Then why should the Church be a party to that destruction by burning books that are not theirs to destroy?
It is then fair to ask that atheistic tracts be required to be on the same intellectual level as the work of the Church. I don't see why that is controversial.
Yes, it is fair to ask, and that is not at all controversial. But asking is not coercion. And if they are not on the same intellectual level as the Church's arguments then they will be defeated by the Church's arguments.
But the promise was never predicated on inaction on the part of the Church. The faith of St.Peter was never a quietist faith: he was a man ready to draw the sword (he had two of them) and defend the Lord.
And the Lord rebuked him for it!
The Church is to either use the state as a tool ...
... or to confront the state.
Making the best of any given situation (whether the Church is being persecuted by the State or whether the State is friendly to the Church) is one thing. Using the State as a sort of enforcing arm of the Church is quite another, as is viewing the Church as a sort of revolutionary antithesis to the State. I reject both of these latter views, as I've never seen a compelling argument for either one.
With the knowledge of 20c. history that Gregory XVI did not have, I think, we are going to prevail despite the state that has turned hostile, but I think you cannot in fairness blame him for thinking that perhaps the state could be of some use.
In light of the encyclical that you posted, saying that he was only "thinking that perhaps the state could be of some use" is a bit of an understatement, isn't it? And as I said above, my real beef is with his misuse of the Acts of the Apostles in order to claim an Apostolic basis for draconian behavior.
Thank you for your responses, and for making me think about the matter in greater depth.
It is difficult for me to imagine how Paul and Apollo could have been in opposition to the book burning that occurred, since they became figures of authority whose appearance prompted the burining and the books were burned "before all". For that reason, I think that the Pope's reference is reasonably accurate: he did not say "the apostles confiscated books from the library and from private collections and burned them", he simply says "the apostles themselves burned bad books".
All these disctinctions of ownership and coercion are simply not addressed by the encyclical. It seems to be written from the assumption that the state is engaged in some form of control over the press; the Church on her part sees it fit to advise the state on how to exercise proper censorship. The thrust of the argument is that some books are "bad". They remain bad no matter who owns them. They are to be detroyed as a matter of sanitation.
On the other hand, the Pope speaks approvingly of legal authority, so from that alone we can presume that pogrom of private property by some vigilante book-burning mob is note what His Holiness was contemplating.
Let us not forget that the near-absolute freedom of the press, as well as the radical separation of Church and state are very recent and on balance, I think, unsuccessful social experiments. The mass slaughter of the 20c, the corrupt decadence of our time bear out the grim predictions Pope Gregory XVI so presciently made in 1832.
We see the destruction of public order, the fall of principalities, and the overturning of all legitimate power approaching. Indeed this great mass of calamities had its inception in the heretical societies and sects in which all that is sacrilegious, infamous, and blasphemous has gathered as bilge water in a ship's hold, a congealed mass of all filth.
I think, when there is still time, America and whatever is left of Europe should rethink the attitude to censorship, separation of church and state, and the limits of obedience to temporal power.