The Catholic Church and modern science : a lecture


^ W , -H V ir\ <fcv>0 OS-H’ r\£
T ke C ci-t M>Uc ^^V'Ch'

AtT^l^D

The Catholic Church and Modern

Science.

Rev. JOHN A. ZAHM, C. S. C.





AeT<mo

The Catholic Church and Modern

Science.

Rev. J. A. ZAHM, C. S. C.





No. 11.

“ AVE MARIA” SERIES.



The “ Ave Maria” Series

X3(SX

FRANCIS MACARY, the Cabinet-Maker of Lavaur. By
Henry Lasserre.

THE Catholic Church and Modern Science. A Lecture,
by the Rev. John A. Zahm, C. S. C., of the University of
Notre Dame.

BETTER THAN GOLD. By Nugent Robinson.

TWO Celebrated Sanctuaries of the Madonna in
Italy. The Miraculous Image of Genazzano, with Fac-
simile. The Holy House of Loretto.

WHAT the Church has Done for Science. A Lecture,
by the Rev. John A. Zahm, C. S. C., of the University of
Notre Dame.

THE MAD PENITENT OF TODI. By Mrs Anna Hanson
Dorsey.

THE LEPERS OF MOLOKAI. By Charles Warren
Stoddard.

24mo., Stiff Paper Covers.

PRICE io CTS. POST FREE.



THE

A LECTURE,

By the Rev. John A. Zahm, C. S C., of the University
of Notre Dame.

NOTRE DAME, INDIANA:
Marta” ^rnss.



Copyright

:

Rev. D. E. Hudson, C. S. C.
1886.



THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND MODERN
SCIENCE.

F
MONG the many questions that have engaged
the attention of thinking minds, especially

within the last few years, no one has excited a

livelier or a more widespread interest than that

concerning the relation between religion and

science; or, more especially, the relation between

modern science and the Catholic Church. Among
those who let others do their thinking for them,
or who are content to get their information
second-hand (as it is too often, alas! doled out to

them in garbled articles by an infidel press), and

even among those whose intellectual acquirements
should teach them better, there seems to be an

impression, and, in many instances, a conviction,
that there is a conflict between the teachings of the

Church and the truths of science; that the doc-

trines of the former can no longer be reconciled

with the conclusions of the latter; that, in a word,

if the Church wishes to keep abreast with the

advance of science she will not only have to



8 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

modify many of her dogmas, but will be forced
to abandon some of them entirely, as no longer

tenable. Then, again, this impression, or convic-

tion, of these good people is confirmed by what

they have heard or read about the attitude of the

Church towards science in ages gone by. They
have been told that the Church is the enemy of

progress; that she not only does not now, but

never did, encourage scientific research; and they

are ever ready to point to instances which they con-

sider as verifying such views. They adduce as
facts of sober history tales of libraries burned,

genius hampered and persecuted; and finish the

charge with some terrible episode in the lives of

the “ Martyrs of Science.”

It is concerning some of these points that I wish

to address you a few words this evening. I will

consider some of the objections brought forward

by modern science against the teachings of the

Church, and then define as clearly and as succinctly

as possible the nature and scope of science and

religion, and state what now is, what always has
been, and what ever must be, the relation between

human science and the Church of God.
But although I have it in purpose to speak of

the Church in her relation to modern science, it is



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 9

by no means my intention to come forward as the
Church’s apologist.

The Church needs not apologists. Her past
history is her apology. Her raison cT etre is seen
in the miraculous transformation she has effected

in the moral, social and intellectual condition

of mankind since her advent into this world. All

the civilization and enlightenment we now enjoy;
all that is great and good and noble in the world

;

all that is pure, grand and sublime in humanity, is

owing to her. It was she that made the present

condition of the world possible; it is she that we
have to thank for all the advantages and blessings,

in the natural as well as in the spiritual order, that

we now possess; without her, progress and civil-
ization, as we now understand them, would have
been impossible; without her, we should to-day be
no better than was the world when the Church
entered upon her mission of refining and spiritualiz-

ing, nearly nineteen centuries ago.

Neither is it my intention in any statements I
may make to minimize, even in the slightest degree,
any doctrine the Church proposes for our belief,

or assert anything that is inconsistent with the

strictest orthodoxy, or, if you will, with the most

pronounced Ultramontanism.

The Church has no retractions fo make; slip



IO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

knows not what it is to make concessions in
what she has once defined to be of faith. How,
then, can one who pretends to be a Catholic do
what the Church has never done and never can

do? Conscious of her divine origin, of the Spirit

of Truth being always with her, to assist her and

preserve her from error, she continues her office

of teacher of the nations, despite all that the

world may say or do against her.
Such, then, being the spirit of the Church, there

is only one course open for those who would be
her children, and that is, to follow faithfully the

path she has marked out for them. No liberalism,
then, in matters of doctrine can be tolerated; no

concessions can he allowed. What the Church
teaches must be accepted as divine truth—all that
so-called science may teach to the contrary not-
withstanding.

With these few premises, I will at once proceed

to examine some of the difficulties that modern

science is thought to have raised against the teach-

ings of Revelation. The objections generally
brought forward, and those to which most interest

attaches, are those which have been given the

appearance of reality by recent studies in geology,

biology, and astronomy. There are others, it is

tyue, that have been suggested by investigations



AND MODERN SCIENCE. II

and discoveries in other departments of science;

but the arguments drawn from the sciences just

mentioned are those on which the rationalist most

relies in his controversies with the defenders of

revealed truth.

The principal objections made by the geolgists
against the Bible are based on certain passages of

the Book of Genesis, and notably on interpretations
that have been given to the first chapter. The
objections are as far-reaching as they are interesting

;

and, if they were well-founded, we might indeed
despair of ever seeing a reconciliation between the

teachings of science, on the one hand, and those of

religion on the other. They embrace, among
others, such questions as the age of the world, the

six days of Creation, the origin and antiquity of

man, the unity of species, and the nature and

extent of the Noachian deluge. Now, although
there is material in each of these subjects for

one or even many discourses, I think it possible to
give them all a satisfactory notice this evening, and

that, too, without making any unreasonable demand
on either your time or patience.

And, first, as to the age of the world. Astron-

omers and geologists tell us that millions, yea,

hundreds of millions, of years must have elapsed

since the creation of the world—if, indeed, the



12 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

world be not eternal,—and hence, they say, science
is in direct contradiction to the generally received

opinion, which places the age of the world at about
six thousand years.

But here, at the outset, our learned astronomers
and geologists make several serious blunders.
They mistake a generally received opinion for a
doctrine or definition of the Church; whereas, as
a matter of fact, the Church has never defined
anything regarding the age of the world, and

most probably never will, as the age of the world

has nothing whatever to do—at least as far as I can
see—with the object of her teaching, viz.: faith
and morals.

Again, we are told that the conclusions of science
respecting the age of the world are at variance

with Scripture, when, in reality, the Bible nowhere

says anything whatever about the matter, so far as

the age of the world is concerned, except what

is contained in the first words of Genesis: In

principio creavit Deus ccclum et terrain,

—

u In

the beginning God created heaven and earth.”
But when was the beginning? No one knows.
Nothing can be more indefinite. It may have
been six thousand years ago, as some have thought;

or it may have been, as Proctor and others contend,
five hundred million years ago. Scripture says



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 1

3

nothing on the subject more definite than the

words quoted, and the Church has never made

any declaration whatever; so that scientists are

given all the latitude they could desire, as far as

time is concerned. True it is, there have been

commentators on the Sacred Text who, thinking

that the creation of the world was simultaneous

with the creation of man,—and it must be pleaded in
their behalf that, when they wrote, there was no
special reason for believing that the case was other-

wise,—have maintained that the age of the world
is about six thousand years; but, then, the opinions

of commentators, however learned, are by no means

to be confounded with official teachings of the

Church. As well might we say that the theories
and hypotheses of individual scientists are always

to be accepted as demonstrated truths, as facts that

cannot be gainsaid. If this distinction between

opinion and doctrine, between theory and demon-

stration, were always borne in mind, we should
hear less of the so-called conflict between science

and religion. What the contest should be called
—what, in fact, it has always been—is a conflict
between individuals : commentators and theologians,

if you will, on one side, and scientists and philoso-

phers on the other.

The second objection urged regards the days of



14 THE catholic church

creation. It was long considered—and indeed there
was no particular reason for holding a different

opinion until lately, when the study of geology
began to open new avenues of thought—that the
six days spoken of in Genesis were the ordinary

days of twenty-four hours each. But geology and

astronomy come forward and tell us that their

records speak of untold ages that must have

elapsed during those six days, and consequently

that the Scriptures are again at fault. The Sacred
Text is once more examined, and it is found that

the days spoken of do not necessarily mean

periods of twenty-four hours each, but that they

may be interpreted as meaning indefinite periods
of time. Nay, more: there is strong presump-

tive evidence for believing even from Scripture

that the days referred to were not true solar days,

but that, on the contrary, they were periods of

time, just such as geologists and astronomers

demand. According to Scripture the sun was not

created until the fourth day; consequently, there

was no alteration of day and night as we now
know it, and no way of dividing time into days of
twenty-four hours each, like that which existed

after the sun appeared on the fourth day.

But this interpretation is not a new one, or one
that has been provoked by the advance of modern



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 15

science. True, recent scientific investigations have

caused this interpretation to be the one now gener-
ally accepted

;
but as far back as the time of St.

Augustine, and even further, the difficulty of con-

sidering the days of Genesis as ordinary solar

days was apparent. Indeed the saint himself,

in his masterly work on Genesis, inclines to the
opinion, as being the more reasonable, that the

days spoken of were indefinite periods of time.

In this opinion he is followed by the greatest

theologians and commentators of the Middle Ages
—among others, Albertus Magnus, and the Angel
of the Schools, St. Thomas Aquinas.
The Angelic Doctor says that the opinion accord-

ing to which the days of Genesis are solar days is

plainer and the one more conformable to the letter

of the text: but, as if foreseeing the discussions the

text would eventually give rise to, declares the opin-

ion which makes the days periods of time to be the

more reasonable, and the better adapted to defend the

Sacred Scriptures from the ridicule of unbelievers,

and adds that it is the one that pleases him most.

And this opinion—it can never, I think,be considered
as more than an opinion, not originated by modern

science, although given new weight and rendered
more probable by recent discoveries,—this opinion,
maintained by St. Augustine and the great doctors



T 6 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

of the Church during the Middle Ages, is the one
now almost universally accepted. As in the case
of the age of the world, the Church has never

pronounced upon the subject, and most likely

never will. It is an opinion that does not in the

slightest degree militate against any of her teach-

ings, and, far from being contrary to any of the

declarations of Scripture, is the only one which,

even aside from the light thrown on the subject

by science, seems tenable. It is consequently an

opinion that any one is free to choose and defend.

As a Catholic, then, one is at perfect liberty to
consider the days of Genesis as true solar days or

as indefinite periods of time.

But you may say that there are more serious
objections to be answered before science and

Scripture can be harmonized. What about the dif-
ficulties concerning the origin and antiquity of man,

and about the unity of the human species, put for-
ward by a class of scientists who call themselves
evolutionists? What, in a word, about evolution?

It is scarcely necessary to state that it would be

simply impossible, in a brief lecture, to give any-

thing like a detailed answer to this question, or even

to give a resume of what evolutionists actually

teach. The subject of evolution, although but little

discussed until about twenty-five years ago (about



AND MODERN SCIENCE. *7

the time of the appearance of Darwin’s work on the
“ Origin of Species”), is now one that excites more
interest than any other one subject whatever. It

already has a literature of its own, and the num-

ber of works pertaining to the question is daily

increasing. It is treated of in magazines and news-

papers, is discussed from the rostrum and the

pulpit, and is a frequent topic of conversation in

the railway-car and in the drawing-room. Every-

body talks about evolution, and often too without

knowing any more about the matter than the fact

that some one who is an evolutionist says that man
is descended from a monkey. Still, although we
cannot give even a resume of the teachings of

evolutionists, we can state a few facts and prin-
ciples sufficient, however, to answer our present

purpose.

One of the fundamental teachings of evolution,
and the one about which we are just now most par-
ticularly concerned, is that which declares that all

the higher forms of life, animal and vegetable,

have been derived, by the interaction of natural

causes, from the lower forms, and that the lowest

and first forms of organic life were produced by

the action of the forces of nature on inorganic

matter. On this one point all evolutionists agree,
although there is a great variety of opinions as



i8 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

to the causes that have operated, and the processes

that have obtained, in the gradual development

of the organic world from its first beginnings to

what it is now. For what I will have to say on

the subject, however, this difference of opinion

is of no moment.

Now, at the outset, I must tell you that evolu-
tion is, at its best, only a theory—only an hypothesis.
It is simply an assumption, and an assumption too

that rests on other assumptions. No one who has
studied the question with even moderate care,

and who understands the distinction between
theory and doctrine, between hypothesis and

demonstrated fact, will pretend to say it is any-

thing more. It assumes in the first place the

truth of Laplace’s mechanical explanation of the

formation of the universe, as put forth in his cele-

brated nebular hypothesis — an hypothesis which
maintained that the earth and all the heavenly bodies

once existed in a state of incandescent vapor; were

once immense clouds of fire-mist, which, after the

lapse of countless ages, were condensed into the

solid orbs we now behold. From the very nature
of the case this is an hypothesis whose truth can

never be demonstrated. It may be shown by astron-
omers, physicists and geologists to be more or less

plausible, but it can never get above the rank of



AND MODERN SCIENCE. I£

a theory. It is, if you will, the best mechanical

explanation of the formation of the universe that

has yet been given; but it is nothing more than an

attempt to account for what can never be known
with any certainty, without a special divine revela-

tion,— a revelation which one can safely say will
never be made.

Again, evolution assumes that organic was

derived from inorganic matter, by the simple

interaction of the forces of nature.

In the words of Prof. Huxley—“ If the hypoth-
esis of evolution be true, living matter must have

arisen from non-living matter; for by the hypothesis

the condition of the globe was at one time such

that living matter could not have existed on it, life

being entirely incompatible with the gaseous state.”

It assumes the truth of the theory of spontaneous

generation, and that, too, in the face of unanswer-

able, I might say, conclusive scientific evidence

against it. Any one who has followed the investiga-
tions on the subject by the eminent French savant

M. Pasteur, or watched the delicate and ingenious
experiments devised by Prof. Tyndall, will, I

think, be forced to admit, whatever may have been
his preconceived notion^, the force of their argu-

ments, and to acknowledge the justness of their

conclusions against the possibility of spontaneous



20 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

generation. Since the researches of these eminent

experimentalists were made known, no one laying
any claim to scientific knowledge has thought of

regarding spontaneous generation as anything more

than an old and exploded theory. Even Darwin
himself considered spontaneous generation as “ a

result absolutely inconceivable.” Dr. Carpenter,

one of the most eminent biologists of the age,

regarded it as an ‘‘astounding hypothesis;” whilst

the celebrated Dr. Virchow, at the Conference of

the German Naturalists and Physicians at Munich,
in 1877, not hesitate to declare that it is a

“ theory not supported by any evidence,” and as

one “ utterly discredited.”

Then, again, as a third postulate, evolution

assumes as a fact the transmutation of species, the

change suddenly or gradually of one species, of

either animal or plant, into another. But this is

an assumption for which there is not the slightest

evidence whatever. Not a single fact in the whole
range of natural science can be adduced favoring

the truth of the transmutation of species; not a

single instance can be cited of a single species,

whether of plant or animal, that has ever, either

through the agency of natural causes, or by the

artifice of man, been changed into another species.

The bird-fancier and the florist can produce



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 21

varieties, but species never. There have been

produced by cultivation different varieties of roses,

different varieties of pigeons, but there is not on

record a solitary example of the change of one

species of pigeon or of one species of rose into

another species.

And yet if there were any truth in the theory
of the transmutation of species, some conclusive

evidence in support of it should certainly have

been discovered before this. For hundreds of

years there have been thousands of observers of

thousands of species and of millions of individuals

of animals and plants, in all parts of the world,

and yet not a single instance has been brought to

light to justify a theory that is absolutely essential

to the hypothesis of evolution. According to the

calculation of probabilities, the present chances

against the transmutation of species, and conse-

quently against evolution, are as infinity to nothing.

Even Prof. Huxley, with all his evolutionary

tendencies, is forced to admit, in speaking of the

Darwinian hypothesis, that “ it is our clear con-

viction that, as the evidence stands, it is not abso-

lutely proven that a group of animals, having all

the characters exhibited by species in nature, has

ever been originated by selection, whether artificial

or natural.”



22 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

If then there is no evidence for the transmuta-

tion of one species into another in the lower forms

of life, there is still less when it comes to consider
the change of one of the higher animal forms into

man. Between the brute creation and man there
is an impassable chasm. Between the most per-

fectly developed ape and man, with all his won-

derful gifts of mind and soul, there is an infinite

distance that no “ missing link,” and no series of

missing links, can bridge over. From the highest
exhibition of brute instinct to the lowest manifes-

tation of human reason there is a void as great as
that which separates earth from heaven.

Such are a few of the assumptions of the evolu

tionist, every one of them absolutely necessary to

establish the truth of his hypothesis, and yet none

of them with any demonstrated foundation in fact.

What, then, is our conclusion as regards evolution

and faith? Evidently, to say the least, that evo-

lution has proven nothing against the teachings of

faith, from the simple fact that evolution, so far,

is, at best, a conjecture, a theory, not only un-

proven, but a theory that, as it is now taught,
would seem to be unprovable.

But supposing the nebular hypothesis and spon-

taneous generation and the transmutation of species,

and all the other postulates necessary to establish



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 23

the fact of evolution, be granted; supposing that,

as new facts are discovered, and as nature is more
carefully scrutinized, it be shown that there has

obtained that development from lower to higher

forms of life that the evolutionist speaks of, what

then P I might reply that it would be time enough

to answer the question when the evidence is forth-
coming; but as it seems to bear somewhat closely

on the subject I have chosen to treat, and as, even

aside from this, its answer, if not altogether new,

may have a certain interest for some of my hearers
—at least, as illustrative of the liberty of thought
that the Catholic enjoys regarding this and similar

questions— I think it best to give it a passing
notice.

Before going further, however, it will be neces-

sary to state more precisely the meaning of a few

terms. I have given a general definition of evolu-

tion, yet one that will answer our purpose suffi-

ciently well. But as all who hold the doctrine are
not at one as to the causes and processes that have

obtained, it will be well to define the beliefs

of the principal classes of evolutionists. First,

then, we have the atheistic evolutionist, or the
evolutionist who denies the existence of a divine
Creator. To this class belong Haeckel, Vogt, and
Buckner, and many of their disciples in Europe



24 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

and in this country. The second class comprises
the school of agnostic evolutionists, those, viz.,

who, while not admitting the existence of a divine

Creator, still do not explicitly deny His existence.

They simply relegate God to the Unknowable;
because, they say, we can know nothing about
Him. Among the more prominent representa-
tives of this school are Herbert Spencer, Tyndall,

Huxley, and Bain. Evolutionists of the third class

are theists, or those who profess and maintain a
belief in the existence of a personal God. To this
last class belong the ablest scientists and philos-

ophers of the age. Among those best known we
may mention the names of Owen, Sir John
Herschel, Sir William Thompson, Prof. Gray,

Mr. Wallace, and M. Naudin.
It is quite evident that a Catholic could not hold

the theory of evolution in the sense in which it is

maintained by atheists and agnostics. To do so
would be in direct opposition to the first article of

his Creed. But could he, consistently with his

faith, hold it as taught by theists? Before answer-

ing this question, we must properly understand
another term of paramount importance in the dis-

cussion of the subject. That term is creation.

Creation, in its primary and strictest sense, is the

origination by God of som_ething without pre-e^?



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 25

isting material. But, besides this primary or abso-

lute creation, there is also a secondary or derivative

creation, which obtains, for instance, when God,
after having created matter directly, gives it the

power of evolving under certain conditions all the

various forms it may subsequently assume. In the
first instance, God creates matter absolutely; and
then by giving it certain powers and properties,

—

in other words, by imposing on it what we call
natural laws,— creates potentially all the forms
that may afterwards be evolved from matter thus
under the action of the forces and properties

given it.

Now the question comes again: Is there any-
thing in the theistic idea of evolution contrary to

the declaration of Scripture or to the teachings of

Catholic faith? I trust you will not consider me
as proclaiming a novelty, or as giving expression

to a heterodox opinion, when I state it as my be-
lief that there is not. According to the words of

Genesis, God did not create animals and plants in
the primary sense of the word, but caused them

to be produced from pre-existing material. u Let

the earth bring forth,” “ Let the waters bring

forth,” He says; showing clearly that creation, in
these instances, was only secondary or derivative.

So far, then, the way seems clear. But was this



26 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

creation instantaneous, or was it something effected

only after the lapse of time, through the operation

of natural forces; were the animals and plants

called immediately into existence from crude inor-

ganic material by theJiatoi Omnipotence, or were

they slowly and gradually evolved from this same

inorganic material, and developed from lower to

higher forms, in accordance with laws that God
Himself had established in the beginning?

It is popularly supposed that the creations spoken

of were instantaneous; but the evolutionist contends

that they were gradual, and the result of the inter-

action, according to divinely pre-ordained laws, of

natural forces on matter. In either case, the crea-

tive act of God is maintained; and in the second
case, it seems to me, as much as in the first. The
evolutionist simply maintains that God did poten-
tially, what the ordinary Scriptural interpreter be-

lieves He did by a distinct exercise of infinite
power.

Thus understood, then, it seems clear that there

is nothing in evolution contrary to Scripture. But

may there not be some dogmatic definition of the
Church against it, or may it not be contrary, at
least iti its spirit, to the teachings of the Fathers

and Doctors of the Church?

As to the Church, she has never pronounced on



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 27

the matter, and there is not—I speak under cor-
rection—a single definition that declares, even by
implication, that evolution is opposed to faith. But

we must go still further. We are not satisfied by
steering clear of opinions that are manifestly heret-

ical; we wish also to avoid, much less advocate,
opinio s that a concensus of theological authority

would consider as rash or dangerous. What, then,

do the Doctors and Fathers of the Church say in

relation to the subject? It need not be observed

that they could not have said anything about evo-

lution as we now understand it, for the simple
reason that the subject, as taught to-day, was quite

unknown. But, still, they may have laid down
principles that will meet all our difficulties. And
that they did so, is a fact, I think, no one who
weighs what they have written can deny.

In his great work on Genesis, St. Augustine,
when speaking of the creation of animals and
plants, repeats time and again his belief that they

were brought into existence by the operation of

natural causes. He tells us explicitly that they
were created potentially, and that they were after-

wards developed into the manifold forms we now
behold. “As,” he teaches, “ the seed contains in-

visibly within itself all that is found in the full-

grown tree, so also the world, after its creation by



28 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

God, contained all the germs of the various forms

of life that were afterwards produced.”

St. Thomas follows St. Augustine’s teaching
regarding derivative creation, as does also the great

Jesuit theologian Saurez, and many others of ac-
knowledged authority. I will not take up your

time in reading quotations or making references,

as I do not purpose giving you a treatise on the

subject, but only to point out a few well-authen-

ticated facts. Those who have the leisure or the
inclination can make a detailed examination of the
question for themselves.

Thus, then, we see that that system of evolution
which acknowledges God as direct Creator of
matter and force, and as at least the indirect

Creator—a Creator through secondary causes —
of all the manifold forms of organic nature that

we know of, is not inconsistent with either the
declarations of Scripture, the definitions of the

Church, or the teachings of the Doctors and

Fathers. Consequently, as matters now stand,
evolution is not contrary to Catholic faith; and

any one is at liberty to hold the theory, if he is

satisfied with the evidence adduced in its support.

But, you may ask, can this system of evolution
be made, consistently with Catholic doctrine, to

embrace also man? In answer to this question, I



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 29

will simply say that, as to the soul of man, the

reply must be a decided negative. Each individ-

ual soul, according to Catholic teaching, is created

directly and absolutely by God Himself. But as
to whether theistic evolution may embrace man’s
body, considered as separate from, and independent

of, the soul, I will only observe that the theory has

been defended by no less an authority than the emi-

nent Catholic naturalist and philosopher, St.George

Mivart: and I am not aware that his position has
been proven by theologians to be untenable. The
hypothesis may be rash, and even dangerous, but
I do not think that, considering it simply in its

bearing on dogma, any one could pronounce it as

certainly and positively false. But— and this is
important to bear in mind—it is at most a matter
of mere speculation, and such it will probably

always remain.

So also is the evolution of the lower forms of

animal and plant life only a theory—“ a fascinating
theory,” as the great Agassiz called it,—but noth-
ing more. Organic forms may have been evolved
according to the laws of theistic evolution, but

were they? We are now dealing with a question
of fact, not of fancy. To this I think we can
reply, with the eminent German physiologist, Du
Bois-Reymond, when facing a similar question,



30 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

“Ignoramus et ignorabimus—we do not know, and
we never shall know.” We know that God has
created all things that exist. How He has created
them is a mystery that does not concern us. We
know that all that is grand and sublime and beau-
tiful in nature is the work of His hands, although

we may never know anything more than we do
now of the wonderful methods and processes em-
ployed. Probably we should show more wisdom
by humbly acknowledging that we are dealing
with one of those mysteries of the natural order of

which a solution will never be vouchsafed us in

this world. At any rate, whatever advances
science may make, we can rest secure in the
thought that there is nothing in evolution, outside

of the atheistic and agnostic systems of it, that

contravenes the teachings of Holy Church. For

us this is sufficient.

Having thus disposed of that insurmountable

barrier, as unbelievers are pleased to call it, which

evolution is ordinarily considered to oppose to a

consistent acceptance of revealed truth, I will

proceed to those other subjects that are at the

present time regarded as offering special difficul-

ties to the theologian. I refer to the much vexed
questions of the unity of species, the antiquity of

man, and the Noachian Deluge.



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 3

1

The question of the unity of the human species
is one that has, more or less, engaged the attention

of philosophers for centuries. But the impetus

given to the study of biological science, particu-

larly within the last twenty-five years, has created

for the subject an interest it never possessed before.

It has been taken up not only by speculative

scientists and sentimental philanthropists, but also,

and especially, by practical,^ learned, truth-loving

naturalists, philologists, ethnologists and archaeol-

ogists the world over. All the races and tribes of

the earth have been visited in the interests of

science; their anatomical and physiological charac-

teristics have been noted and compared
;

their

manners and customs have been studied with

scrupulous care; their languages and literatures

have been consulted by scholars of every shade of

opinion; their monuments and records have been
ransacked to satisfy the demands of savants and

learned societies
;

their traditions and religious

beliefs have been examined even in their minutest

details. The hieroglyphical writings of the ancient
Egyptians and Aztecs have been deciphered; the

cuneiform inscriptions of Western Asia inter-

preted; the remains of prehistoric man in the Old
and New Worlds questioned; and all this with
what result? One in perfect harmony with the



32 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

teaching of the Church, which maintains, and

ever has maintained, the oneness of the human
species.

The bearing of her doctrine of the unity of
species

—

i. e., that all mankind is derived from

common parents — on some of the fundamental
teachings of faith, is so evident as to need no

comment. But precise as the doctrine of the

Church is on this point, its truth has not been in

the least impaired by the investigations and dis-

coveries of modern science. On the contrary, all
demonstrated conclusions in every department of

knowledge have, as every Catholic knew would
be the case, only tended to corroborate what the

Church has always taught, and to strengthen more

than ever her position in the eyes of the intellec-

tual world. I know that there have been men,
with theories to support—specialists who wished
to obtain notoriety, — who have maintained the
unprovable hypothesis of the multiplicity of

species. I am aware also that there have been
those who have divided mankind into species ac-
cording to geographical distribution, or color, or

language, but no one has ever regarded their the-

ories as anything more than vague and unfounded

conjectures.

Another and more interesting question is that



THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 33

regarding the antiquity of man. Scientific men
now maintain that man has been on earth much
longer than is popularly supposed, and much
longer, too, than is consistent with the declarations

of the Sacred Text. Instead of the six thousand

years that are generally assigned as the time that

has elapsed since man appeared on earth, scientists
assure us that his advent dates back much farther.
Some will tell you that man has inhabited this
earth for at least 40,000 or 50,000 years; whilst

others, like Sir John Lubbock and Sir Charles

Lyell, will claim for him an antiquity of 200,000

years, and still others more than a million. They
tell us that the present remains of prehistoric man,

the instruments of defense, etc., found in Europe

and America, teach us that all our ideas about his

antiquity have to be entirely modified.

Now, at the first blush, the great disagreement
among the scientists themselves about the question
at issue should put us on our guard. No two of
them view the question in the same light. No
two of them, in any given instance, ever arrive at

the same conclusion as the result of their investi-

gations. Geologists particularly are fond of giving

a great antiquity to man, and to the period during

which animal and vegetable life has existed upon

this earth. According to Lyell, the life period of



34 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

the earth must be somewhere about 300,000,000
years. Yet, in the face of this statement, the

great mathematicians and physicists, Sir Wm.
Thompson and Prof. Tait, come forward, with
conclusions based on well known laws of physics,
and assert, as a certainty, that it would have been

simply impossible for life, as we now know it, to
have existed on the earth for more than 10,000,000

or 1 5,000,000 years at most,—only the one-thirtieth
or the one-twentieth of the time claimed by Lyell

and his followers. Allow me to quote you Prof.
Tait’s own words, as found in his admirable work,
“Recent Advances in Physical Science”: “We
can at once say to geologists that, granting this

premise, that physical laws have remained as they

are now, and that we know of all the physical laws
which have been operating during that time, we
cannot give more time for their speculation than

about ten, or, say at most, fifteen million years.

But I dare say many of you are acquainted with
the speculations of Lyell, and others,—especially of
Darwin, who tells us that even for a comparatively
brief portion of geological history three hundred

millions of years will not suffice. We say—so
much the worse for geology as at present under-
stood by its chief authorities, for, as you will

presently see, physical considerations, from various



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 35

independent points of view, render it utterly im-

possible that more than ten million years can be

granted.”

Now, looking at Lyell’s proportion of man’s
age to that of the life period of the earth, viz.,

200,000 to 300,000,000—

1

to 1500—in the light
of Thompson’s conclusions, we find that the age
of man must, according to Lyell’s own figures, be
brought down to a period somewhere between
6600 and 10,000 years. The mean result, which,
however, is only approximate, would be about

8000 years. Still it is equally decisive as against the

unwarranted assumptions of geologists.

But what about the antiquity of man according
to the Bible? It is a mistaken idea to suppose that

the Scriptures give any date as to the creation of

man, or any definite data that would aid one in

calculating how long he has been upon the earth.
The dates usually put at the head of chapters or
parts of the Bible are not a part of the inspired

writings, but only the determinations of individual

commentators, from such data as the Sacred Text

afforded them. These data, often vague and

uncertain, are mostly the genealogies of the pa-

triarchs, reigns of kings, periods of servitude, etc.:

and, owing to various causes, which it is unneces-

sary to explain at present, it is found that even the



36 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

oldest versions of the Bible we now possess—viz.,
the Septuagint, the Hebrew, and the Samaritan

—seriously differ from each other in their chron-
ologies.

No orthodox writer, according to Riccioli, an
eminent Jesuit astronomer, places the era of crea-

tion of man higher than 7000 B. C., or lower than
3700. Of two hundred different values collected
by the chronologer Dessignoles, for the time

elapsed from the creation of man until the coming of
Christ, the least was 3483 and the greatest 6984
years, giving a difference of 3501 years. Adding to

these results the time that has elapsed since the

coming of Christ (1883 years) we have as a mini-
mum of man’s antiquity 5366 years, and as a
maximum 8867 years. The mean of these two
sums would be a little over 7000 years,—a result
that chronologists hold to be better founded than

the popularly received figure that places the age

of our race at about 6000 years. In conclusion I

would add that it is now considered by those who
have made Biblical chronology a study, that, from

the data given in the Bible, it would scarcely be

safe to maintain that the time which has elapsed

since the creation of our first parents has been

more than 8000 years. It may be a little more;



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 37

but, judging from the data calculated from, it is a

little less.

Here, then, we have, on the one hand, the latest
conclusions—the results are only approximate—of
science, which put the antiquity of man at about
8000 years; and, on the other hand, the computa-

tions of Biblical chronologists, which, giving a

latitude of fully thirty-five centuries between the

lowest and the highest values, afford certainly

all the time that the geologist or astronomer can

prove necessary to reconcile the facts of his science

with the known data of Holy Scripture.
As far as the Church is concerned, the antiquity

of man is an open question. She has never pro-
nounced on the subject, but, as in many similar
instances, has left it to be decided by learned men
according to the data afforded by chronological

investigations.

In the calculations to which I have just alluded I

have taken the results of geologists whose views

on the subject are extreme. But there are not

wanting eminent scholars in every branch of

modern scientific inquiry who maintain that the
antiquity of man is far less than some of our
u advanced thinkers” would make it; and that
there is yet no valid reason for considering it

greater than it has been popularly supposed to be,



3§ THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

viz., 6000 years. At all events — barring all
fanciful computations, like those based on Indian

or Chinese chronologies; or idle conjectures, like

those found on the relics discovered in Scandina-

vian graves, in French peat or gravel beds, or in

Swiss lake-dwellings—there is certainly no con-
flict between science—I do not mean theory—and
religion on the subject of the age of our race.

More than this: as fully convinced as I am that
there is no conflict now, so fully am I convinced
that there never will be any; but that, on the con-

trary, every new scientific discovery, when properly
understood, will, as in every other case, only tend

to confirm the teachings of the Inspired Record.

One more difficulty, and I have done with the
objections I proposed to answer. We are told
that there is a conflict between the teachings of

science and the account of the flood, as contained

in the Bible. I might admit that there is a conflict

between the teachings of certain scientists and the

Bible; but this would prove nothing against the

Bible. That there is even the slightest conflict

between the Mosaic narrative of the deluge and

the demonstrated conclusions of science, I emphat-

ically deny.

It is the popular belief—a belief, too, that the
words of the Bible seem to favor—that the flood



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 39

was universal; but science steps forward and tells

us that, for many reasons I need not mention, the
deluge could not have been universal. Admitting,

as we may, that there was nothing more miraculous
about the deluge than the employment by God, at

a fixed time, of physical agents, as we now know
them, for the accomplishment cf His purpose

—

the destruction of the human race in punishment
of their crimes,—I do not see that we are obliged,
even by the words Scripture, to believe that the

deluge was universal as to the surface of the earth,

but universal only as to that part inhabited by man
#

The end for which the flood was sent—the wash-
ing away of the wicked from the face of the earth

—would have been attained as well by a local as
by a general deluge. The frequent use of universal
for particular terms in every part of the Sacred

Text is well known. But there is no reason what-

ever why the terms employed in the narrative of
the flood should be used in a general rather than a

particular sense; and the Church, as in the other

cases I have spoken of, has not given any decision

on the question. Hence, in the present state of

the discussion, we are at perfect libeity to believe
that the waters covered the whole earth, or ex-

tended over only that portion—a very limited



40 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

territory it was—of Western Asia then occupied
by the human family.

But the objections of scientists are at fault on

other grounds. Geology, it is generally conceded,

can tell us nothing at all about the catastrophe of

which all peoples have their traditions; and more

than this, there is no certain geological evidence

even of the existence of such a flood, at the time

spoken of, as Moses describes.

Again, as much as the question has been dis-
cussed, it has not yet been proved that a universal

flood was impossible. There are still able scientists,
eminent geologists and physicists, on the affirma-

tive as well as on the negative side of the question.

Like many other questions of no practical impor-
tance, it is most likely one that will ever remain in

dispute.

So much, then, for the serious
( ?)

objections

offered by our “advanced thinkers” against the

teachings of the Church. When examined they
prove to be objections founded on mere assump-

tions, or series of asumptions,—or, more truly,
they are no objections at all.

What, then, about the much vaunted conflict
between Science and Religion? Is there, then,

no conflict? And is Science, then, in reality, the



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 4!

handmaid of Religion, as the defenders of Revela-

tion claim she is?

I have already answered these questions incident-

ally; but T deem it best to emphasize now what I
have said, and to state more clearly what we are
to understand by Science, on the one hand, and

the teachings of the Church on the other. As we
have just seen in the difficulties we have been
considering, all the objections were based on mis-

understandings or misinterpretations. At most, the
conflict has been one between individuals—be-
tween scientists and interpreters. This has arisen

from mistaking—a common error nowadays—the
theories, guesses and vagaries of scientists for true

science — for positive knowledge — for demon-
strated certainties,—which they are not; and from
regarding the opinions, hypotheses, provisional

expositions of individual theologians and commen-
tators as authoritative teachings of the Church.

Modern science, as it is generally spoken of,—

I

do not refer to facts and phenomena,—is, at best,
nothing more than conjecture. There is nothing

positive about it. In the language of mathemati-

cians, it is a variable quantity, and as we have
seen, a very variable quantity it is. The theories,
the explanations, the science, therefore, of to-day

is abandoned for that offered to-morrow. It has



42 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

been well said that modern science, as ordinarily
understood, is but the opinions of the scientists of

the day. How much it is a matter of conjecture, is
seen from the questions we have already con-
sidered. But these are not special or isolated

instances. We find the same uncertainty, the
same difference of opinion, in every department of

science. At one time it was thought that the mani-
fold revolutions, of which geology speaks as having

taken place in the earth’s crust, were brought

about by the action of fire. At another time it was
held that water was the all-powerful agent in the

changes observed. Again, it was supposed that

the effects of upheaval and subsidence, of mount-

ain and continent making, were brought about

suddenly and violently, like our present volcanoes

and earthquakes, only that the action was on a
much more stupendous scale, and of much greater
extent. Now it is thought that these same effects
may be accounted for by the slow operation of
known causes which are still in action.
So it is with the various forces and elements

with which the physicist and chemist have to deal.

Light and heat were not long ago considered as

very attenuated kinds of matter, and from the fact

that they have no appreciable weight, were named

imponderables. Even now, there are not wanting



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 43

those—and this, too,among our “ advanced thinkers”
—who still hold to the corpuscular theory of light
and heat. But there are others again, and for the

nonce they are in the majority, who look upon
light and heat—sound, magnetism and electricity
also—as only modes of motion, as merely different
manifestations of one and the same force, - a force,

however, about whose real nature they are obliged

to confess that they know absolutely nothing.
iVgain, the ordinary text-books on chemistry

enumerate some sixty-five or seventy forms

of matter that are called elementary,—forms of
matter that are incapable of decomposition, and

from which all compound bodies are formed.
But there are to-day—and their number is increas-
ing—some of the ablest experimenters and most
profound thinkers in chemical, physical and astro-

nomical science, who, for reasons that seem almost

conclusive, maintain that all the so-called elements

are only modifications, allotropic conditions, of one

and the same primal substance.

Yet more: just now the greatest diversity of
opinion, giving rise to the most ingenious hypotheses

and the most most profound problems, obtain

regarding the nature of matter itself.

What is matter? Are we to look upon it, as
do most of the chemists of the day, as something



44 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

made up of atoms of which we know nothing?
Shall we, with Boscovitch and Faraday and others,

regard it as nothing more than centers of force,

doing away thereby with the idea of matter alto-
gether and reserving only that of force? Or shall
we accept the latest explanation of the mystery

—

the vortex atom theory of Sir William Thompson
and Helmholtz, who consider matter as simply
rotating portions of a perfect fluid that fills all

space? These are questions which not only

have not been answered, but also questions which

cannot be answered. Everywhere, even in

apparently the simjolest things, we are confronted
with mysteries. And it is the speculations about
these mysteries, the attempted answers of philoso-

phers to questions proposed regarding the simplest

phenomena, that we call science! Truly, there is
a grave misapprehension somewhere. What is
palmed off on a credulous public as science is not

science, unless we choose to designate by this
term the constantly changing hypotheses that are

in turn offered in explanation of the facts and

phenomena daily observable in the world around us.

From what I have said, however, I would not
have you infer that I am opposed to theories in
science. Far from it. They often serve a useful
purpose, and, as a matter of fact, if we wish to go



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 45

beyond the limits of simple observation we cannot
do without them. But in the name of exact

science, in the name of true philosophy, I do pro-

test against the disposition, the custom, I should

say, that now prevails with some of our would-be
scientists, of foisting the crudest hypotheses, par-

ticularly when there is question concerning the
relation between science and religion, into a

place that should be reserved only for positive

knowledge, for incontestable truth.

So far, I have spoken of theories only in rela-

tion to science and dogma, but I have said nothing

about their bearing on politics and morals. The
various theories of matter and force would, at first

sight, seem to have little or no connection with

morals or politics
;
and yet, as interpreted and devel-

oped by a materialistic and an atheistic philosophy,

they are as intimately related as cause and effect.

Granting, with Haeckel, Straus, Vogt, and

Buchner, who have no belief in a personal God, that
there is nothing outside of matter and force, we can
see at once what must be the logical consequences

of such a premise. We could then hold, with Prof.
Woleshott, that “the will is the necessary expres-

sion of a state of the brain produced by external

influences. There is no such thing as free-will.

A crime is the logical result, direct and inevitable,



46 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

of the passion which animates us. Without phos-

phorus, no thought.” “ Thought is a
movement of matter; conscience is also a move-
ment of matter.” We could then maintain, with
the German pantheist, Prof. E. Von Hartmann,
(“Philosophy of the Unknown,”) “that it is im-

portant to make the beast-life better known to youth
as being the truest source of pure nature, wherein

they may learn to understand their true being, in
its simplest form, and in it rest and refresh them-

selves after the artificiality and deformity of our

social condition. . . . Let us only think how
agreeably an ox or a hog lives, almost as if he had

learned to do so from Aristotle.”

In speaking of Darwinism, the blasphemous

Haeckel observes: “Darwinism is doubtless insuf-

ficient, but that which, in spite of this, should

contribute to its being admitted, is that it excludes

the intervention of God. This is its inappreciable

merit.” Again, in speaking of his theory of mor-

phology (as summarized in The London Times'),

he says: “In this way the Creator is disposed of,
not only as superfluous, but as a Being who, if He
existed, instead of being all-wise, would every now
and then have committed the indiscretion of

attempting to create eyes and wings which His

power did not suffice to perfect.” And in another



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 47

place he observes: “ With this simple argument

the mystery of the universe is explained, Divinity

is annulled, and a new era of infinite knowledge
ushered in.”

No wonder that Dr. Virchow—certainly no
great friend of the Church—thought it time to call
a halt. u Gentlemen,” he says in his Address to

the Congress of German Naturalists at Munich in

1877, “ I will only hope that the evolution theory

may not bring upon us all the alarm that similar
theories have actually aroused in the neighboring

country. At all events, this theory, if consistently
carried out, has a very serious aspect, and I trust

that it has not escaped your notice that Socialism

has already established a sympathetic relation with

it. We must not conceal these facts from our-
selves.” In the same address he solemnly declares

:

“ Every attempt to transform our problems into

doctrines, to introduce our hypotheses as the bases

of introduction—especially the attempt simply to
dispossess the Church and to supplant its dogmas

forthwith by a religion of evolution,—be assured,
gentlemen, every such attempt will make ship-
wreck, and its wreck will also bring with it the

greatest perils for the whole position of science.”

To the question why such pernicious doctrines
as those I have just quoted for you should be sus-



48 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

tained in the name of sober science, I will let that
close observer and acute thinker, St. George

Mivart, give the answer: u . . . . A passionate
hatred of religion (‘ Lessons from Nature,’ chap-

ter xiii), however discreetly or astutely veiled, lies

at the bottom of much of the popular metaphysi-
cal teachings now in vogue.

“ A belief in the necessary inconsistency of
science with religion is persistently propagated

among the public by writings and lectures, in
which more is implied than asserted. In such

lectures attempts have again and again been made

to strike theology through physical science, or to

blacken religion with coal-dust, or to pelt it with

chalk, or to smother it with sub-Atlantic mud,

or to drown it with a sea of protoplasm.
“ Delenda est Carthago . No system is to be

tolerated which will lead men to accept a personal
God, moral responsibility, and a future state of

rewards and punishments. Let these unwelcome

truths be once eliminated, and no system is deemed

undeserving of a candid, if not a sympathetic, con-

sideration
;
and, cceteris paribus, that system which

excludes the most efficaciously, becomes the most

acceptable.”

If the doctrines which the Church proposes for

our belief were as variable, and had no better



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 49

foundation than the conjectures we are asked to ac-
cept as science; if the logical tendencies of her teach-

ings were as disastrous in their consequences as those

of popular materialistic science, then, indeed, we
should have a difficult case to plead in maintaining

her position against the various so-called systems of

science and philosophy that are constantly attacking

her in the name of freedom of thought and intellect-
ual advancement. Fortunately for us, such is not

the case. The Church of Christ is ever the same.
She teaches the same truths now as she did nine-
teen centuries ago, and with a certainty—because
resting on Truth itself—that precludes the possi-
bility of error. Not once in her whole history
has she ever contradicted herself, or promulgated

a proposition for the belief of her children that

scientific investigation has proved false. In every

age she has been called upon to pronounce on ques-

tions in every department of human knowledge,
and her answers have been consistent, both with

her previous decisions and the demonstrated con-

clusions of science. Certainly, no one could

desire a stronger proof of her divine origin, or more

convincing evidence of the constant presence of the

Spirit of Truth watching over her and preserving

her from error. Not so with other systems of belief.

The religions of Brahma and Buddha and Sweden-



5° THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

borg are intimately mixed up with false systems of

astronomy, geography, anatomy, and physiology.

The latter being disproved on simple scientific
grounds, the former are shown to be false. But the

Catholic Church never committed herself to any

theory, even when, humanly speaking, such a

committal, at least in a few instances, seemed

unavoidable.

“ When the Copernican system,” observes the
learned Cardinal Newman, in his 4 Lectures on
University Subjects,’ a first made progress, what
religious man would not have been tempted to un-
easiness, or at least fear of scandal, from the seeming

contradiction which it involved to some authorita-

tive tradition of the Church and the declaration of

Scripture? It was generally received as if the

Apostles had expressly delivered it, both orally

and in writing, that the earth was stationary, and

that the sun was fixed in a solid firmament which

whirled around the earth. After a little time, how-

ever, and on full consideration, it was found that

the Church had decided next to nothing on ques-

tions such as these, and that physical science might

rar'ge in this sphere of thought almost at will, with-

out fear of encountering the dicisions of ecclesias-

tical authority. Now, besides the relief it afforded
to Catholics to find that they were to be spared



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 5 T

this addition, on the side of Cosmology, to their

many controversies already existing, there is some-
thing of an argument in this circumstance in

behalf of the divinity of their religion. For it

surely is a very remarkable fact, considering how
widely and how long one certain interpretation of
those physical statements in Scripture had been re-

ceived by Catholics, that the Church should not have

formally acknowledged it. ^Looking at the matter

in a human point of view, it was inevitable that she
should have made that opinion her own. But now
we find, on ascertaining where we stand, in the
face of the new sciences of these latter times, that,
in spite of the bountiful comments, which from

the first she has ever been making on the sacred

text, as it is her duty and her right to do, never-

theless, she has never been led formally to explain

the texts in question, or to give them an authori-

tative sense which modern science may question.”
And, yet, with all this the Church has ever per-

mitted, notwithstanding what her adversaries say

to the contrary, her children the greatest liberty

of thought. The latitude she allows regarding
current scientific theories—I refer not to atheistic
and materialistic assumptions — is a proof of my
assertion. More than this: not only has the
Church permitted the greatest liberty of thought



52 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

in doubtful matters of science and philosophy, or,

more truly, in all matters not opposed to revealed

truth, but she has also been the first to foster and

stimulate, in every age, the growth of every

science, and to encourage and remunerate those

who distinguished themselves by their researches
and discoveries.

That there is nothing in the teachings of the

Church incompatible with the highest exercise of

reason, that there is not a single conclusion of true

science inconsistent with any article of faith, are

propositions that every Catholic regards as self-

evident.

The illustrious Dr. Brownson, one of the
greatest philosophers our age, or any age, has

produced, says in his “ Convert,” in reference to

this subject: “I never in a single instance found

a single article, dogma, proposition or definition

of faith which embarrassed me as a logician, or
which I would, so far as my own reason was con-
cerned, have changed, or modified, or in any

respect altered from what I found it, even if I had

been free to do so. I have never found my reason
struggling against the teachings of the Church, or

felt it restrained, or myself reduced to a state of

mental slavery. I have, as a Catholic, felt and



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 53

enjoyed a mental freedom which I never conceived

possible while I was a non-Catholic.”

To the words of the profound Brownson—who,
according to the opinion of an eminent Protestant

writer, had critically examined and mastered more

systems of philosophy than many persons claim-
ing to be professors of philosophy had ever heard

the names of—allow me to add the testimony of
one who, for the depth, extent and variety of his

attainments, and for his accurate and profound

knowledge in every branch of knowledge, sacred

and profane, and who, for his original researches

as well as for the astonishing number of works on

all subjects his prolific pen has given to the world,

deserves to be called the Albertus Magnus of the
nineteenth century. I refer to the illustrious Abbe
Moigno, of Paris, who, according to M. Dumas,
Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences,
“ has, for the last fifty years, marched at the head

of the scientific movement,” and who is, without
question, the first scholar of the age. In his brief

autobiography prefixed to the fourth volume of

his last great work, Les Splendeurs de la Foi
,
he

says : “ I am seventy-three years old [he is now
seventy-nine]

;
I have read everything, I have

understood everything, and I have never been

troubled with the slightest doubt or temptation



54 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

against faith. I have always believed, and I

believe more than ever, all the truths of the

Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church, with a calm,
serene, lively, strong faith, without, I repeat it,

any cloud being interposed between dogma and
my mind. I have sounded, as far as I have been
able, all the mysteries of religion and science, and

my faith has never been shaken; my voice, then,
is that of an enlightened, convinced, and faithful

witness.”

And not less eloquent are the words of the im-
mortal Cauchy, one of the most eminent mathe-

maticians and physicists of modern times, and at

the same time one of the most devoted and saintly

sons of Mother Church. His was the honor of

continuing the work of Laplace, of solving some
of the most difficult problems in modern transcen-

dental analysis, and of founding (to the glory of

France) a new school of mathematical science. In
his ‘‘Religious Orders,” he declares: “I am a
Christian; that is, I believe in the Divinity of Jesus

Christ, with Tycho Brahe, Copernicus, Decartes,

Newton, Fermat, Leibnitz, Pascal, Grimaldi, Euler,
Boscovich, and Gerdil, together with the great

astronomers, physicists, and geometers of past ages.

And, with the greater part of them, I am also a
Catholic, and should any one ask me the reason I



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 55

should give it with pleasure. He would see that
my convictions are not the fruit of preoccupations
proceeding from birth, but the result of a most

profound investigation. He would see how there
have been engraved, and forever, in my mind and
heart, truths that are to me more incontestible
than the squaring of the hypotheneuse, or the

theorem of Maclaurin. I am a sincere Catholic,
as were Corneille, Racine, La Bruyere, Bossuet,
Bourdaloue, and Fenelon; as have been, and are,

many of the most distinguished men of our day,
who have done honor to science, philosophy, and
literature, and added luster to our academies more

than all others besides. I share the profound con-

victions manifested in the works, discourses, and

lives of so many savants of the first order: of the
Ruffitiis, the Hauys, the Laennecs, the Amperes,

the Pelletiers, the Freycinets, the Cariolis. And
if I name not those who still live, fearing lest I
should offend their modesty, I can at least say, that

it has always been most grateful to me to meet all
the nobility and all the generosity of Christian

faith in my illustrious friends: in the founder of
crystallography, in the inventor of chemistry, and

of the stethoscope, and in the immortal author of

dynamical electricity.”

But this is sufficient. Allow me to make a brief



56 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

summary of what I have said, and I will conclude.
We have seen, then, that all real scientific discov-
eries only go to corroborate the doctrines that the

Church proposes for our acceptance. We have
learned that the so-called conflict between Science

and Religion is a conflict between private individ-

uals,—scientists and philosophers with their hypo-
theses, on the one hand, commentators and theo-

logians with their provisional interpretations, on

the other. We have found, too, that the most
prominent scientific theories of the day, aside from

the consequences falsely deduced from them, are

perfectly reconcilable with Catholic dogma; that

the Catholic student enjoys the greatest possible

liberty of thought in matters of science and specu-

lation; and that the Church, far from impeding

his progress, true to her divine mission, and true

to her past history, is the first -to encourage and

assist him.

The Church has nothing to fear from scientific
progress, but much to gain. Every new conquest

of science is a new argument in the natural order

confirmatory of the verities that God has been
pleased to reveal. No one can have greater reason
to rejoice at the advance of science than the Church,

for she is conscious that every acquisition of science

will be an addition to her sacred treasure of heav-



AND MODERN SCIENCE. 57

enly, divine truth. Science is the handmaid of

Religion. Between true science and true religion,

between modern science—in so far as it is science
—and the Catholic Church, a conflict not only does
not exist, but it is not even possible. Both point

in the same direction; both should lead us to the

Author of all good—God, our Father.











<