“The Index,” says Hilgers, “has never given consideration to the person or authority of the author. The decision has always been arrived at purely on the basis of the influence, bad or good, of the book. It has not hesitated to condemn utterances of the theological faculty of the University of Paris on the one hand, or acts of the Parliament of Paris on the other. It was ready to condemn ordinances of Duke Leopold I of Lorraine, the treatises of James I of England, and the works of the ‘Philosopher of Sans-Souci.’ It would be difficult in fact to contend that the material contained in these last was not likely to exert a pernicious influence. The royal writer of Sans-Souci scoffs at the immortality of the soul and, with his leader Voltaire, defends a religious nihilism. He who is concerned with maintenance whether of the throne, the altar, or the State, who feels a responsibility for the welfare of the people, will hardly guide his actions by the philosopher Voltaire.”[168]

In December, 1901, a journal printed in Rome for English-speaking readers, under the title of the Roman World, prints the following comment on the Index of Leo, a copy of which had, as the writer of the article reports, been placed in his hands by a book collector of New York:

“One of the great book collectors of New York has recently secured from his foreign agent a copy of the new edition of the Index Librorum prohibitorum issued under the directions of Leo XIII. It is seldom that a copy of an official Index or record of books, the perusal of which is prohibited to Catholics, comes into the hands of an outsider. The copies printed are reserved for the use of the readers of the Church. It is necessary in order to secure a copy, to pay a high price. This particular copy, for instance, was estimated as worth from $40 to $50, while a little later, in connection with the greater difficulty of securing copies, it might easily have cost $400. The history of the famous Index is interesting. Its intellectual originator was the Emperor Charles V of Spain whose production bears date about 1550. In 1554, the Pope Paul IV took into his own hands the matter of the supervision of literature. This has since been retained under the direct control of the pope. Many hundreds of books which are not specified and mentioned in the catalogue are prohibited under the general decrees, which decrees, first issued by Benedict XIV in 1744, from that date on are repeated in the succeeding Indexes. It is well known that no Catholic ventures, under penalty of excommunication, to possess or read books which are contained in the Index unless he may secure a specific privilege or permission. It is not so well known that the catalogue is itself three centuries old and that it contains thus far the name of no single American writer, not even Thomas Paine or Robert Ingersoll. There are, however, in the lists dozens of works of the English classics and hundreds of French books which belong to the world’s classics. Here for instance are to be found Bossuet and Pascal. The latter always believed himself to be a good Catholic. Among the English names placed under the ban are Gibbon, Hume, Hallam, and Goldsmith.”[169]

Hilgers amuses himself, and with justice, with the mass of errors that have been crowded into the few paragraphs cited from the article. It is his conclusion that if an American writing in the city of Rome could be so thoroughly ignorant of matters that were easily within his reach, the impressions of Americans elsewhere and of Protestants generally concerning the purpose, the history, and the nature of the Index are probably equally erroneous.

The conclusions of the German Jesuit concerning the literary policy of the Church of Rome as expressed in its latest Index, may conveniently be supplemented by a statement (written in November, 1898) by a scholarly American priest, on the present policy and methods of the Roman censorship. This statement comes in a personal letter to myself and I am, therefore, not at liberty to bring into print the name of the writer.

“The action of the Index is meant to be both preventive and repressive. Its preventive action is exercised through the diocesan censor, that is, there is in every well constituted diocese an officer known as the censor deputatus, to whom the bishop can hand over, before they come into print, all works written by Catholics which deal with religion or morals. This officer gives his opinion in writing to the bishop, who thereby issues an imprimatur (permission) or a nihil obstat (no reason to the contrary). There is, moreover, at Rome a similar censorship on a somewhat wider scale which is to-day, as through the past centuries, exercised through the master of the sacred palace. This official continues to be a Dominican friar. The greater part of the works submitted to this censor are of course books printed in the city of Rome or at least within the territory of the old papal States.

“As far as the repressive action of the Index is concerned, this is performed by the Congregation itself. I may recall, however, that at the Council of the Vatican, many bishops from France, Germany, and Italy asked that the ‘Ten Rules of the Index’ be revised. They asserted that the changed social and literary conditions in these countries made it impossible to continue to enforce these ‘Rules’ with the former strictness. The further request was made public that books should no longer be censured (condemned) at Rome until the local episcopal authorities had been heard in the matter so that the author might have his errors pointed out, and that, if he were writing in good faith, he might thus be afforded an opportunity of recalling his erroneous statements and thus save himself from the disgrace that from a Catholic point of view would of necessity have come upon him through the condemnation of his book. The text of this document may be found in the Acta Sacrorum Conciliorum Recentiorum, Collectio Lacensis, volume viii, 843–844. On pages 11, 79, and 780 will be found a petition of certain Catholic laymen for the abrogation of the Index.

“The application of the legislation of the Index is made by the refusal of the permission to print, or by condemnation of the printed book and the insertion of its title on the catalogue of prohibited books. This latter act is accomplished by means of special decrees in which one or more works may be specified.... As far as the positive legislation of the Index goes, it may be said that this is, as a matter of principle, everywhere obligatory in that it emanates from the supreme ecclesiastical authority. Nevertheless, it may in certain places be modified by use or by non-use. Sometimes it is not strictly applied or insisted upon; still, it does not lose its binding force although the consciences of Catholics may thereby to some extent be relieved. In certain countries, and undoubtedly in English-speaking countries, the Index legislation has not been strictly observed. I must say, however, that within the last year (1898) a formal enquiry having been sent to the Roman authorities as to whether in these English-speaking countries the legislation of the Index was to be considered as in force, an affirmative reply was returned to the questioners.

“Publishers and booksellers, if they be Catholics, are in like manner bound to the observance of this ecclesiastical legislation. Inasmuch as the legislation is preventive, it is looked upon by them as a security and moreover in general it offers a présomption d’innocuité [presumption of innocuousness] to the book, which is of importance for those who furnish the capital for its publication. [This remark of the American Father is, it may be pointed out, in line with the conclusion submitted sixty years earlier by the Englishman Mendham to the effect that if a book were not included in an Index of its period, those interested in its publication had a right to assume that it contained nothing considered as objectionable by the authorities of the Church.]

“The repressive action of the Index may of course from time to time occasion losses to writers, publishers, and to booksellers. An author whose book has been placed upon the Index is under obligation to withdraw the book from circulation or to modify its text. [It is of course the case, although the Father does not mention it, that any modification of the text of the original edition calls for the cancellation of the copies of this edition and involves the outlay of printing further copies with the revised text]. Publishers and booksellers, if they be Catholics, are bound, as is the author, by the action of the Index authorities. If they be not Catholics and do not pay any attention to ecclesiastical legislation, they may still, in case the work has been written by a Catholic and is addressed to a Catholic reading public, expect to see its sale blocked or diminished through the censorship....

“It may be said in general that the Index legislation, as formulated by Leo XIII, is no longer as severe as formerly; it has been modified in the sense of mitigation. For example, a book written by an American for the purpose of education or instruction for instance in the Scriptures, is no longer ipso facto forbidden. As far as the Index is concerned, such books may be freely read by Catholics who may need them.... The famous ‘Ten Rules’ of the Index issued under the authority of Pius IV (1564) are to be interpreted to-day by the Constitution ‘Apostolicae Sedis’ issued by Pius IX, a Constitution which reformed considerably the well-known system of censures, excommunication, and the like, and which is to-day the juridical source of general ecclesiastical censures of all kinds. In the Compendium Juris Ecclesiastici ad usum cleri, written by the Austrian Bishop, Simon Archner, Bishop of Brixen, (the sixth edition of which was printed in 1887), you will find (on page 521) the following passage:

“‘The ecclesiastical prohibition of books, whether placed nominatim on the Index or forbidden by its general rules, whether forbidden by the natural law or by the positive law, remains still intact. Therefore, such prohibited books cannot be printed, read, or kept sine peccato. But, at the same time, certain modifications of these prohibitions remain also in force, modifications which have doubtless been introduced in various regions through legitimate custom. As to Germany, authors of authority mentioned by the Council of Vienna have maintained that profane books written by heretics, on special subjects, as law, medicine, philosophy, history, etc., although they may contain one or more heresies scattered throughout the text, heresies held by the authors obiter tantum, do not fall under the ecclesiastical prohibition. They say the same of those writings of Catholic authors, otherwise worthy books, which contain one or more doctrines that are not entirely in accord with Catholic theology, the sacred canons, and the constitutions of the popes, and which in certain matters may exceed the proper limits in comment on subjects that the writers ought not to touch. This moderation is extended also to the rules of the Index which are scarcely anywhere received in their entirety, and which still less can be republished in this century ex integro. Finally, in Germany, even those writings of non-Catholics may, generally speaking, be safely read by Catholics which speak of religious matters in a manner conformable to the doctrine of the Church; and especially is this the case with the works of writers who may seem to be nearing conversion to the Catholic religion. On the other hand, no such license can be given to writings which treat of obscene matter, superstitions, magic, incantations, and the like; such works, even though written by Catholics, are forbidden in Germany, and rightly so. It is further to be noted that even bishops can issue and are under obligations to issue positive precepts by which, even under pain of censure, they may forbid the reading of books if they are satisfied that such reading would bring danger of perversion. In such case, they will declare that the reading of the works in question is forbidden under the law of nature. In regard to this point, Pius IX on the 24th of August, 1868, renewed the injunction of Leo XII, urging the bishops to proceed in this matter not only by their own episcopal rights but also as delegates of the Apostolic See.’

“The work of the Congregation of the Index is continued at Rome practically under the same routine as in former centuries, modified only by the late legislation of Leo XIII.... The prohibitions of the Index are, as a rule, made known by being published in the Osservatore Romano. I am not able to say how the individual author learns of the condemnation of his work and whether it is customary to write a letter to the bishop of his diocese or whether the publication in the Osservatore is looked upon as sufficient; nor can I say whether there is any earlier or more juridical means of promulgation than that mentioned. As a matter of fact, such condemnations are first more widely published by means of the Catholic press; but there is no law or usage compelling further publicity than that specified. Indeed, I doubt whether the fact of the condemnation of a book by a decree, or the fact that it has been placed on the Index, is always known to the Catholic world in general or even to those Catholics who speak the language in which the book is printed.... It may be well to remember that, in practice, the condemnations of the Index probably affect very much less than is generally imagined the actual sale or distribution of the books condemned; partly because of ignorance of the condemnation, which is often very general, partly because of the accepted and increasing modification of the legislation, and partly because the persons for whom such books were chiefly intended are often by privilege or by dispensation provided with the authority to read the same.”

At the time of the completion of the proof-reading of this division of my treatise (March 1907), there does not appear to be any prospect of the production, under the direction of Pius X, of any later issue of the Index. Books that are brought to the attention of the Secretary of the Congregation, or of the Master of the Palace, are, however, condemned from time to time by separate decrees. Among other recent similar condemnations, may be cited: Schell, Hermann (of Wurzburg), Treatise on Catholicism, (and three other works) 1899. Loisy, the Abbé, L’Évangile et l’Église, 1903. Horitin, the Abbé, La Question Biblique chez les Catholiques, etc., 1903.

The writings of these three authors gave rise to fierce controversies during the years between 1898 and 1903. Schell and Loisy submitted themselves. The treatise by Ehrhart, Catholicism and the Twentieth Century, published in 1901, and that by the Protestant, Harnack, What is Christianity, published in 1900, escaped condemnation. In July, 1906, a condemnation was made of The Saint (Il Santo) by Senator Antonio Fogazzaro. The author, who is reported to be a devout Catholic, is said to have “submitted himself” in regular course, but his submission could not prevent the continued sale of the book in the Italian as well as in the foreign editions.

I am informed by the publishers of the American edition that the prohibition by the Roman authorities was duly respected by the publishers of the leading Catholic papers of America, which declined to accept advertisements of the book.