Talk:Index Librorum Prohibitorum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been assessed as Low-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] H.P. Lovecraft's Mad Arab
Did anyone else notice that the current last author on this list is fictional? What else on this page might be inacurrate?
[edit] Nihil Obstat/Imprimatur?
Would it be worthwhile to link this article to those terms? Since it seems we're discussing what Catholics should/ought to/be allowed to read, according to their teachers.
[edit] Vagueness
The article seems slightly vague about the current status of the Index.
- "The index as an official list was relaxed in 1966 under Pope Paul VI following the end of the Second Vatican Council and largely due to practical considerations. It remains a sin for Catholics to read books which are injurious to faith and/or morals."
What does "relaxed" mean exactly? Does the Index still exist? Presumably "practical considerations" means that there are now too many books published to keep up with? Is it still in force but no longer has books added to it? It would be great to have some clarification from someone out there who knows about these things.
Flapdragon 12:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Editorializing and Current Status
On the 3rd of July user 86.129.90.225 (removed (inaccurate!) editorializing conclusion) i.e.:
- Practically every great Western philosopher is included on the list - even those that did believe in God, such as Descartes, Kant, Berkeley and Malebranche. Oddly, some atheists, such as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, are not included.
I am going to put it back in and formally asking user 86.129.90.225 to log in before deleting any wikipedian voice or he will be reported. This will maybe put this voice as a "disputed one". Anyway user 86.129.90.225 is asked to discuss the changes before.
Thanks. User Little_Guru.
I've changed 'great' to 'modern' in the above passage. Generally, a list of 'great Western philosophers' would be assumed to start with Plato and Aristotle and to include Aquinas -- none of whome, clearly, were on the Index. However, it is certainly true that just about every major philosopher since the Enlightenment spent time on the Index. Brendanhodge 21:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- To flapdragon.
Since 1966 the index is indeed no longer updated and has no longer "force of law". But it is still considered a valuable guideline for catholics: one can read the works "historically" so to speak, to take knowledge of the contents of a work, but one should be aware that the content or part of it has been blamed by church authorities for not being in line with church doctrine or, more generally, the catholic religion.
Thanks very much. Perhaps you might like to edit the entry to correct and clarify the paragraph I quoted above? For example, from what you say it's no longer considered a sin for Catholics to read books on the Index. Flapdragon 6 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)
- I agree. What is the current church teaching on this, officially (or is there one)? Would it really be "immoral" or forbidden for say, a Catholic bookstore to carry one or more of the books on the 1966 list? Or for a Catholic to read or purchase a copy for study? Incidentally, an anti-Opus Dei website claims that the Opus Dei prelature still adheres to the Index. Anybody have any info on this?
- I refer to http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFRYDN2.HTM and I literally took the sentence of part II, which is, I think at the same time more general and more accurate as to the present position of the Church. I also refer to the "forcefull" comment of Tarcisio card. Bertone, former secretary of the Holy Office, against the Da Vinci-Code: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4350625.stm and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/16/world/main680446.shtml The reasons for Bertone's action are exactly the same as those why books were forbidden in former times: those who are "unaware" can be (and in fact are) easily mislead. But as you will see, the Church has no "legal" means to prohibit the book; therefore Bertone can only unmask the lies by organising a seminar on the subject and launch an "appeal" to the Christians. It is no formal sin to read this book... as long as you keep the distance and don't mix fiction with (religious) facts or doctrine. - But I warn you, I'm neither a trained theologian, nor a priest.
- To Ringbang
I have put back the old passage about the political aims of the censorship and added some NAZI-works that were (ore were not) forbidden in the 1930's. The original phrasing was more neutral.
Heretical works of non-Catholics is not correct: every work of a non-Catholic was forbidden, and heretical was the same as non-Catholic in the rules of the Index.
- "every work of a non-Catholic was forbidden" This is, as should be obvious, wrong. Catholic priests provided some of the earliest translations of Confucian thinkers into European languages. Catholic literary critics and others certainly read books by non-Catholics as would be easy to prove. Added to that the Congregation of the Index had separate rules on dealing with Catholic and non-Catholic authors. If "every work of a non-Catholic" was forbidden that would have been unnecessary. This isn't still in the article itself is it?(I'll do the favor of removing it if so.)--T. Anthony 01:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- a translation of Confucius by a roman-catholic priest, was not a-priori forbidden, because: the translator was a catholic. A translation of St.Augustine by, say, a calvinist preacher was a priori forbidden, because: the translator was a non-catholic. So: the Congregation of the Index only occupied herselve with examining the translation of the catholic priest (at least if someone bothered to defer it as "dangerous") and eventually published a ban and included the title in the Index of forbidden books. The translation of the calvinist was, ipso facto (because a calvinist was a heretic), forbidden and a special mention on the list was not necessary. You would find this in the acts of the Congregation, f.e.: nothing has to be done because already foreseen by the second rule (=the second of the tridentine rules). However, my statement was too simple: every book of a non-Catholic author that had tot do with religion was forbidden, the others were permitted, but only after mature examination (this was added because many "heretics" had published valuable scientific treatises and editions of classical authors). The statement that heretic meant non-(Roman)catholic however, is true.
[edit] Patrick O'Brien
Does 'Patrick O'Brien' Perhaps refer to Patrick O'Brian?
