Much has
been written about the Catholic Church (both pro and con) concerning its faithfulness
to the Scriptures. But today we’d like
to pose some questions concerning Catholicism and its attitude toward the Bible
over the years: Has the Catholic Church
ever banned the Bible? Have popes ever
forbidden the Scriptures to the common people?
Have they ever tried to limit access to the Sacred Writings in the
vernacular (i.e., the common language of the people)? In this article, we hope to clear up some
misunderstandings concerning this issue.
Sometimes
the Protestant claims against the Catholic Church on this topic are
exaggerated. But there are extremes on
both sides. But for those who believe
that the Catholic Church has never restricted the reading of Scripture, please
note the following…
A Few Popes
According to
the "New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia"
(online), here is a short list of popes and brief comments concerning their
restrictions on the reading, owning, printing, or distribution of the
Scriptures:
- Gregory VII (1080 A.D.) prevented the Bohemian people from obtaining the Bible in their own language because he feared it would lead to “irreverence and wrong interpretation of the inspired text.”
- Innocent III (1199) wrote to the Bishop of Metz (a city in France) and said that the practice of reading the Scriptures, though praiseworthy, was “dangerous for the simple and unlearned.”
- Gregory IX (1229), in the Council (Synod) of Toulouse, prohibited the laity (non-clergy) from having the books of the Old or New Testament, and “most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.” (Canon 14 - Emphasis added)
- Gregory IX (1233), in the Council (Synod) of Tarragona, issued a similar prohibition, stating that no one (whether “cleric or layman”) may possess Scripture in “the Romance language” (referring to the vernacular). If anyone had such books, he was to turn the writings over to the authorities (to be burned), until he was “cleared of all suspicion.” (Canon 2)
- Gregory XII (1408), in the Third Synod of Oxford, only allowed the laity to read versions that were approved by the church authorities.
- Pius IV (1564), in his constitution, “Dominici Gregis,” published the “Index of Prohibited Books.” In it, Scripture reading was again limited to only those persons approved by the bishop.
- Clement VIII (1596) added the above restriction to the fourth rule of the Index.
- Sixtus V (1598) reserved this power of approval to himself or to the “Sacred Congregation of the Index.”
- Clement XI (1713), in his Papal Bull “Unigenitus,” in condemning certain teachings, questioned the necessity of reading the Bible.
- Benedict XIV (1757) allowed the reading of vernacular versions by the laity, but only with the Church’s approval, or with footnotes from the fathers or of “learned and pious authors.”
- Pius VI (1794), in his Papal Bull “Auctorem Fidei,” continued the condemnation by Clement XI (above).
- Pius VII (1816) warned against allowing the laity to read the Scriptures “indiscriminately” in the vernacular.
- Gregory XVI (1836) again allowed only Church-approved reading of the Bible.
- Gregory XVI (1844) repeated the same regulation (above) when writing against Bible Societies in his encyclical, “Inter praecipuas.”
A Few Others
All of these
popes, and more, suppressed the Scriptures in some form or another. Other popes issuing
similar restrictions include:
- Leo XII (1824) wrote against the work of the “Bible Society” in his papal encyclical “Ubi primum.”
- Pius VIII (1829) wrote against unapproved vernacular versions of the Bible in the papal encyclical “Traditi humilitati.”
- Pius IX (1846), in his papal encyclical, “Qui pluribus,” was writing against the Bible Societies who would “ceaselessly force on people of all kinds, even the uneducated, gifts of the Bible.” How horrible! What beasts these Bible Societies must have been, to “force” this gift of God’s Word upon the people!
- Leo XIII (1897), in his apostolic constitution “Officiorum ac Munerum,” softened the punishment for these “crimes” of Bible reading somewhat, yet continued to prohibit the Word in the vernacular. It was still only allowed by those who were approved by the Catholic Church.
For anyone
who would like to research / confirm these facts, most (if not all) of these
can be found online on Catholic websites (e.g., EWTN, the “New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia,” the official Vatican website,
etc.).
So, if
anyone tells you that the Catholic Church (through its popes) never restricted
or banned the Bible, he is either misinformed or he is a liar. It may not have been a complete or total ban,
but they were nevertheless bans which sometimes included severe (and
punishable) restrictions.
But Why?
But the
question is, why would the Catholic Church ever ban Scripture AT ALL?
Catholics will say that these were only local bans, and supposedly, all these restrictions were only temporary regulations. Supposedly, they were protecting the purity
of Scripture. They tell us that only the
“unfaithful” or “corrupt” translations of the Bible were banned, or that it was
only the “deuterocanonical-deprived” (Protestant) versions that were forbidden
to be read by its members. They will say
that the Catholic Church has only forbidden Bible reading when “it was almost
certain to cause serious spiritual harm.”
("New Advent" article linked
above)
Note that the Council of Trent’s Rule 4 on prohibited books
(the section titled, “Ten Rules
concerning prohibited books drawn up by the fathers chosen by the Council of
Trent and approved by Pope Pius”) spoke of Scripture reading by the
uneducated as doing “more harm than good” because it could be abused by certain
people. But if that’s the case, why take
a chance with the Eucharist? If they are
afraid of having something precious (like Scripture) violated by abuse, then
shouldn’t the Eucharist also be withheld for the same reason? The possibility of “serious harm” is certainly
present here in the Eucharist, as well, since it too can be abused by the individual
(1
Corinthians 11:27-29). But no
one in the Catholic Church stopped giving the Eucharist to the poor and
uneducated because of possible abuse. The fact is, personal Scripture reading, like
receiving the Eucharist (or Communion), is an issue of personal accountability. Both
are to be done responsibly, and with the right attitude. But keeping it away from those who don’t abuse it is not the answer.
And if
these bans were only temporary, then
why did pope after pope continue to issue them?
It’s funny, but it seems that none of these quotes restricting the
reading of Scripture ever mention being only “temporary.” If there was indeed some
abuse of Scripture, then keeping the people from reading it was hardly the
correct way of handling the situation.
Remember, even in the days of the apostles there were Gnostics and other
heretics who abused Scripture. But Jesus
and the apostles often pointed the people to the Scriptures; they never tried
to ban anyone from reading them because of possible abuse or
misunderstanding. This would be like
forbidding innocent couples to have children just because some might possibly abuse their children, or might not raise them
perfectly.
Ulterior Motive?
One must
ask, were these popes who restricted God’s Word really concerned about “maintaining
the purity of the Scriptures”? Were
these bans really put into place to prevent heresy, or was it something
else? Could it be that they were trying
to hide something? Or that it was all
about power and control? According to Catholic
Historian Paul Johnson:
“In the West, the clergy had begun to assert
an exclusive interpretive, indeed custodial, right to the Bible as early as the
ninth century; and from about 1080 there had been frequent instances of the Pope, councils and
bishops forbidding not only vernacular translations but any reading at all, by
laymen, of the Bible taken as a whole. In some ways this was the most
scandalous aspect of the medieval Latin Church. From the Waldensians onwards,
attempts to scrutinize the Bible became proof presumptive of heresy - a man or woman might burn for it
alone - and, conversely,
the heterodox were increasingly convinced that the Bible was incompatible with
papal and clerical claims.” (“A
History of Christianity,” Weidenfeld and Nicolson, Copyright
1976, page 273)
Why did it bother
the Catholic Church so much to have the Bible in the language of the common man? They seem to be saying that it would be
better to be altogether deprived of personal Bible reading than to have some
misunderstandings of it (even if these misunderstandings could be corrected
later).
After all, if
the papacy and Catholicism itself are truly scriptural concepts, what did the
Church have to fear by allowing them to freely read the Bible in their own
language? Perhaps the Catholic Church
was beginning to realize that many of its own members were recognizing the inconsistencies between Scripture and
the Catholic Church’s doctrines.
Why Latin?
And if the
Catholic Church really wanted to clearly stress the pure truth to the common
people, then why was the Mass performed for so long in Latin? Since the majority of the people were
uneducated and only the educated understood
Latin, then why have the Mass done in that
language? If a proper understanding
was so important (as they claim), why not have the Mass in a language that everyone could understand? On the one hand, they claim that it is
important to avoid heresy and confusion, yet, on the other hand, they shroud
the message in mystery.
It is these
types of things that cause us to doubt the sincerity of the Catholic Church
when they say that they are concerned for the souls of the common people, and
that they wanted God’s Word put into their hands. There just never
seemed to be any kind of priority, or much of a serious encouragement of Bible
reading throughout the centuries on the part of the Catholic Church. It seems that only recently that this has
changed to some extent.
Leo XIII
There are
also other reasons for questioning some popes’ concern for “protecting the purity
of Scripture.” We will use some of the
popes listed above (who banned or restricted Scripture) as examples:
First, Pope
Leo XIII was known as “the Rosary Pope,” since he wrote so much about (and
encouraged the use of) the rosary. He
wrote at least eleven official documents on the rosary. But reciting the rosary is a totally
unbiblical and pagan practice. See here:
If Leo XIII
was truly concerned about keeping the truths of the Bible pure and undefiled,
he would have led others away from
this unbiblical (and anti-biblical)
concept. And no doubt many other popes have
encouraged praying the rosary, as well.
But this does not support sound doctrine.
Pius IX
Next, Pope
Pius IX also adds to our suspicion of an ulterior motive from the Church. In 1854, he “infallibly” proclaimed that Mary
(the mother of Jesus) was “immaculately conceived”; that is, from the moment that
she was conceived, she had no sin (and remained sinless throughout her entire
life). This “infallible” teaching of
Pius IX was not only not a biblical
concept, but it was anti-biblical, as
well. See here:
Is the
doctrine of the “Immaculate Conception” another example of a pope’s concern for
“doctrinal purity”? It seems that Pius IX
was little worried about false doctrine or scriptural truth!
Another
issue concerning Pope Pius IX is his behavior during the First Vatican Council,
which he presided over, beginning in 1869.
According to the “New Catholic
Encyclopedia” (Copyright 1967):
“One of the
chief issues dividing Catholics on the eve of the council was that of a
possible definition of papal infallibility.” (Volume XIV, p. 561)
Pius IX’s
definition of papal infallibility was different from many others in the Church,
and this caused some very serious divisions in the Catholic Church.
Former
Catholic (Jesuit) priest and historian, Peter de Rosa, gives us some
interesting details on the events of that Council and how it was handled by the
pope. For all practical purposes, the vote
was rigged in the sense that many who attended the council were on the pope’s
payroll and under intense pressure, so most dared not vote against him. For many bishops, it was either vote against
their conscience or publicly offend the “Holy Father” by voting against him. Therefore, many of them abstained. Although many in the Church were against his
constitution, “Pius IX refused to listen to the opposition, claiming he was
‘merely the mouthpiece of the Holy Ghost.’”
De Rosa points out that the council’s decision “did not adequately
mirror the mind of the Western church. A
very important truth was at stake and the decree was felt by many to be
defective.” One outspoken bishop
(Strossmayer) complained that this particular council “lacks both liberty and
truth.” (“Vicars of Christ, The Dark Side
of the Papacy,”, Poolbeg Press, Copyright 2000, p. 133-136)
You see, for
Pius IX, this was all about power; he was a power-hungry pope who pressured his
subjects to “agree” with his unbiblical (and even non-Traditional)
idea of papal infallibility. At one
point, Bishop Guidi of Bologna pointed out that Pius’ view of infallibility was
not supported by Sacred Tradition. Pius
then thundered, “I AM Tradition… I AM the Church!” What a fine example of humility and sound doctrine! After this, any references to his concern for
“purity of Scripture” ring hollow. It is
evident that his concern was not about the purity
of doctrine, but about CONTROL of doctrine.
Innocent III
Another pope
listed above, Innocent III, initiated the Crusade against the Albigenses, which
gave rise to the medieval Inquisition. So,
the Catholic Church began putting many “heretics” to death. Other popes would participate in other
crusades and inquisitions, as well. But
is this the way Jesus taught us to deal with the enemies of the faith? Can we trust these popes’ loyalty to the Scriptures
when they showed such disregard for the most basic principles of the gospel?
Backlash
Question: Why doesn’t the Catholic Church kill heretics
today? Obviously, they’d have to admit that this is wrong.
Jesus never said to kill heretics.
And if it’s wrong today, then it was also
wrong in the days of the Crusades / Inquisitions. All of this killing of “heretics” was to
maintain power for the Catholic Church.
It was not about devotion to the truth or protecting Scripture.
What about the backlash from the Crusades and Inquisition? It is our personal opinion that it is because
of the Catholic Church and their involvement in these events that more people
have turned away from God and have become atheists than for any other reason.
The well-known
German Catholic priest and theologian, Johann Joseph Ignaz Von Dollinger wrote
about the Catholic Church’s inquisitions:
“From 1200
to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing
in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards heresy, runs on without
a break. It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation: every Pope confirms
and improves upon the devices of his predecessor. All is directed to the one
end, of completely uprooting every difference of belief... The Inquisition ...
contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our
neighbor, and would have been rejected with universal horror in the ancient
Church.” (The Pope and the Council, Roberts Brothers, Copyright 1870, p.
192-193)
Conclusion
No doubt, other examples could be given, but this is just a
sampling of some popes’ attitudes and lack of true concern for Scripture. Here we see that the ones who banned or restricted
the reading of the Bible (supposedly for reasons of “faithfulness”) are the
very ones violating that same Bible. In
at least some cases, their “concern” is at best, lip service, and at worst,
deliberately withholding the Word of Life from the common people. But to restrict personal Bible reading is to
restrict personal spiritual growth.
In fairness, it is true that over the centuries the Catholic
Church had its monks copy and preserve the Scriptures. But we’ll have to give more credit to these
monks than to some of the popes. Popes
speak of concern for “serious spiritual harm” in the Church, yet they are
masters of spiritual harm, due to their false doctrine and their power and
influence. The bottom line is that the
Catholic Church can hardly be considered a friend of the Bible, even today,
when it has so many teachings contrary to the sacred Scriptures.
