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.
Well, then, it is so deficient in basic moral teachings as to be useless. One might as well seek to learn physics from a document that is unclear on the distinction between mass and weight, or learn to distill liquor from a text that fails to distinguish between ethyl and methyl alcohol.
It seems to be written from the assumption that the state is engaged in some form of control over the press
Since that is the proposition that you are advocating, I trust that the circularity of your argument is now obvious.
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.
On the contrary; the example you cite is one in which none of the parties had any claim to represent legal authority.
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
Yes, they're about the same age as the notions "legally mandated segregation is indefensible" and "'raping your wife' is not a contradiction in terms".
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.
You contradict yourself. A temporal power that censors or elevates a favored sect above others is engaging in precisely the sorts of abuse that forfeit any claim to obedience.
Indeed, I think we can be pretty certain that Paul was glad about it (as for Apollos, he was in Corinth). But again, that is not the point. The problem is that Gregory was attempting to use Acts 19 to justify censorship on an Apostolic basis. Here is the relevant portion of the encyclical:
15. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?
16. The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books.[23]
The fact is that the burning of scrolls in Acts 19 has nothing to do with the censorship that he advocates.
All these disctinctions of ownership and coercion are simply not addressed by the encyclical.
A major oversight on Gregory's part!
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.
No, State control over the press is not a given, because it is the alleged justness of censorship that he is trying to prove. And to bring the Holy Apostles into his argument the way that he did was shameful.
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.
Ideas can be bad, and books can contain bad ideas, but books are still just ink on paper. And bad ideas can be defeated in argument by good ones. So if the Church's arguments really are superior to all others then why the need for censorship?
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.
OK.
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.
Regarding the mass slaughter of the 20th century, that was done by regimes that made copious and violent use of state censorship to keep people from questioning the myths they were being told in order to cover up the horrible reality.
Do you honestly think that censoring books will make people behave morally? The problem is not freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. The problem is when leftist fools are made tenured professors in taxpayer-funded institutions so that we end up paying them for spouting their bad ideas uncontested to captive audiences. These pinkos certainly have the right to express their so-called "thoughts," but they don't have any "right" to their silliness being subsidized.