Makes me think that if this list was still published it would have a sort of Father Ted effect[1] and act as a list of books you’d definitely want to read.
Umberto Eco once jokingly lamented the deprecation of the Index, writing that it was a "very handy canon of books one ought to read to call oneself an educated person".
Being added to "the index" (Liste der jugendgefährdenden Medien, list of media harmful for youths) was (probably still is) a great marketing vehicle in Germany. While the complete list isn't easy to view (there's secret parts and no official online publication), you would hear about it one way or another.
> Makes me think that if this list was still published it would have a sort of Father Ted effect and act as a list of books you’d definitely want to read.
The Wikipedia article on the Index note that a related list (the _Index Expurgatorius_, which was at the time published separately but later had its function incorporated within the _Index Librorum Prohibitum_, and listed books subject to similar restrictions as the main index but only conditionally pending correction of specified errors) was called out for something like that use -- in 1627.
so in french there is an expression derived from this, condemning/forbidding can be called "putting things on the index" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mettre_%C3%A0_l%27index), and "index" is also the name of the pointer finger... so in 1990 a politician said (about a bishop, or was it about the pope himself?): "he doesn't understand how condom is to be used since he put it on the index"
The fact that it wasn't incorporated into civil law didn't mean no one cared about it (also, there were a number of states that didn't formally adopt the Vatican index, but which had their own similar list, and, where they were Catholic states, they often largely mirrored the Vatican list with some local changes.)
> Reading cannot be a sin. Thinking cannot be a sin. Speaking cannot be a sin.
the catholic church is an ancient institution that believes it is the continuing ministry of jesus christ. and thus, it is not beholding to purely biblical rules - but also tradition.
indeed, sin is an "utterance, deed, or desire" that offends God. the concept of sin is that it is abhorrent, and caused by concupiscence.
the ccc (catcheism) indeed has a definition for sin and does not specify what is or isn't sin directly - but rather through the above criteria, both biblical and traditional. and it is defined and ruminated upon by those who are the apostles (bishops) via the magisterium, which is their upholding of this
which is to say,
reading can be a sin - if those works are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church
thinking can be a sin - if those thoughts are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church
speaking can be a sin - if those words are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church
and boy howdy, if those fuckin jesusmonks put together a book of read-sins and by the magisterium and the tradition of the church, then reading them is a sin. sorry about your religion
But I hope the Catholic Church of the future will take the defense of its flock more serious again. Many books (and movies and TV series...) out there contain downright evil ideas, sometimes presented in dishonest ways. Perhaps some organized, ecclesiastically sanctioned system of reviews to guide readers would be feasible?
Any attempt to justify banning books from the New Testament is indirect at best. All Christians play loosy-goosy with the Bible to some degree. There are things Jesus directly warned against like gathering wealth that most Christians have no problem doing. Paul seems kinda iffy about marriage but for many Christians that's a core religious value. Meanwhile there's a bunch of stuff like book banning or being gay that's at best ambiguously condemned in the Bible that people are up in arms over.
in the catholic church, it'd be probably invoke three paths to sin. scandal, which is causing others to do evil without their intent to do so. justice: requiring the dignity and safety of others. and of course, lying.
I envy modern Christians for their ability to make up their faith by pretending the scriptures don’t exist. “I was taught that Jesus is love, therefore, if it makes me happy or gives me pleasure it can’t be a sin”
One has to read the scripture. In many cases we are talking about things that were clearly defined as sins in the scripture. Just read the scripture instead of making up the rules.
Are you suggesting the scriptures do not obligate church leaders to protect the flock from heresy?
1 Timothy 6:20–21 – “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”
2 Timothy 4:3–4 – Warns of people turning from truth to myths, implying leaders must protect them from such influences.
Titus 1:9–11 – Bishops must “stop the mouths” of those teaching error, which includes preventing their works from spreading.
Acts 20:28–31 – Paul warns the Ephesian elders to guard the flock from false teachers who will arise “speaking perverse things.”
2 John 1:10–11 – “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.”
Romans 16:17 – Mark and avoid those who cause doctrinal divisions; a list of banned works is a formal way of “marking” them.
Acts 19:19 – New converts in Ephesus publicly burn their occult books after coming to the faith.
Deuteronomy 13:1–5 – False prophets and their influence must be eradicated from the midst of the people.
In case you care: that the index was abolished in 1966.
Using “has been” here makes it immediately clear that you’re a non-native English speaker, unless you’re speaking some dialect I’m not familiar with.
Usually, we use the perfect (“has been”) with time intervals that include (or asymptotically approach) the present. We use the simple past (“was”) with time intervals or points that are closed and are clearly sepatated from the present.
For example: “I went to Lebanon in 2015”. 2015 is a specific point in time. But if I don’t include a time, I’d say “I’ve been to Lebanon”. Even though this was in the past, the fact that I don’t mention a specific time in the past means it implicitly includes the present, because I’m describing my current state: I’m someone who has been to Lebanon.
And, if I were in Lebanon now, for the first time, I could say “I’ve been to Lebanon”, and then it really does concretely include the present!
To illustrate another edge case: I’d say “my father has never been to Lebanon” but “my grandfather never went to Lebanon”. Because my father is still alive, but my grandfather is dead. So any statements about his life are automatically about a closed interval lying entirely in the past.
> Using “has been” here makes it immediately clear that you’re a non-native English speaker,
Specifically, using the combination "has been ... in". Either "was abolished in" (simple past in the passive voice) or "has been abolished since" (present perfect in the passive voice) would work (simple past describing the event of abolition, past perfect describing the continuous state of having been abolished from the point of that event up until and continuing through the present moment) would work.
I believe that in such a case one can use both "has been abolished in 1966" and "was abolished in 1966", but they mean different things.
"Has been abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966 and it remains abolished today.
"Was abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966, but it provides no information about whether it might have been reinstated later and it might continue to be enforced today.
So in this case I believe that the other poster was correct in using "has been abolished in 1966".
> "Has been abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966 and it remains abolished today.
That meaning would be expressed as "has been abolished since 1966", unless it is still 1966 when the idea is being expressed, in which case "has been abolished in 1966" works instead; "has been abolished" is a present perfect (passive voice) construction so "in <past time period>" doesn't make sense with it, while "since <past time period>" or "in <current time period>" does.
Ah, lets assemble the heroes of the enlightenment again- railing against the christian faith- because unlike the other unspeakable one, this one is tame and toothless now.
Such heroics!
"Ecrasez le infame" goes so much easier over the tongue, then allah il nakbah!
One is risk free- the other might end one up like salaman rushdie!
The enlightenment has betrayed 2 billion people, who suffer in the worst of dungeons, the dungeon of the mind called a religiously ruled society. Instead of trying to find a way in and out - we cheer on the benighted to spread this nonsense!
The enlightenment has failed itself, for it has not resisted the temptation of human self-idealization! It has never walked the final mile, though all data about humanity is there!
Less we become biologic windup tin toys, we rather spend our days constantly trying to be slapstick heroes failing our own expectations!
He who searches his battles with injustice in the past- is a coward and traitor to the enlightenment, fight in the present, i dare you!
Makes me think that if this list was still published it would have a sort of Father Ted effect[1] and act as a list of books you’d definitely want to read.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passion_of_Saint_Tibulus
The Wikipedia article on the Index note that a related list (the _Index Expurgatorius_, which was at the time published separately but later had its function incorporated within the _Index Librorum Prohibitum_, and listed books subject to similar restrictions as the main index but only conditionally pending correction of specified errors) was called out for something like that use -- in 1627.
At the time I hoped he wasn't serious, sometimes it's hard to tell.
Well, it’s in the name already. The fact it’s not called “anti-harassment training” always makes me chuckle…
> The Index was enforceable within the Papal States, but elsewhere only if adopted by the civil powers, as happened in several Italian states.
Wow, such a hugely important list that nobody seemed to care about.
Reading cannot be a sin. Thinking cannot be a sin. Speaking cannot be a sin.
It's a good thing that the index has been abolished in 1966.
the catholic church is an ancient institution that believes it is the continuing ministry of jesus christ. and thus, it is not beholding to purely biblical rules - but also tradition.
indeed, sin is an "utterance, deed, or desire" that offends God. the concept of sin is that it is abhorrent, and caused by concupiscence.
the ccc (catcheism) indeed has a definition for sin and does not specify what is or isn't sin directly - but rather through the above criteria, both biblical and traditional. and it is defined and ruminated upon by those who are the apostles (bishops) via the magisterium, which is their upholding of this
which is to say,
reading can be a sin - if those works are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church
thinking can be a sin - if those thoughts are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church
speaking can be a sin - if those words are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church
and boy howdy, if those fuckin jesusmonks put together a book of read-sins and by the magisterium and the tradition of the church, then reading them is a sin. sorry about your religion
But I hope the Catholic Church of the future will take the defense of its flock more serious again. Many books (and movies and TV series...) out there contain downright evil ideas, sometimes presented in dishonest ways. Perhaps some organized, ecclesiastically sanctioned system of reviews to guide readers would be feasible?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_epistles
Any attempt to justify banning books from the New Testament is indirect at best. All Christians play loosy-goosy with the Bible to some degree. There are things Jesus directly warned against like gathering wealth that most Christians have no problem doing. Paul seems kinda iffy about marriage but for many Christians that's a core religious value. Meanwhile there's a bunch of stuff like book banning or being gay that's at best ambiguously condemned in the Bible that people are up in arms over.
> St. Paul wrote "it is a shame for women to speak in the church"! Noooooo, it must be fake!
Matthew 5:28
“But I say to you that everyone who keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
For anyone curious.
1 Timothy 6:20–21 – “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”
2 Timothy 4:3–4 – Warns of people turning from truth to myths, implying leaders must protect them from such influences.
Titus 1:9–11 – Bishops must “stop the mouths” of those teaching error, which includes preventing their works from spreading.
Acts 20:28–31 – Paul warns the Ephesian elders to guard the flock from false teachers who will arise “speaking perverse things.”
2 John 1:10–11 – “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.”
Romans 16:17 – Mark and avoid those who cause doctrinal divisions; a list of banned works is a formal way of “marking” them.
Acts 19:19 – New converts in Ephesus publicly burn their occult books after coming to the faith.
Deuteronomy 13:1–5 – False prophets and their influence must be eradicated from the midst of the people.
Etc, etc, etc.
Using “has been” here makes it immediately clear that you’re a non-native English speaker, unless you’re speaking some dialect I’m not familiar with.
Usually, we use the perfect (“has been”) with time intervals that include (or asymptotically approach) the present. We use the simple past (“was”) with time intervals or points that are closed and are clearly sepatated from the present.
For example: “I went to Lebanon in 2015”. 2015 is a specific point in time. But if I don’t include a time, I’d say “I’ve been to Lebanon”. Even though this was in the past, the fact that I don’t mention a specific time in the past means it implicitly includes the present, because I’m describing my current state: I’m someone who has been to Lebanon.
And, if I were in Lebanon now, for the first time, I could say “I’ve been to Lebanon”, and then it really does concretely include the present!
To illustrate another edge case: I’d say “my father has never been to Lebanon” but “my grandfather never went to Lebanon”. Because my father is still alive, but my grandfather is dead. So any statements about his life are automatically about a closed interval lying entirely in the past.
Specifically, using the combination "has been ... in". Either "was abolished in" (simple past in the passive voice) or "has been abolished since" (present perfect in the passive voice) would work (simple past describing the event of abolition, past perfect describing the continuous state of having been abolished from the point of that event up until and continuing through the present moment) would work.
"Has been abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966 and it remains abolished today.
"Was abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966, but it provides no information about whether it might have been reinstated later and it might continue to be enforced today.
So in this case I believe that the other poster was correct in using "has been abolished in 1966".
That meaning would be expressed as "has been abolished since 1966", unless it is still 1966 when the idea is being expressed, in which case "has been abolished in 1966" works instead; "has been abolished" is a present perfect (passive voice) construction so "in <past time period>" doesn't make sense with it, while "since <past time period>" or "in <current time period>" does.
That's me!
Such heroics!
"Ecrasez le infame" goes so much easier over the tongue, then allah il nakbah!
One is risk free- the other might end one up like salaman rushdie!
The enlightenment has betrayed 2 billion people, who suffer in the worst of dungeons, the dungeon of the mind called a religiously ruled society. Instead of trying to find a way in and out - we cheer on the benighted to spread this nonsense!
The enlightenment has failed itself, for it has not resisted the temptation of human self-idealization! It has never walked the final mile, though all data about humanity is there!
Less we become biologic windup tin toys, we rather spend our days constantly trying to be slapstick heroes failing our own expectations!
He who searches his battles with injustice in the past- is a coward and traitor to the enlightenment, fight in the present, i dare you!