic Church and her institutions are to be considered with
caution, because of the ignorance of her opponents in Catholic
things. This is especially true of the Index. Thus the above
assertion is false. _Dante’s_ “Divina Commedia” (the work referred
to) is neither forbidden nor needs approval nor correction: of the
classical literature of the world little or nothing is forbidden;
even morally offensive books, that are considered classical, may
without ecclesiastical permission be read for the sake of their
elegant diction, whenever their reading is required by one’s work
or duty of teaching.

A few examples of the _incredible ignorance_ alluded to will
suffice. In the “Grande Dictionnaire Universel du XIX. Siècle” it
is actually stated that the works of _Albert the Great_ were
condemned by a decree of April 10, 1666. What does the Index
really forbid? It states: “_Alberto __ Magno, diviso in tre libri,
nel primo si tratta della virtu delle herbe, nel secondo della
virtu delle pietre, e nel terzo della virtu di alcuni
animali._—Albert the Great, in three parts: the first treats of
the virtue of plants; the second, of the virtue of stones; and the
third, of the virtue of some animals.” It is the title of a little
superstitious book, attributed to “Albert the Great” by an unknown
author.

The first edition of the Index of _Leo XIII._ in 1900 was sold out
in less than a year; a second edition followed in 1901, and, like
the first, could be had at all booksellers, at a very moderate
price. In December, 1901, there appeared in the Anglo-American
weekly, “The Roman World,” an article which says that it is
difficult to obtain this list of notorious books forbidden to
Catholics, unless one be a Church official, since only a few
copies are printed and even these are not handled by general
book-dealers; hence that no details could be given about the
purchase of the copy referred to; but it was quite evident that it
had commanded a good price. “The copy in question, a model of fine
printing, might be worth about $40 to $50, but owing to its
rareness, it had undoubtedly cost $400. The history of this famous
Index is interesting. The one who first hit upon the idea was
_Charles V._ of Spain, about 1550. The first compilation of the
book-list was made by the university of Louvain in 1564, Pope
_Paul IV._ assuming the direction of the edition. It remained for
357 years in the hands of the Pope.” Every one of these statements
is false. And just as false is the statement that the “Syllabus
condemns not only a book written by a Pope, but by Pope _Leo
XIII._ himself.” Still it could not surprise us, since even
David’s psalter is on the Index! When the Index of _Leo XIII._ was
published, Dr. _Max Claar_ wrote from Rome to the “Neue Freie
Presse” of Vienna: “On the old Index we find among other things
the Psalms of King David and the Divina Commedia of _Dante_.” We
have already stated that the latter was never on the Index. But
how in the world could this man find Holy Scripture condemned on
the Index? Perhaps he found this passage: “Il salmista secondo la
biblia” and “Salmi (sessanta) di David.” The first is a
superstitious booklet, the second is a translation of sixty Psalms
of David by the heretic, _Giovanni Diodati_. The learned doctor in
all seriousness mistook them for the Psalms of David (_Hilgers_,
167, _seq._).

What then is the Index, and how is it to be judged?

Ever since the Apostle of the Nations had at Ephesus the superstitious books burned under his eyes, the Holy Fathers, Bishops, and Councils since the first centuries of Christianity have been careful to keep from the faithful writings hurtful to faith and morals. Thus even in the olden time we find several catalogues of forbidden books, then followed the Indices of the Middle Ages. In the year 1571 a special Congregation of Cardinals was formed, the “Congregation of the Index,” which has ever since had charge of the ecclesiastical book-laws. The last edition of the Index, obligatory for the whole Church, emanated from _Leo XIII._ The title of the work now in force reads, “The Index of Forbidden Books, revised and published by order of and in the name of Leo XIII. 1900.” It is divided into two parts. The first and shorter part contains the general book regulations, giving in short paragraphs the rules on various classes of forbidden books, the permission required for reading them, the examination to be made previous to the publication of certain books. The second part enumerates the writings forbidden by special decree—the Index in the particular sense, and the part most often considered. But it is second in importance to the first, because by far not all books dangerous to faith and morals are named in it. Most such books are forbidden by the general laws contained in the first part, without mentioning the many which are forbidden by mere common sense.

Ecclesiastical legislation on books is composed of two factors: first, the previous censorship—certain books must be examined by ecclesiastical authority before their publication. Second, the prohibition of books already published.

The previous scrutiny in general is delegated to the Bishop; all books dealing with morals and theology must be submitted. The license to print the book is to be given if the book is in accord with the teaching of the Church, in so far as determined by ecclesiastical authority, the decision based on it rests solely with the censor; if the author of the book should fail to see that the passages objected to need revision he may try to clear himself by stating his reasons; however, he is also free to submit his work to another Bishop and to look for a printer in the latter’s diocese. If one looks over the numerous books bearing the ecclesiastical imprimatur, he will readily notice how much freedom is given, if the author keeps within the doctrine of the Church.

The _condemnation_ of a book never strikes at the person of the author, nor at what he has intended to express by the passages objected to; judgment is passed only upon what is actually expressed in them. Hence it is not necessary to give to the author himself a hearing, or a chance to explain. The reason is that the judgment is rendered on the sense of the passages, not on the meaning of the author. In general those books and periodicals are forbidden which are likely to do serious damage to faith and morals. The isolated cases of indicting the works of Catholic authors in the nineteenth century—we may mention _Lamennais_, _Hermes_, _Guenther_, _Loisy_, and _Schell_—show that the Church proceeds but slowly and with consideration against the author involved.

To appreciate the Index properly, one must try to grasp without prejudice the _purpose_ the Church has in view. This purpose is to protect the faithful from error and from moral contagion, and to preserve the faith intact. “What is more precious than souls, what more precious than the faith? But both suffer damage from such reading.” Such was the judgment of the Council of Ephesus when it drew up its book-decrees; such was the judgment of an _Augustine_, of _Leo the Great_, and of the Holy Fathers; such is still the judgment of the Church. Books and writings that offend against morals are a menace to her faithful. They become infected with wrong ideas; they are as a rule not in a position to distinguish by themselves the false from the true, and for the most part they are not morally strong enough to resist the allurements of error. It may also happen that certain thoughts are true in the abstract, yet for the time being would be a danger for many. Now, it is the right and duty of any social authority, beginning with the head of the family and up to the government, to protect with strong hand the precious possessions of its subjects.

The state keeps under control the sale of poison and dynamite, keeps out contagious diseases from its boundaries—it protects the possessions of its subjects. European states have for centuries claimed the right to censure books, and have used it much more rigorously than the Church ever did, to say nothing of the censures of the Protestant Church of former times (see abundant proof apud _Hilgers_, 206-402). The modern state also, despite the great freedom granted to the press, cannot entirely forego its sense of responsibility. It restricts the freedom of the press by censorship, and by preventive measures often not less drastic than the censure itself, and it always regards the confiscation of particularly dangerous writings to be a matter of course. It puts under censure school-books, political posters, and theatrical plays, and does not tolerate any socialistic literature in the soldiers’ barracks. And do we not take it as a matter of course if a father forbids his child to associate with dangerous playmates, and takes bad books from its hands? We cannot find fault with the Church if she seeks to protect her children, if she represses the promiscuous dissemination of false ideas and doctrines, and if she takes dangerous books under her control. “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep,” was the command given to the Church.

The objection should therefore not be made that “such precaution is proper when dealing with children but not with men; especially since the thinking elements among the Catholics of the Germanic tongue or origin are too profound and firm in their faith to warrant a fear of the effects of unrestricted free research” (from the petition of the so-called “Index-league” of Muenster). This perusal may become dangerous even for highly educated men, else how could Modernism break so forcefully into the Church? Manifestly only because learned theologians did not possess that firmness of Catholic faith and Catholic knowledge which would prevent them from being deceived by the misleading ideas of modern philosophy, and of the new Protestant theology. Moreover, all forbidden books may be read upon obtaining the necessary permission.

“Preserve the deposit of faith,” the Church has been told. She cannot look on silently when her doctrines are being falsified and denied, when the most venerable sphere of theology is made the stamping ground for immature minds and a laboratory for all kinds of experiments. When _Zola’s_ novel, “Rome,” had been put on the Index, the atheistic literary critic, _Sarcey_, made the following comment: “If my own criticisms of literature are regarded by many people as highest decisions, why should a positive criticism be looked upon as monstrous just because it comes from the Pope? It is my aim to guard good taste in literature, and it is the aim of the Pope to guard the true faith” (Allgemeine Rundschau, 1908, 828). Every social authority must interfere when its foundations are attacked. A church that tolerates false doctrines cannot be the teacher that Christ sent to the nations. As a matter of fact the Index has from the first helped in no small degree to keep the Catholic doctrine pure, to induce caution in reading certain authors, and to keep awake in the faithful that aversion against immoral and irreligious writings which is the characteristic of Catholics, and which has rescued the faith for thousands.

To judge the Index fairly one must be convinced that the preservation of true Christian doctrine is its highest aim. Then the zeal of the Catholic Church will be intelligible. Of course, he who thinks that the true weal of mankind consists in the speedy emancipation from all Christian dogma, he who holds the task of science to be the establishment of a new “scientific view of the world,” he who no longer knows faith, will see in the Index nothing but restraint. But, whoever is of a different view will not take offence at the restriction of the freedom of writing and reading when it is productive of higher good. Freedom of science cannot be unrestricted, especially in regard to teaching; the welfare of humanity must be considered. Moreover, the Index concerns almost exclusively theology and some branches of philosophy, the rest of the profane sciences but little or not at all; the scientific works prohibited, however, are not removed from scientific perusal: only permission is necessary, and this is granted without difficulty and without cost.

It is true, an error on the part of the Church authorities is not impossible. We know of such a case, putting on the Index the writings of _Copernicus_, in 1616. But just the circumstance that history knows of but one such case of importance is a clear testimony to the Holy Ghost’s direction of the teaching office even when it is rendering non-infallible decisions. Besides, the damage that might result from a few mistakes would not be so great as the damage resulting if everything were allowed to be written and read.

The Catholic scientist who appreciates the supernatural mission of his Church will _yield to her guidance in humble confidence_, he will practise this submission to the Church by requesting permission for reading forbidden books, and by this spirit he will obtain God’s blessing on his work.

In doing so he may recall to mind the edifying words of _St.
Francis of Sales_, in the preface to his treatise on the errors of
the Lutherans and Calvinists, where he gives the assurance of
having conscientiously asked for and received permission to read
their writings. “We fervently request our Catholic readers,”
writes the Saint, “not to let an evil suspicion against us arise,
as if we had read the forbidden books in spite of the prohibition
of holy Church. We are able to assure them in all truth of having
done nothing forbidden to a good Christian, and of having taken
every precaution due in a matter of so vast importance, so as not
to incur in any way the very just censures of the Church, nor in
any manner to violate the profound reverence we owe to her.” The
permission granted him, dated July 16, 1608, is still extant;
likewise one asked by _St. Charles Borromeo_.

The Catholic scientist also will readily ask the ecclesiastical Imprimatur for certain of his works. If a careful author before publishing a work submits the proofs to a friend of his profession, taking his comment for a guide, why should we deem it intellectual bondage if the Catholic scientist, in matters of faith and morals, submits his work to the formal approval of his Church, which to him is a higher authority than any other? and does this willingly, as in consistency with his Catholic conviction?(5)

_Via stulti recta in oculis ejus, qui autem sapiens est audit consilia_, says the Wise Man. It is characteristic of the fool to be wise in his own eyes, and stubbornly to cling to his own judgment; but the prudent man seeks advice, and suffers his attention to be called to his mistakes.

The believing scientist, too, will submit to correction; should the rare case fall to his lot to have the Church condemn his work, he will know how to be generously obedient. Splendid examples are blazing the way for him. “Were we to draw up a list of the scientists, who, in a similar critical position as _Fénelon_, found strength in the virtue of obedience, and on the other hand a list of all those whose subjective scientific views did not allow them to submit, then we should perceive at a glance that their proud persistence in their own opinion has been injurious to true wisdom in the same degree as humble submission proved a benefit to science” (_Hilgers_, 412). Finally, he who is convinced that the Christian faith is the greatest heritance of truth from the past, which must be preserved in him, he will take no offence if the Church is not impressed even by names like _Kant_, _Spinoza_, _Schopenhauer_, _Strauss_, men much featured as the captains of modern science and philosophy. In the eyes of the Church nothing is genuine and true science that is contrary to the testimony of God, and errors are errors even then when their perpetrator is receiving cheers and applause. Just as the state prohibits the physician from designedly assisting any one to commit suicide, even though the physician be a noted scientist, just so the Church opposes any one who assaults God’s truth, be he journalist or philosopher.

Frequently the _great number of forbidden books mentioned by the
Index_ is pointed out. The Index of 1900 contains about 5,000
titles belonging to the last three centuries; of these about 1,300
belong to the nineteenth century. Quite a small number,
considering the immense literature of the world. Yet it will look
even smaller when compared, for instance, with the censure of
books by the _Prussian state_.

In the year 1845 there appeared the following catalogue: “Index
_librorum prohibitorum_, Catalogue of the books forbidden in
Germany during 1844-1845, first volume.” The second volume was
issued in 1846. The list is not complete: it does not contain, for
instance, the names of prohibited newspapers and periodicals. Yet
it contains 437 writings, forbidden by 570 decrees, _i.e._, two or
three times as many as the entire number of German books of the
nineteenth century enumerated by name in the Roman Index. The
“Historisch-Politischen Blaetter” of 1840 contain an article
beginning thus: “_Veritas odium parit._ In Prussia there are now
prohibited nearly all Catholic journals and periodicals, and in
order to begin the matter _ab ovo_ they have grasped a welcome
opportunity to throw interdicts at wholesale against works not yet
published, or to render their circulation difficult to a degree
amounting to prohibition.”

How the Prussian censorship proceeded in those days may be
illustrated by another example. “At the time of the Vatican
Council a publisher, _Joseph Bachem_, came to Dr. _Westhoff_,
rector of the Seminary of Cologne, a man of venerable years, and
told him of his misgivings about the dogma of the infallibility.
In his youth he had been taught the maxim that that is Catholic
which has been taught always, everywhere, and by everybody; yet he
had until recently never found the doctrine of Papal Infallibility
taught, neither in schools nor in text-books. Then the reverend
old rector took the visitor by the hand and led him into the
library of the seminary, where he showed him not less than sixteen
catechisms that had been in use in the Archdiocese of Cologne
during the eighteenth century, and which stated without exception,
clearly and convincingly, the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in
matters of faith and morals. The publisher in utter astonishment
then asked how it was that this doctrine was not taught in later
editions. Dr. _Westhoff_ referred him to the Prussian censure,
enforced until 1848, which had expunged this doctrine from all
Catholic catechisms. From that moment _Bachem_ no longer wavered
in his opinions” (Koelnische Volkszeitung, September 7, 1893).

One may also remember _Bismarck’s_ press-campaign during the
_Kulturkampf_. Professor _Friedberg_, Prussian court canonist,
instigated this campaign, and in many ways devised the plan of
attack. This much-praised liberalism—how tyrannically it proceeded
against the Catholic press! The Frankfurter Zeitung in those days
took a census of convictions due to the press law. According to
the census, which “does not by far claim to be complete,” there
were of newspaper editors sentenced in 1875—21 in January, 35 in
February, 29 in March, 24 in April; in four months 137 newspaper
writers were either fined or sent to jail. During the same period
30 newspapers were confiscated (Staatslexikon, IV, 550). This is
not all. “We could mention at least three instances,” says _P.
Majunke_ in his History of the Kulturkampf, “where agents of the
Berlin secret police have succeeded in obtaining a position on the
editorial staff of Catholic papers, staying for a year or more.
Besides serving as spies these fellows had to perform the task of
_agents provocateurs_, viz., to incite the editors of Catholic
papers to extreme utterances, similar to the denunciations
suggested to correspondents of foreign Catholic organs for their
papers.” This happened in a civilized state, despite its
constitutional freedom of the press, by order of the same
liberalism which always pretends to be full of righteous
indignation when the Church prohibits books and puts them on the
Index.

Towards the end of the last century, again with the aid of
liberalism, laws against the socialists were drawn up. After they
had been passed war was waged against socialistic literature. In
the year 1886 there appeared a real Index Librorum Prohibitorum,
its title read, “Social Democratic publications and societies
prohibited by the imperial law against the dangerous designs of
Social Democracy,” which law had then been in force eight years. A
supplementary list was published two years later, in 1888.
_Hilgers_ makes this comment on it: “How many additional pamphlets
have been condemned in the time from March 28, 1888, to September
30, 1890, we cannot state.” According to the foregoing official
statement the average is 130 a year. Hence we assume that the
printed matter prohibited during the twelve years that the law was
in force amounted to between 15,000 and 16,000. This number of
social democratic pamphlets forbidden within twelve years exceeds
by far the number of all books prohibited by the Roman Index in
the course of the entire nineteenth century—books that are the
products of all countries in the world and dealing with all
branches; the number of these German prohibitions is ten times
that of Roman prohibitions. Indeed, in the course of a year and a
half the new German Empire prohibited more writings of Germans
than Rome had prohibited during the entire past century. We may
mention here _Goethe_. In the atheism dispute, at the end of the
eighteenth century, decision was rendered upon _Goethe’s_ advice
against the philosopher _Fichte_; _Fichte_ was discharged in spite
of petitions and mediations in his favour. The liberal Grand Duke
_Karl August of Saxony Weimar_ granted in 1816, after the French
conqueror had been overthrown, freedom of the press. Professor
_Oken_ of Jena availed himself of this privilege, and printed in
his “Isis” contributions complaining about the government.
_Goethe_ had to advise what should be done against it. He thought
that the paper should have been suppressed by the police at its
very first announcement; “the measure neglected at the beginning
is to be taken immediately and the paper is to be prohibited. By
prohibiting the ‘Isis’ the trouble will be stopped at once”
(Briefwechsel des Grossh. _Karl August v. Sax.-Weimar-Eisenach_
mit _Goethe_, II, 1863, 90). And this was done, in spite of the
freedom granted the press.

_Frederick II._ is called the Royal Free-thinker; and yet the
general introduction of the book censure into Prussia occurred
precisely during his reign. The first general censure edict was
issued in 1749 and remained in force till the death of the king.
All books, even those printed in foreign tongues, were subject to
the censure. Even all episcopal and Papal proclamations were
subjected to the royal censure. That the leaders in the
Reformation and their successors were not prevented by their
avowal of the principle of free research from exercising rigorous,
often tyrannical, censure, not only against the Catholics but also
against their fellow reformers, is well known.

_M. Lehmann_ writes in the Preuss. Jahrb. 1902: “It claims to be
infallible, this Papal Church, it wants to be to the faithful
everything, in science and even in nationality. It offends every
nation. The Index in the shape given it in 1900 by the present
Pope proscribes the ‘Oeuvres du Philosophe de Sanssouci,’ _Kant’s_
‘Critique of Pure Reason,’ _Ranke’s_ ‘History of the Popes,’ the
greatest German king, the greatest German philosopher, and the
greatest German historian” (1902, no. 8).

As to _Frederick II._, his own works appeared only after his death
in 1788, and even then only in part; later on there were other
editions. None of these is put on the Index. On this list we find
since 1760 the “Oeuvres du Philosophe de Sanssouci.” Under this
title appeared at first three volumes, in but a few copies,
intended for the most intimate friends of the king. The first
volume he soon withdrew and had it burned of his own accord; it
contained the “Palladion” an imitation of Voltaire’s “Pucelle,” a
salacious work throughout. In 1762 a new edition was issued. It
also contains a philosophical treatise denying the immortality of
the soul; this treatise was also published separately and
specially prohibited in 1767. A third work put on the Index is a
spurious attack on the Popes published by order of King _Frederick
II._, with a preface by him. Its author is said to have been the
French abbé _Jean Martin De Prades_, reader to the king. These are
the indicted works of _Frederick II._, all written in French and
in substance French Voltairianism. Thus came the greatest German
king on the Index!

_Ranke’s_ “Roemische Paepste” is on the Index, because the book
belittles the constitutions and doctrines of the Catholic Church:
not because of the true things the author says about Popes. _Von
Pastor’s_ “History of the Popes” is not on the Index,
notwithstanding the bitter truths he writes about Popes _Alexander
VI._ and _Leo X._

He who knows even the fundamental ideas of _Kant’s_ “Kritik der
reinen Vernunft” will see that not only the Catholic Church, but
every Christian denomination, might forfeit its existence if it
showed itself indifferent towards it. Heresies are especially
dangerous to the uneducated when they bear the names of authors of
scientific repute. But the Church willingly grants the permission
to read them when there is reason for it. Moreover, it was not
Rome alone that took steps against _Kant_. This was done by the
Prussian king _Frederick II._ also. One may recall his cabinet
order, under minister _Woellner_, against Kant’s “Religion
innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft.” Similarly the works
of _Spinoza_ were proceeded against, whereas his indictment by
Rome now calls forth protest because he has since been assigned a
prominent place among philosophers. _Freudenthal_ registers a list
of 500 sharp prohibitions issued against _Spinoza’s_ works during
the years 1556-1580: they were condemned by the states of Holland,
by the court, by synods and magistrates. Those judgments were
passed during a period when the competent authorities had views
different from those of to-day; when the state deemed it its duty
to oppose the undermining of Christianity. The state’s judgment
has changed in many ways, Rome’s judgment has remained the same.
But the works of _Kant_ and _Spinoza_ likewise have remained the
same, and so is Christianity, against which they occupy an
irreconcilable position, still the same.

“In the moral world nothing can support that cannot also resist” is a truthful saying of _Treitschke_: it is also the principle of the Catholic Church. Without ever surrendering to the unchristian tendency of a time, she opposes error with unsubdued courage. If this be intolerance, it is not intolerance towards erring men but towards their errors, it is the intolerance that the gardener shows in uprooting harmful weeds, it is the intolerance of the physician towards disease. Obedience to the Index makes high moral demands upon the Catholic. But it has been characteristic of the Christian religion and of its faithful children never to shrink before any moral action where it appeared demanded. And if the preservation of moral purity exacts conscientious discipline, this is also true of the preservation of the pure faith, especially at a time when a neo-paganism in league with an uncontrolled mania for reading is threatening in many forms.

Galileo, and Other Topics.

_Galileo Galilei_—but few names have achieved equal fame. Men like _Alexander_ and _Cæsar_, like _Homer_ and _Dante_, have scarcely succeeded in writing their names with a sharper pencil on the tablet of history than the astronomer of Pisa. His grand discoveries in natural science have done little to crown his temples with the wreath of immortality—it was the fate of his life that did it. And one may add: if this fate had been caused by the French government, or by a Protestant General Assembly, he would never have obtained his position in history; but since this lot came to him by the human limitation of a Roman Church authority, his name is not only entered on the calendar of the anti-Roman journalist, it also stands surrounded with the halo of a Martyr in the esteem of serious scientists, who see in _Galileo_ and in the consequent condemnation of the Copernican system the proof that dogma and science cannot agree, that the Catholic Church assumes a hostile attitude toward science. Whenever this theme is mentioned, _Galileo’s_ ghost is paraded. For this reason we cannot pass by this fact of history. To a son of the Church they are unpleasant recollections, but this shall not keep us from looking history firmly in the eye.

There are some other charges brought forth from history, but the _Galileo_ case overshadows them all. We shall touch upon them but briefly, and then return to _Galileo_.

Attention is called to the Church’s condemnation of the _doctrine of Antipodes_. The Priest _Vigilius_ was accused in Rome, in 747, of having taught that there exists another world under the earth, and other people also, or another sun and moon (_quod alius mundus et alii homines sub terra sint seu sol et luna_). Such was his doctrine as stated by Pope _Zacharias_ in his reply to _Boniface_, the Apostle of Germany, in which he said that he had cited _Vigilius_ to Rome in order that his doctrine be thoroughly investigated: if it should turn out that this had really been taught by him, he would be condemned. Further particulars of his teaching are unknown, because it is mentioned only in the above passage. The assertion ascribed to him is that there is another world besides this one, with other inhabitants and with another sun and moon—an assertion scientifically absurd and dogmatically inadmissible, as this might call in question the common descent of mankind from one pair of parents. The anxiety and rebuke of the Pope is directed solely against the latter point. The condemnation of _Vigilius_ has never taken place, for he remained in his office, won great respect, was elevated to the bishopric of Salzburg, and later canonized by _Gregory IX._ Had a condemnation of his particular doctrine taken place, this would not have involved the condemnation of the antipodean theory, in the sense that the side of the globe opposite to us is also inhabited by human beings, a proposition which does not conflict with any doctrine of faith. The doctrine described above has another tendency. The entire case is hidden in obscurity (_Hefele_, Conc. Gesch., 2d ed., III, 557 _seq._).

Furthermore, it has been said that at the time when the universities were in close union with the Church, medical science could not advance because the Church had prohibited human _anatomy_ (Prof. _J. H. van’t Hoff_, Neue Freie Presse, December 29, 1907). In amplification it was said: “_Boniface VIII._ had forbidden every anatomical dissection of a body” (_O. Zoeckler_, Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, 1877, I, 342). What is true of this assertion?

In the first place, _Boniface VIII._ did not forbid anatomy. He
merely prohibited in 1299 and 1300 the hideous custom then
prevailing regarding the bodies of noblemen who had died away from
home: they were disembowelled, dissected, and boiled, for the
purpose of removing the flesh from the bones so that the latter
could be transported the more easily. This process had nothing to
do with anatomy. The wish to possess the bones of the dead did not
seem to the Pope a sufficient reason for treating the human body
in such a way (Cfr. _Michael_, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes III,
1903, 433). Nor does history know of any other prohibition of
anatomy by the Church. It tells us, however, that _Frederick II._
in his excellent rules for the benefit of his Sicilian kingdom in
the regulation of medical science among other things emphasizes
the study of surgery: he ordered that no one be allowed to
practise surgery who could not show by attestation of his
professors that he had studied surgery for at least one year,
especially that he had learned at school how to dissect bodies; a
physician must be perfect in anatomy, else he may not undertake
operations (_Michael_, l. c. 430). This was done and practised
under the eyes of the Church. The accusers also seem ignorant of
the fact that bodies of those executed were given to universities
for dissection. In the year 1336 the medical students of
Montpellier, the famous medical school under the immediate
direction of the Church (see above, page 154) were granted the
privilege of obtaining once a year an executed criminal’s body for
dissection. The same privilege was extended to the medical
students of Lerida by King _Juan I._ on June 3, 1391, who decreed
that the delinquent should be drowned _pro speriencia seu anatomia
fienda_ (_Denifle_, Die Universitaeten des Mittelalters, I, 1885,
507).

The story is also circulated that the fourth Lateran Council in
1215 prohibited monks from studying natural sciences and medicine
(Deutschoester. Lehrerzeitung 15th Dec., 1909). It will suffice to
quote this particular decree of the Lateran Council: “No clergyman
is allowed to pronounce capital sentence, nor to execute it, nor
to be present at its execution. No clergyman is allowed to draw up
a document concerning a death sentence: at the courts this should
be done by laymen. No clergyman is allowed to assume command of
Rotarians (freebooters), of archers or any others who shed human
blood; no subdeacon, deacon, or priest is allowed to practise that
part of surgery by which cutting and burning is done, nor must any
one pronounce a benediction at an ordeal” (_Hefele_, Koncil.
Gesch., 2d ed., V, 1887, 887). This will thoroughly dispose of
that charge.

Just as briefly may we settle the story of _Columbus_ having been
excommunicated because of his intention to discover new lands. It
is said that the “Spanish clergy denounced his plans as against
the faith, and that the Council of Salamanca excommunicated him”
(_W. Draper_, ibid. 163). This is a fairy tale. The truth is, that
King _Ferdinand_ and Queen _Isabella_ referred the plans of the
bold Genoese to a council of scientists and ecclesiastical
dignitaries, which was held in the Dominican Monastery of
Salamanca, _Columbus_ being present. There never was a Council of
Salamanca. _Weiss_ writes in his “History of the World”: “Much has
been surmised concerning the objections and their refutation. It
is only certain that the majority rejected the plan as impossible
of execution, and that _Columbus_ won over a minority of them,
especially the priests, among whom the learned Dominican _Deza_
deserves mention” (Weltgesch. VII, 187). _Denthofen_, in his
biography of _Columbus_, says: “The Dominican Fathers supported
him during the long time the conference lasted, and even defrayed
the expenses of his journey. Father _Diego de Deza_, chief
professor of theology, was convinced by the reasons of _Columbus_,
and in turn convinced the more learned of his confrères. The
majority, however, thought the idea but a phantom, while others
deemed it impracticable. The conference adjourned without coming
to any definite decision” (Christof Columbus, Eine biographische
Skizze ..., 1878, 21). _Columbus_ found his warmest friend in the
learned Father _Juan Perez_, Guardian of the Franciscan Monastery
of St. Maria de la Rabida. Within the quiet walls of this cloister
_Columbus’_ plans were disclosed for the first time in Spain, and
admired and resolved upon. _Perez_ spoke untiringly to Isabella in
favour of the plan, and even aided _Columbus_ in gathering men for
his crew. This is the fact about the anathema the Church is paid
to have pronounced on _Columbus_.

But let us return to _Galileo_.(6)

_Galileo Galilei_, the great Italian physicist, was born in 1564, at Pisa. At first he was professor in his native town, then at Padua, where he taught the doctrine of _Ptolemy_, although at that time there was no obstacle to accepting the Copernican system. In 1611 he became mathematician at the court of _Cosimo II._ at Florence. His talents and happy discoveries soon won fame. In general he was more of a physicist than an astronomer; his astronomical discoveries were, almost without exception, of a kind that did not presuppose a thorough astronomical training. As is known, he was not the original inventor of the telescope, though with its aid he achieved some of the most important of his discoveries; for instance, that of the satellites of Jupiter. The telescope was invented in Holland.

When he went to Rome, in 1611, he was received with great honour. In one of his letters from there he wrote: “I have received marked favours from many Cardinals and prelates here, and from several princes. They wanted to hear of my inventions, and were all well pleased.” The Jesuits gave a special reception in his honour at the Roman College. This shows in what esteem science was then held at Rome. But five years later _Galileo_ returned to the Eternal City under quite different circumstances. What had happened? In 1612 he had issued a treatise on “The History and Explanation of the Sun-spots,” in which he declared unreservedly for the Copernican system. And this caused the change. True, _Copernicus_ himself was a Catholic Priest, and had dedicated his principal work to Pope _Paul III._ But it was generally supposed that he had brought forward the doctrine only as an hypothesis, only to illustrate and facilitate calculations, not claiming for it absolute certainty. This assumption was based on the preface of the first edition of his book, containing assurance to that effect. That preface, however, was not the work of _Copernicus_, but had been smuggled into the book by the Protestant publisher _Osiander_, without the author’s knowledge, because _Osiander_ feared _his own_ church authorities.

_Galileo_ spoke in quite another tone. He defended the doctrine as true. He soon aroused opposition. Men standing for the geocentric theory were opposed by others, siding with _Galileo_ for the solar system, such as the learned Benedictine, _Castelli_. _Galileo’s_ great bitterness and sarcasm in dealing with his opponents aggravated the quarrel with the “partisans of _Aristotle_.” Extreme irritability and love of praise were prominent traits of _Galileo’s_ character.

It was the custom of that time to bring Scripture into controversies about nature. This was done also in _Galileo’s_ case. Passages were quoted against him, referring to the “rising and setting sun,” to the “earth that never moves,” of _Joshua’s_ “commanding the sun to stand still.” This prompted _Galileo_ to cross over into the field of theology himself. In a letter to _Castelli_ in 1613 he says: “Holy Writ can never lie nor err; on the contrary, its sayings are absolute and incontestable truth; but its interpreters are liable to err in various ways, and it is a fatal and very common mistake to stop always at the literal sense” (_Kepler_, even prior to _Galileo_, had interpreted the respective passages of the Scriptures properly and with surprising skill; especially in his introduction to his “Astronomia nova.” Cfr. _Anschuetz_, Johannes Kepler als Exeget. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, XI, 1887, 1-24).