Nice try, but as you certainly know, the Index of Prohibited Books was lifted by Pope Paul VI in 1966, and along with them any censure formerly attached to reading them. According to your ludicrous attempt to silence me, or embarrass me, one would also be subject to censure for reading or printing Milton's Paradise and Galileo's theories on geocentricity/heliocentricity, which were also on the Prohibited Books list. Why did you take so much time to type such a huge red herring?
While I fully recognize the controversy surrounding the legitimacy of Melanie Calvet's 1879 account of her 1848 apparition, I am equally aware that her 1879 brochure, which carried the legitimate Imprimatur of the Bishop of Lecce, offended those pius souls in the Church who thought themselves above such sinful charges. And the attacks on Melanie's sanity rolled around like thunder. But today we see her prophesies coming true. As I clearly stated in my original post, I do not believe that Melanie's prophesy, "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichirst", meant that the Pope would lose the faith, which is the popular means of attacking Melanie's prophesies by the so-called "conservative Catholics", but that it could well have meant that the city would lose the faith, (which of course it did when Garibaldi's masons attacked Rome and Catholicism was diminished). We also see the biggest Mosque in the world outside of an Islamic country standing close to the Vatican. Truly, Rome is barely Catholic anymore compared to 1848 standards.
On the subject of serious irregularities , let's examine what the eminent Catholic apologist Solange Strong Hertz writes on this matter of the authenticity of the 1915 banning of certain limited articles and publications concerning La Sallette, and NOT THE APPARITION ITSELF:
"After Melanie's death in 1904 the enemies of La Salette hoped to deal the final blow to the Secret. Putting the capstone on the falsehoods and misrepresentations already in circulation, a decree was promulgated on December 21, 1915 which ordered "the faithful of all countries to abstain from treating or discussing this said question under whatsoever pretext or form, either in books, pamphlets or articles signed or anonymous, or in any other way." Although the action is duly recorded in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for December 31 of that year, certain irregularities were soon noted in its regard." "To begin with, it carries signatures of no Cardinals or members of the Sacred Congregation, but only that of its notary, Luigi Castellano. There is moreover no mention of the date on which the Holy Office presumably met to vote this piece of legislation, nor any reference to its ever having been submitted to Pope Benedict XV for final approval. Although the decree forbids all discussion of the Secret and specifies penalties to be imposed on transgressors, no censure whatever is attached to the work itself, as would be expected in the circumstances.There is not even a prohibition against possessing, reading or distributing it"!
"In other words the alleged 'decree' which has been brandished like a club over the heads of the faithful for over eighty years to prevent their hearing a message addressed 'to all our Lady's people,' has apparently never enjoyed the force of law".
Personally, because of the powerful arguments on both sides of the 1879 La Sallette account, I can't say that I fully believe or disbelieve this later account. I do know that the Fatima messages were dispersed from 1917 through the 1930's, with Sr. Lucy adding later messages from later revelations. I also know that every appartion has had it its detractors from the highest places in the Church. Catholic priests and faithful today will, (and frequently do), argue both for and against the authenticity of Medjugorje, even though two local bishops have condemned it. I have spoken with priests who have flatly told me that they don't believe in Fatima, (of course that's because they don't like the messages). So I know these things will always be contested and debated, even when they are approved or condemned. But I also know that 1848 La Sallette is a fully Church approved appartion, 'worthy of belief', and that the adversarial evidence denouncing the authenticity of Melanie Calvet's 1879 publication on La Sallette has some very serious flaws. Flaws like your own, sir, with your cunard of the long abandoned Forbidden Books Index and its abolished censures, and the 1915 document with no signatures of Cardinals or officials, just a simple notary stamp, and containing no censure for owning or reading the publications in question, which is more than unusual.