This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article seems slightly vague about the current status of the Index.
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)
On the 3rd of July user 86.129.90.225 (removed (inaccurate!) editorializing conclusion) i.e.:
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)
Since 1966 the index is indeed no longer updated and has no longer "force of law".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 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.
I've moved the list to a separate article. Previously there were several arbitrary lists scattered throughout the article. Unfortunately, many of these neglected to note whether the author's complete works or only one work were listed (let alone which version of the list). Moreover, the sourcing was a tad lacking. Hopefully this can be made more complete, more organized, and less repetitive in the separate list.
However, for a list that went through many iterations over hundred of years and in different geographies, it doesn't make sense to interrupt the flow to give shout outs to specific works and authors. This article should be able the overall trends, patterns, and functions of the list. Specific examples of course can be mentioned if their importance is attested to and explained by sources. Savidan 04:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It is important to have an example that shows that some books that were on the Index have received imprimaturs from Roman Catholic Bishops after the Index was abolished. People may yet debate the content of the books for years, but the fact that the imprimatur was issued, is a key fact on its own, (independent of the debate) and must be mentioned in the article on the Index. It is an example of discord with the Index, and must be mentioned, since it is fully referenced and the image of the original imprimatur is also available online. History2007 ( talk) 17:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The Poem of the Man-God is a highly debated book series that has not received official recognition by the Church. It is questionable as to whether the Bishop who granted the imprimatur had the authority to grant it.
As is stated on the Index of Forbidden Books page, the actual June 14th, 1966 Notification only removed the legal force of the Index. The Notification did NOT remove the Indexs moral authority. In fact, the Notification was explicit in saying that the Index would continue as a reminder of the moral law.
Thus, any book on the Index of Forbidden Books is and remains forbidden for Catholics to read, this includes disseminating any such book(s).
Much as to my knowledge, this includes Maria Valtorta's The Poem of the Man-God and explains why the 'imprimatur' from the Bishop is in question.
I previously deleted the references to Maria Valtorta because I questioned the neutrality of the information. Furthermore, Valtorta's followers have been known to twist the documents from Rome (I can prove this) and it is best not to reference Valtorta until the issue is definitively cleared-up by Rome. BenedictKJS ( talk) 21:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is not how Wikipedia works my friend. My suggestion is for you to spend some time and become familiar with Wikipedia policies before removing large sections of referenced text. As the discussion continues, your removal of the referenced text based on "your knowledge and opinion" is not permitted. I will therefore have to restore the said text, add even more references to support it, and will add some more text to address the issues that you indirectly refer to.
It is important to separate the general issues from the content of Maria Valtorta's writings. From what I see, your intent is to avoid (shall I say censor) the word Valtorta from appearing on the page for the Index because her book has had controversy. But given that the controversy involves the Index, it is therefore relevant to the Index, as it shows that the Index is not free of controversy. The fact that the Index is now fully engulfed in controversy and vagueness can (and must) be mentioned, since it can be referenced.
I used the word "censor" because not only did you remove the text about Valtorta from the article, but you carefully edited the title of the reference for Cardinal Ratzinger's letter of January 31, 1985 because the letter was about Maria Valtorta. I think in time you will realize that that left on its own, in a few days a Wikipedia automated Bot would have reverted your deletion of the title of the reference, and regenerated the title by itself. Wiki-bots do not like references with no title.
What you will also realize after studying Wikipedia policies is that Wikipedia is not about what you or I personally believe to be correct, but what can be said based on referenced items. Your statement about "Much as to my knowledge" is against the WP:OR (original research) policy. It matters not what your/my knowledge is, and what you/I believe to be true, but what referenced literature says - on both sides.
To see an example of a balanced approach by a good editor, please carefuy read the talk page for Talk:Crucifixion of Jesus. The user Ἀλήθεια who happens to be very knowledgeable on that topic sets a good example of not stepping over WP:OR. He states that he ‘’personally’’ believes that Jesus entered Jerusalem on Sunday Nisan 10, but does not add that to the article. He avoids adding the statement despite the fact that he is clearly an expert on the topic. I think you should learn from him to keep personal opinions separate from referenced statements.
The text you removed was carefully worded to make it clear that many of the issues were "reported" without stating if they were true or not. The fact that they were reported can not be disputed, as it is well documented. Look at it one by one:
Yes, it is clearly documented that the three Servite priests reported that and an affidavit was signed to that effect. An image of the affidavit is available as well, and hence the fact that there was a report by the priests can be included in Wikipedia, without saying whether the report was true or not.
I was, unfortunately, not present during that meeting at the Vatican and hence can not say. My guess is that you were probably not in Rome that day with your tape recorder either. But it really matters not what you/I think. For Wikipedia what matters is that there is a well document report and hence the text can be included. Is the report subject to controversy? Indeed so, and that fact should also be included.
Now a more general issue and a key question about the Index.
This is indeed a relevant question that goes to the very heart of what an imprimatur means once the Index was abolished. Hence this question must be answered by the article. The answer to Question A is clearly "yes", and is well documented. Hence it can be included in Wikipedia.
The book was Poem of the Man God by Maria Valtorta. Again, a well documented fact that can be included.
In fact there have been other Bishops, but let us just focus on one for now. You state that "it is questionable if he had the authority" but provide no references. If you do have references, I will be glad to add that fact myself. Until then, your opinion is against WP:OR again and gives no reason for deletion.
You also accuse various supporters of Valtorta of distorting documents. That goes against the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. You can not just say "I can prove it" in passing and assume bad faith. That is not how Wikipedia works.
Now, your comment about "moral force" is already clearly included in the article, in two separate places. However, your assertion that: " Thus, any book on the Index of Forbidden Books is and remains forbidden for Catholics to read" has no reference. Do you have a reference for that statement? Indeed one important fact that the article clearly quotes is from Cardinal Ratzinger himself, saying in 1985 that the Index retains some form of moral force for the "more unprepared faithful." That is a key fact that the article must include. That brings about the next question:
Answer: In a letter on January 31 1985 to to the Archbishop of Genoa, regarding the writings of (you guessed it) Maria Valtorta. Hence the writings of Maria Valtorta and the situation of interpreting what the Index was/is are inherently interconnected and the name of Maria Valtorta needs to appear within the Wikipedia article on the Index, and should not be censored.
What is really ironic is that there is this debate about the censorship of the name of an author from a Wikipedia article about a now abolished Index whose main goal was the censorship of authors! History2007 ( talk) 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
History2007, thank you for your clarification and response. While I understand your position, I would like to clarify mine. Please excuse me if I come across as direct or blunt but I do not want to waste anyone's time.
While I do not wish to make this a "my guns are bigger than your guns" type of argument, I do wish to say something in defense of my credentials. I am educated in Catholic theology and hold two degrees in the subject. I also have not a few years experience in the area of private revelation. My deletions of references to Maria Valtorta were not based upon personal opinion but rather simple knowledge of the facts, rooted in a moral responsibility not to mislead people.
I think we can work together on this and so I offer the following for your consideration:
1) Maria Valtorta's works have been placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, which still retains its moral force according to Rome in its June 14th, 1966 Decree.
2) Under Natural Law, no one is allowed to read or disseminate books containing matter contrary to faith and good morals (cf. the June 14th, 1966 Decree).
3) The validity of the Imprimatur (or Imprimaturs) is, thus, in question.
4) We have a grave moral responsibility to inform people of the truth of a given matter.
The above said, I am agreeable to an amendation of this entry that would inform the reader of the controversy behind Maria Valtorta's works that still continues to this day. Also, that it is not advisable to refer to her works as a definitive case of a (later) Imprimatur being given to a book that is on the Index. BenedictKJS ( talk) 19:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Update: I have changed some things in the text that fine-tuned the entry. I found the opening third paragraph to be a bit convoluted. For instance, I thought the original syntax suggested that Maria Valtorta was a Saint or declared a Saint by the Church. I changed that around to reflect that she is not declared a Saint.
I also clarified the reference to St. Faustina. The original wording was not precise enough so I changed it a bit to reflect the proceedings of her case better.
I also changed the word "abolished" in a few places in the text. As I further clarified, the original June 14, 1966 Decree does not use the word "abolish" in the official Latin text. In fact, as another user noted several lines down, Cardinal Ottaviani states in that Decree that the Index retains "its moral value" (suum vigorem moralem), thus the word "abolish" is in question. BenedictKJS ( talk) 20:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC
Ok, first things first. I take it that you no longer want to abolish the word Valtorta from this page, because it is now clear that the book is relevant to the Index - so that is good progress. But you do suggest that reading any book that was on the Index is still forbidden. So let us focus on that as a fundamental issue about the Index. The logical form of your argument in predicate logic is as follows:
So now, let us ask a few questions:
It is easy to see that these books are available within Catholic universities in the united states. So Assertion C can not be universally quantified and is therefore false. Hence proof by contradition implies that one of the assertions A or B must be false.
But then, leaving logic aside, please provide a reference (Wikipedia works on references, not the size of guns or number of years of experience an editor has) that clearly states that Assertion A is true. Do you have solid references for this? If so, please provide them. Else, that argument has to be deleted.
Now, on separate issues, Rice University's webpage (also Cambridge university) clearly uses the term abolished, as do other universities [1] hence that term may be used based on the fact that the universities said so. Do you have a referenec that sayd it was not abolished? I think there is need for a section called Has the Indexc been abolished? if you have references that say it has not. Most universities say that it has been abolished, and that fact must remain unless you have other references.
As for the imprimatur the real debate should be on teh page for imprimatur itself. Do you have references that say that the imprimatur issued was invalid? Else, your suggestion that it is questionable is just WP:OR, original research again, and must be deleted.
As for Faustina, please look on her page, as to why there is debate about the faulty translation being an escape goat argument, for an article in the National Catholic Reporter suggests that the ban stemmed from more serious theological issues. For instance, her claim that Jesus had promised a complete remission of sin for certain devotional acts that only the sacraments can offer, and what Vatican evaluators felt to be an excessive focus on Faustina herself ran contrary to the views at the Holy Office. [2]
After this debate, I will try to balance those issues based on references again. Cheers History2007 ( talk) 22:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Update: I did a few searches and many sources including OSV's encyclopedia of Catholic history do use the term abolished. hence the tatement that it is not clear that the Index was abolished without a clear reference can not be supported, since it is your own deduction, and can not be included in Wikipedia. The main issue that Ineed to stress is that Wikipedia does not work based on debate but on references. If you want to debate it, my suggestion would be this: let us meet in Campo de' Fiori next June when the weather will be nice, I will buy you a nice coffee and pastries, and convince you that the Index was abolished, as we debate it. If we don't agree, we will just walk to the Holy Office and ask them to mediate. But Wikipedia is not the forum for debating it. I will just have to modify those debate based WP:OR changes.
I did, however, get a chuckle out of the Ottaviani comment you added that the Holy Office did not have time (between 1940 and 1960, i.e. 20 years) to keep up with contemporary literature and add Hitler to the Index. I just wonder what they were doing all those years if they were too busy to add Hitler - after all he was not exactly an unknown. I wonder who else they added in that time frame? Does Valtorta ring a bell? Does Kowalska ring a bell? The logic of that just makes me smile. I think we should have that coffee near the Holy Office and invite Cardinal Levada to join us for a nice debate. But that is outside the scope of Wikipedia.
Cheers. History2007 ( talk) 03:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to make a note on a paragraph in this article on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
The paragraph in question comes from the section entitled, "Listed works and authors" and reads as follows:
Some books were added to the Index by the Holy Office during the reign of one Pope after they had reportedly received verbal papal approval from the previous Pope. An example is the book Poem of the Man God which received praise from Pope Pius XII's confessor (Augustin Bea), and was presented to Pius XII during a special audience in 1948 in which he reportedly approved it, and the Servite priests present signed an affidavit to that effect. But Cardinal Ottaviani at the Holy Office ordered the Servite priests to total silence in 1948 and waited over 10 years to add the book to the Index soon after the death of Pius XII.
I wish to point out that I do not think it fair to characterize Cardinal Ottaviani as he is above. By implication, it is portraying Ottaviani as being devious and just waiting for the death of Pope Pius XII so as to accomplish his (Ottaviani's) own will regarding Valtorta and her writings.
Furthermore, most of this discussion hinges upon a statement attributed to Pope Pius XII in note 26 in this article. Pius XII is alleged to have said (according to note 26):
"Publish this work as it is. There is no need to give an opinion about its origin, whether it be extraordinary or not. Who reads it, will understand. One hears of many visions and revelations. I will not say they are all authentic; but there are some of which it could be said that they are."
The problem with the "quote" is that it is way too subjective. The audience was not recorded, thus no context for the quote is provided. Only this pithy and isolated statement is given and which stands upon the witness of one priest, Fr. Berti (and presumably backed by the other two priests with him at the time of the audience), who was the one who wrote it down. Thus, to construct an entire argument about an alleged "Supreme Pontifical Imprimatur" is entirely suspect.
Is it historically verifiable that Fr. Berti wrote this down? Yes. Is Fr. Berti's claim to context and understanding verifiable? No. The reader is at the mercy of Fr. Berti's interpretation of the isolated quote. This is why, in note 26 of this Wikipedia entry, Fr. Mitch Pacwa provides an alternative context, which makes sense given the history of Valtorta's writings.
Again, I contend that Ottaviani was not out to do his own will against that of a Pope and I believe it highly unfair to characterize him as he is in the above quote. Unless someone can provide a reference that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ottaviani was doing such, then I think it advisable to somehow rework this paragraph so as to be more neutral than what it is currently.
BenedictKJS ( talk) 19:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
"Hi, it is getting close to June. My invitation for a nice coffee near the Vatican is still open.
All snarkiness aside and in all sobriety and charity, "Let me make you an offer you can't refuse." I would be happy to go again to Rome if you are also offering to pay my airfare. I can get you a good deal.
Meanwhile, for my part and if the above is agreeable to you, I would be glad to utilize a contact of mine and see if Cardinal Levada is available for a coffee shop chat (I am not lying, I do have such an ability). If it is possible, I would be most happy to sit at Campo dei Fiore (I have some business there anyway) and discuss (not debate) the Index of Forbidden Books.
As for Ottaviani and Berti, it is back to the same issue: what I think and what you think matter not in Wikipedia, it is a question of references. But since this is a really minor issue, I will try to rework that paragraph. It is, of course, impossible to know what goes on in a person's head, so only God knows what Ottaviani was thinking anyway. That paragraph does make him sound like he was plotting and maybe he was, maybe he was not. He sure waited for a few years."
Whether Ottaviani was or was not plotting, and again, I say this in all charity, if you can not provide the reference that proves Ottaviani was being devious, it is only just not to portray him as devious. Do unto others as you would want done unto you, lest ye fall and perish on your own sword.
I am glad to see you have reworked the paragraph. It looks good, but if I may offer the following suggestion:
"Some books were added to the Index by the Holy Office during the reign of one Pope after they had reportedly received verbal papal approval from the previous Pope. An example is the book Poem of the Man God which received praise from Pope Pius XII's confessor (Augustin Bea), and was presented to Pius XII during a special audience in 1948 in which he reportedly approved it, and the Servite priests present signed an affidavit to that effect.[26] 10 years later, however, the book was added to the Index.[27][28][29][30]"
You will note that I have held intact all references. I only cleaned up the syntax and grammar of the sentence ("the the" & "however") and removed the reference to Pius XII. By doing this, the article keeps the integrity of neutrality as the sole reference to Pius XII (even without mentioning Cardinal Ottaviani) still carries some of the tone of "plotting." I believe this to be more effective as the reader is left with the question, "Why was it placed on the Index later on?" They can then research the issue more fully and neither you or I have subliminally implanted ideas in their head.
It is also possible to put a footnote at the end of that sentence and talk about the debate over Ottaviani, Pius XII and John XXIII. That is, it would seem, the more appropriate place for a "minor issue" as you call it. By placing such a footnote, the reader has access to more materials from which to make an informed decision as well as to do further research.
Let's work together and not against each other. I am sure we can come up with a very fair and balanced article.
Also, when it is said in the beginning, "some books were added..." since this is in the plural, can you provide a reference to other books to which this has happened or are you referring to the series of volumes in the one writing that is "Poem of the Man-God"? If the latter, I suggest the opening line be rephrased as well.
BenedictKJS ( talk) 18:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Re: Ottaviani:
"Ok, I rephrased it as you suggested. It was no big deal really and removes the possible reading between the lines that someone at the Vatican was "plotting" something - Heaven forbid."
Deo gratias.
"On that note, let me assure you that I have never touched the page on Marcinkus, as the edit history there will clearly show, so I am totally innocent of any plotting discussions therein. May he rest in peace too."
I have no idea what you are talking about, so I'll let the remarks pass.
"As for coffee and pastries, I did offer it for June, and it stands, but I did not offer a plane ticket."
Then I'm afraid I can't afford it. I am but a poor high school religion teacher with debts to pay and can not afford a plane ticket to Rome during the summer.
"Anyway, if there is a key issue to convince Levada about, it is to put up more encyclicals on the web, and reorganize their own website."
Levada does not handle the web site. It's actually a nun (Sister Judith Zoebelein). [1]
"At the moment, Wikipedia is doing a better job than the Vatican website, e.g. see the page I had to build, because their web site can not handle it right: Marian papal encyclicals and Apostolic Letters. By the time I have finished telling Levada about their website problems he will probably call the Swiss Guard to come out and beat me up. But seriously, Wikipedia is already a better source for organized encyclicals than the Holy See website, and if you have time to add more to Wikipedia, I would encourage you to do so. The Apostolic Letters are the ones that really need help. Cheers History2007"
Speaking for myself, I would rather talk to the Vatican about their English translations of various documents, but that is another story for another time.
If you are interested, I highly recommend papalencyclicals.net. I know that not every Encyclical is on the Internet but also bear in mind that the Papal Encyclical tradition started in the 1740's with Pope Benedict XIV.
Also, may I ask what exactly is your role with Wikipedia? Are you a moderator, owner or just another regular user?
BenedictKJS ( talk) 00:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph in this section makes several implications: that the Librorum Prohibitorum prevented incredible numbers of books from being published and that the Librorum Prohibitorum prevented incredible numbers of "immoral" books from being published. The NYT article cited for the first implication says nothing about the L.P., and, though I haven't read either of the two books cited for the second implication, neither seems to be focused on the L.P.'s effects. Should this first paragraph be amended or deleted altogether? SQ_Minion ( talk) 18:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph of the page, it is stated that the document was "formally abolished on 14 June 1966" - yet the second paragraph of this section begins "The Index now includes..." This is either an implication that the document is still in official use, or a poorly worded attempt to reference the most recent additions to the list prior to its abolition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.255.56.240 ( talk) 17:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I wish everyone used logic, as you do. Alas, the problem is the of course deduction. Before becoming the current Pope Cardinal Ratzinger went on record saying that although "no longer in effect" or something like that, the Index retains moral force. So their logic seems to be that abolished is one thing, retaining moral force is another. I call it "in denial" but who am I to argue with the Pope? They can send the Swiss guard out any minute now. History2007 ( talk) 21:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You asked in summary if Danylak's approval matters. Actually it does, and he is not the only one - there are other bishops, archbishops etc. who have sent approval letters and the images are on the web, we can add those links as well. This is fully relevant because the Poem is at the very center of the discussion about the Index, because the only letter sent about the Index from the Holy Office and signed by someone with "theological muscle" was Ratzinger's 1985 letter. Now, after that the situation in the world, which the article should reflect, is that other Bishops (and Archbishops) are basically shrugging shoulders about the 1985 letter and supporting the book about which the 1985 letter was issued. This goes to demonstrate the irrelevance of the Index in the modern world. And the real demonstration of the irrelevance of the situation is the 3rd paragraph of the article itself: "Canon law still recommends that works concerning sacred Scripture, theology, canon law, church history, and any writings which specially concern religion or good morals, be submitted to the judgement of the local Ordinary." This means that Canon law lives in yesterday's world, for in a world where a new book is printed every hour, this can never happen, as the modern day use section discusses. So to reflect the state of the world with respect to the Index, these issues need to be clarified. History2007 ( talk) 06:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
That is an interesting discussion, and the Jump story was funny. But that discussion is about the Poem and not the Index. And I do not really have access to either Ratzinger or Danylak's head to know what they were really thinking. So I would like to pass on the discussion of the contents of the Poem, but focus on the Index. What I am still trying to point out is the issue of Sartre Descartes and Francis Bacon being on the "bad boy list" if the Indx has moral force. But I already mentioned that above. If I seem brief, it is because I am actually trying to do less talking and more doing, and I was building Aspects of the Christian meditation which could probably benefit from your knowledge to be sure it does not have errors. I will appreciate that, for I think it is important. [User:History2007|History2007]] ( talk) 23:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
In this edit and editor removed sourced content as irrelevant. I think that is not the case at all. What the Cardinal said was "about the Index", hence it is totally relevant to the Index and the determination of his putting his foot in his mouth is a user assessment which has no place in Wikipedia. Those two statements probably need better sourcing, but their removal based on irrelevance is not justified. History2007 ( talk) 11:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The article currently states:
I don't know what the sentence "It had little effect, outside Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland or Bohemia, in countries where the great majority of the population were not members of the Catholic Church" means. Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, and Bohemia are all traditionally majority-Catholic countries, but the way that the sentence is phrased, it implies that those countries were the non-Catholic countries where being listed on the Index would cause availability of a book to be limited. Maybe the writer meant the sentence the opposite way: that books on the Index were rarely found in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, and Bohemia, but in other majority-Catholic countries like France and Ireland, the Index was ignored and listed books were available. But that would contradict the previous sentence, which says that the banned books were difficult to find in much of Quebec. (In any event, the reference to Newton seems mostly irrelevant -- Newton was from England, which was not a Catholic country during his lifetime.) -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I think there is a basic misunderstanding in the obdurate reinsertion of the statement "indeed, many of the books, both theological and scientific, that were once on the Index have for centuries been routinely taught at most universities (including Catholic universities) in the world." A controversial statement cannot be fixed with a "citation needed" tag. That tag is as good as nobody doubts what is written, and nobody can't be arsed to find a source. If somebody does doubt it, and I certainly do, mostly because the oldest catholic university I know of has been around since 1834, hardly "for centuries" and there is no evidence whatsoever in the article that it used any forbidden book, the statement has to be removed until proved true. This also excludes personal research: finding a bunch of universities and looking up their reading list is not enough: you have to find somebody who has done it before, has drawn the conclusion and has published it in a reliable, neutral source (i.e., not the Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance). As a sign of good faith, I'll let 24 hours pass in order for whoever wants to find a source, but afterwards, I'll delete the controversial statement again. I'll remind everybody, since this kind of statement seems to pop up specifically on Catholicism articles, that wikipedia is committed to a neutral point of view; trying to sweeten such a concept as the Index is the opposite of that. complainer ( talk) 18:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In the introductory section of the article it states that "Giordano Bruno, whose entire works were placed on the Index on 8 February 1600,[12] was burned alive at the stake[13] (albeit after being turned over to the secular authorities for teaching the heresy of pantheism, not for heliocentrism or other scientific views)." I'm confused as to whether this means he was burned at the stake by the secular authorities or if he was burned at the stake by he Vatican? 21:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.1.242 ( talk)
Giordano Bruno is a better place to describe his ideas, a New Yorker article isn't enough. Xx236 ( talk) 11:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Now you claim that Roman-Catholics censored the movies. Xx236 ( talk) 11:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Did anyone else notice that the current last author on this list is fictional? What else on this page might be inacurrate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.159.195 ( talk) 17:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile to link this article to those terms? Since it seems we're discussing what Catholics should/ought to/be allowed to read, according to their teachers. Xx236 ( talk) 09:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Does 'Patrick O'Brien' Perhaps refer to Patrick O'Brian? Xx236 ( talk) 09:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a basic difference between a book and a kind of new holy script. The article doesn't explain it. Xx236 ( talk) 09:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest a section on notable books that were banned at various times and some discussion for the reasons they were banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.146.196 ( talk) 07:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to add a section on the Index's repression of translations of the Bible in the vernacular. On a number of occasions these translations were added to various editions of the Index. For example the 1558 Index, promulgated by the Roman Inquisition, "banned complete translation of the Old and New Testaments in all languages" (see Fragnito, Gigliola, La Bibbia al rogo. La censura ecclesiastica e i volgarizzamenti della Scrittura (1471-1605), 1997. pages 75-198). Those who are better informed than me on the matter might like to contribute. Campolongo ( talk) 09:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I mean in the series of editions of 1559, under Paul IV, then 1564 and 1596. The 1559 edition was apparently "affisso" on December 30 1558, which is perhaps why e.g. the Italian Wikipedia speaks of it as the 1558 edition. However, the fact remains that each of these indexes contained varying prohibitions on the reading of Old and New Testaments in the vernacular. There seems to be abundant information about this topic, which also strikes me as important and relevant to the subject of this entry. What do others think? I'm no historian but there must be plenty of well-informed historians capable of adding a few sentences to the topic. Campolongo ( talk) 17:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Campolongo ( talk) 17:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course Wikipedia is riddled with errors and nonsense, like many printed books and encyclopaedias (sigh). On the other hand, the statement made above seems to have some basis in fact: for example The Observatio on the Index issued under Pope Clement VIII (Observatio circa quartam regulam) reads: “Sia noto riguardo alla quarta regola dell’Indice di Pio IV di felice memoria che con questa stampa e edizione non viene concessa di nuovo alcuna facoltà a Vescovi, o Inquisitori o superiori di Regolari, di rilasciare licenze per l’acquisto, la lettura o il possesso di Bibbie stampate in volgare, poiché finora per ordine e uso della Santa Romana e universale Inquisizione è stata loro revocata la facoltà di concedere licenze per la lettura e il possesso di Bibbie volgari o di parti della Sacra Scrittura, sia del Nuovo che del Vecchio testamento, stampate in qualsiasi lingua vernacolare; e inoltre dei sommari e compendi anche storici delle stesse Bibbie ovvero libri della Sacra Scrittura scritti in qualsiasi lingua volgare: il che dovrà esser inviolabilmente osservato.” (quoted in JEAN-LOUIS QUANTIN et JEAN-CLAUDE WAQUET (eds.) "Papes, princes et savants dans l'Europe moderne..." Other sources for similar statements from reasonably institutional and scholarly sources can be found. I'm not an expert but I think it is worth trying to put together something on this topic. Campolongo ( talk) 11:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly: as your quotation shows, one of the concerns of the various editions of the Index and the ways it was interpreted at various times was to regulate who had access to the bible and in which editions. One of the points made by scholars is that the faculty conceded to bishops to license the reading of the Bible (as in your quotation) seems to have been opposed by the Roman Inquisition, as in the passage quoted above. Surely this topic is direct relevance to an entry on the Inquistion. Since you, Esoglou, seem to be more of a scholar than me, why not write a brief addition for Wikipedia? Campolongo ( talk) 17:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Spain's version of the Index was the "Index Librorum et Expurgatorium", which contain, not only forbidden books, but also books who had parts that were forbidden, not the entire work. An example is the second part of Don Quixote, of which one sentence was censured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eni2dad ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article seems slightly vague about the current status of the Index.
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)
On the 3rd of July user 86.129.90.225 (removed (inaccurate!) editorializing conclusion) i.e.:
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)
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 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.
I've moved the list to a separate article. Previously there were several arbitrary lists scattered throughout the article. Unfortunately, many of these neglected to note whether the author's complete works or only one work were listed (let alone which version of the list). Moreover, the sourcing was a tad lacking. Hopefully this can be made more complete, more organized, and less repetitive in the separate list.
However, for a list that went through many iterations over hundred of years and in different geographies, it doesn't make sense to interrupt the flow to give shout outs to specific works and authors. This article should be able the overall trends, patterns, and functions of the list. Specific examples of course can be mentioned if their importance is attested to and explained by sources. Savidan 04:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It is important to have an example that shows that some books that were on the Index have received imprimaturs from Roman Catholic Bishops after the Index was abolished. People may yet debate the content of the books for years, but the fact that the imprimatur was issued, is a key fact on its own, (independent of the debate) and must be mentioned in the article on the Index. It is an example of discord with the Index, and must be mentioned, since it is fully referenced and the image of the original imprimatur is also available online. History2007 ( talk) 17:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The Poem of the Man-God is a highly debated book series that has not received official recognition by the Church. It is questionable as to whether the Bishop who granted the imprimatur had the authority to grant it.
As is stated on the Index of Forbidden Books page, the actual June 14th, 1966 Notification only removed the legal force of the Index. The Notification did NOT remove the Indexs moral authority. In fact, the Notification was explicit in saying that the Index would continue as a reminder of the moral law.
Thus, any book on the Index of Forbidden Books is and remains forbidden for Catholics to read, this includes disseminating any such book(s).
Much as to my knowledge, this includes Maria Valtorta's The Poem of the Man-God and explains why the 'imprimatur' from the Bishop is in question.
I previously deleted the references to Maria Valtorta because I questioned the neutrality of the information. Furthermore, Valtorta's followers have been known to twist the documents from Rome (I can prove this) and it is best not to reference Valtorta until the issue is definitively cleared-up by Rome. BenedictKJS ( talk) 21:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is not how Wikipedia works my friend. My suggestion is for you to spend some time and become familiar with Wikipedia policies before removing large sections of referenced text. As the discussion continues, your removal of the referenced text based on "your knowledge and opinion" is not permitted. I will therefore have to restore the said text, add even more references to support it, and will add some more text to address the issues that you indirectly refer to.
It is important to separate the general issues from the content of Maria Valtorta's writings. From what I see, your intent is to avoid (shall I say censor) the word Valtorta from appearing on the page for the Index because her book has had controversy. But given that the controversy involves the Index, it is therefore relevant to the Index, as it shows that the Index is not free of controversy. The fact that the Index is now fully engulfed in controversy and vagueness can (and must) be mentioned, since it can be referenced.
I used the word "censor" because not only did you remove the text about Valtorta from the article, but you carefully edited the title of the reference for Cardinal Ratzinger's letter of January 31, 1985 because the letter was about Maria Valtorta. I think in time you will realize that that left on its own, in a few days a Wikipedia automated Bot would have reverted your deletion of the title of the reference, and regenerated the title by itself. Wiki-bots do not like references with no title.
What you will also realize after studying Wikipedia policies is that Wikipedia is not about what you or I personally believe to be correct, but what can be said based on referenced items. Your statement about "Much as to my knowledge" is against the WP:OR (original research) policy. It matters not what your/my knowledge is, and what you/I believe to be true, but what referenced literature says - on both sides.
To see an example of a balanced approach by a good editor, please carefuy read the talk page for Talk:Crucifixion of Jesus. The user Ἀλήθεια who happens to be very knowledgeable on that topic sets a good example of not stepping over WP:OR. He states that he ‘’personally’’ believes that Jesus entered Jerusalem on Sunday Nisan 10, but does not add that to the article. He avoids adding the statement despite the fact that he is clearly an expert on the topic. I think you should learn from him to keep personal opinions separate from referenced statements.
The text you removed was carefully worded to make it clear that many of the issues were "reported" without stating if they were true or not. The fact that they were reported can not be disputed, as it is well documented. Look at it one by one:
Yes, it is clearly documented that the three Servite priests reported that and an affidavit was signed to that effect. An image of the affidavit is available as well, and hence the fact that there was a report by the priests can be included in Wikipedia, without saying whether the report was true or not.
I was, unfortunately, not present during that meeting at the Vatican and hence can not say. My guess is that you were probably not in Rome that day with your tape recorder either. But it really matters not what you/I think. For Wikipedia what matters is that there is a well document report and hence the text can be included. Is the report subject to controversy? Indeed so, and that fact should also be included.
Now a more general issue and a key question about the Index.
This is indeed a relevant question that goes to the very heart of what an imprimatur means once the Index was abolished. Hence this question must be answered by the article. The answer to Question A is clearly "yes", and is well documented. Hence it can be included in Wikipedia.
The book was Poem of the Man God by Maria Valtorta. Again, a well documented fact that can be included.
In fact there have been other Bishops, but let us just focus on one for now. You state that "it is questionable if he had the authority" but provide no references. If you do have references, I will be glad to add that fact myself. Until then, your opinion is against WP:OR again and gives no reason for deletion.
You also accuse various supporters of Valtorta of distorting documents. That goes against the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. You can not just say "I can prove it" in passing and assume bad faith. That is not how Wikipedia works.
Now, your comment about "moral force" is already clearly included in the article, in two separate places. However, your assertion that: " Thus, any book on the Index of Forbidden Books is and remains forbidden for Catholics to read" has no reference. Do you have a reference for that statement? Indeed one important fact that the article clearly quotes is from Cardinal Ratzinger himself, saying in 1985 that the Index retains some form of moral force for the "more unprepared faithful." That is a key fact that the article must include. That brings about the next question:
Answer: In a letter on January 31 1985 to to the Archbishop of Genoa, regarding the writings of (you guessed it) Maria Valtorta. Hence the writings of Maria Valtorta and the situation of interpreting what the Index was/is are inherently interconnected and the name of Maria Valtorta needs to appear within the Wikipedia article on the Index, and should not be censored.
What is really ironic is that there is this debate about the censorship of the name of an author from a Wikipedia article about a now abolished Index whose main goal was the censorship of authors! History2007 ( talk) 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
History2007, thank you for your clarification and response. While I understand your position, I would like to clarify mine. Please excuse me if I come across as direct or blunt but I do not want to waste anyone's time.
While I do not wish to make this a "my guns are bigger than your guns" type of argument, I do wish to say something in defense of my credentials. I am educated in Catholic theology and hold two degrees in the subject. I also have not a few years experience in the area of private revelation. My deletions of references to Maria Valtorta were not based upon personal opinion but rather simple knowledge of the facts, rooted in a moral responsibility not to mislead people.
I think we can work together on this and so I offer the following for your consideration:
1) Maria Valtorta's works have been placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, which still retains its moral force according to Rome in its June 14th, 1966 Decree.
2) Under Natural Law, no one is allowed to read or disseminate books containing matter contrary to faith and good morals (cf. the June 14th, 1966 Decree).
3) The validity of the Imprimatur (or Imprimaturs) is, thus, in question.
4) We have a grave moral responsibility to inform people of the truth of a given matter.
The above said, I am agreeable to an amendation of this entry that would inform the reader of the controversy behind Maria Valtorta's works that still continues to this day. Also, that it is not advisable to refer to her works as a definitive case of a (later) Imprimatur being given to a book that is on the Index. BenedictKJS ( talk) 19:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Update: I have changed some things in the text that fine-tuned the entry. I found the opening third paragraph to be a bit convoluted. For instance, I thought the original syntax suggested that Maria Valtorta was a Saint or declared a Saint by the Church. I changed that around to reflect that she is not declared a Saint.
I also clarified the reference to St. Faustina. The original wording was not precise enough so I changed it a bit to reflect the proceedings of her case better.
I also changed the word "abolished" in a few places in the text. As I further clarified, the original June 14, 1966 Decree does not use the word "abolish" in the official Latin text. In fact, as another user noted several lines down, Cardinal Ottaviani states in that Decree that the Index retains "its moral value" (suum vigorem moralem), thus the word "abolish" is in question. BenedictKJS ( talk) 20:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC
Ok, first things first. I take it that you no longer want to abolish the word Valtorta from this page, because it is now clear that the book is relevant to the Index - so that is good progress. But you do suggest that reading any book that was on the Index is still forbidden. So let us focus on that as a fundamental issue about the Index. The logical form of your argument in predicate logic is as follows:
So now, let us ask a few questions:
It is easy to see that these books are available within Catholic universities in the united states. So Assertion C can not be universally quantified and is therefore false. Hence proof by contradition implies that one of the assertions A or B must be false.
But then, leaving logic aside, please provide a reference (Wikipedia works on references, not the size of guns or number of years of experience an editor has) that clearly states that Assertion A is true. Do you have solid references for this? If so, please provide them. Else, that argument has to be deleted.
Now, on separate issues, Rice University's webpage (also Cambridge university) clearly uses the term abolished, as do other universities [1] hence that term may be used based on the fact that the universities said so. Do you have a referenec that sayd it was not abolished? I think there is need for a section called Has the Indexc been abolished? if you have references that say it has not. Most universities say that it has been abolished, and that fact must remain unless you have other references.
As for the imprimatur the real debate should be on teh page for imprimatur itself. Do you have references that say that the imprimatur issued was invalid? Else, your suggestion that it is questionable is just WP:OR, original research again, and must be deleted.
As for Faustina, please look on her page, as to why there is debate about the faulty translation being an escape goat argument, for an article in the National Catholic Reporter suggests that the ban stemmed from more serious theological issues. For instance, her claim that Jesus had promised a complete remission of sin for certain devotional acts that only the sacraments can offer, and what Vatican evaluators felt to be an excessive focus on Faustina herself ran contrary to the views at the Holy Office. [2]
After this debate, I will try to balance those issues based on references again. Cheers History2007 ( talk) 22:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Update: I did a few searches and many sources including OSV's encyclopedia of Catholic history do use the term abolished. hence the tatement that it is not clear that the Index was abolished without a clear reference can not be supported, since it is your own deduction, and can not be included in Wikipedia. The main issue that Ineed to stress is that Wikipedia does not work based on debate but on references. If you want to debate it, my suggestion would be this: let us meet in Campo de' Fiori next June when the weather will be nice, I will buy you a nice coffee and pastries, and convince you that the Index was abolished, as we debate it. If we don't agree, we will just walk to the Holy Office and ask them to mediate. But Wikipedia is not the forum for debating it. I will just have to modify those debate based WP:OR changes.
I did, however, get a chuckle out of the Ottaviani comment you added that the Holy Office did not have time (between 1940 and 1960, i.e. 20 years) to keep up with contemporary literature and add Hitler to the Index. I just wonder what they were doing all those years if they were too busy to add Hitler - after all he was not exactly an unknown. I wonder who else they added in that time frame? Does Valtorta ring a bell? Does Kowalska ring a bell? The logic of that just makes me smile. I think we should have that coffee near the Holy Office and invite Cardinal Levada to join us for a nice debate. But that is outside the scope of Wikipedia.
Cheers. History2007 ( talk) 03:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to make a note on a paragraph in this article on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
The paragraph in question comes from the section entitled, "Listed works and authors" and reads as follows:
Some books were added to the Index by the Holy Office during the reign of one Pope after they had reportedly received verbal papal approval from the previous Pope. An example is the book Poem of the Man God which received praise from Pope Pius XII's confessor (Augustin Bea), and was presented to Pius XII during a special audience in 1948 in which he reportedly approved it, and the Servite priests present signed an affidavit to that effect. But Cardinal Ottaviani at the Holy Office ordered the Servite priests to total silence in 1948 and waited over 10 years to add the book to the Index soon after the death of Pius XII.
I wish to point out that I do not think it fair to characterize Cardinal Ottaviani as he is above. By implication, it is portraying Ottaviani as being devious and just waiting for the death of Pope Pius XII so as to accomplish his (Ottaviani's) own will regarding Valtorta and her writings.
Furthermore, most of this discussion hinges upon a statement attributed to Pope Pius XII in note 26 in this article. Pius XII is alleged to have said (according to note 26):
"Publish this work as it is. There is no need to give an opinion about its origin, whether it be extraordinary or not. Who reads it, will understand. One hears of many visions and revelations. I will not say they are all authentic; but there are some of which it could be said that they are."
The problem with the "quote" is that it is way too subjective. The audience was not recorded, thus no context for the quote is provided. Only this pithy and isolated statement is given and which stands upon the witness of one priest, Fr. Berti (and presumably backed by the other two priests with him at the time of the audience), who was the one who wrote it down. Thus, to construct an entire argument about an alleged "Supreme Pontifical Imprimatur" is entirely suspect.
Is it historically verifiable that Fr. Berti wrote this down? Yes. Is Fr. Berti's claim to context and understanding verifiable? No. The reader is at the mercy of Fr. Berti's interpretation of the isolated quote. This is why, in note 26 of this Wikipedia entry, Fr. Mitch Pacwa provides an alternative context, which makes sense given the history of Valtorta's writings.
Again, I contend that Ottaviani was not out to do his own will against that of a Pope and I believe it highly unfair to characterize him as he is in the above quote. Unless someone can provide a reference that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ottaviani was doing such, then I think it advisable to somehow rework this paragraph so as to be more neutral than what it is currently.
BenedictKJS ( talk) 19:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
"Hi, it is getting close to June. My invitation for a nice coffee near the Vatican is still open.
All snarkiness aside and in all sobriety and charity, "Let me make you an offer you can't refuse." I would be happy to go again to Rome if you are also offering to pay my airfare. I can get you a good deal.
Meanwhile, for my part and if the above is agreeable to you, I would be glad to utilize a contact of mine and see if Cardinal Levada is available for a coffee shop chat (I am not lying, I do have such an ability). If it is possible, I would be most happy to sit at Campo dei Fiore (I have some business there anyway) and discuss (not debate) the Index of Forbidden Books.
As for Ottaviani and Berti, it is back to the same issue: what I think and what you think matter not in Wikipedia, it is a question of references. But since this is a really minor issue, I will try to rework that paragraph. It is, of course, impossible to know what goes on in a person's head, so only God knows what Ottaviani was thinking anyway. That paragraph does make him sound like he was plotting and maybe he was, maybe he was not. He sure waited for a few years."
Whether Ottaviani was or was not plotting, and again, I say this in all charity, if you can not provide the reference that proves Ottaviani was being devious, it is only just not to portray him as devious. Do unto others as you would want done unto you, lest ye fall and perish on your own sword.
I am glad to see you have reworked the paragraph. It looks good, but if I may offer the following suggestion:
"Some books were added to the Index by the Holy Office during the reign of one Pope after they had reportedly received verbal papal approval from the previous Pope. An example is the book Poem of the Man God which received praise from Pope Pius XII's confessor (Augustin Bea), and was presented to Pius XII during a special audience in 1948 in which he reportedly approved it, and the Servite priests present signed an affidavit to that effect.[26] 10 years later, however, the book was added to the Index.[27][28][29][30]"
You will note that I have held intact all references. I only cleaned up the syntax and grammar of the sentence ("the the" & "however") and removed the reference to Pius XII. By doing this, the article keeps the integrity of neutrality as the sole reference to Pius XII (even without mentioning Cardinal Ottaviani) still carries some of the tone of "plotting." I believe this to be more effective as the reader is left with the question, "Why was it placed on the Index later on?" They can then research the issue more fully and neither you or I have subliminally implanted ideas in their head.
It is also possible to put a footnote at the end of that sentence and talk about the debate over Ottaviani, Pius XII and John XXIII. That is, it would seem, the more appropriate place for a "minor issue" as you call it. By placing such a footnote, the reader has access to more materials from which to make an informed decision as well as to do further research.
Let's work together and not against each other. I am sure we can come up with a very fair and balanced article.
Also, when it is said in the beginning, "some books were added..." since this is in the plural, can you provide a reference to other books to which this has happened or are you referring to the series of volumes in the one writing that is "Poem of the Man-God"? If the latter, I suggest the opening line be rephrased as well.
BenedictKJS ( talk) 18:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Re: Ottaviani:
"Ok, I rephrased it as you suggested. It was no big deal really and removes the possible reading between the lines that someone at the Vatican was "plotting" something - Heaven forbid."
Deo gratias.
"On that note, let me assure you that I have never touched the page on Marcinkus, as the edit history there will clearly show, so I am totally innocent of any plotting discussions therein. May he rest in peace too."
I have no idea what you are talking about, so I'll let the remarks pass.
"As for coffee and pastries, I did offer it for June, and it stands, but I did not offer a plane ticket."
Then I'm afraid I can't afford it. I am but a poor high school religion teacher with debts to pay and can not afford a plane ticket to Rome during the summer.
"Anyway, if there is a key issue to convince Levada about, it is to put up more encyclicals on the web, and reorganize their own website."
Levada does not handle the web site. It's actually a nun (Sister Judith Zoebelein). [1]
"At the moment, Wikipedia is doing a better job than the Vatican website, e.g. see the page I had to build, because their web site can not handle it right: Marian papal encyclicals and Apostolic Letters. By the time I have finished telling Levada about their website problems he will probably call the Swiss Guard to come out and beat me up. But seriously, Wikipedia is already a better source for organized encyclicals than the Holy See website, and if you have time to add more to Wikipedia, I would encourage you to do so. The Apostolic Letters are the ones that really need help. Cheers History2007"
Speaking for myself, I would rather talk to the Vatican about their English translations of various documents, but that is another story for another time.
If you are interested, I highly recommend papalencyclicals.net. I know that not every Encyclical is on the Internet but also bear in mind that the Papal Encyclical tradition started in the 1740's with Pope Benedict XIV.
Also, may I ask what exactly is your role with Wikipedia? Are you a moderator, owner or just another regular user?
BenedictKJS ( talk) 00:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph in this section makes several implications: that the Librorum Prohibitorum prevented incredible numbers of books from being published and that the Librorum Prohibitorum prevented incredible numbers of "immoral" books from being published. The NYT article cited for the first implication says nothing about the L.P., and, though I haven't read either of the two books cited for the second implication, neither seems to be focused on the L.P.'s effects. Should this first paragraph be amended or deleted altogether? SQ_Minion ( talk) 18:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph of the page, it is stated that the document was "formally abolished on 14 June 1966" - yet the second paragraph of this section begins "The Index now includes..." This is either an implication that the document is still in official use, or a poorly worded attempt to reference the most recent additions to the list prior to its abolition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.255.56.240 ( talk) 17:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I wish everyone used logic, as you do. Alas, the problem is the of course deduction. Before becoming the current Pope Cardinal Ratzinger went on record saying that although "no longer in effect" or something like that, the Index retains moral force. So their logic seems to be that abolished is one thing, retaining moral force is another. I call it "in denial" but who am I to argue with the Pope? They can send the Swiss guard out any minute now. History2007 ( talk) 21:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You asked in summary if Danylak's approval matters. Actually it does, and he is not the only one - there are other bishops, archbishops etc. who have sent approval letters and the images are on the web, we can add those links as well. This is fully relevant because the Poem is at the very center of the discussion about the Index, because the only letter sent about the Index from the Holy Office and signed by someone with "theological muscle" was Ratzinger's 1985 letter. Now, after that the situation in the world, which the article should reflect, is that other Bishops (and Archbishops) are basically shrugging shoulders about the 1985 letter and supporting the book about which the 1985 letter was issued. This goes to demonstrate the irrelevance of the Index in the modern world. And the real demonstration of the irrelevance of the situation is the 3rd paragraph of the article itself: "Canon law still recommends that works concerning sacred Scripture, theology, canon law, church history, and any writings which specially concern religion or good morals, be submitted to the judgement of the local Ordinary." This means that Canon law lives in yesterday's world, for in a world where a new book is printed every hour, this can never happen, as the modern day use section discusses. So to reflect the state of the world with respect to the Index, these issues need to be clarified. History2007 ( talk) 06:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
That is an interesting discussion, and the Jump story was funny. But that discussion is about the Poem and not the Index. And I do not really have access to either Ratzinger or Danylak's head to know what they were really thinking. So I would like to pass on the discussion of the contents of the Poem, but focus on the Index. What I am still trying to point out is the issue of Sartre Descartes and Francis Bacon being on the "bad boy list" if the Indx has moral force. But I already mentioned that above. If I seem brief, it is because I am actually trying to do less talking and more doing, and I was building Aspects of the Christian meditation which could probably benefit from your knowledge to be sure it does not have errors. I will appreciate that, for I think it is important. [User:History2007|History2007]] ( talk) 23:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
In this edit and editor removed sourced content as irrelevant. I think that is not the case at all. What the Cardinal said was "about the Index", hence it is totally relevant to the Index and the determination of his putting his foot in his mouth is a user assessment which has no place in Wikipedia. Those two statements probably need better sourcing, but their removal based on irrelevance is not justified. History2007 ( talk) 11:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The article currently states:
I don't know what the sentence "It had little effect, outside Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland or Bohemia, in countries where the great majority of the population were not members of the Catholic Church" means. Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, and Bohemia are all traditionally majority-Catholic countries, but the way that the sentence is phrased, it implies that those countries were the non-Catholic countries where being listed on the Index would cause availability of a book to be limited. Maybe the writer meant the sentence the opposite way: that books on the Index were rarely found in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, and Bohemia, but in other majority-Catholic countries like France and Ireland, the Index was ignored and listed books were available. But that would contradict the previous sentence, which says that the banned books were difficult to find in much of Quebec. (In any event, the reference to Newton seems mostly irrelevant -- Newton was from England, which was not a Catholic country during his lifetime.) -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I think there is a basic misunderstanding in the obdurate reinsertion of the statement "indeed, many of the books, both theological and scientific, that were once on the Index have for centuries been routinely taught at most universities (including Catholic universities) in the world." A controversial statement cannot be fixed with a "citation needed" tag. That tag is as good as nobody doubts what is written, and nobody can't be arsed to find a source. If somebody does doubt it, and I certainly do, mostly because the oldest catholic university I know of has been around since 1834, hardly "for centuries" and there is no evidence whatsoever in the article that it used any forbidden book, the statement has to be removed until proved true. This also excludes personal research: finding a bunch of universities and looking up their reading list is not enough: you have to find somebody who has done it before, has drawn the conclusion and has published it in a reliable, neutral source (i.e., not the Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance). As a sign of good faith, I'll let 24 hours pass in order for whoever wants to find a source, but afterwards, I'll delete the controversial statement again. I'll remind everybody, since this kind of statement seems to pop up specifically on Catholicism articles, that wikipedia is committed to a neutral point of view; trying to sweeten such a concept as the Index is the opposite of that. complainer ( talk) 18:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In the introductory section of the article it states that "Giordano Bruno, whose entire works were placed on the Index on 8 February 1600,[12] was burned alive at the stake[13] (albeit after being turned over to the secular authorities for teaching the heresy of pantheism, not for heliocentrism or other scientific views)." I'm confused as to whether this means he was burned at the stake by the secular authorities or if he was burned at the stake by he Vatican? 21:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.1.242 ( talk)
Giordano Bruno is a better place to describe his ideas, a New Yorker article isn't enough. Xx236 ( talk) 11:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Now you claim that Roman-Catholics censored the movies. Xx236 ( talk) 11:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Did anyone else notice that the current last author on this list is fictional? What else on this page might be inacurrate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.159.195 ( talk) 17:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile to link this article to those terms? Since it seems we're discussing what Catholics should/ought to/be allowed to read, according to their teachers. Xx236 ( talk) 09:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Does 'Patrick O'Brien' Perhaps refer to Patrick O'Brian? Xx236 ( talk) 09:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a basic difference between a book and a kind of new holy script. The article doesn't explain it. Xx236 ( talk) 09:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest a section on notable books that were banned at various times and some discussion for the reasons they were banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.146.196 ( talk) 07:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to add a section on the Index's repression of translations of the Bible in the vernacular. On a number of occasions these translations were added to various editions of the Index. For example the 1558 Index, promulgated by the Roman Inquisition, "banned complete translation of the Old and New Testaments in all languages" (see Fragnito, Gigliola, La Bibbia al rogo. La censura ecclesiastica e i volgarizzamenti della Scrittura (1471-1605), 1997. pages 75-198). Those who are better informed than me on the matter might like to contribute. Campolongo ( talk) 09:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I mean in the series of editions of 1559, under Paul IV, then 1564 and 1596. The 1559 edition was apparently "affisso" on December 30 1558, which is perhaps why e.g. the Italian Wikipedia speaks of it as the 1558 edition. However, the fact remains that each of these indexes contained varying prohibitions on the reading of Old and New Testaments in the vernacular. There seems to be abundant information about this topic, which also strikes me as important and relevant to the subject of this entry. What do others think? I'm no historian but there must be plenty of well-informed historians capable of adding a few sentences to the topic. Campolongo ( talk) 17:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Campolongo ( talk) 17:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course Wikipedia is riddled with errors and nonsense, like many printed books and encyclopaedias (sigh). On the other hand, the statement made above seems to have some basis in fact: for example The Observatio on the Index issued under Pope Clement VIII (Observatio circa quartam regulam) reads: “Sia noto riguardo alla quarta regola dell’Indice di Pio IV di felice memoria che con questa stampa e edizione non viene concessa di nuovo alcuna facoltà a Vescovi, o Inquisitori o superiori di Regolari, di rilasciare licenze per l’acquisto, la lettura o il possesso di Bibbie stampate in volgare, poiché finora per ordine e uso della Santa Romana e universale Inquisizione è stata loro revocata la facoltà di concedere licenze per la lettura e il possesso di Bibbie volgari o di parti della Sacra Scrittura, sia del Nuovo che del Vecchio testamento, stampate in qualsiasi lingua vernacolare; e inoltre dei sommari e compendi anche storici delle stesse Bibbie ovvero libri della Sacra Scrittura scritti in qualsiasi lingua volgare: il che dovrà esser inviolabilmente osservato.” (quoted in JEAN-LOUIS QUANTIN et JEAN-CLAUDE WAQUET (eds.) "Papes, princes et savants dans l'Europe moderne..." Other sources for similar statements from reasonably institutional and scholarly sources can be found. I'm not an expert but I think it is worth trying to put together something on this topic. Campolongo ( talk) 11:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly: as your quotation shows, one of the concerns of the various editions of the Index and the ways it was interpreted at various times was to regulate who had access to the bible and in which editions. One of the points made by scholars is that the faculty conceded to bishops to license the reading of the Bible (as in your quotation) seems to have been opposed by the Roman Inquisition, as in the passage quoted above. Surely this topic is direct relevance to an entry on the Inquistion. Since you, Esoglou, seem to be more of a scholar than me, why not write a brief addition for Wikipedia? Campolongo ( talk) 17:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Spain's version of the Index was the "Index Librorum et Expurgatorium", which contain, not only forbidden books, but also books who had parts that were forbidden, not the entire work. An example is the second part of Don Quixote, of which one sentence was censured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eni2dad ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)