Censorship of the Bible

In most cases, the bans on pious lay people possessing or publicly reading certain Bibles were related to unauthorized vernacular Scripture editions not derived from the Latin Vulgate, or from orthodox translations also containing heretical or confusing material.

[8][d] For the ordinary semi-literate or illiterate laity, the main source of scripture was oral and regular: the priest's vernacular paraphrase of the day's readings according to the liturgical calendar during the homily,[10] bolstered by derived works such as dramas, poems, songs, icons, paintings, carvings and sculptures.

In a letter to Duke Vratislaus II of Bohemia dated 2 January 1080, Pope Gregory VII refused to re-establish the earlier permission to use the Slavonic language liturgy, including the scripture reading.

[14] In 1199, Pope Innocent III, writing in a letter to the bishop of Metz about Waldensians, banned secret meetings (which he labeled as occultis conventiculis, or "hidden assemblies") in which the Bible was freely discussed.

[22] At the provincial Second Council of Tarragona (Conventus Tarraconensis) in 1234, the Spanish bishops, according to a decree of King James I of Aragon, declared that it was forbidden to anyone, to own a Romance language translation of books of the Old and New Testament.

[27] At the diocesan synod of Trier (Synodus Dioecesana Trevirensis) convened by Archbishop Theodoric II in 1231, alleged heretics called anachronistically Euchites were described as having translated the scriptures into German:[28] …heresy was arising on all sides.

These orthodox translations appeared in the 1380s and 1390s and in some cases included heterodox material associated with the Lollards, the religious wing of an anti-clerical political movement which to some extent drew inspiration or leadership from John Wycliffe.

His associates or helpers Nicholas Hereford and John Purvey subsequently appealed or escaped charges of heresy by recanting Wycliffite theological-political teachings; the issue of bible translations was not part of it.

But those who transgress this should be punished like a heretic and false teacher.New published translations of liturgical readings and preaching texts (psalms,[dubious – discuss] pericopes from the Gospels and Epistles) were now bound to an examination by church authorities, though not banned as such.

[h] However, modern academics such as Henry Ansgar Kelly, in part following Thomas More, interpret Arundel's Constitution as attributing the orthodox translations to exist by Wycliffe's time and so not restricting or banning them.

By letter of March 17, 1479, Sixtus IV authorized the rector and dean of the University of Cologne to intervene with ecclesiastical censors against printers, buyers and readers of heretical books.

The sacred laws and canons, however, are composed by wise and eloquent men with such great care and skill, and their understanding is so difficult that the duration of human life, even for the most discerning, is scarcely sufficient to cope with them.

Nevertheless, some cheeky and ignorant people have dared to translate those writings into such poor ordinary German that even scholars are seduced by their work into great misunderstandings.In 1490 a number of Hebrew Bibles and other Jewish books were burned in Andalucía at the behest of the Spanish Inquisition.

In 1523, at the Reichstag in Nuremberg the papal nuncio Francesco Chieregati asked for the Holy Roman Empire to enforce the clause of the Lateran V Council against printing any book without the permission of the local bishop or his representative.

Instead, on March 6, 1523, it was decreed that until the demanded new ecumenical council could be held, local rulers themselves should ensure that no new writings were printed or sold in their territories unless they had been approved by reasonable men.

[11] The Papal legates argued against it, noting such bans in various regions had been driven by secular authorities for local pragmatic political purposes such as forcing peace; their secretary writing: And, would the realms of the Spanish and French ever receive the Sacred Books translated in the vernacular?

Historian Wim François notes "that Massarelli's depiction has not received the same resonance as Martin Luther's bold assertion, that the Bible was largely unavailable to the medieval faithful (which implied that he and his coreligionists had finally made the Word accessible to the common people), is an understatement.

"[11] The Council of Trent, in the early 1560s, declined to make a specific list, but gave general rules for which documents and authors should be allowed or suppressed: the Decretum de indice librorum.

In addition, on June 22, 1782, and October 12, 1782, Joseph II issued court decrees explicitly authorizing the import and printing of Protestant books and stipulating that previously confiscated publications should be returned as long as they were not abusive towards the Catholic Church.

"[64] On December 7, 1859, in front of the Archbishop's Palace in Santa Fe de Bogotá in the then Granadine Confederation some kind of book-burning episode took place by Catholic officials and people.

[70] Magno et acerbo reads:[70] For you should have kept before your eyes the warnings which Our predecessors have constantly given, namely, that, if the sacred books are permitted everywhere without discrimination in the vulgar tongue, more damage will arise from this than advantage.

[...] For this purpose, then, the heretics have been accustomed to make their low and base machinations, in order that by the publication of their vernacular Bibles, (of whose strange variety and discrepancy they, nevertheless, accuse one another and wrangle) they may, each one, treacherously insert their own errors wrapped in the more holy apparatus of divine speech.

But, if we grieve that men renowned for piety and wisdom have, by no means rarely, failed in interpreting the Scriptures, what should we not fear if the Scriptures, translated into every vulgar tongue whatsoever, are freely handed on to be read by an inexperienced people who, for the most part, judge not with any skill but with a kind of rashness?Leo XII's Ubi primum (3 May 1824) also did not exhibit any liberal attitudes, referencing misleading commentary material, stating: You have noticed a society, commonly called the Bible society, boldly spreading throughout the whole world.

These versions are distributed free of charge everywhere, with exorbitant costs, even to the most ignorant, and often perverse writings are inserted in them so that readers drink a lethal poison, where they thought they were drawing the waters of healthy wisdom.

[74] Hans-Josef Klauck considers, when commenting on this encyclical, that "there is a deep wisdom in the previous Catholic practice to forbid the independent reading of the Bible in the vernacular to laymen, or only to allow it with considerable caution, because they ultimately threaten to undermine the teaching authority of the Church.

"[75] Pius IX wrote in 1846 his encyclical Qui pluribus against "the most impudent Bible societies, which renewed the ancient artifice of the heretics and translated the books of the Divine Scriptures, contrary to the most sacrosanct rules of the Church, into all national languages and often provided twisted explanations.

The books of the above-mentioned writers, not treating ex professo of Religion, but only touching incidentally upon the Truths of Faith, are not to be considered as prohibited by Ecclesiastical Law unless proscribed by special Decree.

In the same manner and under the same conditions, other versions of the Holy Bible published by non-Catholics, whether in Latin or in any other dead language, are permitted.In 1901 a series of riots in Athens over the publication of a Gospel in modern spoken Greek in a newspaper culminated in 8 deaths.

In late August 1933, authorities used 25 trucks to transport about 70 tonnes of Watch Tower literature and Bibles to the city's outskirts and publicly burned them[80] as part of a larger program of Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany.

[97] A lawsuit was filed by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur against the Government of Malaysia at the High Court of Malaya to seek a declaratory relief that the word "Allah" should not be exclusive to Islam.