Cannon Law 1399 and 2318
#1
Why were these laws changed? Was it seen as too harsh?
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...um_en.html

Reply
#2
The authorities probably figured they couldn't prevent people from reading whatever they wanted anyway, so why not? I'm just guessing here... You never know.  Most of all the harsh stuff is no longer in force. Something fundamentally changed in the Church around the time of the Council that was...epochal. There's no better word for it.
Reply
#3
The Index hadn't been updated since 1948.  Cardinal Ottaviani essentially said they just couldn't keep up with all the modern media.  So it was instead left to the local Churches as the notification of the Index being abolished notes:

"The Church places its most firm hope in the vigilant care of the individual Ordinaries and of the Episcopal Conferences, who have both the right and the duty to examine and also to prevent the publication of harmful books and, when it may be the case, to rebuke the authors and to admonish them."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ib_en.html

The notification also notes the enduring moral norm of avoiding books that are harmful to one's faith.

Note, however, that the competence to condemn books was left intact during the reorganization of the Holy Office into the CDF, maintaining a formal Index was simply no longer one of its tasks:

"5. It carefully examines books that have been reported and, if necessary, condemns them, after, however, having heard the author, to whom is given the faculty to defend himself, also in writing, and not without having notified the Ordinary, as was already established in the Constitution Sollicita ac Provida by Our Predecessor of happy memory Benedict XIV."
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/...andae.html
Reply
#4
Yes, that discipline has been changed. I recommend that you study your catechism well and then use the Catholic filter when you read.
:) :) :)
Reply
#5

I don't like the idea of "Forbidden Books." Back in the day when books were rare, I think the answer would've been to simply refute any lies they told. Nowadays, there's no way to keep up, with self-publishing, blogs, indy newspapers, blah blah, so good catechesis -- catechesis that includes arguments against atheist, Protestant, and modernist errors -- is KEY. Too bad the human element of the Church has dropped the ball on that.  But that's what FE is intended to help with.

On the other hand, I've mentioned before the idea of making lying illegal -- not just any old lie, but big lies that harm society in a true way, such as lies about History, lies about the Church, lies about Church teaching, the sorts of lies you hear from Social Sciences these days, etc. Wouldn't it be awesome to, for ex., take someone who lies about the Crusades to Court and hash it all out once and for all, to have it, as a matter of court record, revealed that the Crusades weren't what the modernist liars say they were? Then imagine assembling all those Court decisions into a book -- decisions about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the children of gay parents, active homosexuality and suicide/depression/drug abuse, single mother-headed households and the effects on children, etc., etc.

I love the Dominican motto: "Veritas." Wish it meant more in our society.

Reply
#6
(02-18-2016, 02:56 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I don't like the idea of "Forbidden Books." Back in the day when books were rare, I think the answer would've been to simply refute any lies they told. Nowadays, there's no way to keep up, with self-publishing, blogs, indy newspapers, blah blah, so good catechesis -- catechesis that includes arguments against atheist, Protestant, and modernist errors -- is KEY. Too bad the human element of the Church has dropped the ball on that.  But that's what FE is intended to help with.

What's interesting is the document re-organizing the Holy Office into the CDF says that its role of defending the faith should more greatly incorporate strengthening the faithful by explaining and providing clarity for the reasons behind the Church's doctrines and laws.
Reply
#7
(02-18-2016, 02:56 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: On the other hand, I've mentioned before the idea of making lying illegal -- not just any old lie, but big lies that harm society in a true way, such as lies about History, lies about the Church, lies about Church teaching, the sorts of lies you hear from Social Sciences these days, etc. Wouldn't it be awesome to, for ex., take someone who lies about the Crusades to Court and hash it all out once and for all, to have it, as a matter of court record, revealed that the Crusades weren't what the modernist liars say they were? Then imagine assembling all those Court decisions into a book -- decisions about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the children of gay parents, active homosexuality and suicide/depression/drug abuse, single mother-headed households and the effects on children, etc., etc.

Lying is illegal, at least in some countries. But only about one topic. And only if "lying" means "not fully accepting everything they want you to".

Your idea is intriguing, but I have very little confidence that the courts would actually get it right - look what they did on gay marriage.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)