“Henceforth it will be the task of this Sacred Congregation not only to examine carefully the books denounced to it, to prohibit them if necessary, and to grant permission for reading forbidden books, but also to supervise, ex officio, books that are being published, and to pass sentence on such as deserve to be prohibited.”

Heresy! God gave man a brain and free will, only by allowing him the tool of doubt will he see the truth of God.
Gölök ZLF Buday
"Descartes was injerously accused of being an atheist, the last refuge of religious scandal; and he who had employed all the sagacity and penetration of his genius in searching for new proofs of the existence of a God was suspected to believe there was no such Being." -- Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet de Voltaire); "On Bacon and Newton." http://www.myegotimes.com/archive/quotesz/F-MAdeVoltaire.txt

The last quotation in today's three is, in a sense, justification for the first two. If books are as dangerous as battles in warfare, then it is incumbent on some to guard against the danger. As parents, we do this all them time. Yes, certain books can with justice be banned.

The best defense against falsehood is truth -- even if it tears down empires, as it so often does. We may prohibit physical violence but not words. The US Constitution forbids the government from making any law that restricts the freedom of speech and the press, whether the religionists or atheists agree or not.

Ray, If you wanna ban your kids from reading something, then by all means, do so. If you wanna ban me from reading something, you got another thing commin.

No more censorship, especially from the church!

What a very vile man...part of God's 'Intelligent Design' I presume. And isn't censorship what religion is actually all about? Of course it is.

Education gives us the basis to read, explore and evaluate most anything, to at least provide the basis for us to make a sincere judgement and hopefully with no bias. Man has to have free expression and not let others decide for him.

I'm not quite sure how to rate this. The Pope sits over a private organization that is here referencing: "examine carefully the books denounced to it" I would assume porn is part of the segment of books denounced. It does not sound like the Pope is referencing a threat to individual members for reading material published outside the church's press. As a hard core Christian, I feel it a somewhat obligation to study philosophies, religions and information outside or contrary to my faith. BUT, there is certain print that I will not pick up because it is antithetic to the advancement and betterment of man (for example: porn and grotesque violence or the picturesque depiction thereof - for violence's sake or shock value only - I also prohibited it from my small children) The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land denounces, prohibits and censors books that may compete with its religious authority - atheistic socialism (i.e. the Bible, the Masoretic Text or Tanakh, true science that debunks life's creation by mere hapenstance, etc.) with no outcry as is heard here.

See the video, "Is Satan a Catholic" on YouTube. This video was done during the time of priests doing the alter boys.

Excellent points Mike of Norwalk and especially Ray McCoy. I like the observation about ... " If books are as dangerous as battles in warfare, then it is incumbent on some to guard against the danger." Damn that's potent. Did you make that up Ray?
I think the justification for hobbling the government in its preemptive use of legal force, is the fact that we allow this dangerous thing, government, to exist. That is, it must have some mechanism (a revered old document, for example) to force it not to be as efficient as it could be. But as Ray observed, it is appropriate to preempt bad things by the institution of the family and I would add, the church or any other VOLUNTARY institution (that doesn't assume the mantle of the state to force its edicts). In the Pope quote above, note the assumption of the legal use of force. (Contrast that force with the force tempered by the love of each as individuals, which a bureaucracy cannot possibly have.)
Whenever you see a bumper sticker or a claim that the dark ages were dark because of who was in charge, remind all about you, please, that it was yes the church that caused the dark ages, but it was when it was the state. Religion, when it assumes the power of the state, claims a power that God doesn’t even have: the ability to deny free will. .

@Walter, A 'preemptive' defense is in fact an offensive act. Shortly after 911, Iraq was invaded on the presumption that they had something to do with it -- at the very least they had weapons of mass destruction (because the US sold them to them) -- again, another ploy, what Western country does not have weapons of mass destruction? And don't those nations deserve them and need them?

So, the US preemptively attacked Iraq raining down 'shock and awe.' Isn't it interesting that the US Army seized control of the largest oil fields immediately with little resistance. Needless-to-say, the US is still in control of those oil fields. Never let a crisis go to waste, eh? And, hey, if there isn't a crisis handy, make one!

The logic behind preemptive action is the same as for ALL the laws aimed at conditioning people to obey the dictates of government. The drift is towards conviction before trial -- we punish the crime first in order to prevent the crime. And to follow this path leads to The Inquisition.

It is the same reasoning behind gun control -- people might hurt themselves, so no guns. People might get drunk and start fights, so no alcohol for anyone. And all the rest of the regulations we must follow. In other words, keep limiting the power of the individual over himself and transfer that power to the government -- until you are nothing but a ward of the state/church. Then of course, they have got you working for them, giving them the majority of the fruits of your labors so that the government can take care of you (poorly, by the way).

It is a crime for the common man to attack his neighbor as a defense against a possible attack -- especially if the neighbor is destroyed and unable to defend himself against such an attack. Every attacker uses the same excuse.