6

The Roman method of dealing with theological and critical books may be illustrated from another example. There is a work well known in France, the Manuel Biblique,' by Vigouroux (and Bacuez). Vigouroux belonged to the most strictly conservative school of biblical critics. His work was highly appreciated and circulated in clerical Seminaries for the use of the students. Vigouroux's own position was very distinguished. He was Professor at the great Seminary of St Sulpice, and was one of the Secretaries to the Biblical Commission in Rome. His signature is appended to the pronouncements of that Commission up to 1912. The Twelfth Edition of his 'Manuel Biblique' was issued in 1906, bearing the imprimatur of the Diocese of Besançon. It was also prefaced by a letter from Cardinal Sarto (dated 1894), better known as Pius X. There was another letter from Mgr. Miegnon, Cardinal Archbishop of Tours, congratulating the author on the translation of his work into Italian. By this time the circulation✓ was not less than 60,000 copies. A thirteenth and fourteenth edition followed.

At the very time when the book had secured this in-v fluential position, it was revised. A new Editor, Brassac, who was also one of the teachers at St Sulpice, appeared upon the scene. He belonged to a younger generation than Vigouroux, and was aware that Vigouroux's critical defence was largely obsolete. He therefore re-edited the work and infused a more modern spirit. Brassac was by no means without supporters. His work was approved by Cardinal Amette, Archbishop of Paris. However, on✓ Dec. 12, 1923, there appeared in Rome a decree of the Holy Office pronouncing that a whole series of some ten volumes of the new editions of Vigouroux's works, issued by Brassac between the years 1907 and 1920, were condemned and placed on the Index of prohibited books.*

This condemnation of Brassac's new edition of the 'Manuel Biblique' was announced to the French nation in the following week. It was, of course, a serious blow to the reputation of the great Clergy School of St Sulpice, whence the book had issued, and where it was in use. It was also a blow to the authority of the Cardinal

Acta Apost. Sed.,' 1923, p. 615.

† 'Journal des Débats,' Dec. 17, 1923. ✓

Archbishop of Paris, who had authorised its publication. The incident was not likely to pass uncriticised in the Press.

An article in the Journal des Débats' informed the public that in June 1920 three French Bishops, visiting Rome for the canonisation of Joan of Arc, privately denounced Brassac's edition before the Congregation of the Holy Office. The Cardinal Archbishop of Paris, although he had approved the book, and was therefore personally concerned in its fate, was neither informed by the three French Bishops, nor by the Roman Congregation, of what had taken place. This article maintains that when the Archbishop of Paris discovered that a book commended by him was under scrutiny at Rome, he demanded that the authors of the incriminated volumes should be allowed to know precisely what the propositions were which had been accused of incompatibility with the Church's faith. The Archbishop himself added the assurance that they would be corrected. According to this article, the only reply that the Archbishop of Paris could obtain was the public decree in which the volumes were condemned.

It seems incredible, in spite of what this article asserts, that a Catholic Archbishop could obtain no answer from Rome. And, as a matter of fact, an explanation was sent, if not to the Archbishop, at any rate to the Superior of the great Seminary of St Sulpice. ✓ Cardinal Merry del Val, Secretary of State, sent a letter to the Superior of St Sulpice, explaining that Brassac, in the new fifteenth edition of this work, had entirely reversed the principles of interpretation held by Vigouroux. The new edition was so bad that it could not be corrected. The Cardinal referred to Leo XIII's 'Encyl. Providentissimus' (1893), in which the Pope declared that all canonical books, and every part of them were written Spiritu Sancto dictante; which dictation excludes all possibility of error. The Biblical Commission in 1915 had declared that everything which a sacred writer asserts or implies is to be held as asserted and implied by the Holy Ghost. Brassac has regarded neither Pope nor Commission; and therefore the reprinting of his work must be forbidden.

Acta Ap. S.,' 1923, pp. 615, 616.

The matter was now taken up by the journal L'Italie,' a French periodical published in Rome. Here the article which had appeared in its contemporary in Paris was reproduced with comments. It was no concern of theirs, said the Editor of 'L'Italie,' to pose as champions of the authorities of St Sulpice. But, on the other hand, it was impossible to approve the obsolete procedures of the Holy Office. That Congregation was no doubt within its canonical rights in acting as it had done. There is nothing surprising if the Holy Office ignores the existence of Archbishops and Bishops, and is deficient in courtesy, and what is worse, in prudence. Its function is the pitiless pursuit of error. It is useless to reproach them for inexorable rigour. They are constrained by their thankless functions to have no consideration for error. However, concludes the writer, we none the less regret that the Church should deprive itself of the service of gifted minds and noble characters. We hope for the advent of a day when a Pope, recollecting the Scripture maxim, Mercy is exalted over Judgment, will resolve to modify the strange procedures of the Holy Office: which consummation may God grant.

The sequel was that Brassac submitted to the Index Decree, and condemned and withdrew his work. Moreover, the Superior-General of St Sulpice thought it well to send a letter to the Pope, reinforcing his colleague's complete and filial submission. The Superior declares his own adherence without restriction or reserve, in the hope that his Holiness will recognise the sincerity of their obedience. They will carry out the education of their Seminarists in this same spirit, in order that their pupils may learn from their teachers' example with what whole-hearted loyalty they should always follow, cost what it may, the direction of the Holy See. Whatever impression that unqualified submission may make on those who are not subject to the Roman obedience, it is impossible not to see that the influence of the great Seminary in Paris was seriously shaken. The students and future priests had learnt that the critical principles held by their Catholic Professors in France were not the critical principles allowed by Rome. Biblical criticism, in this great training school for the Clergy, is restrained by a rigid theory of inspiration, which insists that all

canonical books, and every part of them, were written at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; that all possibility of error in Scripture is thereby removed.

Books which Roman Catholics are forbidden to read are by no means exclusively theological. The prohibition extends to general literature. It seems particularly hard that Miss Petre's 'Autobiography and Letters of Fr Tyrrell' should be among forbidden books. We cannot force ourselves to think that it can be well for members of any Church to form their judgment on a modern writer in ignorance of the facts contained in his own words and letters. How can the generality of Roman Catholics be qualified to express any opinion whatever about him if they are not permitted to read his autobiography? They know, of course, that the Church condemns him, but they will be destitute of a really intelligent appreciation of the reasons why.

In 1914, the Roman Congregation issued the following brief prohibition: 'Maurice Maeterlinck. Opera Omnia.' To some outside the Roman obedience this prohibition may appear needlessly wholesale. There are many deplorable things in Maeterlinck's pages. He is frankly pagan, and afflicted at times with very unhealthy moods. At the same time, such a book as 'La Mort' might even do some good. It is entirely agnostic, but its criticisms on Spiritualism, on Transmigration and Reincarnation; its sturdy refusal to accept the authority of an American medium while rejecting the authority of the Church, is distinctly useful. And further, the author's utter incapacity to give any satisfying alternative solution to the mystery of life is again highly suggestive, all the more because unintentional. It is quite conceivable that such a writing might take effect where official apologetics may fail, or where they are not likely to be read. For there is something peculiarly attractive to the modern mind in the utterances of an independent writer, who is controlled by no authority except his own. And it is advisable for a Catholic to know what an Agnostic imagines. This, at any rate, is our English prejudice.

Maeterlinck's well-known book about the Bee is familiar to many English readers. So far as I can find,

they view it as a highly imaginative and fascinating picture of insect social existence, overdrawn from a scientific point of view, but as literature quite legitimate. They do not feel it likely in any way to injure their religion, although there are some unwholesome things within it, and it is not the product of an entirely healthy mind. But relatively to much of the literature of that country it is innocent. If you are going to condemn French undesirables, you would begin elsewhere.

And what ought we to think of Maeterlinck's 'Blue Bird'? I have asked this question of some educated and religious men. The impression made upon their minds is this: it is a quaint original fantastic fairy story with a moral. The moral being the mistake of searching for happiness by acquiring rather than by self-forgetting. They took it to illustrate the maxim, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' If that is the impression which the story has made, its influence is not bad. I cannot imagine myself, under any circumstances whatever, a member of the Roman Congregation of the Index; but if by some inconceivable metamorphosis I had been there, I should, as at present advised, have pleaded that the Blue Bird' should be exempt from condemnation. It is interesting to note that Sir Robert Baden Powell, in' Rovering to Success,' refers the Scouts to Maeterlinck's 'Blue Bird,' and tells them if you think out and apply the inner meaning of the legend it is a help to finding happiness within your reach when you thought it was in the moon.' The moral which he sees in the legend being that Happiness is there where you try to do good for others.*

The discovery that Bergson's principal works are also forbidden to Catholic readers, and that they are not allowed to possess 'L'Evolution Créatrice,' or 'Matière et Mémoire,' or the 'Essai sur les données immediates de la conscience,' will set many of us reflecting on the probable result of this prohibition. To us it seems that this enforced ignorance must make much modern writing entirely unintelligible in educated Roman circles. For whatever may be said, either for him or against, there is no disputing the fact that Bergson occupies a prominent place in modern thought. Essays upon him, books

* Pp. 17, 18.