10.13125/2039-6597/1415
Studies into the activity of the Congregation of the Index and of the Holy Office have examined extensively the history of Vatican’s practices of book censorship. While up until the sixteenth century the Church imposed substantial modifications to literary texts, mainly in order to moralise them, in the seventeenth and eighteenth century it used book censorship to preserve ecclesiastical doctrine and its own power. In the nineteenth century the Roman Inquisition aimed to discredit noxious literature – and the dangerous ideas it contained – through its inclusion in the Index of Prohibited Books. In the twentieth century, when the Church’s secular power was fading, the Holy Office reacted against modernism thus intensifying its campaign against pernicious literature, seen as the main medium through which modernist ideas could infiltrate public opinion.During the papacy of Pius XI, in particular, the policies of the Holy Office mainly aimed to support the interventionism of the Holy See and its attempts to ‘catholicise’ public opinion and society. The Italian case renders a clear picture of a transformed Roman Inquisition: analysing the proceedings against Gabriele d’Annunzio (Opera omnia, 1928) and Mario Missiroli (Date a Cesare, 1929) this paper will demonstrate how the Roman Index and literary censorship stood out as the core of the Church’s relentless attempt to forge a ‘catholicised’ society between the two wars and to regain – through the forbiddance of authors and books closely linked to fascism – the political and social influence that Mussolini threatened to take-over before and in the aftermath of the Concordate of 1929. 
application/pdf
2039-6597
1415
9
en
Matteo Brera
Between
Fascism
The Holy Office Against Fascism: Book Censorship and the Political Independence of the Church (1928–1931)
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/between
5
Regimes of the Sayable
2015-06-06
2015-02-02
2015-05-31
2015-06-06
1
Matteo Brera
2015/06/06
10.13125/2039-6597/1415
Universiteit Utrecht
2039-6597
9
Fascism
en
The Holy Office Against Fascism: Book Censorship and the Political Independence of the Church (1928–1931)
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/between/article/download/1415/1564
5
     The Holy Office Against Fascism:
     Book Censorship and the Political
       Independence of the Church
              (1928–1931)*
                                Matteo Brera


      Owing to his "organic conception of society" (Fattorini 2007: 22)
Pius XI soon found himself at variance with the totalitarian policies of
the newly established fascist regime1. The pope felt that Mussolini and
his followers endangered the very essence of the Church, threatening it
above all through the creation of a fascist 'liturgy': «politics has
touched the altar and therefore it is our duty to defend God and his
religion» (Ratti 1985: 452).
      In order to limit such lay interference in spiritual matters, the
pope headed a sort of Catholic interventionism, whose opening salvo
was the anti-laicist Encyclical Quas primas (11 December 1925) written
to defend the political autonomy of the Church. In the context of Pius
XI's initiatives, the Curia gave Roman congregations – and, in
particular, the Holy Office – special powers. The cardinals of the
Supreme Congregation, among whose competencies was the control of
the publishing market, thus started a vigorous campaign to identify
dangerously heterodox fascist publications (or those endorsed by the
regime) and proscribe them in the Index of Prohibited Books.

     *
         The author wishes to thank Lucy Byatt for her help in
translating/proofreading this essay.
      1 On the political conception of the Church and religion under Pius XI,

see at least Boutillhon 2002: 269-89.


Between, vol. V, n. 9 (Maggio/ May 2015)
Matteo Brera, The Holy Office Against Fascism



     This paper aims to show how Pius XI selected the Holy Office as
the Holy See's frontline to defend God and religion, once the contrasts
between the papacy and Fascism became increasingly evident before
and after the signing of the Concordat. In particular, unpublished
Vatican documents will show how the Holy See used book censorship
as a weapon to combat Mussolini's incumbent fascistization of Italy.
Furthermore, the research focuses on the activity of the Holy Office
between 1928 and 1930, revealing the censorship dynamics that led to
the condemnation, for political reasons, of Gabriele d'Annunzio's Opera
omnia (1928) and Mario Missiroli's Date a Cesare, as well as minor fascist
publications (1929–30).

    The National Edition of Gabriele d'Annunzio's Works
     In the months prior to the signing of the Lateran Pacts a new
factor contributed to create tension between the Holy See and Fascism
and revolved around the figure of Gabriele d'Annunzio whose works
had been condemned by the Church for being immoral in 19112.
     After the disaster of the First World War had made him a national
hero for Italy, d'Annunzio enjoyed a certain level of patronage from
Mussolini (on self-interested grounds) so much so that on 26 June 1926,
by express wish of the Duce, the Istituto Nazionale per la pubblicazione di
tutte le opere di Gabriele d'Annunzio was founded to publish his
complete works under royal patronage.
     On 4 January 1928 the Prime Minister's Press Office announced
the official launch of the first volume of d'Annunzio's Opera omnia, thus
causing friction between Church and State over this popular figure to
escalate to danger levels: the Holy See could not allow the works of an
author who was on the Index of Prohibited Books to be compared to those
by the nation's most famous writers (Manzoni, Carducci, etc.), and to




      2   Cfr. Brera 2012: passim; and later in Brera 2014: 101-18.


2
                                             Between, vol. V, n. 9 (Maggio/May 2015)



be hailed as representing Italian culture and disseminated through
state propaganda3.
      Yet the Lateran Pacts were already at an advanced stage of
gestation and the Holy See had no intention of prejudicing the final
outcome of the negotiations, especially over matters concerning
banned books. Therefore, behind the walls of the Apostolic Palace,
plans were laid for an explorative mission to gauge the nature of the
publishing venture.
      Father Giovanni Mercati, prefect of the Apostolic Vatican Library,
had identified Monsignor Enrico Carusi as an ideal emissary to
communicate all the concerns of the Holy See to the Italian
government4. Mercati confirmed to Cardinal Merry Del Val, Secretary
of the Holy Office, that Pietro Fedele, the government Minister of
Education, was "extremely embarrassed" on hearing the Holy See's
complaints regarding the possible publication of a national edition of
d'Annunzio's works with the Duce's support. The Vatican therefore
initiated a rapid series of preliminary contacts with civic authorities
and a summary of the Vatican's diplomatic activity is formalised in a
report drawn up by Carusi on 18 January 1828 and inserted in the
dossier on d'Annunzio in the Holy Office:

       I warned His Excellency Minister P[ietro] Fedele of the
     murmurs of dissatisfaction expressed by various parties
     concerning the national edition of G[abriele] D'Annunzio's works:
     […] the grave failings of Catholic morality embodied by his work

     3 News that a committee for the national edition of d'Annunzio's works
had been set up appeared on 7 January 1928 in the Messaggero, among others.
The article entitled L'edizione nazionale delle Opere di Gabriele d'Annunzio is
contained in the dossier relating to the second instalment of the proceedings
against d'Annunzio's works and to the debate between State and Church on
the appropriateness of the National Edition, an indication that it was
precisely this article that alerted the Holy See and heightened the tensions
between the Poet, the Pope and Mussolini. The newspaper cutting is
preserved in ACDF 1928: 4.
     4 Cfr. Annuario 1928: 587.




                                                                                  3
Matteo Brera, The Holy Office Against Fascism



      do not justify a ceremonial publication promoted by the national
      government. What's more, the government would promote its
      distribution by printing circulars full of praise, thereby assuming
      an even greater responsibility5. (ACDF 1928: 2r)

     In addition to empty reassurances ("these are just simple circulars
[…] for an extremely luxury edition, not within reach of everyone's
pockets or indeed of the majority […]. The volumes […] will remain
[…] in the hands of a few bibliophiles, certainly not the young"), Fedele
"advised against" a fresh proscription of d'Annunzio's work in the
Index:

         The Minister […] added that a condemnation of the national
      edition of D'Annunzio would also make a negative impression on
      the government, which, also thanks to his own efforts, supports
      culture and religious teaching". (ACDF 1928: 3r)

      After reminding Monsignor Carusi of the "merits" of Fascism and
its support for Catholic religion, the Minister ended his argument with
the declaration that he was obeying "orders from above", affirming that
the "high cost" of the National Edition "would limit its circulation"
(Ibid.).
      Carusi, on the other hand, closed the report with his objection to
Fedele's parting shots: «But the publisher […] could still find a way to
turn it into a popular edition» (Ibid.)6.
      In less than a week, the question was officially on the discussion
agenda at the Holy Office. The justifications made by Fedele were not
deemed satisfactory by the highest Vatican officials and appropriate
measures would now have to be taken, in keeping with the express
wishes of Pius XI.



      5All translations of Vatican documents are by the author.
      6The report is undated but was registered on 27 January 1928, as can be
seen from a handwritten note at the top of the paper.


4
                                          Between, vol. V, n. 9 (Maggio/May 2015)



     The following quote is from the minutes of the hearing of Feria IV,
which took place on 26 January 1928 and was attended by the pope
and the Assessor of the Holy Office7:

       The Holy Father read Mon[signor] Carusi's report. He did not
    appear satisfied with the explanations and justifications given by
    the Minister, and expressed his idea of acting in some way, adding
    that he would wait to hear Mussolini's personal views on the
    matter, whom he would contact through private channels (Ibid.:
    5r).

     On 2 February, during the meeting on Feria V, matters took a
further step forward:

       The Assessor presented to the Holy Father the list of books
    published by D'Annunzio since 1911 and the Holy Father
    requested a copy of the said books because he would personally
    undertake to procure them in order to have them examined by the
    Holy Office. (Ibid.: 5v)

     Following the stance taken by the pope, the Holy Office opened
proceedings against d'Annunzio, as a reaction to the government's
indifference towards the Vatican's complaints. The list of all
d'Annunzio's works, extending over 17 sheets, was drawn up by 23
March, and in the meantime Pius XI, when addressing the Lenten
preachers, encouraged them to publicly condemn prohibited books,
pointing his finger especially at those by d'Annunzio:

      A serene, enlightened, grounded, erudite pronouncement […]
    but above all a grave pronouncement, imbued with spirit, faith
    and Catholic discipline. This is what the Pope thought was
    necessary while the subject of a bookselling apotheosis was an

    7  The Congregation met regularly during the week and each meeting
was called feria (working day) followed by the ordinal number expressing
the day on which the consultors met (I for Monday, II for Tuesday, etc.)


                                                                               5
Matteo Brera, The Holy Office Against Fascism



      author many of whose works were already expressly condemned
      by the Church, and many others were equally condemned on their
      own account. (Osservatore Romano 1928)

     Throughout the resulting storm of condemnations preached by
bishops in many parts of Italy, and d'Annunzio's own stinging
responses to Pius XI, the Holy Office continued to examine
d'Annunzio's works. Within a few months, the two consultors, Padre
Marco Sales, Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, and Monsignor
Ernesto Ruffini, had submitted their report8.
     It opened with a general introduction setting out the underlying
reasons for the trial against d'Annunzio, starting with the «grave and
learned words spoken by the Holy Father to the hearing on 20th
February last to the Lenten Preachers»9. The report clearly explained
the grounds for these new proceedings, which were mainly attributed
to the creation of the committee for d'Annunzio's Opera omnia:

          […] in 1927 the publication of a National Edition of all
      G[abriele] D'Annunzio's works was publicly announced and for
      this purpose a special committee was formed. This imprudent and
      ill-advised recommendation by the civil authorities wounded the
      heart of the common Father of the faithful […]. (ACDF 1928: 18, 2)

     The consultors maintained that the pope had painted an
"excellent" picture of d'Annunzio in his speech to the Lenten preachers
and that "the works of G. D'Annunzio were extremely reprehensible".
After condemning the books published by the author before 1911
(apart from his books of poetry), Ruffini and Sales asserted that «those
written after this date deserve the same condemnation, made even
more appropriate today on account of the tributes and praise lavished
on d'Annunzio, the writer, all over Italy» (Ibid.: 18, 56).



      8   The report is published in its entirety in Brera 2014: 437-468.
      9   ACDF 1928: 18, 1.


6
                                           Between, vol. V, n. 9 (Maggio/May 2015)



     However, the fear – never explicit but nonetheless present
between the lines of the consultors' assessment – was that this would
undermine relations with Fascism, precisely at the time when the
Lateran Pacts were on the verge of being signed:

       Condemning these texts, now that the motherland is more
    exalted than at any other time and now that this strongest
    nationalism dominates every aspect of Italian life, might give rise
    to ill-feeling against the Holy See, and as a result make the
    condemnation itself barely acceptable or even ineffective.
    Therefore a decree containing a universal ban could easily be
    misrepresented as a repressive measure against such an alleged
    hero of the Great War, the strenuous defender of the motherland
    at Fiume, the great champion of patriotic pride. (Ibid.: 18, 56)

      At the meeting held on 18 June to examine the qualifiers' report,
the assembly voted to put d'Annunzio's Opera omnia on the Index.
There was just one openly dissenting vote from the consultor Luigi
Santoro, who pronounced against the condemnation: "Prudentius est
tacere" – he wrote – to avoid giving publicity to the author and
jeopardising negotiations for the Concordat.
      The response of the cardinal consultors was formalised at the
assembly on Feria IV, which took place on 27 June 1928. The following
day the pope approved the outcome of the vote and ordered its
publication in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis of 30 June. The condemnation
of all Gabriele d'Annunzio's works was validated by Luigi Castellano,
Notary to the Holy Office, and appeared in the Osservatore Romano of 7
July and the Corriere d'Italia that same day.
      Later, in 1933, the Vatican's pressure on the government
intensified when the concerns of Monsignor Carusi, the Curia's
representative to Mussolini at the time, were confirmed: the national
press announced that a popular edition of d'Annunzio's works was
nearing completion, under a publishing venture known as L'Oleandro.
Father Pietro Tacchi Venturi, an influential mediator between the




                                                                                7
Matteo Brera, The Holy Office Against Fascism



parties during the pre-Concordat negotiations, wrote to the Duce in
terms filled with concern:

         Yesterday I learnt that the newspapers are speaking of a
      committee meeting of the "Oleandro" association that aims to
      publish the works of G[abriele] D'Annunzio. As is well known to
      Your Excellency, all the works of D'Annunzio were banned by the
      church under the solemn formula, "Opera Omnia"; when the
      national edition was discussed, the Holy See did not fail to
      manifest its displeasure in the clearest terms. What will happen
      now that efforts are made to spread the writings of an author who
      is unquestionably noxious to faith and morals, and positively
      condemned by the Church? If this "Oleandro" continues with its
      intentions, unimpeded by the government, who will prevent the
      Holy Father from profoundly disapproving of the matter in some
      other public form?

     Tacchi Venturi's letter was not given very serious consideration
by Mussolini, who preferred to stand aside and wait for events to
unfold. By this time Fascism and its leader could count on almost
unconditional support throughout the Italian cultural and political
establishment. The Duce therefore showed no intention of changing his
mind and dismissed Tacchi Venturi's complaint with a few words,
testament to his attitude throughout the d'Annunzio affair: "I am not
doing anything"10.

               Pius XI Against the Fascist "Religion"
     Pius XI was unwilling to condone Mussolini's tacit support for
d'Annunzio's Opera omnia, knowing that, thanks to the Oleandro
edition and fascist subscriptions, it would sell a large number of copies.

      10
         The letter, dated 9 January 1933, is preserved in the Central State
Archive (Archivio Centrale dello Stato, ACS), Segreteria Particolare del Duce,
Carteggio Riservato (1922–1943), fasc. 404/R, "Tacchi Venturi, Pietro", subfasc.
2, insert B. Also published in De Felice–Mariano 1971: 426.


8
                                            Between, vol. V, n. 9 (Maggio/May 2015)



      Moreover, the Holy Office, particularly as a result of the
government's snub over the d'Annunzio question, did not miss an
opportunity to highlight and denounce the unacceptable presence in
many fascist publications of sacred imagery contaminated by
Dannunzian rhetoric. Promptly reporting to the Pope several newly
published fascist books, pamphlets and prayers, the Holy Office
stressed the distance between the Church and a regime that aimed, in
the months after the Concordat, to establish its own liturgy, as an
alternative to the Catholic Church's.
      The first relevant incident occurred at the end of 1929. On 4
November the archbishop of Gorizia, Francesco Borgia Sedej, sent the
Secretary of the Congregation of the Council the text of a prayer
«deemed not very suitable for strengthening a religious spirit in
children because it contain[ed] political allusions» and was imbued
with Dannunzian language and style (ACDF 1929a: 4).
      In "respectful observance" of the climate of collaboration between
State and Church, the local fascist party in Gorizia had sought prior
approval by sending the Preghiera del Balilla to the archbishop of the
city, a man renowned for his energetic opposition to Mussolini's racial
laws.
      On 13 November 1929 Monsignor Giulio Serafini, Secretary of the
Sacred Congregation of the Council, forwarded Sedej's letter to the
Assessor of the Holy Office, Monsignor Nicola Canali.11 The
Congregation had to evaluate whether the wording of the prayer was
appropriate to be read out by fascist youths:

         THE BALILLA PRAYER

       God, bless the risen Motherland – watch over our cities, our
    plains, our seas – let our territories grow and prosper: overseas
    there are people from our Motherland who live in suffering.
       Support our Wings – guide our prows.
       Protect our armies and make them invincible.


    11   Cfr. ACDF 1929a: 2. Registered on 16 November.


                                                                                 9
Matteo Brera, The Holy Office Against Fascism



         Let the name of Italy and Rome ring ever louder and be more
      feared in the world every day.
         God bless the KING – the KING of our Victory.
         God bless the Duce, at whose signal we are ready to live and
      die to a man.
         Guide our souls to the sacred destinations you have allotted to
      us in peace and in War.
         Bless our parents, and those love us and will sacrifice
      themselves for us.
         God give blessing. (ACDF 1929a: 5)

     The prayer shows clear signs of Dannunzianism, especially when
it invokes the blessing of God upon the "armies" (firstly referred to
through the metonymies "wings" and "prows", then more explicitly). It
exalts the figures of the "King" (capitalised) and the "Duce", who are
equalled to God, and finally it glorifies "War" – which is capitalised,
whereas "peace" is not.
     Undoubtedly this was a text worthy of attention by the Holy
Office, given its use of the sacred in conjunction with temporal matters,
and debate on the question was postponed until 16 November, in the
preparatory congregation. The task of drafting the votum, in
anticipation of the general congregation, was given to Father Giovanni
Lottini, (a Dominican), who was at the time Padre Commissario and
Primo Socio of the Holy Office:

         This prayer cannot be approved under any circumstances;
      because it contains too much of the human and temporal and
      cannot be accepted by God. […] It is also very dangerous […]
      since it is capable of forming, particularly in young minds, the
      thought, sentiment and persuasion that the soul must or should
      rest on these temporal attainments […] almost, one might say,
      becoming its ultimate purpose. […] It cannot be […] approved,
      first because it does not conform to the liturgical and customary
      prayers of the Church; second it is not imbued with the spirit of
      humility; third because only temporal attainments are sought,
      whereas any prayer subject to the church's approval must express



10
                                            Between, vol. V, n. 9 (Maggio/May 2015)



     spiritual attainment at least as being preponderant over the
     temporal attainments requested therein. (Ibid.: 7–8)

      On 20 November Lottini's votum was submitted to the
congregation. The cardinals' opinion was negative because approving a
text like the one being examined by the assembly would have set an
extremely dangerous precedent, both in Italy and abroad: the
legitimation of a type of prayer that was unacceptable to the Church.
      On 21 November the pope gave his approval, supporting the line
taken by the cardinals:

       […] it cannot be approved, also in view of the fact that if a
     prayer of this kind were approved for Italy, the ecclesiastical
     authority would find itself having to approve prayers with the
     same warlike and profane overtones that were proposed for other
     countries, following the example of Italy12. (Ibid.: 8)

     The policy of the Holy Office, modelled on Pius XI's idea to
defend the Church against what he perceived as attacks to its
foundations launched by Fascism, took the form of a total closure to
contaminations between the two liturgies, Catholic and fascist, which
could not – and should not – coexist even after signing the Lateran
Pacts. The Holy Office put an end, at least temporarily, to questions
concerning the abuse of the sacred in fascist prayers and its secretary
wrote to Monsignor Sedej, indicating the approach to take.13 Even if the
prayer was not placed on the Index, the objections raised by the Holy
See against Mussolini, whom the pope himself once defined as "the

     12 This paper also contains the following pencil note, written in a hasty
hand: «It lacks the essential characteristics for prayer. His Holiness would
have to approve similar prayers also for other countries. It excites the
passions. The Church must pray for peace». These are very probably the
words spoken by the pope and transcribed by the Secretary of the Holy
Office during the Friday hearing.
     13 A short manuscript note ends the dossier: "Scritto all'Arcivescovo di

Gorizia – 23 XI 1929". Cfr. ACDF 1929a: 8.


                                                                                11
Matteo Brera, The Holy Office Against Fascism



man whom providence has placed before us", and his movement,
which began to show less and less respect for the pope's official and
officious protests, would certainly not end with this and other minor
'condemnations', which in effect remained closeted (at least until now)
within the Vatican palace walls.
      The latent ill-feeling between the pope and the dictator, whose
regime was competing with the Church for the hearts and minds of
Italian people (and especially young people) would emerge yet again a
few months later in the rooms of the Holy Office where, by this stage,
politics was being openly discussed.

                    And to God what is God's.
           Pius XI Against Mussolini's Religious Policies
     An occasion soon presented itself when the Holy See could strike
at the heart of the religious policy of the fascist leader. In 1929 Mario
Missiroli, who was at the time editor of the Popolo di Roma, published a
book entitled Date a Cesare (Roma, Libreria del Littorio). This work is a
lengthy volume illustrating "Mussolini's religious policy" with the help
of key documents, such as the Duce's speech to the Chamber of
Deputies and the Senate of the Kingdom (1929), and which includes
the pontiff's own reactions.14 Because of the topic and the slant taken,
which was exclusively intended to affirm the superiority of the State
over the Church in matters of religion and education, and also because
of the somewhat critical interpretation of Pius XI's theocratic views, a
copy of this work, together with a copy of the pamphlet by "Ignotus"
(Temistocle Ceci) entitled Stato fascista, Chiesa e scuola (Roma, Libreria
del Littorio, 1929), was immediately procured by the Holy See.
     Date a Cesare was submitted to the Holy Office on the morning of
24 December by the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, the
Vatican official who signed the Lateran Pacts on behalf of Pius XI, and
evaluated by a member of the papal secretariat and by the pontiff in
person. The discussions at the highest echelons of the Church took

      14   For a bio–bibliographical profile of Missiroli, see Pertici 2011: 60–65.


12
                                             Between, vol. V, n. 9 (Maggio/May 2015)



place on 13 January (Feria II), during the Congregatio particularis, a
meeting designated to study single political or doctrinal cases with a
huge potential impact on Catholicism.
      In the journal entry of this congregation mention is made of an
"annexo folio A [adjoining folio A]" which was the final version of the
typed report submitted by the Secretary of State, along with the
'incriminated' book and a short "Official Note", to the Holy Office
(ACDF 1929b: 26). In the same journal we find the following
handwritten annotation under the congregation on Feria V:
«S[anctissimu]S – The opinion of the Holy Father concerning the books
by Mario Missiroli and Ignotus is expressed on Sheet 'a'».
      Document "a" is the typed minutes of the report sent to the Holy
Office by the Secretary of State, which contains a few significant
handwritten notes. In all, it covers 13 sheets of thin paper, typewritten
in black ink, which the Holy Office received and registered as early as
28 December.
      These corrections, which were then incorporated into the report
copied out by the Holy Office, are extremely important since they can
be identified with reasonable certainty as having been written by Pius
XI.15
      As the first monograph on the Concordat, and since its author's
opinions were completely biased towards Mussolini, the book could
not be taken lightly by the Holy See. Indeed, it is was the Secretary of
State himself who dealt with it and raised the possibility of a nominal
ban. However, the anonymous report was clear and its author's
opinion went beyond the figure of Missiroli to attack the "heresiarch",
Mussolini, who was guilty of having made two speeches (one to the


     15 The graphological analysis of the manuscripts leaves little doubt if
one compares, for example, the ductus and the morphology of the pope's
handwriting in general (examined on a copy preserved in ACDF 1922: 1, 1)
with the handwritten notes on the votum for Date a Cesare. In particular, the
graphics of the word "impium" reveal positive traits if compared with the
signature "Pius pp. XI". Also the line and ductus of the letters "u" and "s" are
identical.


                                                                                 13
Matteo Brera, The Holy Office Against Fascism



Chamber of Deputies on 7 June and the other to the Senate, the
following day, on the "education of the young") that openly challenged
the Church's authority.
      Missiroli, objected the author of the report, dared to doubt the
infallibility of Pius XI: «Even the pope [is wrong] when he complained
and duly deplored "these propositions as being heretical and worse
than heretical"». At this point in the document, Pius XI added a
weighty epithet – "impium" – to Mussolini's 'heretical' words quoted
on page 200 of Missiroli's book:

         This religion became catholic in Rome. If it had remained in
      Palestine it would very probably have died out; indeed, Mussolini
      has the audacity to add: "it is difficult to understand how such
      widely known and unchallenged propositions for anyone with a
      modicum of historical knowledge have produced such an outcry
      in Catholic circles". [!!]16 (ACDF 1929b: 5)

     Among the countless other assertions deemed worthy of censure
is the pivotal passage from Date a Cesare on collaboration between the
State and the Church. The following words again reveal the idea of the
'impassable boundary' between Church and fascism that remained for
Pius XI the number one priority of his pontificate:

         Many other propositions are, moreover, to be qualified
      respectively as "specious, false, debitae apostolicis constitutionibus
      obedientiae derogantes", not to say lacking the most elementary
      respect for the pope's pronunciations. […] Indeed (page 55)
      supposes that any "collaboration between lay and religious culture
      should be denied, where it is explicitly affirmed, albeit with a
      reserve that did not escape [Mussolini], where lay refers to a
      culture that, although not ecclesiastical nor strictly religious, is
      neither hostile nor unappreciative of religion or morals, and as
      such remains within appropriate boundaries". (Ibid.: 6-7)


       The pope added a double exclamation mark at this point to stress his
      16

consternation on reading this sort of assertion.


14
                                            Between, vol. V, n. 9 (Maggio/May 2015)



     As stated in the report, fascism based these convictions on
theories and individuals already identified by the Church as heretics
who, in some cases, had even been excommunicated:

        The matter is much more serious because it is widely known
     that Mussolini's "grossly heretical" propositions on the origins of
     Christianity were compiled using material supplied by Missiroli,
     on the understanding that the latter received it from Buonaiuti,
     and Mussolini himself recognised it as being "clearly of modernist
     inspiration" .17 (Ibid.: 9)

      Furthermore, the Holy See disapproved of Missiroli's view that
the State could claim some superiority over the Church due to the
latter's perceived reluctance to embrace progress. In practice, as the
pontifical document rebutted, the antimodernist reaction did not
amount to a rejection of contemporaneity. The last proposition (80th) of
Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors had clearly stated the pope's views
concerning

        the need and duty to seek reconciliation with progress,
     liberalism and modern civilisation: "Romanus Pontifex potest ac
     debet cum progressu, cum liberalismo e cum recenti civilitate sese



     17  The reference here is explicitly to Father Ernesto Buonaiuti, who
collaborated with Missiroli during the latter's term as editor of Il resto del
Carlino. The "modernism" with which the book is imbued had already spread
to other texts, as the author of the votum noted: «The same errors can also be
found above in the article by the journalist Coppola, and he too affirms that
"Christianity only became catholic, or in other words universal, in Rome
when it encountered the universal genius of Rome" etc., along the lines of the
already condemned system outlined by Maurras. Even the gravest
theological comment would be too light a measure in view of the enormity of
these errors, despite the fact that to a large extent they derive from the
superficiality and ignorance of those who do not know what they are saying»
(Ibid.).


                                                                                15
Matteo Brera, The Holy Office Against Fascism



      reconciliare et componere" […] almost as if the Pope were an enemy
      of true progress.18 (Ibid.: 9)

    On the issue of the Church's autonomy from the State, the votum
was quite strongly critical of the Duce himself and did not mince
words in describing him as "ignorant" about things religious:

         This proposition (made by Mussolini) ["In the State the Church
      is not sovereign or even free"] is not only equivocal but, prout
      sonat, in errorem inducens alias damnatum; in Ecclesiam iniuriosa, and,
      insofar as it appears to deny the essence of the Church as a perfect
      society, independently ordered from civil society, it can also be
      qualified as "propositio temeraria, perniciosa, schisma fovens et
      haeresim". Furthermore, it cannot be attributed to Missiroli, except
      that he reports it without comment and without reservation; it is
      therefore based on the religious ignorance of Mussolini, as well as
      of Missiroli. (Ibid.: 11-12)19

     Further censurable affirmations followed the ones above and were
found by the author of the report in later passages, confirming that the
idea of the State as an entity superior to the Church was firmly rooted
in Missiroli's mind (and, consequently an idea that also came from
Mussolini): «All the concessions [made by the State] to the Church are
a function of this limit, which it imposes on itself, and they do not
signify any sort of renunciation because they are voluntary». (Ibid: 12)
     Lastly, Missiroli's book was deemed irreverent by the report
written by the staff of the Secretary of State (and revised by the Pius XI)
because it referred to an "original theocratic intransigence" regarding



      18The sentence after the ellipsis is an autograph addition in the same
hand that I have suggested as belonging to the pope.
     19
        The two parts of the text in italics have been, respectively, underlined
and added in the same hand as appears earlier in the text. If my intuition is
correct, this reveals a particularly negative judgement made by Pius XI on
Mussolini, and that this view was already fully formed as of 1929.


16
                                                 Between, vol. V, n. 9 (Maggio/May 2015)



the protection of the Church's rights, championed by the pope himself
(Ibid.: 15-16).
      The conclusions of the report touch on the author's own standing,
describing him, in the words of the Holy See, as a journalist of
"notorious servility and mental vileness" (Ibid.: 16)20.
      A condemnation would therefore be desirable – concluded the
votum – even though, in view of the historical circumstances, and as
was now clear to all in the Holy Office, this would run the risk of
giving «a certain importance, publicity and resonance to a work of
absolutely no value, which certainly has no merits whatsoever» (Ibid.:
16), thereby generating publicity that would be even more damaging to
readers who were attracted by it.
      The report was discussed as early as 13 January at the meeting on
Feria II and then at the general congregation held on 23 January. At
this meeting the consultors unanimously resolved that Date a Cesare by
Mario Missiroli – and Stato fascista, Chiesa e scuola by "Ignotus"
(Temistocle Ceci) – deserved a nominal condemnation, in spite of the
fact that they were already technically proscribed under the second
and sixth articles of Canon 1399 of the Pio-Benedictine Code:

       the books are to be condemned in full (for the gravest doctrinal
    errors and for insolence towards the figure of the pope). [The
    consultors] also affirm that it is not only opportune but also
    necessary that a decree is emanated to declare that they are pre-
    damned by Canon 1399, articles 2 and 6, and that they should be
    condemned anew with a motivated condemnation ("a"). The most
    reverend cardinals add the following thought. The general errors
    spread throughout the book shall be extracted from fascist
    doctrine, and shall be condemned in a general decree, such as, for
    example, the decree Lamentabili [sane exitu]. The most Reverend
    Father Sales adds: "The two speeches made by Mussolini, in the
    Chamber of Deputies and in the Senate, shall also be condemned
    because they serve as a foundation for all the errors contained in
    words in the books". (ACDF 1930)

    20   For this and the previous quotations.


                                                                                     17
Matteo Brera, The Holy Office Against Fascism



    The secretary, Cardinal Merry Del Val, then drafted the
motivation to be included in the condemnation decree:

         Too much importance is given to the books in question, with
      the connivance of the fascist authority, as is clearly evident from
      reading of the books and from the name of the printer that
      publishes them – Tipografia del Littorio […] It is therefore right to
      condemn these too, to show impartiality. […] and it is right that
      foreign [representatives] should be advised. It would be a relief to
      the universal Catholic conscience. (Ibid.)

      The cardinals were concerned more about the government's
"connivance" and indeed the satisfaction it took in this type of
publication. It is interesting to note, moreover, that the Holy Office felt
it was engaged in an actual 'war' in which the Church had to be
defended against attacks from political 'heresies' made in literary and
non-fiction works that assailed the Holy See on a daily basis with the
aim of undermining the pope's authority. It is no coincidence that the
articles of Canon 1399 mentioned at the meeting (and also in the
condemnation) were 2 and 6, which respectively prohibited «libri
quorum vis scriptorum, haeresim vel schisma propugnantes, aut ipsa
religionis fondamenta quoquo modo evertere nitentes» [Books of any
writers propagating heresy or schism, or attacking in any way the basis
of religion] and «qui quodlibet ex catholicis dogmatibus impugnant vel
derident […] et qui data opera ecclesiasticam hierarchiam, aut statum
clericalem vel religiosum probris afficiunt» [attacking or deriding any
Catholic dogma […] or bringing about opprobrium on religion or the
clerical state] (Codex 2001: 471).
      It is also worth noting the suggestion that the 'incriminated'
speeches made by the fascist leader should be placed on the Index. This
further confirms that Mussolini's standing with the Roman Curia was
particularly low even in the days immediately after the signing of the
Concordat.
      Having denounced Missiroli's work – through the Secretary of
State – Pius XI now had to evaluate and approve the consultors' report.



18
                                           Between, vol. V, n. 9 (Maggio/May 2015)



He did so once again through the Secretary of State who, on 23 January
1930, sent a strong statement to the Holy Office, expressing the pope's
intention not to cede sovereignty over any of the Holy See's
prerogatives, even in the event of a reconciliation that, at this point,
seemed unlikely:

       The Holy Father […] observed that this act [the prompt
    condemnation of the books by Missiroli and Ceci] is opportune
    and necessary to eliminate any appreciation or even apprehension
    that […] having signed the Pact steps would not be taken with due
    energy to defend the true doctrine of the Church, the education of
    the young, etc […] He concluded by instructing that the
    condemnation decree should certainly be prepared, on summary
    grounds, namely for the gravest errors against the Catholic
    doctrine, and especially against the divine constitution and
    sacrosanct rights of the Church, and against papal power and its
    exercise. (ACDF 1929b: 16)

      Pius XI decided that the moment had come to launch a
counteroffensive against the fascists' attempts to manoeuvre the
Church into a corner and deprive it of all authority, above all in
relation to education and morals. Therefore, he ordered the Holy Office
to monitor the circulation of books ascribable to fascist authors and to
focus, in particular, on all minor fascist publications that had been
previously authorised at the "highest levels" of the Fascist Party or,
even worse, that had been endorsed by Mussolini in person:

       His Holiness showed a lively concern for the increasing spread
    of false theories of fascism and therefore instructed the Most
    Eminent Card[inal] Secretary to arrange for other books of this
    kind to be examined, but that they should be of greater value in
    terms of content and author (for example, by [Achille] Saitta) than
    had been the case of the two in question. Lastly, he added that the
    Most Eminent Card[inal] Secretary should also order a study in
    order to extract erroneous propositions from books, especially
    small books or those printed as leaflets or used in catechism, but



                                                                               19
Matteo Brera, The Holy Office Against Fascism



      assuring himself primarily that such publications, from which the
      errors needed to be removed, were not simply the work of private
      individuals but instead had the permission, approval or
      encouragement, or were prescribed in schools by the highest
      levels, and limiting such extraction to fundamental or general
      errors. And then we shall see. (Ibid.)

      This closing phrase, "we shall see", may reveal the pope's
hesitation in foreseeing what might happen in the years following the
pact between the Holy See and the Italian government. For the time
being, in addition to placing Date a Cesare on the Index, the Vatican
intensified its own propaganda counteroffensive by printing a
collection of essays and texts in support of the church, under the title
Parole pontificie sugli accordi del Laterano (Roma, 1929). A few months
later, by express order of Pius XI, a small volume was printed and
distributed together with the Osservatore romano: its title was Date a
Dio (Roma, 1930) and its precise aim was to reject the arguments put
forward in Missiroli's book.

                                 A Political Index
     While it is certain that Church and State set aside differences on
questions of particular interest that were widely known prior to
signing the Lateran Pact and Concordat, the analysis of Vatican
documents regarding the proceedings of the Holy Office against
d'Annunzio's Opera Omnia, the Preghiera del Balilla and Missiroli's Date
a Cesare shows how the positions of Church and State had never been
so distant, in particular on three key cultural and political topics: the
'defence' of sensual and immoral books (and especially those by
authors closely linked to the regime), the (ab)use of sacred imagery in
lay publications and the recognition by the Italian government of the
leading role of the Church in the education of the youth.
     Up to the start of the Holy See's crusade against sensual works,
which must be set in the context of the warfare against modernism, the
proscription of books only implied the condemnation of their contents



20
                                         Between, vol. V, n. 9 (Maggio/May 2015)



and not necessarily of their authors. However, after the promulgation
of the encyclical letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), the coincidence
book/author became the norm as shown, for instance, by the
condemnation of Antonio Fogazzaro's Il Santo and Leila (1906 and
1911), which was followed by the desperate attempt by the author – a
fervent Catholic – to rebuild his reputation as a good believer
(Marangon 2009).
     The condemnation of d'Annunzio's books is another clear
example of this trend. Not only his works were regarded as morally
corrupt by the Church but so was the author himself; moreover, he was
deemed a pervert and corruptor of families and youth, which were the
targets of Catholic education and propaganda. While the defence of
public decency is the main reason behind the first decree of
proscription signed by Pius X (1911), after Le Martyre de Saint Sebastien
was staged in Paris, the following three nominal decrees promulgated
against d'Annunzio by Pius XI (Opera Omnia, 1928 and Il libro segreto,
1935) and Pius XII, when the Comandante had just passed away (Solus
ad solam, 1939) had a different scope: the dismissal of an author – and a
man – regarded as poisonous for any Catholic believer (Brera 2012: 29).
     Through d'Annunzio's condemnations, the Holy Office reached
out to the Catholic people in order to reaffirm the Vatican's sole
authority regarding the defence of morality; however, formal
proceedings against d'Annunzio's Opera omnia highlight how the
effects of Vatican book censorship were broadened, for the first time in
1928, beyond the dichotomy book/author and openly touched the
political scene, on which the poet had become an influential actor
under the protection of the Prime Minister and the King of Italy.
     In the eyes of the pope d'Annunzio's condemnation of 1928, apart
from being a strong statement against the circulation of immoral books
and an equally stronger one in support of the Church's role as defensor
mores, served as a direct warning to Mussolini in the months when the
Church tirelessly attempted to defend its prerogatives, above all the
defence of Catholic families from dangerously 'pornographic'
publications, without compromising its pre-Concordat negotiations by
making direct attacks on the fascist hierarchy.


                                                                             21
Matteo Brera, The Holy Office Against Fascism



      When Pius XI signed the decree of proscription of d'Annunzio's
Opera omnia, his blasphemous superhumanism and dissolute lifestyle,
he implicitly condemned Mussolini who, while showing a lack of
respect for the Holy See's formal complaints, had elected the former
hero of Fiume as one of the most prominent stalwarts of his
propaganda.
      Dannunzianism, or the use of an emphatic rhetoric derived from
d'Annunzio's pompous language, was furthermore largely used by the
Partito Nazionale Fascista to charge up the masses that Mussolini aimed
to control and exploit in order to cement his political power. The Duce
resolved that fascist ideology should pivot around a liturgy imbued
with the Comandante d'Annunzio's rhetoric, which famously stirred the
feelings of legionnaires and civilians alike during the days of Fiume's
revolution. Hence Fascism started to circulate several small
publications, like the Preghiera del Balilla, through which Mussolini's
party aimed to establish greater influence – and, ultimately, control –
over the spiritual and moral life of the nation.
      Pius XI could not tolerate the increasing attempts of the PNF to
challenge the Catholic Church with a lay liturgy, which he saw both as
blasphemous and an attempt to isolate the Vatican, thus depriving it of
any social control of the people of Italy. In particular, the pope
opposed Mussolini's attempted fascistization of the peninsula through
the Opera Nazionale Balilla, the youth organization created to mould a
new Fascist generation to challenge the 'pastoral' action of the Azione
Cattolica, of which the pope was a strenuous supporter.
      The Vatican's concerns regarding the gradual interference of
Fascism with the activities of the Church on spiritual matters are
manifest in the Holy Office's treatment of the Preghiera del Balilla. The
censorship of this text shows, on the one hand, the Church's
unwillingness to authorise the proliferation of "heretical" liturgies,
especially among the youth. On the other hand, the failure to place the
prayer on the Index of Prohibited Books confirms how, in the twentieth
century, the role of censorship changed in the context of the exercise of
secular power by the Holy See and became openly political.



22
                                              Between, vol. V, n. 9 (Maggio/May 2015)



      Notwithstanding the opinions of the Curia and the pope himself,
the political situation prompted Pius XI to tone down the final
judgement of the Vatican censors – the Holy Office – and reclassify the
case as merely a local problem, one that concerned the diocese of
Gorizia alone.
      Finally, the censorship of Mario Missiroli's Date a Cesare was also
wholly political. It was with this act of forbiddance that the pope
condemned the religious policies of Mussolini, regarding whom he had
already formed a clearly negative opinion.21
      After the two previous subtle political acts, disguised under the
cover of book censorship, Pius XI stigmatised, personally annotating a
votum prepared for the Holy Office, what he perceived as an
intolerable and open attack on the political independence of the
Church, which had been in the balance since the opening of the
Questione romana in the nineteenth century and seemed to have been
settled forever with the signing of the Concordat.
      The proscription of Missiroli's book in the Index is a more explicit
reaction of the Holy See, through one of its most influential
congregations, to the public statements made by Mussolini (collected
in a book endorsed by the PNF) dismissing any possibility of political
equality between the State and the Church.
      Again, the pope refrained from publicly condemning – for
political opportuneness – Mussolini "the heresiarch", although the
messa all'Indice of one of the journalists who were most loyal to the
regime must have sounded a much louder warning to the Duce.


     21
        It is interesting to add that the censorship of Date a Cesare was seen by
the Holy See as among the most important documents held by the Holy
Office, at least from a political and institutional point of view. When the
Second World War broke out, many documents in the archive of the former
Inquisition were moved to the United States to prevent any chance of them
falling into the wrong hands. They were returned to Rome at the end of the
war. The folder containing the documents on Missiroli's censorship was
among those dispatched to the other side of the Atlantic and it is marked
with the words "Sent to America 1940".


                                                                                  23
Matteo Brera, The Holy Office Against Fascism



      The condemnation of Date a Cesare and the other instances of
censorship discussed in this article mark the transformation of the
Vatican institution responsible for book censorship, which had long
lost the enormous coercive power it had wielded throughout the early
modern period, into a subtle instrument of political struggle. All the
more so at a time when a frontal attack by the Holy See on a popular
government that was, by 1928–29, firmly in control of the whole
country and enjoyed a high level of support from the cultural and
political establishment, could not, for obvious reasons, be carried out
openly outside the corridors of the Vatican.
      Pius XI would become more and more open in his attacks on the
fascist regime when in 1930, only a few months after signing the
Lateran Pacts, Mussolini threatened to close all the circles of Azione
Cattolica22. In 1931, having tried in vain to reaffirm the right of the
Catholic youth to participate actively in forming a new ethical and
moral public conscience in Italy, mainly through the mediation of the
cardinal archbishop of Milan, Ildefonso Schuster, Pius XI signed his
most scathing attack on Fascism, the encyclical Non abbiamo bisogno
[We do not need].
      In his heartfelt address, the pontiff denounced:

         a mass of authentic affirmations and no less authentic facts
      which reveal beyond the slightest possibility of doubt the resolve
      (already in great measure actually put into effect) to monopolize
      completely the young, from their tenderest years up to manhood
      and womanhood, for the exclusive advantage of a party and of a
      regime based on an ideology which clearly resolves itself into a
      true, a real pagan worship of the State – the "Statolatry" which is
      no less in contrast with the natural rights of the family than it is in
      contradiction with the supernatural rights of the Church. (Ratti
      1931: 816)




       Whose members the pope independently and reluctantly decided to
      22

disband in 1931 to prevent further acts of violence from the fascist followers.


24
                                            Between, vol. V, n. 9 (Maggio/May 2015)



      Non abbiamo bisogno is beyond doubt Pius XI's strongest stance
against the political interference of fascist propaganda with the
governance and activities of Catholic church. In the passage quoted
above the pope openly criticizes what he had already feared in the
months that preceded the Concordat: the contamination of families and
the young by the fascist ideology. When he proscribed d'Annunzio's
works in the Index for the second time, Pius XI had realised how,
beyond the appeasing façade of a friendly government that was happy
to grant the Church its longed for political and territorial independence
(and some support in its anti-communist fight), lurked a ferocious
totalitarian regime, which fed its ideology to Italian families through
grandiose Dannunzian rhetoric and publications circulated in the name
of the 'education' of the Balilla.
      Guided by the hand of the pope, the Holy Office's acts of
censorship were mostly ineffective for two reasons: they arrived either
too late, when Mussolini's power was already well consolidated, or
they were withdrawn at the very last minute so as not to compromise
the already uncertain political balance between the spiritual and the
secular powers.
      The use of censorship as a political weapon was, in Pius XI's view,
the only card he could play in order to remind Mussolini of the Holy
See's key role in the Italian scenario without compromising diplomatic
relations with the regime, and thus preserving the political
independence of the Church23.
      After the pope was forced to relinquish most of his political
influence to Mussolini after both leaders signed the Lateran Pacts, Pius
XI certainly regretted his 'hesitations' of the past, while on the contrary
the Duce capitalised on this once his regime was strong enough not to
need the pope anymore to succeed in his totalitarian project.



     23 The pontiff confirmed this when he wrote, in Non abbiamo bisogno, that
he had «always refrained from [politically] condemning – formally and
specifically – the [fascist] party and the regime» (Ratti 1931: 817-819).



                                                                                25
Matteo Brera, The Holy Office Against Fascism




                                     Works cited
 "Nostre informazioni", Osservatore romano, 22.02.1928.
Annuario pontificio per l'anno 1928, Roma, Tipografia Poliglotta
     Vaticana, 1928.
Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della fede (ACDF),
     Sant'Officio (S.O.), Devotiones Variae 1922, 1922.
Id., Censurae librorum 1928 (Prot. 124/1928), 1928.
Id., Rerum Variarum 1929, 8 (Prot. 2617/1929), 1929a.
Id., Censurae Librorum 1929 (= Prot. 2935/1929), 1929b.
Id., Acta Congregationum Generalium 1930, 23.01.1930.
Bouthillon, Fabrice, La naissance de la Mardité. Une Théologie politique à
     l'âge totalitaire: Pie XI (1922-1939), Strasbourg, Presses
     Universitaires de Strasbourg, 2002.
Brera, Matteo, "Gabriele d'Annunzio e la Santa Sede. Il processo e la
     condanna del 1911 nei documenti della Congregazione dell'Indice",
     Quaderni del Vittoriale, 8 (2012): 27-43.
Id., Novecento all'Indice. La condanna di Gabriele d'Annunzio, il
     modernismo e i rapporti Stato-Chiesa all'ombra del Concordato, PhD
     Thesis, Utrecht, Utrecht University, 2014.
Codex Iuris Canonici │ Pii X Pontificis Maximi │ Iussu digestu │Benedicti
     Papae XV │ Auctoritate Promulgatus │ Praefatione, fontium annotatione
     et indice analytico-alphabetico ab E[MINENTISSI]MO Pietro
     Card[inalem] Gasparri auctus, Roma, Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana,
     1917, en. tr. Ed. Edward N. Peters, San Francisco, Ignatius Press,
     2001.
De Felice, Renzo – Mariano, Emilio (eds.), Carteggio d'Annunzio-
     Mussolini 1919/1938, Milano, Mondadori, 1971.
Fattorini, Emma, Pio XI, Hitler e Mussolini. La solitudine di un Papa,
     Torino. Einaudi, 2007.
Marangon, Paolo, "Ricezione e condanna del 'Santo' di Antonio
     Fogazzaro, "In wilder zügelloser Jagd nach Neuem": 100 Jahre
     Modernismus und Antimodernismus in der katholischen Kirche, Ed. H.
     Wolf – J. Schepers, Paderborn, Schöningh, 2009: 79-93.



26
                                            Between, vol. V, n. 9 (Maggio/May 2015)



Pertici, Roberto, "Mario Missiroli", Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 75,
    Roma, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 2011: 60-65.
Ratti, Achille (Pius XI), "Non abbiamo bisogno. Per la 'Azione
    Cattolica'", Enchiridion delle Encicliche, 5, Ed. Erminio Lora – Rita
    Simionati, Bologna, Edizioni Dehoniane, 1999: 800-825.
Id., "Al pellegrinaggio internazionale della gioventù cattolica (20
    Settembre 1925)", I Discorsi di Pio XI, Ed. Domenico Bertetto, Roma,
    Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1985.



                               The author
Matteo Brera

       Matteo Brera graduated from the University of Pavia (BA, MA),
Edinburgh (MSc) and Utrecht (PhD). He worked at the University of
Edinburgh from 2008 to 2014 and is currently a Lecturer at Utrecht
University. Matteo's research focuses primarily on the relationship
between Italian (and European) literature and ecclesiastical/political
policies of book censorship. On this topic he has published Novecento
all’Indice. La condanna di Gabriele d’Annunzio, il modernismo e i rapporti
Stato-Chiesa all’ombra del Concordato (2014). He has also published
extensively on Gabriele d'Annunzio, Guido da Verona, André Gide
and John Milton. Other research interests include History of ideas,
translation (mainly from Shakespeare and Milton), Italo Calvino,
Italian and European opera, contemporary poetry, popular music and
Italian emigration to the American South.

      Email: m.brera@uu.nl



                                The paper
Data invio: 15/01/2015
Data accettazione: 01/04/2015


                                                                                27
Matteo Brera, The Holy Office Against Fascism



Data pubblicazione: 15/05/2015



                          How to quote this paper
Brera, Matteo, "The Holy Office in the Twentieth Century: Book
Censorship and the Political Independence of the Church (1928–1930)",
Censura e auto-censura, Eds. A. Bibbò, S. Ercolino, M. Lino, Between, V.9
(2015), www.betweenjournal.it.




28
