CENSURES
527
CENSURES
from epidemics and infectious maladies; State and
police rightly allow the selling of poison and the like
only under strict supervision. In the same way the
competent ecclesiastical authorities in their sphere
justly claim the right to protect the faithful by ap-
propriate precautions from the poison, the danger of
infection, the corruption springing from bad books
and writings. Faith and morals in a very special
sense are the domain of the Church; within their
limits she must have independent, sovereign power
and be able to discharge autonomously her most
sacred duties. It ought to be clear, also, without
special proof, at least to orthodox Catholics, that such
morally necessary laws issued by the Church of
Christ cannot be other than substantially good and
reasonable. Considering, moreover, that the matter
in question is a legislation which is really as old as the
Church herself, which was applied according to cir-
cumstances by Leo the Great and Gregory the Great
just as by Benedict XIV and Leo XIII, and which in
its present form comes from such legislators as the
last-named popes — everyone must admit that the
wisdom and suitableness of the regulations are fully
guaranteed. While with regard to these laws, as far
as they are of a disciplinary nature, there can be no
question of real infallibility, still they remain strictly
binding precepts of Christ's Church guided by the
Holy Ghost. As the origin and aim of the law, so
likewise do its provisions make known its reasonable-
ness and suitableness. Allusion to this has been made
in the general history of censorship, and more detailed
references have been given in the summary of the re-
cent Leonine laws.
From the previously mentioned arrangement of all forbidden books in three groups it clearly follows that the Church not only keeps within the limits of her right, but also forbids only as much as she is bound to fori )id by reason of her office as teacher and guide of all the faithful. She suppresses solely those books that are in fact dangerous to all, those writings that every man of common sense must call destructive to faith and morality. Thus only the real dangers and the unrestraint of free research are checked. Neither do the paragraphs stating penalties contain intoler- able rigorousness, since ecclesiastical punishment is inflicted solely for the most grievous offences. Be- sides, as to the sale of immoral, obscene bonks, the ( hurch is not more exacting towards booksellers than the natural law; and with regard to the sale of other prohibited books she is more indulgent than any well-ordered government towards sellers of poison or dangerous explosives. There are cases, just as in all general laws, in which an individual is in need of a dispensation. But for these very cases the law makes provision by exactly stating how and where the needed permission is to be obtained. During late years especially, the Church has most liberally granted such dispensations. Likewise in the matter of previous censorship the Church confines herself to what is absolutely required, by subjecting to exam- ination only theological and religious writings, i. e. such as are most likely to imperil true Christianity and religion. If it be admitted that the Church of Christ is the mistress of all the faithful, even of the profoundest scholars, and Divinely endowed with power to teach all, then in truth free research and scientific study are not hampered by previous censor- ship — any more, at least, than profane learning is hindered by its most qualified and renowned repre- sentatives at the universities. In the laws of censor- ship itself, impartiality and true justice are most strongly impressed upon censors and judges, who an' aware from its terms that it is t heir most solemn duty to exercise their functions solely in conformity with the dogmas and the universal teaching of the Catho- lic Church, but in no case whatever according to pri- vate prejudice or the doctrine of any particular school.
This is why the censorship of the Catholic Church
differs from every other ecclesiastical or political
censorship, and why it has been guarded no less from
biased injustice than from arbitrary rigour and con-
flicting inconstancy. Just these defects, on the other
hand, characterized non-Catholic censorship, particu-
larly that of all the Protestant sects with their con-
tinual variations of doctrine in Great Britain and
Holland, the Northern Kingdoms, and Germany. The
same shortcomings disgraced the political censorship of
past centuries, and rightly led in the end to the failure
of Gallican, Josephinistic, Napoleonic, and Prussian
censorship. This, however, is no proof of the objec-
tionableness of censorship in itself, merely evidences
of its defective execution. It may be added that
prohibition of books and preventive measures against
a bad press are indispensable even where in appear-
ance, and according to the letter of the law, absolute
freedom of the press prevails. The truth of this is
established by the political history of the last century
no less than by the civil legislation of more recent
years. During the past decades the freedom of the
press, sanctioned by the laws, has degenerated in so
many places into absolute lawlessness, that on all
sides and from all parties has arisen a demand for
legal protection. The Catholic Church was therefore
bound to adhere all the more firmly to her system,
though in its practical application she was able to
introduce many opportune mitigations. As to the
censorship here dealt with, all factors of importance
concur to demonstrate its usefulness and even neces-
sity as practised in the Church of Christ, viz. the
eminent importance for time and eternity of the doc-
trines that are to be safeguarded; the trustworthy
foundation of revealed truth and universal Catholic
teaching on which the previous examination is based;
the guarantee of judicious and impartial censors.
At the same time the historical development of
Catholic censorship on the one hand and of Protestant
and political censorship on the other, furnishes the
best illustration and the most lucid commentary on
the subject. For the historical evidence, see Hilgers,
" Der Index der verbotenen Biicher", quoted below.
(See Index of Prohibited Books; Modernism.)
Zaccaria, Storia polemica delle proibizioni de*libri (Rome, 1777); Fessler, Sammlvng vcrmischtrr Schriften (Freiburg, 1X69). s. v. Censur unit Index, lL'.'.-L'l t: Itirsni (Old Catholic). Der Index der verbotenen Biirh,-r (Bonn. 1883-1885); Taunton. The Law of the Church (London. 1906), s. v. Censorship of Books; Vermeersch, De prohibilume ct censur, i lihrorum (Rome, 1906). For historical evidence see Hilgers, Der Index der verbotenen Biicher (Freiburg, 1904); Idem, Die Bucherverbote in Papstbriefcn (Freiburg. 1907).
Joseph Hilgers.
Censures, Ecclesiastical, medicinal and spiritual punishments imposed by the Church on a baptized, delinquent, and contumacious person, by which he is deprived, either wholly or in part, of the use of certain spiritual goods, until he recover from his contumacy.
History and Development. — The name and gen- eral nature of this punishment date from the Roman Republic. With the ancient Romans, in the year \. u. c. 311, we find established the office of public censor (censores), whose functions were the keep- ing of a register (census) of all Roman citizens and their proper classification, e. g. senators, knights, etc. Furthermore, their functions were the disci- plinary control of manners and morals, in which their power was absolute, both in sumptuary mat- ters and in the degradation of any citizen from his proper class, for reasons affecting the moral or material welfare of the State. This punishment v.. i called censure (censwra). As the Roman jealous in preserving the dignity of their citizen- ship, so also was the Church solicitous for the purity and sanctity of her membership, i. e. the com- munion of the faithful. In the early Church the
