KJ ■m^ Frauds OF THE University of Notre Dame NOTRE DAME), INDIANA OR HOW THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME WITH HER FRAUDULENT DOCTOR'S DEGREES, COURSES, ETC., PROSTITUTES THE PRESTIGE, WHICH A RELIGIOUS ORDER ENJOYS IN THE EYES OF CATHOLICS TO OBTAIN THEIR MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENSES. BY CHARLKS VENZKIANI, A. M., Ph. D. (Heidelberg-) PRICE 50 CENTS. THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Two CoPiES Received AUG. 17 1901 Copyright entry CLASS ^''XXc. N«. COPY 8. ^ ,: ee cc c t c c c , c c PREFACE. This work is based chiefly — aUhough not solely — on the catalogues of Notre Dame, on an unpublished document of this university, submitted to the author- ities of the Churchy and on Father Zahm's book ''Catholic Science and Cathohc Scientists." We trust that no reader will suppose that all Cath- olic colleges are frauds because our largest Catholic university is shown to be a fraudulent institution. We are fully aware of the gravity of the charges we bring against Notre Dame, and if we have slan- dered her, we are ready to suffer the penalty the law inflicts on slanderers. Notre Dame needs no outsiders to take up her de- fence, she has a law school which according to her catalogue (see page 136), "is not and cannot be ex- celled," therefore she should have the best legal talent on her staff, eager to prosecute a slanderer unless the proofs of her guilt are so overwhelming that she is compelled to confine herself either to ignoring the charge, or speaking lightly of it, or entering into per- sonalities. It is to be hoped that this pamphlet may be of some help in directing the attention of Catholics toward the pressing need of Catholic higher education. The ef- ficient work done by many institutions of learning originally founded by non-Catholics with a sectarian purpose in view is by far superior to that done by Catholic colleges and universities controlled by relig- PRKFACK. ious Orders. This is due to the fact that these rehg- iotts Orders, using their own members to teach, and paying all the expenses, enjoy all the profit; hence it is not to be expected that they would foster non- paying university courses. While it would be wrong to say that religious Orders founded colleges to make money, it is right to state that they could not afford to lose money in the interest of higher ed- ucation; therefore, under such circumstances, Cath- olic institutions of learning which could compare fav- orably with universities like Harvard, Chicago, etc., are impossibilites. Wealthy Catholics, knowing that the members of such Orders, bound as they are by the vow of poverty, could receive only their board and clothes, and seeing the stately buildings, are of the opinion that such institutions of learning are more than self-supporting, hence no munificent gifts are bestowed on them. It is highly probable that before the close of this century there will be many endowed Catholic colleges and universities of the first rank with a staff of laymen as professors : then and not before will this country be able to judge of the in- terest and work of Catholics in the line of higher edu- cation. That this pamphlet may contribute to hasten that time is the earnest wish of the writer. CONTENTS, CHAPTER I. Summary and Object of This Pamphlet 9 How Notre Dame decoyed students to her hall 17 P^rauds of the University of Notre Dame 19 Fraud No. 1. The three years' post graduate course leading- to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 20 Fraud No. 2. The degree of Doctor of Science 21 Fraud No. 3. The degree of Doctor of I^aws granted only for some remarkable work in law 26 Fraud No. 4. The degree of Doctor of lyiterature granted only to former pupils of Notre Dame for some remarkable work in Iviterature or in any other branches of the course of Letters 27 Fraud No. 5. Elective work offered to pupils who wish to make a deep study of pure mathematics either to become professors in mathematics or to make original investigations, with no professor on her staff who could be called a mathematician 28 Fraud No. 6. The Romance L^anguages department of the University of Notre Dame. Origin and growth of this fraud .,..., 30 CHAPTER II. Analysis of Faculty 32 Sisters in charge of the Minim department 32 Brother-Professors 32 Priest Professors 33 The inferior quality of the I^ayman Professors proved by the remarkable discovery of the President of the Board of Trustees of Notre Dame 35 Types of I^ayman Professors and their salaries 36 CHAPTER III. Wholesale swindling of the University of Notre Dame 39 Why do Catholics need endowed Catholic colleges and universities if our largest Catholic university is able to coin money? 44 How is it that a fraudulent institution like Notre Dame became our largest Catholic university? 46 Some of the causes of the growth of Notre Dame: 1. Influence of her founder, Father Sorin 46 2. Influence of St. Mary's Academy 46 3. Relig-ious influence 47 4. The beauty of Notre Dame 47 5. The Ave Maria 48 6. Hunting- athletes as a bait to attract students.. 48 7. No unsavory reports circulated through the press about Notre Dame 50 8. Prestige lent to Notre Dame by the hierarchy. . . 50 Why Notre Dame does not double or treble her actual Number of students 51 CHAPTER IV. A brief analysis of the document of the University of Notre Dame submitted to the authorities of the Church by Father J. A. 2;ahm, in which the University proudly acknowledges that the oral and written word of her Trustees, President and Faculty is not to be relied on. Why Notre Dame had to submit this interesting docu- ment 54 The reason why Notre Dame was compelled in her defense to incriminate herself 55 Breach of trust of Notre Dame toward parents of her pupils shown by her document 57 The charity of which Notre Dame boasts shown to consist in her swindling parents out of $6,000.00 and pocketing $4,000.00 57 How much Notre Dame values the services of a very competent layman-professor and one utterly unfit to have charge of students 58 Black ingratitude of Notre Dame toward the layman- professor who taught her Trustees for the last eighteen months of his connection gratis 60 CHAPTER V. Remarks on Father Zahm's Catholic Science and Catholic Scientists, a book which makes the Church appear a fraud, published, according to the statement in his preface, "in response to numerous requests from distinguished representatives of the hierarchy" 61 Two of Father Zahm's blunders contrary to common sense and Catholic teaching: Blunder No. 1 61 Blunder No. 2 62 Father ^ahm's eagerness to prove absurd claims of the Church the cause of his errors 63 A few of Father 2;ahm's blunders in his proof that the Church has invariably taken the lead in mathematical discovery and development 65 Blunder No. 1 65 Blunder No. 2 65 Blunder No. 3 67 Blunder No. 4 67 Blunder No. 5 68 Blunder No. 6 69 Blunder No. 7 70 Blunder No. 8 70 Father Z^ahm's contradiction in his proof that the Sceptre of Natural Science belongs to the Church. . .^ 72 Father Zahm's blunders concerning- Galileo's achieve- ments in his proof that the Sceptre of Astronomy truly ^ belong-s to the Church 73 Blunder No. 1 74 Blunder No. 2 74 Some of Father Zahm's blunders in his proof that the Sceptre of Physical Science truly belongs to the Church 75 Blunder No. 1 75 Blunder No. 2 76 Blunder No. 3 76 Blunder No. 4 76 Blunder No. 5 — Father Zahm's ignorance of the real greatness of Galileo 87 CHAPTER VI. THE) CASK OF GAIvII^KO. Father Zahm's patent historical lie about the case of Galileo 80 The causes that led to the condemnation of the Copernican system 81 Condemnation of the Copernican system, Galileo's duty as a Catholic not to submit to the decree of the Holy Office, should have appealed to the Pope 82 Necessary consequences of Galileo's appeal to the Pope 86 Galileo's further downfall from cowardly denial to perjury 88 Reasons of the cowardice of Galileo 89 Did the decree of the Holy Office have any harmful influence toward retarding the progress of Astronomy among Catholics? 91 Were not Paul V., Urban VIH. and all subsequent Popes, until the decree of the Holy Office, condemning the Copernican system was repealed, guilty of laxity in 92 performing their duty as heads of the Church? How Father Zahm's book, "Catholic Science and Catholic Scientists", might be used in the future to dis- honor the Church and hierarchy of America 94 SUMMARY AND OBJECT OF THIS PAMPHLET. About the end of January, 1900, every member of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church of America, every Trustee of the CathoHc University of Notre Dame, was notified of the frauds of Notre Dame Uni- versity. These frauds consist mainly in decoying the youth to this institution by holding out the induce- ment of Doctors degrees and courses which have no existence except in the catalogues in which they are printed. Instead of retracing her steps and acting accord- ing to Catholic principles the Catholic University of Notre Dame, eyen^ter the authorities of the Catho- 4- lie Church were notified, continues_heri,Jra_ud, and in her latest catalogue* of 1899- 1900 announces a course of Romance^ Languages — Provencal, Portuguese, etc., without having on her stafif any one to teach it. The question arises : "Is it right for our largest Catholic university to endeavor to impose upon the credulity of the public by making people belie ve that degrees are granted and courses are taught in Notre Dame when in reality these degrees and courses have no existence except in her catalogues?'' For instance, she announces a three years' post- graduate course leading to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy; yet nonsuch course ever -existed in Notre Dame University. No degree of Doctor of Science was ever conferred by Notre Dame on any of her *Wlien these pages were written Notre Dame had not issued her catalogue of 1900-1901. It advertises the same .cours,e of Romance Languages without a professor of" Romance Languages on the staff. 10 graduates in the course of science for some remark- able scientific work, nor does she intend to confer it, as no mention is made of such degree in any of her EngHsh catalogues. Yet she notifies the Latin Amer- icans in her Spanish catalogue of 1899, that such de- gree is offered; her object being to show that she has on her staff learned and scientific professors of rank equal to those of the principal universities of this coun- try. It is by making use of these and similar frauds that she has succeeded in decoying a large number of Latin Americans to her halls. Is it right for a Catholic university to cheat the public with these and other frauds exposed in the present pamphlet? It is but just that the ecclesiastical authorities who have jurisdiction over Notre Dame should protect Catholics from being cheated by a fraudulent Cath- olic university, which can impose upon the credulity of CathoHcs the more easily, inasmuch as it is controlled by a religious Order approved by the Catholic Church. For this reason this pamphlet is sent to the Papal Delegate, to the Archbishop of Cincinnati, and to the Bishop of Fort Wayne. The Papal Delegate has full jurisdiction, spiritual as well as temporal, over the Order of the Holy Cross, controlling Notre Dame. The Archbishop of Cincinnati and the Bishop of Fort Wayne have only spiritual jurisdiction over Notre Dame; but they must certainly be able to find ways and means to stop the religious of Notre Dame from continuing their fraudulent methods. This is a verv important matter. Either the Catholic University of Notre Dame is guilty of the frauds exposed in this 11 pamphlet and the authorities of the Church should put a stop to them, or the University of Notre Dame is acting according to Catholic principles and the writer should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. After exposing the frauds of Notre Dame and analyzing her faculty, a chapter is devoted to a brief analysis of a document of Notre Dame University submitted by Father Zahm, in his capacity as presi- dent of the board of trustees, to the authorities of the Church, in which Notre Dame proudly acknowledges that the oral and written word of her president^ chancellor of the board of Trustees, vice-president,' director of studies, secretary of the board of Trustees — in short, the oral and written word of her Trustees, President and Faculty — is not to be relied on. However incredible it may appear that the Catholic University of Notre Dame should submit to the au- thorities of the Church a document in which she proudly acknowledges her religious to be such rev- erend liars, nevertheless it is true and the document is extant. The last chapters are devoted to some remarks on Father Zahm's "Catholic Science and Catholic Scientists," a book which tends to make the Church appear a fraud. Here we call the attention of the Papal Delegate and of such members of the hierarchy, who have juris- diction over Father Zahm, to the statement in his preface that his book was published in "response to numerous requests from distinguished representatives of the hierarchy." When a priest publishes a book containing patent 12 historical lies, absurd claims of the Church, strength- ening his proofs with numerous blunders and stating in his preface that he published it "in response to nu- merous requests from distinguished representatives of the hierarchy," such a statement, making arch- bishops or bishops responsible for its contents, should not be let pass unnoticed by the authorities of the Church. We do not entertain the least doubt that these pages will be the means of putting a stop to the frauds of the University of Notre Dame; however, when analyzing her faculty, the writer had a higher object in view, namely, the improvement of the higher edu- cation of our Catholic young men by showing in the special case of Notre Dame, the largest Catholic university in America, how correct is Bishop Spald- ing's statement in regard to our Catholic institutions of learning. In his lecture, "Education and the fu- ture of rehgion," delivered on March, 1900, from the point of 7iew, as he states, of an American Catholic, he points out this sad state of affairs : "Our young men wdien they leave our schools cease to be self- active, and become helpless because we have failed to inspire them with a divine discontent, an ever- present yearning for higher wisdom and worthier ac- tion. If we are to hope for improvement in this all- important matter, we must begin by providing our colleges, seminaries, universities with a body of thor- oughly trained and cultivated teachers." The way of providing a university with a body of thoroughly trained and cultivated teachers has been shown us by the archbishops. Trustees of the Cath- olic University of America — a university chartered 13 by Pope Leo XIII, and located in Washington, D. C, although in the same city is situated the oldest Catholic university of the United States, the Uni- versity of Georgetown, controlled by the Jesuits. The Catholic University of America is nt)t and canr iTOt^ be controlled by any religious Order. It has en- dowed chairs of $50,000 each, and the archbishops are ex-officio the trustees. Her object is to offer only post-graduate courses. What Catholics need is endowed Catholic colleges and universities not controlled by religious Orders, doing also collegiate work. If Catholics could only be made to realize the importance of the higher edu- cation they would not certainly be behind non-Cath- olics, whose interest in the higher education and re- -hgion is unmistakably shown by the munificent gifts bestowed yearly on their denominational colleges and universities. It is a shame that we Catholics cannot boast of universities _ like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Chicago, Northwestern, etc. In this country all our Catholic colleges and uni- versities, two or three excepted, are controlled by re- ligious Orders, and they should not be censured if they pay their layman-professors salaries ranging from $200.00 to scarcely above $700.00 a year, unless it could be proved that the profit made is such as to enable them to better compensate their teachers. In case they are able, these religious Orders are profiting by the miseries of peo])le to enrich themselves and are grievously sinning against the natural law of jus- tice and charity so strongly upheld by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical on the labor question. Bishop Spalding, in his lecture, _sta_tes that "those 14 who hold chairs in our institutions of learning are, with few exceptions, still insufficiently remunerated, and still look longingly to the time when they shall be permitted to take up some other kind of work." Bishop Spalding would have been even more precise had he stated that those who hold chairs in our Cath- olic institutions controlled by religious Orders are so insufficiently remunerated that, if they are married, they not only look longingly to the time when they shall be permitted to take up some other kind of work, but they look longingly I'or extra work that they may be able to support their families. Bishop Spalding rightly states that "those who hold chairs in our institutions of learning still lack the best pedagogical knowledge and skill, still lack thorough acquaintance with the best scientific and literary thought of the age.'' How could it be otherwise? One cannot expect that those who join religious Orders and hold chairs in our Catholic colleges and universities are all born with the natural gifts necessary to form genuine col- lege professors; nor can one expect our talented young men to pursue post-graduate studies to fit themselves to hold chairs in such Catholic colleges and universities where the salaries paid layman-pro- fessors are such as to deter them from entering the state of matrimony. If Catholics wish their sons taught by thoroughly trained and cultivated teachers so that when they leave our institutions of learning they may not cease to be self-active and become helpless — if the number of Catholics stated by Archbishop Ireland "fourteen or fifteen millions," wish to contribute their share 15 of scientific men, — scientific laymen are scarcely to be found among Catholics in this country, — the only way is to follow the example of the archbishops of this country and have endowed Catholic colleges and universities like the Catholic University of America, which is not and cannot be controlled by any re- ligious Order. CHAPTER I. How Notre Dame Decoyed Students to Her Halls, After the war of the United States with Spain it was natural that Cubans and Puerto Ricans would come more in contact with Americans and that many would send their sons to be educated in this country. Notre Dame, our largest Catholic university, availed herself of this opportunity to send a newly- printed Spanish catalogue* to the Catholic Latin Americans of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Central and South America, and a large number of these Latin Americans flocked to her halls. The result of this growth was seen in the large new structure, made necessary by the crowding of members of the Order from Corby Hall and turning that hall over to the students for rooming purposes. This great in- flux of Latin Americans can easily be traced to the most unbounded confidence Catholics place in the word of religious. This is but natural, since if truth should depart from the lips of men it should be found on the lips of priests, and especially those who belong to a religious Order. If the Catholic University of Notre Dame can show the Latin Americans that she is a great uni- versity, it Is quite easy to understand why they be- came students of Notre Dame. *The catalogue mentioned was printed in May, 1899. No date however is to be found on it. 18 The best way to prove that she has eminent spe- ciaHsts is to mention her Doctors degrees, which ac- cording to her Spanish catalogue are conferred only on worthy candidates. In order to enhance the value of her Doctors degrees these trusting Catholics are informed that the principal universities in this coun- try have made common cause with Notre Dame, which of course, is the leader, in order to keep high the standard of the degree of Doctor. This unblushing effrontery of the reverend impos- tors of Notre Dame University may be seen on pages 18-19 of her Spanish catalogue, where vv^e read : "Notre Dame and the principal universities of this country have endeavored to make the title of Doctor a degree granted only for some remarkable work, and v^^hen the pupil shows that he possesses special apti- tude for original research." Her Doctors degrees are also to be found on pages 79, 81, 87, no, of her Spanish catalogue. The fact that Notre Dame does not dare to print in her English catalogues such glaring falsehoods, which would make her a subject of ridicule to her American students, is a sufficient proof not only that she is lying, but also that she is fully aware of the enormity of her deception. It seems almost incon- ceivable that religious, who take a vow of poverty, could stoop so low to deceive confiding Catholics and thus obtain their money under false pretenses. Such religious, instead of being intrusted with the education of the Catholic youth, rightly deserve to be banished to some uninhabited spot where their pes- tiferous breath of untruthfulness could infect neither Christians nor Heathens. 19 It is to be hoped for the honor of rehgion as well as of mankind that the majority of the religious of Notre Dame were not aware of such gigantic frauds; that the schemers who concocted such a nefarious plot, were represented by a small ring which should be made an example of by the authorities of the Church to deter other reverend hypocrites — if any are to be found in our Catholic colleges and universities — from following in the footsteps of the largest Cath- olic university in America. Frauds of the University of Notre Dame. The Catholic University of Notre Dame, controlled by the Order of the Holy Cross, is guilty of prostitut- ing the prestige which a religious Order enjoys in the eyes of Catholics, to obtain their money under false pretenses, when said university, with the most un- blushing effrontery informs the public that the fol- lowing courses and degrees are offered : I. A three years' post-graduate course leading to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 11. The degree of Doctor of Science granted only to students of Notre Dame who have obtained the de- gree of Bachelor of Science in this university and have done some remarkable work in any of the sciences of the course. III. The degree of Doctor of Laws granted only for some remarkable work in any branch of Law. 20 IV. The degree of Doctor of Literature granted to for- mer pupils who do some remarkable work in litera- ture or in any other branches of the course of lit- erature. V. Elective work offered to pupils who wish to make a deep study of pure mathematics either to become pro- fessors in mathematics or to make original investiga- tions, with no professor on her staff who could be called a mathematician. VI. A course of Romance Languages, Provencal, Por- tuguese, etc., with no professor of Romance Lan- guages on her staff. We do not mean to imply that these are the only frauds of the University of Notre Dame, but they are the frauds we analyze. FRAUD NO. I. The three years' post-graduate course leading to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. This fraud is one of the baits employed by Notre Dam^e University to allure Latin Americans to her halls. Notre Dame does not even mention this post- graduate course in any of her English catalogues, knowing she would cover herself with ridicule before her American students, who are fully aware that she does not have such course. In order to better per- ceive the fraud Notre Dame practices upon Latin Americans we translate the five conditions required by her on page 79 of her Spanish catalogue to grant this fraudulent Doctor's degree. 1st. The students must have obtained the degree of B. A. or Lit. B. in Notre Dame or any other uni- versity requiring the same amount of work. 2nd. The student must be acquainted with French and German. He may enter the first year if unac- quainted with those languages, but he cannot enter the second year of the course unless he has acquired them. 3rd. No student can obtain such degree unless he has pursued this post-graduate course at least three years in this university. 4th. The course consists of one major and two minors. The major must include three studies, the minors two or one. One of the studies must be Phil- osophy, the others are optional, to be chosen the first year. They may be selected in Literature, Philoso- phy, History, Political Science or some similar branches. 5th. Two months before the final examination the candidate must present a thesis bearing on some sub- ject of his major, in which he must show special ap- titude for original research. The thesis must be printed and twenty-five copies must be delivered to the Librarian of the University. No words are strong enough to stigmatize the vil- lainly of those trustees and priest-professors of Notre Dame, who, in the garb of religious, wearing large crosses on their breasts, do not feel the least scruple . to secure pupils on the strength of catalogues which, if sent through the mail and the federal authorities were aware of the enormity of the frauds they contain, 22 would surely be the means of bringing upon them the just punishment which is inflicted on those who make use of the U. S. mail for fraudulent purposes. The worst feature, however, is that such a fraudu- lent university is able to secure the highest praise from members of the hierarchy. Even after each and every member was notified of her frauds we find that a Bishop of the Church, the Rt. Rev. J. J. Glennon, of Kansas City, Mo., does not hesitate to exhort the graduates of Notre Dame to prove themselves worthy of their sonship of such fraudulent university, as John the Divine was worthy of the sonship of the greatest person God ever created "whom all generations shall call blessed" !!! This is not only bad taste but if the Rt. Rev. Bishop realized what he was talking about, which we do not believe, he was guilty of blasphemy. We quote the end of his eloquent oration, delivered in Notre Dame at the commencement exercises of 1900, copied from Notre Dame Scholastic, commence- ment number, page 615. "li, gentlemen, I could point my words with living fire, I would cast them forth that they might burn in your souls forever, but as I cannot, let me appeal to you just once more. Sons of Notre Dame, that you walk worthy of your calling. Sons of Notre Dame — what a privilege this son- ship of yours! In the gloom of Calvary, the dying word of the Saviour to His Blessed Mother — our Notre Dame in heaven — were: 'Mother, behold thy son.' So, tonight, you are pointed out with pride as sons of Notre Dame. May you be worthy of your sonship as John the Divine was in the long ago! Thus shall you cherish your mother, your Alma Mater on 23 earth, — proud of her walks and halls, and shrines and tlie men and memories that grace and bless them; and Notre Dame in heaven shall guide and guard you with a mother's care to the end." FRAUD NO. 2. The Degree of Doctor of Science. This highsounding degree is granted only to the Latin American graduates of the scientific depart- ment who have distinguished themselves by some re- markable scientific work. The authorities of Notre Dame, whatever be their motives, do not think proper to notify the American public that such high degree is conferred in Notre Dame; therefore, it is not to be found in any of her English catalogues. It is only to the Catholic Latin Americans that it is granted to know Notre Dame's mysteries concerning her Doctors degrees and the conditions required to obtain them. We do not intend that the American public should be defrauded of the flood of light our largest Catholic university casts upon her scientific department and we translate the precious information concerning this degree conveyed to Catholics of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Central and South America. These trusting Catholics are informed on page i8 of her Spanish catalogue that ''Notre Dame is justly consid- ered to be one of the best institutions of learning,'' that "the authorities o fNotre Dame have spared no effort to secure competent and experienced profes- sors, and they have good reasons for congratulating themselves with their success on this point." More-" over (see page 83), "the college of Science has many 24 eminent professors.'^ The Latin Americans are in- formed on page 83 that for Chemistry and Mineral- ogy alone Notre Dame has ten different laboratories, large, well ventilated, each one able to accommodate from twenty-five to seventy-five pupils. Notre Dame does not state how many laboratories she has for the courses she offers in Botany, Geology, Zoology, Metallurgy; this is left to the fertile imagination of Latin Americans. What is rather surprising is that this university, with so many different laboratories and granting the degree of Doctor of Science, has not one professor nor one instructor in her catalogues to teach either Mineralogy, Botany, Geology, Zoology, Metallurgy. There is no list of professors in her Spanish cata- logue. It would be useless printing, for have not these trusting Catholics been informed that Notre Dame has many eminent professors in her scientific courses? The Catholic University of Notre Dame certifies it, her word is sufficient, as to the Latin American sola fides sufificit — "faith alone is sufficient." The most remarkable fact, however, is, that Notre Dame can turn out Bachelors as good (at least ac- cording to her catalogue) as the Doctors of univers- ities like Harvard or Chicago, because her Bachelors of Science, as she states on page 87 of her Spanish catalogue, have already been fitted to be professors. Notre Dame does not inform. Latin Americans whether these Bachelors, fitted to be professors wheit they have done some remarkable work on scientific topics, will have to submit their great productions to the many eminent professors of her scientific depart- ment or whether the fame of them will reach Notre 25 Dame and she will proudly send them her degree of Doctor of Science. Happily the solution of this difficult problem has been given by Bishop J. J. Glennon, who, in his ora- tion, thus addresses the graduates : ^'But to you es- pecially, gentlemen, graduates, does Notre Dame, your Alma Mater turn with no mistrust tonight. You go forth, but you bring with you the name and the principles and the honor of your mother. Courage, then! Why should you fear? Fortified as you are by the strength of faith, holding in your hands the torch of knowledge, animated with the spirit of Notre Dame, your future should be as bright, as useful, as successful, as even your best friends could wish it to be. In truth I believe your lot is an enviable one; for if we are to reason from the experience of the past, the future 3^ears present opportunities and ad- vantages that overpower us by their very magnifi- cence. Look at what science alone has done for you. It has contributed inventions which would have seemed to your progenitors as wild as the wings of Daedalus or the talisman of Abaris. To you the earth is daily revealing new mines of gold and the heavens vouchsafing" new stars of intelleqtual light. Would it not be strange, nay criminal, if you should resign a heritage so glorious into hands unworthy, and you yourselves be crowded into oblivion ? I have no excuse for the graduates (and I fear there are some) who, like Irving's ship, go out to sea and -are never heard of more; who step down from the white light of graduating day to obscurity. Gentlemen, we want to hear from you again." From this we infer that Notre Dame turns with no mistrust to her Latin American Bachelors, who, 26 holding in their hands the torch of knowledge, will not be crowded into oblivion; Notre Dame will hear from them again; their remarkable scientific works will make them famous in this country and Notre DamxC will proudly send them her degree of Doctor of Science, a degree not yet offered by her to her American Bachelors of the United States. FRAUD NO. 3. The degree of Doctor of Laws for some remarkable work in Law. In the next edition of his great work "The Amer- ican Commonwealth," Mr. Brice, when he speaks of the extraordinary excellence of many of the law schools of America, should make special mention of the law school of the University of Notre Dame, be- cause, according to her catalogue (see page 134), "it is believed that nowhere in the country is the course in Law m.ore comprehensive, thorough and practical than in this university," (136) "It is not and cannot be excelled." In one respect the law school of Notre Dame is by far superior to the many law schools of this country, to whose extraordinary excellence Mr. Brice attributes the high attainments of American lawyers — the number of professors. If we look on page 7 of her latest catalogue, 1900, in the Hst of the professors of the Faculty, there is but one professor of law, who, on page 130 of the same catalogue, is styled Dean of the Law department. There are also on the same page names of professors who are not to be seen teaching* in her law school. She *Tlus is true in reference to tlie catalogues previous to that of 1900-1901. We could not state positively whether this statement holds in regard to the last. 27 . devotes twenty-five pages of her English catalogue to explaining her course in law, which "is net and can- not be excelled." The degrees offered are mentioned but not the degree of Doctor of Laws granted only for some remarkable work in any of the branches of the law. This degree is not to be found in any of her English catalogues. Notre Dame might perhaps have scandalized her American students had she made such a statement because it is well known in Notre Dame that her de- gree of Doctor of Laws has been granted also to peo- ple who do not have the least knowledge of laws and who certainly never did any work in law. The Latin Americans are not aware of this fact and in order to be consistent and show the excellence of her law school the same high-sounding degree of Doctor should be granted as in the school of Arts, Science and Literature. What would be the use of stating on page no of her Spanish catalogue that courses are given by professors and instructors of her law school as w^ell as by experienced lawyers and graduates if this great number of teachers if not capable of granting an LL. D.? Whatever ma}/ be the faults of the reverend impostors of Notre Dame, we must acknowledge there is some consistency in their cheating. FRAUD NO. 4. The degree of Doctor of Literature granted only to former pupils of Notre Dame for some remarkable work in Literature or in any other branches of the course of Letters. As long as the University of Notre Dame does not 28 mention this degree in any of her EngHsh catalogues published before and after her Spanish catalogue, in which the degree of Doctor of Literature is offered on pages 19 and 81, this Catholic university can rightly be branded as a fraudulent university that makes use of fraudulent degrees which she neither confers nor intends to confer, in order to decoy Latin American students to her hall and thus obtain their money un- der false pretenses. FRAUD NO. 5. Elective work offered to pupils who wish to make a deep study of pure mathmetics, either to become professors in mathematics or to make original inves- tigation, with no professor on her staff who could be called a mathematician. On page 40 of her Spanish catalogue "elective courses are offered to pupils who wish to make a deep study of pure mathematics, either to be fjtted to be- come professors or to make original researches." It is not necessary to discuss the course offered; it is sufBcient to state that the making of the list of the elective courses was intrusted to a professor of the faculty of Notre Dam.e who inserted in this list the work of Dr. Craig on Differential Equations, a book the professor acknowledged he had never seen nor read, but thought it should be inserted, as he had seen it in the catalogues of some of the best universities ! ! ! In the list of elective courses Theory of Functions is not to be found, and one could no more understand Dr. Craig's book without the knowledge of Theory of Functions than one could understand Shakespeare in English without a knowledge of the language. 29 It is true, Notre Dame succeeded in deceiving- a layman-professor by making use of tlie word "chairs of mathematics," but a simple inspection of the courses given is more than sufficient to convince the most skeptical that these chairs of mathematics are simply frauds. The priest-professor, who, according to the catalogue, holds the chair of mathematics in Notre Dame, teaches only in the preparatory depart- ment like his colleague, the brother-professor, in charge of mathematics. An instructor teaches solid geometry and freshman algebra. A professor of en- gineering is intrusted with trigonometry and ele- mentary algebra, the professor of history and political economy has charge of elementary analytic geometry and calculus. There are no other professors of pure mathematics in Notre Dame; therefore, when this Catholic university informs Latin Americans that courses are offered to students who wish to be fitted to become professors or make original investigations, she is practicing fraud upon them. Besides, her pres- ident has no hesitation in stating that he does not wish to have courses in the higher mathematics taught in Notre Dame because the higher branches of mathe- matics do not pay. This is indeed gratifying to those Catholics who are desirous of seeing our largest Catholic university offer courses as varied and thorough as those of non- Catholic universities. A Catholic university that values the teaching of the higher branches of mathematics inasmuch as it enriches the Order of the Holy Cross!!! The worst feature, however, is that Notre Dame, in order to obtain the money of Latin Americans, 30 does not blush to state that students may be fitted in her haUs to become professors or make original re- searches in mathematics. When we consider that such fraud is perpetrated by men who make a vow of poverty in order to follow more closely in the foot- steps of our Lord, we cannot help from exclaiming, "verily, covetousness is the root of all evil.'' FRAUD NO. 6. The Romance Languages department of the Uni- versity of Notre Dame. Origin and growth of this fraud. In 1896, Notre Dame engaged a layman-professor to teach particularly French and such classes as could be given him until a vacancy would occur in such of her departments as would best suit him, because, as he was informed by Notre Dame, her chairs of math- ematics were well filled just then. The teacher en- gaged was recommended by professors of Romance Languages, their endorsement opened the eyes of this university, and she perceived that she was not keeping abreast with the principal universities, since she was lacking in her catalogue a professor intrusted with the teaching of Romance Languages. In order to fill this void Notre Dame made it known through the press that she had secured a most valuable acquisition in the person of the professor she had engaged to hold the chair of her Romance Languages department. Thus suddenly, without warning, a professor engaged to teach particularly French and such classes as could be given him, un-' til a vacancy occurs in any of the departments that best suits him, found himself advertised as the head 31 of the Romance Languages department of the largest Cathohc university in the United States!!! When in time the professor perceived that the only object of the University of Notre Dame was to show that she had a professor and a department of Ro- mance Languages, he did not hesitate to state, in a Faculty meeting, that as the words "Romance Lan- guages" were not to be found in the letters of the uni- versity when engaging him, they should be stricken out from under his name in the catalogue, and as there was no intention on the part of the university to have such branches taught as Provencal, Portuguese, Pcalian, etc., lie moved that these courses should be stricken out from the catalogue. Six weeks later this professor of Romance Lan- guages received a letter from Notre Dame, dated May 17th, in which he was notified that his services would not be needed after June 15th. We do not wish to insinuate that his dismissal was due to his freedom of speech in a Faculty meeting. If we look in her latest catalogue, 1899-1900, we do not see in the list of her professors any one in- trusted with Romance Languages; we do not see that the chair is declared vacant^ but we see a full course of Romance Languages, Provencal, Portuguese, Old French, etc. Thus does the Catholic University of Notre Dame cheat the pubHc by advertising a Ro- mance Languages department, when in reality she has no professor. CHAPTER 11. Analysis of Faculty* Sisters in charge of the minini^^ department. The sisters who teach and take charge of minims ranging from four or five years upward are by far in their Hne the best teachers of the University of Notre Dame. They know how to cuUivate the minds and hearts of their young pupils and also how to win their affections. They rightly deserve the highest ap- preciation for their efficient work. Brother^Professors. The brother-professors of the Order of the Holy Cross, who teach many boys at Notre Dame, are so proficient in knowledge that they could not be ad- mitted to the second of the three years' preparatory course of this university. In many non-Catholic uni- versities there are preparatory courses, but the pro- fessors are, as a rule, college graduates ; here in Notre Dame, however, we are confronted with the anomaly of brother-professors who could not even be admitted to the second of the three years' preparatory course to enter the college. Such an anomaly must be explained, because it is something inconceivable to the public outside, and yet the reason is very simple. There are "brothers" who. look after the cattle, others till the ground, etc., *Names of minims are found in the list with tlie university stu- dents in tier catalogues. 33 and others are utilized in the university and in other colleges of the Holy Cross, as professors. Suppose these brother-professors were taught alge- bra, geometry, Latin, Greek, the rudiment of some science, literature, they might, perhaps, think them- selves fitted to earn their living in the world, and yield to the temptation of exchanging the safe harbor of a religious life for the stormy ocean of the world. By so doing the Order would lose the brother-professor and his education; therefore, the surest way, both for the spiritual welfare of the brother-professors and the temporal welfare of the Order is, that brother-profes- sors be taught enough to be used as professors in the colleges and university of the Order of the Holy Cross, but not enough to earn their living as teach- ers in the world. ^ Priest^Professors* The priest-professors of Notre Dame University are members of the Order of the Holy Cross. As may be expected, only a very small number of those who join a religious Order are endowed with all nat- ural qualities indispensable to form a genuine uni- versity professor. In former times the priest-profes- sors were educated in Notre Dame, but several years ago the Order of the Holy Cross wisely decided to send their future priests to the Catholic University of America, so that they might receive a better edu- cation in secular branches, together with their theo- logical studies. It is for this reason that the Order of the Holy Cross purchased grounds and erected a building in Washington, D. C. Thus, Notre Dame acknowledges that her university is not advanced 34 enough to teach her future priests, although in order to decoy students to her halls she takes precedence over the principal universities of this country and as- serts, on page i8 of her Spanish catalogue, that "she is justly considered one of the best universities." The priest-professors teach whatever branches they are ordered to teach and give five classes daily, un- less otherwise engaged, just like their colleagues, the brother-professors. In order to give an adequate idea of what constitutes a ''chair" in this university, we analyze the chair of mathematics, held by a priest- professor. Notre Dame prides herself (page 40 of her Spanish catalogue) on "offering elective courses to her pupils who wish to fit themselves to become professors in pure mathematics or to pursue original research." One is naturally inclined to bow before the learned priest-professor who fits pupils to become professors or leads them in the abstruse path of the upper regions of pure mathematics. Alas, for the greatness of Notre Dame University and the honor of the Order of the Holy Cross! This eminent priest- professor holding the chair of mathematics in the largest Catholic university in America could not even be intrusted with the teaching of the beginners of the collegiate course and his sphere of teaching pure m.athematics, like that of his colleagues the brother- professors, has been wisely confined to the lower branches of mathematics of the preparatory course. It would be simply preposterous to suppose that the priest-professors of Notre Dame, the colleagues of the eminent mathematician above mentioned, could sit as competent judges of the remarkable produc- tions required to worthily confer on the graduate the 35 highest degree a great university can bestow — the de- gree of Doctor. While we find no fault with the priest-professors of the Holy Cross who, In obedience to the orders of their superiors, are willing to become university professors, although, as a rule, destitute of all qual- ities necessary, we have no objection to state that they would appear in the light of ridiculous pretend- ers if they thought themselves competent to grant Doctors degrees for remarkable original research. It is only eminent specialists who could -sit as compe- tent judges, and these are not to be found among the priest-professors of Notre Dame. Layman^Professofs of Notre Dame, The mferior quality of the layman -professoj's ■proved by the remarkable discovery of the President oj the boai'd of Trustees of Notre Dame. Father Zahm Is credited with a discovery by which we may infer that Notre Dame is a university of the lowest rank compared with non-Catholic universities. This great discovery may be read In a Special Corre- spondence of the Chicago "Record," headed, "For Catholic Students, Notre Dame, Ind., Feb. 26, 1899, "The zeal displayed by the Very Rev. J. A. Zahm, provincial of the Order of the Holy Cross, during the vear that he has been at the head of his Order, is gratifying to the great number of Catholics who are desirous of seeing Catholic educational Institutions offer courses as varied and thorough as those of non- Catholic colleges and universities. He has realized that competition In brains Is a reality; that the insti- tution that offers the largest salaries gets the b':st 36 teachers and that a competent facuUy and modern equipment sweU the class-rolls." Father Z'ahm's discovery that the institution that offers the largest salaries gets the best teachers would indeed be gratifying to Catholics who are desirous of seeing Catholic educational institutions offer courses as varied and thorough as those of non-Catholic col- leges and universities, were it not that the salaries pjM by Notre Dame are a mere pittance compared with the salaries paid by non-Catholic colleges and universities, as a consequence the teachers thus se- cured must necessarily be of the most inferior kind, according to Father Zahm's discovery. Types of Layman^Professors and Their Salaries, There are three types of layman-professors, stu- dent-professors, graduate-professors and perma- nent-professors of the staff. The student-professors teach for their board and tuition. It would not be worth while to mention the salaries of the graduate-professors. The permanent- professors, the pillars of the university, receive a sal- ary ranging from four hundred to scarcely over seven hundred dollars a year.* An exception should be made in favor of the professor of English literature. *In case that any layman-professor succeeded in obtaining a higher salary we are ready to inform the public how much more he receives. It goes without saying that the authorities of our hirgest Catholic university are such experts in lying that any official notification in matter of salaries coming from such re- ligious impostors is not to be relied on, because in their interest they would have no objection to lie. For instance we read in one of her official communications that $600 is higher than the university ever gives for the first year and it was given only "in view of the distance and circumstances in the case," however it could easily be shown that Notre Dame was lying. What her interest was in thus lying is foreign to this subject. 37 1 he former professor, Maurice Francis Egan, re- ceived a fee of one thousand dollars a year, and the present professor receives one thousand, five hun- dred a year. It would be a great mistake to suppose that this large salary, according to the view of the university, given to the professor of English litera- ture, is due to the great appreciation Notre Dame has for English literature. It is due to this : The uni- versity publishes a weekly paper, the "Scholastic," which has a large circulation, and helps advertise the imiversity. The '"Scholastic" is written by the stu- dents, hence the necessity of a conipetent professor to drill the pupils in writing themes. As the Order of the Holy Cross had no member capable, on hand, a layman-professor was indispensable. ^ Were it not for the importance of making a good appearance before the public, if it were solely, for the sake of teaching English literature to the pupils of Notre Dame, this layman-professor would be replaced by a member of their Order or, in case his services were retained, he might possibly receive a salary of six hundred a year. ^ This is clearly proved by Notre Dame's document submitted by Father Zahm to the authorities of the Church, in which it is stated of one of her layman - professors, whose acquisition the university adver- tised most extensively when she secured his services, that if he were very competent in teaching his services might possibly be worth six hundred dollars a year to Notre Dame. Since Notre Dame pays salaries smaller than those of any non-Catholic college or uni- versity, according to Father Zahm's discovery, she se- cures the poorest teachers ; therefore, although she is 38 the largest Catholic university, instead of taking prece- dence over the principal universities of this country ■ she should be ranked among the lowest educational, institutions of the United States. It could not be expected that these poorly-paid layman-professors should have pursued post-gradu- ate studies to fit themselves to hold chairs in a uni- versity like Notre Dame. It would be simply ab- surd to suppose that these pillars of the university, with salaries ranging from four hundred to scarcely above seven hundred a year are the eminent specialists, competent judges of the original re- searches which, according to her catalogue, are re- quired by Notre Dame to obtain her Doctors degree. CHAPTER III. Wholesale Swindling of the University of Notre Dame. We have already stated that religious orders are not to be censured if they pay beggarly salaries to the layman-professors of their Catholic colleges and uni- versities unless it can be proved that the profit they make is such as to enable them to give a better com- pensation. In the special case of Notre Dame we in- tend to prove that taking into account the amount of tuition she charges her pupils, she does not need to pay her layman-professors such beggarly salaries. This being proved, it follows that either the Uni- versity of Notre Dame succeeds in engaging compe- tent layman-professors at the lowest salaries by taking advantage of their adverse circumstances, and in this case she is swindling them out of their fair share of the money paid by parents for the tuition of their sons, or she engages an inferior quality of layman-profes- sors in order to save that money, and in this case she is swindling the parents of her pupils, who pay for their sons' tuition believing Notre Dame would secure able and experienced professors. What parents pay for their sons' tuition may be seen on page 2"] of her catalogue, 1899- 1900. "The tui- tion fee is $100.00 per scholastic year, which is accepted as an entirety for the year, not to be refunded in whole or in part under any circumstances except in 40 case it seems to be expedient for the student to go to his home because of severe or protracted illness." Be- sides this $100.00 tuition fee the pupil is charged $60.00 for instrumental music, $30.00 for use of piano, $40.00 for vocal culture, $30.00 for violin, guitar, man- dolin, $25.00 for artistic drawing, $40.00 for applied electricity, $30.00 for practical mechanics, $25.00 for phonography, $25.00 for telegraphy, etc., etc. The University of Notre Dame has over 800 stu- dents, therefore she should receive $80,000. Includ- ing the receipts for extra studies, matriculation fees, etc., the sum she receives for tuition alone should be in the neighborhood of $100,000.00. Her teaching staff, including brother-professors and student-profes- sors, numbers about sixty; therefore, after deducting a good allowance for the expenses of heating, repair- ing, etc., it would appear that the university could well afford to pay a salary of at least $1,200.00 a year to each of her sixty teachers. The Order of the Holy Cross is not satisfied with the amount of tuition saved by her thirty priest and brother-professors who receive only their board and clothes, but reaches out and grabs the lion's share of that part of the tuition which should rightly be paid to her thirty layman- professors. The salaries paid to Notre Dame's thirty layman-professors, including her $1,500.00 professor of English Hterature, are in the neighborhood of $12,000.00, and this sum is more than covered by the profit Notre Dame makes from the sale of books, paper, pens, ink, beverages, candy, fruit, tobacco, etc.^ The salary of the sisters, the teachers of the *The boai'd and room of the unmarried layman-professors miglit possibly cost Notre Dame $2,500.00 a year. 41 minims, is about $200.00 a year, and the total amounts to about $1,400.00, a sum many times covered by the profit the university makes from the sale of such arti- cles as shoes, clothes, mending shoes, etc. The Catholic University of Niagara charges $200.00, of which $100.00 is for tuition and $100.00 for board, etc. The University of Notre Dame charges $300.00, of which $100.00 is for tuition. If the Catholic Uni- versity of Niagara can board her students for $100.00 per scholastic year, one can imagine the profit Notre Dame makes by charging twice as much, besides the profit she makes off the large number of students who pay $50.00 extra for a room in Sorin Hall and $80,00 extra for a room in Corby Hall. In Corby Hall alone there are one hundred and twenty-five rooms at $80.00 each, bringing $10,000.00. Thus we see that while non-Catholics lavish money to support the higher education of their well-endowed denominational universities, our largest Catholic uni- versity is able to coin money on her education, not for herself, but for the Order of the Holy Cross, which controls her. Of course, the layman-professors of Notre Dame, as a rule, think they deserve a better salary than the mere pittance they receive, consequently they infer they are unfairly dealt with; but, afraid a worse fate might overtake them if they shook the dust of Notre Dame from their feet, in their helplessness cannot har- bor the kindest of feelings toward this Catholic insti- tution. On the other hand, the authorities of Notre Dame entertain a low opinion of the abilities of lay- man-professors who sell their services for the mere pittance they pay them, and think that if these layman- 42 professors could do better in the world they would cer- tainly not remain connected with Notre Dame, and therefore, in their opinion, Notre Dame is the best place these layman-professors could find. The authorities of Notre Dame — followers not only of the precepts, but also of the counsels of the Gospel — think they are not only just, but charitable and even generous toward their layman-professors, some of whom they consider an incubus not deserving their salary and whom they employ to teach students out of a sense of charity. This is why the Order of the Holy Cross decided to rid the university of all layman-pro- fessors except a few, and replace them as soon as pos- sible with members of their order. This is not to be applied to her student-professors, who teach for their education, because they are cheaper as teachers than members of their order — priests and brother-professors who require also their clothes. We do not like to dwell on a rather delicate matter. These layman-pro- fessors with such beggarly salaries are afraid to enter the state of matrimony. They have before their eyes the 'miserable plight of their colleagues, the married professors, who are always looking longingly for extra work to help support their families ; and while we wish to suppose that this enforced state of celibacy may be conducive to sanctify their souls, nevertheless as this is due to merely worldly motives, and as such strongly condemned by such a deep thinker as St. Alfonso De Liguori, the Order of the Holy Cross, which is re- sponsible for this sad state of affairs, is, whilst laying up a treasure of gold in this world ,also laying up a treasure of wrath in the world to come. 43 We have supposed that these underpaid layman-pro- fessors are either incompetent or have been engaged at such low salaries by this university taking advan- tage of their circumstances, but what if fraudulent methods had been used by Notre Dame holding forth the most seducing promises of chairs such as have no existence in her university, or of future fair salaries which this Catholic university unblushingly acknowl- edges to the authorities of the Church she never in- tended to grant ? What if the policy and diplomacy of Notre Dame when engaging a layman-professor is to give him as little as possible for the first year, prom- ise a great deal in the future and adduce such pre- texts — as for instance the support of the missions in India — in order not to perform what has been held out to him ? We have supposed that the layman-professors were at least paid the beggarly salaries agreed upon, but what if the Catholic University of Notre Dame should stoop so low as to order, for instance, a layman-pro- fessor to discontinue teaching, in the middle of the scholastic year, a yearly class, thus robbing her pupils of the instruction due to them and try to rob the pro- fessor, a married man with a family, of two-fifths of his salary of six hundred dollars a 3^ear, because he had been ordered to drop one-fifth of his recitations? What if this layman-professor would not subscribe to this unheard of roguery of Notre Dame, and Notre Dame in the fond hope of starving him into submis- sion withheld his salary nearly six months? One might think that such villainies could only happen in a den of robbers, but not in a Catholic university con- trolled by the Order of the Holy Cross, yet all this 44 and worse did happen in this CadioHc university which professes to teach CathoHc principles. We are sorry to state that it is not only heartless and soulless corporations that take advantage of the miseries of men to defraud them of the fair share of profit their labors should bring them, but also a re- ligious Order like that of the Holy Cross controlling the largest Catholic university in America; we are sorry to state that it is not only to heartless and soul- less corporations, but also to a fraudulent Cathohc university like Notre Dame that the sacred words of the apostle should be applied : "Behold the hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth : and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth." W/iy do Catholics need endozu Catholic colleges aiid universities if our largest Catholic university is able to coin money? We have seen that the mere tuition would be more than sufficient to pay at least $1,200.00 to every teacher in Notre Dame, therefore, the question may be prop- erly asked: 'Why should Catholics endow^ Catholic colleges and universities if these institutions of learn- mg can be made self-supporting?" What more would they need beside the buildings and grounds ? It is true that Notre Dame could very well afford to pay over $1,200.00 to each teacher, but the tuition fee does not come solely from collegiate or university students. The largest number of her students is in the minim, preparatory and commercial courses. The number of her students of the collegiate department is very Hm- ited. W^e readily admit that a minim, preparatory and 45 commercial department is more than self-supporting with a tuition fee of $100.00 per s.^liolastic year, hut not so a collegiate department having courses as varied and thorough as those of the principal non-Catholic colleges and universities. The fact that non-Catholic universities charging a higher tuition and having many more pupils than Notre Dame could not meet the ex- penses unless they had a large endowment fund is suf- ficient to show that higher education is far from heriVg self-supporting. It is indeed true that a salary ot $1,200.00 a year would appear an immense sum to the layman-professors of Notre Dame, it is also true that if such a salary was given to half a dozen layman-pro- fessors it would create great discontentment among the brother and priest-professors; yet this great sal- ary of a New York policeman, which would shock Notre Dame as well as any institution of learning controlled by a religious Order, is not sufficient to at- tract thoroughly trained and cultivated teachers nor is $1,200.00 a year the salary of specialists holding chairs in the principal universities of this country over whom Notre Dame takes precedence. We insist on this very important word "specialists" without whom a thorough higher education in any branch cannot be imparted. If we take the catalogue of any non-Catholic university we see in the list of professors the subjects taught by them, but a Catholic university like Notre Dame, who professes in her cata- logues to teach Botany, Mineralogy, Geology, Zoology, Metallurgy, etc., moreover professes to grant Doctors' degrees for some remarkable work on any of these branches, does not have any one assigned to teach them. Such a university is like the Pharisees of old. 46 she does not enter the sanctuary of science and by her pretentions impHcitly beHeved by Cathohcs, who have full confidence in rchgions Orders, she is the cause that CathoHcs do not see the necessity of having endowed CathoHc universities of their own, where their sons can receive a real higher education. No wonder our CathoHc youth, when they leave our schools, cease to be self-active, and become helpless. They have not been taught by thoroughly trained and cultivated teachers and this is why scientists are not to be found among Catholic laymen. I/o2t' is it thai a fi'aiidiilent institution like Notj'e Dmne became our largest Catholic university? In answer to this question we will point out some of the many causes that contributed to her growth and also show that if she did not double or treble her actual number of students it is due to her unquenchable thirst for money which debars her from doing efficient work in the cause of education. So7ne of the causes of the growth of Notre Dame: 1. Influence of her foiuider^ Father Sorin. Notre Dame was founded in 1842 by Father Sorin. He and the heroic little band that came with him from France were men of a quite different stamp from their degenerate successors of today. The striking person- ality of Sorin, the earnest piety of his collaborators, made a deep impression on the early students who helped to sing her praises and later on sent their sons to their Alma Mater. 2. Influence of St. Mary's A cade niy. Not satisfied with founding a Catholic institution of learning for young men Father Sorin induced the Sisters of the Holy Cross— an Order quite different although bear- 47 ing the same name — to build an academy to foster the education of young ladies. The head of the Sisters, Mother Angela, was happily one of no less striking qualities than Leather Sorin. This imposing structure is one mile west of Notre Dame and many of those educated there helped to spread the reputation of this university and later on in life sent their sons to Notre Dame which they supposed to be a great institution of learning. J. Religious influence. There are many parents who prefer to send their children to a university sur- rounded by a religious atmosphere. Such was the cause of the founding of universities like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Chicago, Northwestern, etc. Many Catholics who can afford it prefer to intrust their sons to a Catholic university in the fond hope that together with a thorough education in secular branches they will learn to be truthful, upright Catho- lics. Had Notre Dame to rely solely on her good teaching she would be almost utterly destitute of pupils. 4. The beauty of Notre Dame. Strangers who visit this university cannot help admiring her beautiful grounds, fine lakes and buildings, and their Impres- sion is that everything is conducive to study and health. They naturally suppose that the authorities who provided such buildings and fine grounds did also their best to secure able and experienced teachers. People who have no adequate conception of university work judge it from the buildings, and we find this prejudice strengthened by the Rt. Rev. Bishop Glen- non, who, in his oration at the commencement exer- cises of 1900 speaking of the work of Catholicity in 48 the cause of education, states : "Its evidence is fur- nished in every plain and mountain-pass and battle- mented city of Europe, while- for America we need no further proof than to look around and see in the moonlight the noble halls and silent towers of Notre Dame." 5. The Ave Ma7'ia. In Notre Dame is pubhshed a weekly magazine — the Ave Maria — devoted to the honor of the Blessed Virgin, which has a very exten- sive circulation among Catholics. The Ave Maria ad- vertises the many full courses this university offers. Catholics are very apt to suppose that a university offering so many full courses must certainly be a great university. They could not conceive for instance that the editor of the Ave Maria who resides in Notre Dame and who by the way is the vice-president of the Trustees, would advertise in this Catholic magazine a full course in Architecture unless there were one or more great architects in the Faculty. They could not conceive how a Catholic magazine devoted to the hor.or of the Blessed Mother would advertise such a course when Notre Dame does not have one single architect on her staff. As there are few universities offering so many full courses, besides that of Archi- tecture without an architect, it is natural that trusting Catholics would conclude that there is no better uni- versiy than Notre Dame to give a thorough education in all branches of learning. 6. Hmiting athletes as a bait to attract students. It is undeniably good for any university to have a thoroughly equipped gymnasium and a physician whose business should be to prescribe for every stu- dent the kind and amount of exercise required either 49 for his health or to better develop defective organs. If this was done in Notre Dame it would be highly commendable. American students take such interest in athletic sports that the only course left to the col- lege authorities is to debar students from such sports if they fall behind in their studies. This wise pro- vision is not compatible with the spirit of Notre Dame. A university who should send representatives to hunt up athletes who have given unmistakable proofs of their agility and dexterity and, of course, offer induce- ments to enroll them among her students, would right- ly be held in utter contempt. One can understand that owing to the pride students take in the athletics of their university they would endeavor to strengthen their teams by the addition of other students able in this line, but this has nothing to do with the authori- ties of the university. It is an open secret that Notre Dame sends members of the Holy Cross to hunt up athletes and induce them to be enrolled among her students. It is natural that in an institution like this where the collegiate students are in a very limited number, the teams should also be made up of students of the preparatory department; but one cannot help smiling to see two universities like Chicago and that of the State of Illinois most ignominiously beaten, as happened March, 1899, in the meet at Notre Dame, their defeat being due to a champion in jumping, pole- ^ vaulting and throwing — a student of the commercial course taking such branches as arithmetic, orthogra- . phy. Catholics not acquainted with university mat- ters reading of Notre Dame's athletic teams, her vic- tories, and engagements with other university teams are naturally led to suppose that a university which 50 can so successfully compete in athletics with such in- stitutions as Chicago and the Sta.te University of Illi- nois must certainly have a splendid Faculty, that could successfully compete with the Faculty of these uni- versities. 7. No u}isavo7'y reports circulated through the press about Notre Dame. Newspapers are a power for good as well as for evil. Nothing helps so much to extir- pate abuses as to give them as much publicity as possible. Notre Dame is fully aware of the power of the press and while long puffs are to be read, no un- savory reports about her are made public. Suppose for instance that in the University of Chicago, or Northwestern, a total abstinence society should cele- brate some feast by going on a picnic and getting glor- iously drunk, such an escapade would become known through the press and some well meaning people might perhaps point out the immoral training students receive in such universities ; but suppose this hap- pened in Notre Dame, as it did happen, the public will never be the wiser. We do not intend to convey the impression that the students or professors of Notre Dame are immoral, but only to state that improprieties which would tend to lower the university in the eyes of the public and which would find their way in the press if they happened in other universities are care- fully kept from the notice of the public. 8. Prestige lent to Notre Da?ne by the hierarchy Notre Dame has frequently been visited by the arch- bishops and bishops of the Church, and both papal delegates Monsignor SatoUi and Monsignor Martinelli were among her visitors. Parents were made ac- quainted through the Notre Dame scholastic of her 51 illustrious guests and it helped to confirm them in the belief that it is the greatness of Notre Dame that at- tracted these prelates. Of course these bishops and archbishops never meant to countenance a fraudulent university, they were not aware of her frauds and if they spoke words of praise they only meant to utter their approbation of Catholic education, or of a Cath- olic institution. W/iy Notre Danic does not double or treble her actual number of students. Notre Dame's fraudulent Doctors' degrees, her imaginary courses, her puffs, her deception are but a natural consequence of her grasping after gold which considering the state of this country might have been obtained in greater abundance had she pursued honest methods. Let us observe that the profit Notre Dame makes does not belong to the university, it belongs to the Order of the Holy Cross that controls her as well as Catholic colleges in Texas, Louisiana, Wisconsin and Ohio. It is easy to understand why a university like Notre Dame, founded without any endowment fund, should utilize for a time her brothers and priests as teachers and in case of extreme necessity engage lay- man-professors at a very low salary. Even if these brothers and priests were not learned men they had great moral qualities which won the love and esteem of pupils. As time went on and the profit made by the university could well afiford it, the Order of the Holy Cross instead of utilizing only such of its mem- bers who happen to be particularly qualified to take charge of students, and associating able and experi- enced layman-professors making it an object for them 52 to join her professional staff, continued the same old policy. The only difference is that the former pious brothers gave place to a set of ignorant, lazy brother- professors and instead of the old time truthful and up- right priests, Notre Dame has today priest-professors not only as a rule destitute of the qualities necessary to form genuine college professors, but priests whose oral and written word is not to be relied on according to her document sent to the authorities of the Church. It is this sordid institution of learning that seriously informs the American public in one of her catalogues that ''Notre Dame with its standard of studies more than realizes the most sanguine expectations even of those who had the firmest belief in the possibilities of higher education in the west." Out of the hundreds who begin Latin in Notre Dame scarcely one or two, with the exception of the very few who prepare themselves for the priesthood, take the degree of Bachelor of Arts ; out of the sev- eral hundred who take mathematics scarcely half a dozen reach as far as trigonometry, and this univer- sity which leads pupils from the kindergarten up to the white light of graduating day loses almost one half of her pupils every y^ar. Had the Order of the Holy Cross confined her brother-professors to occu- pations more appropriate to their intellectual standing — to take care of the fields, cows, horses, sheep, etc. — had the Order confined the great majority of priest- professors, who have no aptitude for teaching to dis- charge the duties becoming their sacred character- preaching the Gospel, attending the sick, administer- ing the sacraments, and endeavoring to give examples of Christian perfection — had able and experienced layman-professors been secured at fair salaries, men who by their gentlemanly manners as well as their learning could win the love and esteem of the students, Notre Dame without prostituting the prestige which a religious Order enjoys in the eyes of Catholics would have made far more money and been helpful to our Catholic youth who would have crowded in thousands to her halls to study. CHAPTER IV. A brief analysis of the dociuiient of the University oj Notre Dame submitted to the authorities of the Church by Father Zahni in which the university proudly achnozuledges that the oral and written word of her Trustees^ President and Faculty is not to be relied on. Why Noti'e Dame had to submit this interesting- do cum ent. In January, 1899, a professor of Notre Dame sent a communication to her Trustees stating that he had been deceiwd by the written statements of the uni- versity when engaging him, he enclosed a certified copy of these written statements, and asked the Trus- tees that her written word should be made good. The answer he received was that his communication had •been referred to the president "who has exclusive au- thority to act in the matter." When said professor went to the president, he was told that his services would not be needed after June 15th, 1899. The professor sent communication after communication to the Trus- tees asking that the claims arising from the written word of the university be submitted to an archbishop or bishop of the Church (great friends of Notre Dame) offering $200.00 as a compensation for the judge in case the verdict was not in his favor. He received no written reply, but was told that "this com- munity allows no interference from outsiders." Cir- cumstances, however, compelled Notre Dame to abate 55 somewhat of her pride and submit to the judgment of the authorities of the Church who sent the professor the verdict together with the document of Notre Dame. The document was dated March 226. and was received by the authorities of the Church March 24, 1900. We analyze such portions of the document whkh will prove of great help to Catholics in forming a right estimate of the high appreciation in which truth and honesty are held by Notre Dame. T/ie reason why Notre Dame was coinpelled in her defense to incrinihiate herself. The natural course Notre Dame should have pur- sued, if she was not guilty of having deceived the professor when engaging him, would have been to request that her letters should be produced that she might establish her innocence by showing the authori- ties of the Church that her written statements in ques- tion did not contain any lies. Notre Dame, however, could not do this, therefore her only resource left was to bring charges against the professor. If these charges are true, she was fully justified in dismissing him, but this would not prove that the uni- versity did not deceive him with false written state- ments when engaging him. For instance if it is true, as she states in her document, that there is a strong belief that this professor is not menl:ally or otherwise responsible for what he says or does ; if it is true that he has not been examined as to his sanity because it does not behoove religions of the Order of the Holy Cross to take the initiative in such matter, then Notre Dame deserves to be praised for the precautionary measure she took to remove a professor strongly sus- pected of lunacy. • 56 It was not necessary for Notre Dame to bring any further charges and it was not certainly wise to bring charges which she knew the professor could disprove with her written word. For instance, where is the wisdom of the Trustees of Notre Dame stating in their document about this professor that "the impres- sion seemed to be that he was a mere pretender" when these Trustees were fully aware of the fact that this professor had a testimonial of Notre Dame stating that "he is a university scholar, and of his ability there can be no question." Where is the wisdom of the Trustees who certify to the fact that this professor "is a subject of ridicule, a cause of insubordination among students — a man ut- terly unfit to have charge of students — whose services were retained after the first year out of a sense of charity," etc., when they are aware that said professor could produce a testimonial of Notre Dame stating "he can elicit much work and study from his pupils, he is a conscientious instructor and punctual to duty" ? The Trustees having brought such unnecessary charges against the professor were compelled to warn the authorities of the Church against accepting any previous oral or written statements of Notre Dame in his favor, that is to say, Notre Dame had to incrimi- nate herself by admitting that she always lied before, but, now that her interest is at stake, she tells noth- ing but the truth. The Trustees take special pride in informing the authorities of the Church that they al- ways lied before and the reason assigned for their lying is that "everything said or written here (in Notre Dame) in his favor tended to the end of finding him a place" — as if the end justifies the means. 57 It would be more reasonable to suppose that such religious liars would prefer to lie in their own interest rather than lie in the interest of this professor when recommending him for a position to an archbishop of the Church, to a president of a state university and others, still in what follows we will suppose that Notre Dame's document is correct. Breech of trust of NoUx Dame ioward parents of her fufils shown by her document. Have not parents of pupils been grossly deceived by this Catholic university when after paying the tuition, Notre Dame entrusts their sons to a man whom she knew to be utterly unfit to have charge of students ? What can pupils learn from a subject of ridicule, a man utterty unfit to have charge of students? Reg- ular habits of discipline are no less important, if not more so, than learning, and did not this Catholic uni- versity betray her sacred trust when for three consecu- tive years she retained the services of a professor whom she knew to be a cause of insubordination among students? The charity of zvhich Notre Dame boasts shozun to consist in her swindling pa7'ents out of $6^000.00 and pocketing $^^000.00. The reason assigned by Notre Dame for retaining for three years the services of such a professor to teach her pupils is her charity. "His services were re- tained after the first year out of a sense of charity." It may be fairly doubted whether there is any charity^ in retaining for three years the services of a professor who is unfit to have charge of students — a cause of insubordination among students — when the salary of a professor comes out of the pockets of parents who 58 pjid with the understanding" that their sons would be taught and properly trained by competent professors. Let us examine what Notre Dame's charity means. Notre Dame charges $ioo a year for her tuition. The pupils have, as a rule, five recitations daily, there- fore Notre Dame receives $20.00 for each recitation. This professor during his three years teaching had at least all together three hundred pupils, therefore Notre Dame received for the work of this professor a total of six thousand dollars. This professor was paid a fee of $600.00 a year, therefore he received for his three years teaching a total of $1,800.00. Out of the three years services of this professor Notre Dame gained the difference between the $6,000 received for tuition and the $1,800 she paid for teaching, that is to say she made a profit of $4,200.00. Supposing that the expense of heating the class room would amount during the three years to $200.00 Notre Dame would still make a profit of $4,000.00. Here we have a Catholic university which swindled parents of pupils out of $6,000.00, pocketed $4,000.00, and boasts to the authorities of the Church that she retained the services of this professor, whom she knew to be utterly unfit to have charge of students, for three years out of a sense of charity ! ! ! How much Notre Dame values the services of a very competent layman-professor and one utterly un- jit to have charge of students. One of the most precious informations Notre Dame conveyed to the authorities of the Church is the value she sets upon a very competent professor and one ut- terly unfit to have charge of students. The authorities of the Church are informed that if 59 said professor was very competent in teaching bis services might possibly be worth to her $600.00 a year. There is nothing starthng in such an information which is quite in keeping with the grasping propen- sities of our largest Catholic university, besides this might be inferred from Bishop Spalding's lecture in which he complains that the professors in our Cath- olic institutions of learning are still insufficiently re- munerated. The precious information, however, which neither Bishop Spalding nor any reasonable person could. convey is the solution of the following problem: If a very competent professor might possibly be worth $600.00 a year, how much is a professor worth who is a subject of ridicule, utterly unfit to have charge of students, a cause of insubordination among students ? Notre Dame, who in her catalogues takes prece- dence over the best universities of this country and proudly informs her patrons that, she is justly consid- ered one of the best universities, condescends to give to the authorities of the Church the solution of this problem. On page 3d of her document we read : ''the man is utterly unfit to have charge of students and his work here was not worth half the amount he received for it." The parents of pupils of Notre Dame may perhaps be amazed at the fact that Notre Dame should place such a low value on a very competent professor (pos- sibly $600.00 a year) and such a high value on one ut- terly unfit to have charge of students (nearly $300.00 a year) and may perhaps question the wisdom of the principles of Notre Dame. If they feel inclined to criticise her principles they should bear in mind the 60 words Bishop Glennon addressed them at the com- mencement exercises of 1900. "It is on these broad principles* that Notre Dame has been builded. It grows with their growth, and today thousands rise to say to it : 'Prosper, proceed and rule.' To you, its friends, it looks not only for commendation, but cor- dial support." Black ingratitude of Notre Dame toward this lay- man frofessor who taught her Trustees, for the last months of his connection gratis. A good illustration of the broad principles of Notre Dame is her gratitude toward this layman-professor who was indeed utterly unfit to have charge of stu- dents, when her interest was at stake, but was deemed eminently fit to take charge of the instruction of Trus- tees of Notre Dame during the last eighteen months of his connection with this university. In this case at least, it could not be said that his services were re- quested and retained out of a sense of charity because his pupils, the Trustees, requested and received gratis private instruction almost daily. After this professor has taught his pupils the Trus- tees to the very last v/eek of his connection, Notre Dame informs the authorities of the Church that the case of this professor affords a warning *'to direct charity toward some other end hereafter than to giv- ing employment to a helpless or useless person because of pity." *It is not; the broad principles alcue alluded to by Bishop Glen- non which has made Notre Dame prosper and rule, but other principles rather too broad to be found in the narrow path of honesty. CHAPTER V. Remarks on Father ZaJnii's ''''Catholic Science and Catholic Scientists^''' a book which makes the Church appear a fi'aud^ j^uhlished^ according to this statejnent in his preface^ '"'in response to numerous reqiiests fro7n distinguished representatives of the heirarchy. Two of Father Zahm's blunders contrary to com- mon sense and Catholic teaching. BLUNDER NO. i. "All the great scientists of the world have been, are and ever must be men of faith, men of religions instincts, men who have felt on them the spell of Christian teaching." See page 211. A Catholic must agree with the teaching of the Church that if a man was the greatest mathematician, astronomer, ph3^sicist, botanist, etc., that ever lived, his intelligence would not suffice to make him ac- quainted with those supernatural truths which the God-man came to reveal to mankind. Moreover, it must be admitted as self-evident that all the super- natural truths revealed by our Lord to His disciples, while of the greatest importance for our salvation, are of no help whatever to make a great mathematician, astronomer, physicist, etc.; in other words, everything being equal, Archimedes would not have been a bet- ter mathematician had he been a holy friar instead of a Pagan, nor would Newton have been less proficient in science if, instead of being a Christian he liad been a Jew or a Pagan. 62 BLUNDER NO. 2. 'The eminent scientists of the world, it matters not to what age they belong, have all been God-fearing, God-serving men." Page 211. A Catholic knows that the Pope is no more sure of his eternal salvation than any ordinary mortal. A Catholic could not deny that St. Paul must have bei;n right when he wrote that he chastised his body lest, after having preached to others, he might not be him- self reckoned among the reprobate, and a Catholic must believe that our Lord knew what He was talk- ing about, when He stated that many who in His name have prophesied, cast out devils, and worked miracles will have no place in His kingdom and the fate of Judas is an object lesson. If even the calling to be an apostle does not insure eternal salvation, is it not shocking to hear a Catholic, a priest — the oracle of the Catholic Church of Amer- ica — assure his readers that all those who have been called to be eminent scientists of the w^orld, whether before or after the foundation of the Church, are to be found in heaven? A Catholic, a priest, must know that all those who have been God-fearing, God-serv- ing men, it matters not to what age they belong, must certainly be in heaven. We feel sure that the Church would never approve of Father Zahm's addition to the litany of the saints : All ye eminent scientists of the world, it matters not to what age ye belong, Pray for us! Father Zahm^s eagerness to -prove absurd claims of the Church the cause of his erj'ors. Father Zahm is well versed in theology, so fa- miliar with theological works that he is not able to say positively whether the theory that Adam's body has been taken from some monkey has been proven untenable by theologians. His honest doubt showing his great reading in such an important subject is quoted from page 129 : "As to whether theistic evo- lution may embrace man's body, considered as sep- arate from and independent of the soul, it may be re- marked that the theory has been defended among others by no less an authority than the eminent Cath- olic naturalist and philosopher, St. George Mivart, and we are not aware that his position has been prov- en by theologians to be untenable." We must chari- tably suppose that Father Zahm had no intention of slighting the teaching of the Church, he was simply laboring under a strong hallucination in consequence of the great mental strain produced by two of the most herculean tasks any man could undertake, which he willingly undertook for the honor and glory of the Church. One of these tasks was to prove (see page 112) "that Catholics were always originators and pioneers in every branch of invention and dis- covery. Others may contribute toward the develop- ment of what Catholics have begun, but facile est addere inventis — "it is easy to add to inventions." This is no easy task since the fourth chapter of Genesis teaches us that the first originators and pioneers in the line of invention and discovery were men belonging to the ungodly race of Cain; more- over there were many inventors and discoverers be- fore the foundation of Christianity. The second task of no less magnitude is another claim of the Church stated on page 57: "We shall 64 endeavor to show that the sceptre of science trnly belongs to the Church by every title on v\^hich it is possible to base a claim — that history declares it, that the facts maintain it." Father Zahm musters a number of sciences before the eyes of his readers, points out the great scientists beginning with ecclesiastics just as Notre Dame does in her catalogue with her faculty; these ecclesiastics — monks and priests — are followed by good and pious laymen. Unfortunately for Father Zahm, by seeking great scientists only among the monks, priests and pious laymen, as the claim he wishes to prove in behalf of the Church requires, he came to the wrong conclu- sion that a great scientist must necessarily be a strong believer in Christianity, and that all eminent scientists vs^ere good pious men. Thus we see that Father Zahm's too great zeal for the Church led him into errors contrary to her teaching and so ab- surd and preposterous that the very statement of them is but too suggestive of the ravings of an imbecile. Nobody will ask whether Father Zahm succeeded in proving "that Catholics were always originators and pioneers in every branch of invention and dis- covery;" this is too ridiculous, but one may ask whether or not Father Zahm did show that ''the sceptre of Science truly belongs to the Church by every title on which it is possible to base a claim — that history declares it, that the facts maintain it." Well, we are not acquainted with all sciences but we will give some samples of Father Zahm's proofs 65 and the reader may infer how much rehance may be placed on Father Zahm's conclusions. A few of Father Zahm's blunders in his proof that "the Church has invariably taken the lead in mathe- matical discovery and development." (See page yS.) In order to prove that the sceptre of Science truly belongs to the Church since mathematics is a science Father Zahm must prove that the sceptre of mathe- matics truly belongs to the Church, or what amounts to the same, that "the Church has invariably taken the lead in mathematical discovery and development." He thus begins his proof : BLUNDER NO. i. "Arithmetic as a science owes its origin in Europe to the learned Gerbert." For the sake of logic, Father Zahm should in- troduce to his readers only such men who have dis- covered or developed branches of mathematics. The learned Gerbert, Pope Sylvester II (999-1003), neith- er discovered nor developed arithmetic as a science, hence whatever may be the services he rendered to mathematics, his name is out of place. BLUNDER NO. 2. "The first work on algebra was published in Venice in 1494, by a Franciscan friar, Paccioli di Borgo. He went as far as the equations of second degree and foresaw the application of algebra to geometry. His book served as a basis of all the works on algebra during the succeeding century." Here again Father Zahm should show that the Franciscan friar has either discovered or developed 66 algebra, and that he was not a mere compiler, other- wise the good friar is out of place. As a matter of fact, Paccioli di Borgo does not have one single origi- nal thought nor did he print anything which was not known centuries before; however, he is an honest man and acknowledges that he borrows. Father Zahm, like all pretenders and impostors, endeavors to impose on the creduHty of his readers by a useless display of a knowledge of works of which he is en- tirely ignorant. Thus on page 81-82 he writes: ''We should like to tell of the work of the pious Michel Chasles, of whom it was said by a contemporary ma- thematician that all the geometers of Europe were his disciples, — of that Chasles of whose w^ork the eminent physicist, Sir E. Sabine did not hesitate to say, etc., etc., etc., but we must hurry on." We have quoted what Father Zahm states about Michel Chasles because we intend to make use of this learned and pious Catholic, who will not likely be unjust toward monks and priests, nor towards the claim of the Church. The pious Michel Chasles on page 520 of his great work, ''Apercu historique", states that "the writings of Fibonacci, which in the XVI century have been the model and the foundation of those of Luca di Borgo (the Franciscan monk Paccioli), of Cardano and of Tartaglia, had an origin purely Arabic and originally Hindoo." From this it may be inferred that according to the pious Michel Chasles, all the knowledge of mathe- matics the Church could boast after nearly fifteen hundred years of existence had an origin purely Arabic and originally Hindoo. Surely the Church 67 cannot claim that she has invariably taken the lead in mathematical discovery and development!!! Mathe- matics flourished centuries before the birth of our Lord and was in decline in His days: some few mathematicians arose mainly in the Alexandrian school up to the fourth century, but they were not Christians; it flourished afterward among the Hin- doos, who were not Christians; it was cultivated for a short period by the Mahomedans, who handed it to the Christian world, and it is not before the six- teenth century that it may be properly said that Europe began to discover and develop mathematics. BLUNDER NO. 3. 'Taccioli's work was developed by George Reisch, prior of the Carthusian monastery at Freiburg." We have seen that the pious Michel Chasles in- forms us that it was the writings of Fibonacci that were the model and foundation of those of Paccioli di Borgo, of Tartaglia and Cardano, but the pious Michel Chasles wisely refrains from mentioning with men like Cardano and Tartagha, the Carthusian prior who in his Margarita Philosophica copies a mistake made thousand years before, by Boetius. It is only by a man who like Father Zahm has no idea of great mathematicians that this monk could be ranked with the great mathematicians who discovered or de- veloped mathematics. BLUNDER NO. 4. "Cavalieri of the order of the Jeromites . . . . wrote the first approach to a treatise on the conic sec- tions." 68 Cavalieri of the order of the Jeromites is really a mathematician. The contributions to mathematics of the learned Gerbert, — Pope Sylvester II, of the Fran- ciscan monk, Paccioli di Borgo, of George Reisch prior of the Carthusian monastery at Freiburg, could no more be compared with the works of Cavalieri than the smallest of pygmies to the tallest of giants. However, Cavalieri was not only a good mathema- tician, but what is more important, a very honest and sincere man as his letters clearly prove, and he would be ashamed of the absurd claim of having written the first approach to a treatise on conic sections. If Cavalieri treated his subject geometrically, he was born two thousand years too late for Father Zahm to claim that he wrote the first approach on conic sections which according to the pious Michel Chasles, were treated geometrically in Plato's time; more- over, Apollonious, before the Church was founded, wrote his great work on conic sections which gained him the surname of "great geometer." If Cavalieri treated his subject analytically, then he was not cer- tainly the first to write such treatise because Des- cartes is the inventor of analytic geometry. Father Zahm who mentions so often Descartes in his book should be aware of this fact. BLUNDER NO. 5. 'The quadrature of the circle and other puzzling problems were solved by the Jesuit Gregory de St. Vincent." •We can readily understand how it is possible that a good and learned Jesuit like Gregory de St. Vin- cent could fall into the mistake of believing that lie 69 really solved the quadrature of the circle, but what is above our comprehension, is how the error into which the Jesuit fell should be brought forward as a proof that the Catholic Church has invariably taken the lead in mathematical discovery and development. A writer who undertakes to prove the claims of the Church in the realm of mathematics should know, at least, that the impossibility of the quadrature of the circle has been proved in 1882 by such a mathe- matician as Lindemann. Father Zahm instead of expressing his sorrow to his readers because in his hurry he cannot tell of the works of the pious Michel Chasles, should have read his works^ at least his "Apercu'', and he would have noticed in a Latin note that Leibnitz is quoted stating that the good Jesuit's proof of the quadrature of the circle is but a blunder. BLUNDER NO. 6. "Father Mersenne of the order of Minims and the intimate friend of Descartes, was the inventor of the cycloid." If so^ Father Mersenne must have invented the cycloid at his mother's breast, if not sooner, since he was born in 1588, and in 1589, if not sooner, the cycloid must have been already invented, because in a letter of Galileo dated Feb. 24, 1639, addressed to his pupil and friend Cavaheri he mentions the fact that he had studied this curve over fifty years before, that is to say in 1589. However, it could be shown that this curve was known long before Galileo's time. The pious Michel Chasles in his Apercu does not even mention Father Mersenne in connection v/ith 70 the cycloid. The names he mentions are Gahleo, Descartes, Fermat, Roberval, TorriceUi, Pascal. BLUNDER NO. 7. ''The cyclo cylindrical curve is the invention oi Father Laboulere." The pious Michel Chasles in his Apercu teaclies us that Roberval towards 1630 in his treatise oi the Indivisibles was the first one to consider this curve, which for this reason could not be the invention of Father Laboulere." BLUNDER NO. 8. "Ferrari of Bologna discovered the equations of fourth degree." Ferrari's life is far from being edifying, but this disreputable layman stands here in a far better light than the monks quoted by Father Zah^n, because unlike them he stands on his own merits. He is the real discoverer of the solution of the equations of fourth degree. After Ferrari, Father Zahm mentions ten monks, and informs his readers that "besides the ecclesiastics just referred to, we might mention a long list among the laity who have been as devoted to the Church as they were devoted to science, we shall, howevei, content ourselves with the names, etc." Ferrari was never an ecclesiastic, therefore Father Zahm made a blunder in referring to him as such, and the only reason which could be assigned, is that a disreputable subject like Ferrari could not be placed in the decent company of the laymen "who have been as devoted to the Church as they were to science,'' 71 hence the only place left for this mathematical star was the constellation of monks. It would be a loss of time to proceed to analyze the whole proof that ''the Church has invariably taken the lead in mathematical discovery and development/' since the only thing that can be expected from a man like Father Zahm utterly destitute of any knowl- edge of the matter and therefore utterly unfit to treat it, is that he will make himself a subject of ridicule to those who are versed in this science, although he may impose on such readers who are not familiar with it. We do not wish to convey the impression that there have not been great mathematicians among Catholics, but with all our devotion to that Church which is the pillar of truth, we are compelled to state that one single man like Abel, a Norwegian and a Protestant, who died when he was twenty-seven years old, contributed far more towards the discov- ery of mathematics than the seventeen monks and priests mentioned by Father Zahm in his proof. Does the Church, in the present time, take the lead in mathematical discovery and development? Taking into consideration the fact that there are more Catholics than Protestants in the world, we must acknowledge that, although there are eminent Catholic mathematicians, Protestants are contribut- ing more towards the discovery and development of mathematics. Does this prove that Protestantism is a better re- ligion than Catholicism? On this ground we might as well infer that be- cause Moses, according to the Bible, w^as educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, when there was 72 very little science among the Jews, the degrading religion of the Egyptians was by far better than the worship of the true God. On this ground we might as well infer that because Athens with a population not amounting to one-thirtieth of that of New York City contributed more during less than one century towards literature, painting, sculpture, architecture, than the whole continent of America from the mo- ment that Columbus discovered it to the present time, therefore the Pagan religion of the Athenians must be superior to that of Catholics and Protestants. The fact is that the development of science, literature, arts, mechanical inventions, and the natural resources of a country may perhaps be a sign of its mental and physical activity, but by no means a sure test of the truths of its religion. Father Zahm's contradiction in his proof that the sceptre of natural science belongs to the Church. The Paulist Father, George M. Searle, ranked by Father T^^hvc^ in his book among the great scientists of the world, states in reference to natural science on page 283 of "Plain Facts for Fair Minds", that "Cath- olics have perhaps not emphasized or cultivated nat- ural science ,in proportion to their number, so much as others." Father Zahm, however, states on page 96-97, "The reader is surely prepared, from what we have al- ready said regarding the other sciences, to hear it stated that it was Catholics too, who were the first to take the initiative in the study of nature. Botany, zoology, geology, mineralogy, seem always to have exerted a peculiar fascination over the minds of the children of Holy Church. We may recall the rap- 73 turous delight and the impassioned eloquence of a St. Francis of Assisi, of a St. Bernard, or of a Father Faber, when discoursing on the beauties and grandeur of the works of God, as displayed in the natural world." Neither the impassioned eloquence of a St. Fran- cis of Assisi nor the fascination which natural science seemed to have exerted over the minds of the children ' of Holy Church could prove that Catholics were the first to take the initiative in the study of nature be- cause Catholics have been anticipated by Heathens, as Fatlier Zahm acknowledges on page 103, where M^ read that the works of Aldrovandus, Bufifon and Daubenton "must ever be regarded of such impor- tance toward the development of zoology, as to en- title their authors to be ranked with Aristotle, as founders of the science." As Aristotle lived centuries before the Church, Heathens were the first to take the initiative in the study of nature. Father Zahni's blunders concerning Galileo's achievements in his proof that the sceptre of astron- omy truly belongs to the Church. Father Zahm on page 71 states that "the famo:is Gerbert, Pope Sylvester H and Friar Bacon, were the great astronomical lights of the tenth and thir- teenth centuries. Indeed, nearly every astronomer of note for the first fifteen centuries of the Church's history was an ecclesiastic." On page ']2 he states : "The annals of astronomy in subsequent times tell the same story. Those who contributed most to the advance of astronomical science — those who achieved most marked distinc- tion for their brilliant discoveries — were Catholics, 74 It was Galileo Galilei, about whom so many romances have been written — Galileo, the friend and protege oi cardinals and popes, who, imaginative historians would have us believe, were his persecutors — who in- vented the telescope, which, with a few discoveries he soon made^ entirely revolutionized the science of astronomy." We do not wish to show how much truth or rather falsehood there is in Father Zahm's statement that "indeed nearly every astronomer of note for the first fifteen centuries was an ecclesiastic." Those ac- quainted with the history of this science are aware how much Ptolomy, a Heathen 150 A. D., the Hin- doos and Mahomedans, have contributed toward astronomical science. We confine ourselves to Father Zahm's blunders in regard to Galileo. BLUNDER NO. i. Why should Father Zahm be guilty of such an amazing blunder as to claim the invention of the tele- scope for Galileo, when it is a well-known fact that the telescope was invented by a Dutchman? Galileo himself acknowledges it in his work II Saggiatore. BLUNDER NO. 2. Newton, a non-Catholic, revolutionized astronomy by discovering gravitation. The necessary data were furnished him by Kepler's laws, which were the re- sult of the powerful scientific imagination of Kep- ler, a non-Catholic, based on his own astronomical observations as well as on those of Tycho Brahe, a non-Catholic. The Abbe Picard with the measurement of the meridian furnished to Newton the means of verifying 75 the fact that the laws of gravitation fully explain the relation between the earth and the moon. It was Gali- leo's discoveries in the realm of dynamics — of which he is the founder — that were of the greatest help to Newton in revolutionizing astronomy. The astronomical discoveries of Galileo had no in- fluence whatever in the discovery of the law of gravi- tation, which revolutionized astronomy. Some of Father Zahm^s blunders in his -proof that the sceptre of -physical science truly belongs to the Church. On page 82 we read : "In the various departments of physics we are again indebted to children of the Church, for not only taking the initiative, but also for placing the landmarks of the science. It was Leonardo da Vinci, and subsequently Galileo and his school — Torricelli, Viviani, Borelli, Castelli, Mer- senne, and Gassendi, the last three of whom were ecclesiastics — who created those branches of the science known as mechanics, hydrostatics, hydraulics, and hydro-dynamics. They were the first to cast aside the traditions of the ancients, and to substitute experiment for the dicta of Aristotle and the teachers of the Alexandrian school. Before Galileo's time, little was known about the laws of solids and fluids in motion. But the scholars just mentioned took the matter in hand, and performed their work so well, that they left comparatively little for subsequent in- vestigators to accomplish." BLUNDER NO. i. We are not indebted to the children of the Church for the creation of the branch of that science known 76 as hydrostatics, because it was created by Archime- des, centuries before the Church was founded. BLUNDER NO. 2. Archimedes is called also the founder of mechanics because he created statics^ a branch of mechanics, hence it could not honestly be said that we are in- debted to the children of the Church for the creation of mechanics. BLUNDER NO. 3. The works of Huyghens, Newton, Euler, D'Alem- bert, Lagrange, Jacobi and others give the lie to Father Zahm when, speaking about the laws of solids and fluids in motion, he states of Galileo and his school that they left comparatively little for subse- quent investigators to accomplish. Any reasonable person will suppose that Galileo and subsequent in- vestigators to the present time have still left much for future investigators to accomplish. BLUNDER NO. 4. On page 60, Father Zahm tells us that "we owe the experimental method of study which has con- tributed so materially to the advancement of natural and physical science, among others, to Gerbert, after- v/ard Pope Sylvester II. — born A. D. 920; died 1003." On page 64, he informis us that this experimental method, "introduced by the monks of the Middle Ages, and continued by their successors, it was later on employed by the professors of science in the uni- versities of Italy and other countries, until the time of Galileo and his school, when it may be said to have reached its culmination." 77 Therefore it is not true that Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo with his school half ecclesiastics "were t!ie first to cast aside the traditions of the ancients, and to substitute experiments for the dicta of Aristotle, and the teachers of the Alexandrian school." Father Zahm's idea as expressed on page 64, that Galileo was indebted to Pope Sylvester II, and monks of the Middle Ages, may be edifying to simple and pious readers, but in reality it tends to turn this Pope and these monks into ridicule. One might ask: If Gali- leo owes his discoveries to the experimental method and this method was known six hundred years before, why did not these monks^ so numerous in the Mid- dle Ages, with plenty spare time, instead of teaching others how to make discoveries, make systematical discoveries themselves? Galileo alone did more to- ward systematic investigation than all the monks of the preceding six hundred years. BLUNDER NO. 5. Father Zahni^s ignorance of the real greatness of Galileo. Father Zahm taught Physics in Notre Dame and seeing in the text books a chapter devoted to mechan- ics, he supposed mechanics to be a department of Physics. This mistake is natural in a person who, like Father Zahm, being entirely unacquainted with the higher branches of mathematics, is incapable of understanding any of the standard books on mechan- ics. Although it would be absolutely impossible for Father Zahm to read "Celestial Mechanics" — the grand work of Laplace on astronomy — the mere title should have suggested him the idea that mechanics 78 is more than a department of Physics. It is physics, astronomy, chemistry and all sciences dealing with matter which are departments of mechanics. Archimedes created statics, Galileo dynamics, these two branches constitute mechanics; hydrostatics and hydro-dynamics are mechanics applied to the equil- ibrium or motion of fluids. Galileo, although indirectly, powerfully contributed to the development of mathematics so necessary to the development and application of mechanics. The geometr}^ of the ancients used by Newton has been superseded by the integration of differential equations; however, it is highly probable that as mathematics is now progressing, new and more ex- peditive methods will be found to make a wider ap- plication of dynamics than is possible at the present time. However long may be the life of mankind, how- ever numerous the great discoverers, however large the number of secrets wrested from nature by the application of dynamics, Gahleo's name will always shine conspicuous as the founder of this science — the mistress, the queen of all sciences, which have for object the study of phenomena of the material world. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ We have pointed out a few of Father Zahm's blun- ders in his claim that the sceptre of science truly be- longs to the Church. We entertain the gravest doubt whether from the foundation of the Church to the present time, there have been three men who could assert that they published a book dealing with sci- ence, ''in response to numerous requests from distin- 79 guished representatives of the hierarchy." It is difficult for any one to believe that distinguished representa- tives of the hierarchy of America could have shown in this instance so little judgment, and in reading the patent historical lies in ''Catholic Science and Catho- lic Scientists'', one would be inclined not only to question the judgment, but even the honesty of the many distinguished representatives of the hierarchy who requested its publication. We analyze one of these patent historical lies. CHAPTER VI. leather ZahiJi's patent historical lie about the case of Galileo. On page 190, we read: "The enemies of the Church had until recently been fond of.bringing up the case of Galileo as a "martyr of science," but, in the light of recent research on this subject, they have been forced to drop the case as being without foundation in fact. The truth is that all the martyrs of science — and there have been many — have met their persecutors and their execu- tioners outside of the Church. All the Galileos tl'.ai authentic history tells us of, all those who have sufifered for the cause of science, were those, and those only, who were brought before the tribunal of the Reformation, or who were persecuted at the instiga- tion of men who were the upholders of principles which the Reformation endorsed and promulgated." If Father Zahm had a particle of the honesty he attributes to the enemies of the Church, who drop a case when documents are presented showing it has no foundation in fact, he could not publish sucli a glaring historical lie concerning Galileo's case, when the original documents of the Inquisition relating to Galileo are now to be found in the Vatican library — a gift of Pope Pius IX, after their recovery from Paris through the efforts of Count Rossi. 81 The causes that led to the condemnation of the Copernican system. Copernicus, a Polish priest, published a book dedi- cated to the Pope, in which he upheld the system of the diurnal rotation of the earth around its axis, be- sides the annual around the sun; a system taught by Pythagorean philosophers, but superseded by Ptolemy 150 A. D. which made the earth immovable in the center of the universe. Aristotle had made the earth the center of the universe, and as theology made great use of the philosophy of this great rtlan, it is natural that the Copernican system would be shocking to those who were thoroughly imbued with the Aristotelian tenets, and it is for this reason that the Copernican system was condemned in 1616 by the theologians of the Holy Ofhce as "absurd and false in philosophy." Moreover, in the Bible we read that the sun stopped at the command of Joshua, and there are many other expressions leading us to suppose that it is the sun that moves and not the earth, and theologians were con- vinced that the authoritative tradition of the Church upheld the literal meaning of the Bible ,and therefore the Copernican system was condemned by Holy Office as heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. Another powerful motive led men to consider such a system as subversive to the ideas of Christianity. Men of a rather pious and contemplative mind accustomed by their philosophy as well as ways of understanding the Bible to consider the earth as the center of the v/hole universe, and man the greatest of beings for whom earth, planets, sun and stars were created, while thanking God, who did everything for man, 82 could reconcile their minds more easily to the awful mystery of the Incarnation — the very foundation of Christianity. But when an apostate endowed with powerful imagination and talent, basing himself on the Copernican system, without the help of telescopes wrote of the stars as suns surrounded by planets in- habited by rational beings, then the minds of those pious people came to the conclusion that the great- ness of man would be impaired by such a system. The possibility of an immense number of worlds in- habited by rational beings may indeed send a thrill of enthusiasm through some religious persons of this age, but to people not accustomed to such thoughts, such a possibility appeared simply a paradox and if propounded by a heretic, a dangerous heresy. Thus Girordano Bruno, the apostate monk, with his theo- ries based on the Copernican system, contributed un- knowingly to its condemnation. Condemnation of the Copernican system^ Galileo^ s duty as a Catholic not to submit to the decree of the Holy Office^ should have appealed to the Pope. Galileo began by giving mortal ofifense to the Aris- totelians in 1589-91 while teaching in the University of Pisa, where from her leaning tower he gave an ocular demonstration of the unreliability of some of the tenets of their philosophy. Although he held the Copernican system still out of fear of ridicule rather than persecution he tauglit the Ptolemaic system in the University of Padua. When with the aid of the telescope in 1608 he discov- ered Jupiter's satellites revolving around that planet, illustrating the Copernican system which teaches that the earth revolves around the sun, encouraged by the flattering reception his discoveries received, he 1 83 thought he could without ridicule uphold it as he did in his work, "On the Spots of the Sun." His great fame added more weight to a theory in itself far more reasonable and simple, therefore more probable than the Ptolemaic system. Having been informed that CastelH, a Benedictine monk, his pupil and warm friend, while dining with the grand-duke of Tuscany, had defended his theory against the imputation of being unscriptural, he wrote him a letter dated Dec. 21, 1613, in which he undertook with the help of the Fathers of the Church to set forth the relation of Scripture to science. Galileo's letter was laid before the Holy Ofhce by a Dominican monk in Feb., 161 5, and Galileo stands accused by this monk among other things of the crime of finding fault with the whole philosophy of Aristotle of which the scholastic theo- logy makes so much use. Galileo was by no means one who wished to raise theological discussions and if he entered into this subject it is because he had been dragged into by his opponents. His explana- tion of the miracle performed at the request of Joshua, which he regards as a confirmation of his theory, may be entirely wrong, but his beliefs in religious matters were orthodox and it is hard to understand how the Dominican monk could accuse Galileo's school of the most extravagant errors concerning the attri- butes of God. It may be probably on account of the information Galileo received, that the Holy Office was going to pass judgment on the Copernican system, that he repaired to Rome, in Dec, 1615, where he was cor- dially received and eagerly listened to; however, his plan of preventing the condemnation of that system 84 met with signal failure. On Feb. 24, 1616, the Holy Office proscribed the proposition that the sun is im- movable in the center of the universe as absurd and false in philosophy, and formally heretical because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture; the proposition that the earth is not the immovable center of the uni- verse and that it rotates daily is proscribed as "being absurd and false in philosophy, and at least erroneous as to faith." Galileo was ordered not to hold, teach or defend the condemned propositions and he prom- ised to do so. Had Galileo been as much of a man as he was a scientist, had he had the courage of his convictions, had he been a conscientious Catholic, he would have won the imperishable fame of bearing witness to truth, he would have saved himself from the unpleasant consequences of his cowardly submis- sion, and last, but not least, he would have spared the Church an untold amount of unjust criticism caused by the folly of the theologians of the Holy Ofhce v/liich is but a fallible tribunal. Galileo should have observed that neither the Church nor a tribunal of the Church has any jurisdic- tion in matters of philosophy as such, hence the learned theologians had exceeded their authority in condemn- ing the two propositions as "absurd and false in phil- osophy," and he as a Catholic and as a philosopher, did not intend to refuse his assent to the Copernican system, merely on the ground that it was condemned as "being absurd and false in philosophy" by theolog- ians of the Holy Office. Concerning the condemnation of the Copernican system as being heretical because expressly contrary to many texts of Holy Scripture, and their interpre- 85 tatlon by the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church; Galileo might have remarked that God did not intend to teach the science of astronomy through the medium of the sacred writers and it was far more natural that they should use only popular expressions, such as the sun sets and the sun rises, and the inter- pretations of such texts by Holy Fathers and Doctors should not deter a Cath'olic scientist from studying such questions scientifically, the more so that such interpretations do not constitute the formal teach- ing of the Church — the only authorized interpreter of the word of God. For instance although it would appear that according to the Bible the earth has four corners. Catholics studied the figure of the earth and discovered its rotundity. On better thought he might have added that Joshua's miracle neither proves the Copernican nor the Ptolemaic system. The histor- ical fact that the sacred writer intended to convey us is that the children of Israel saw the sun and the moon occupying the same position during their pursuit of the enemy, a miracle which God in His infinite wis- dom and power might have performed in a thousand different ways, one of which might have been to move that portion of the light necessary to illuminate tlie earth or a small part of it in such a way that the sun and the moon should be constantly seen at the same time after Joshua gave his order. Under such circum- stances he could not, as a Catholic, promise that he would hold the Copernican system as heretical, unless he was shown an authoritative interpretation of the Church of the texts in question and therefore he ia tended to lay his appeal before the Pope as the head of the Church. 86 Necessary consequences of Galileo^ s appeal to the Pope, What we are going to state may appear fanciful to a non-Catholic, but not so to a Catholic who knov/s that if the Church cannot err in matters pertaining to faith and morals^ it is not due to the wisdom of Popes or bishops, but to the assistance of the Spirit of Truth, and if proofs were needed, the Copernicai system could be rightly regarded as a tangible one. The personal opinion of Popes and bishops must have been that such system was certainly false, if not heretical, still the Church never decided on this matter. It might be objected that since the personal opinion of the Pope coincided with that of the theologians of the Holy Office, Galileo would have been told by Paul V to submit to the decree of the Holy Office, and thus he would have gained nothing by his appeal. It is true that although the Pope did not affix his signature to the decree of the Holy Office, still he thought it correct, but it is also true that it is scarcely probable that the Pope would have told Galileo to submit, for the simple reason that he was too well aware of the fact that Galileo might have answered him that the personal opinion of the Pope is not a rule of faith and Catholics are not bound to accept the personal opinions of Popes. What we state is genuine Catholic doctrine as may be seen on page 3S-39 of the charming book, 'Tlain Facts for Fair Minds" of the Paulist Father, George M. Searle : "Further — and this is an important and much mis- apprehended point — it would be an enormous mis- take to suppose that the Pope is considered infallible, even on matters of faith, in his ordinary conversa- 87 tion; nor is he believed to be so in preaching; nor necessarily in his writings concerning matters of re- ligion. "In order that he should be infallible, it is necessary that he should act formally as the teacher of the whole Churchy as the successor of the apostles; and practically we may say it is necessary that his teach- ing should not be given by word of mouth, but in writing, in a regular document; for if he merely spoke, some uncertainty would exist as to what he actually said, whatever means might be taken to report it." Before giving his verdict, Paul V would naturally have ordered a thorough investigation in order to know whether a Catholic could lawfully hold the two propositions condemned by the Holy Ofhce. By so doing he would have ascertained that the Church had not given an authoritative explanation of the texts in question, and as the interpretation of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church does not constitute the formal teaching of the Church, it would have been made patent that a Catholic could hold the two prop- ositions condemned by the mistaken tribunal of the Holy OflEice. Of course the Pope had theoretically the power of giving, in his capacity as head of the Church, a formal explanation of the sacred texts in question, but a Catholic is too well aware of the fact that when the Pope acts in his capacity he is only an instrument in the hands of God, who, in His di- vine economy does not allow that formal explana- tions should be given unless there is a real need of it, therefore from the fact that up to the present time no formal explanation has been given, we may infer that Paul V would have refrained from doing so, 88 The only conclusion he would have reached is, that the theologians had been grossly mistaken, and he would have repealed their condemnation of the two propositions in question. Galileo would have left Rome rejoining, the Catholic world would have been edified, and the persecution of Galileo would be a subject unknown to history. Galileo^ s further downfall from cowardly denial to -perjury. After having promised that he would neither hold, teach nor defend the two propositions condemned by the theologians of the Holy Office in January, 1632. he published his work "Dialogo dei due massimi S:s- temi del mondo," in which he compares the Coperni- can with the Ptolemaic system, and although he does not decide in favor of either it is evident that he fa^-- ored the Copernican system and the ironical submis- sion in his preface to the decree of the Holy Office is more than sufficient to show the great respect in which he held it. This book was hailed with the greatest enthusiasm, but the sale was forbidden in Augiist, and Galileo, close upon his seventieth year, summoned October ist to Rome, by Urban VHI, whither he had to go, and arrived there February, 1633. He was kindly treated by the Inquisition, racks and dungeons being mere fables. This is the situation of the two parties. Tho judges thought him guilty of holding, teaching and defending an heretical theory, which he had promised not to hold^ teach or defend. Galileo on the other hand, would most solemnly lie protesting that he pever held the Copernican system after its condem- L.cfC. 89 nation in i6i6, and that his book clearly shows on what weak basis the Copernican system stands. On the 22nd of June, 1633, on his knees touching the Gospel, thus attesting the sincerity of his soul, he read his recantation in the Church of the Minerva. He was condemned as 'Vehemently suspected of her- esy" to recite once a week for three years the seven penitential psalms, and to incarceration at the pleas- ure of the tribunal.* He was allowed to leave Rome for Sienna where he lived with his friend Piccolomini, the archbishop of that city, until in December, he was permitted to leave for Florence where in his villa at Arcetri, he spent the eight remaining years of his life in strict confinement prescribed to him, and brought forth his best work on Dynamics. There in January, 1642, the year in which Sir Isaac Newton was born, died Gali- leo, who himself was born the very day on which Michelangelo died. Reasons of the cowardice oj Galileo. Galileo was not sincere in his recantation as may be seen in his letter one month later, dated Sienna, July 23, 1633, written to a friend to use his influence to free him from his troubles, which he enumerates : *The Inquisition in Rome is a quite different ecclesiastical tri- bunal from the Spanish Inquisition which was rather a state than Church institution. Tae Church existed lon^ before such discipli- nary tribunals, and with or without them she will exist as long as mankind. While faith and morals are unchangeable the disci- pline of the Church has no rigid fixity, and changes to suit the exigencies of the age. As to the use of corporal punishment for the crime of apostasy as far as we are aware, the opinion of the Catholics of today coincides with the wish of Cardinal Gibbons concerning religious intolerance in this country, "that religious intolerance may never take root in our favored land; may the only king to force our conscience be the King of Kings; may the only prison erected among us for the sin of unbelief or misbelief be the prison of a troubled conscience, and: may our only motive for embracing truth be not the fear of man but the iQve ot tyutl^ and of God." 90 "they were all brought upon him for those demerits of his, known to everybody except those who had judged him worthy of this and greater punishment." Two reasons may be assigned sufficient to explain Galileo's conduct. In the first place Galileo did not cultivate truthfulness for its own sake. In a letter to Kepler, he acknowledges that fear of ridicule was the only motive that restrained him from publicly avowing the Copernican system. While it is only under some pecuHar circumstances that a man is bound to publicly bear witness to truth, under no circumstances is he allowed to uphold what is not true, still we see that Galileo was publicly teaching in Padua the Ptolemaic system when he was con- vinced of its falsehood. This is but one instance of the weakness of his character which could not be compared with that of a Newton or Pascal. His character was further weakened by his openly disre- garding the highest laws of morality. While teach- ing in Padua he publicly lived with a Venetian wo- man called Marina Gamba, by whom he had three children, who married another man after Galileo left that university for Florence. It is true that he was a good father to his children, and that his life after- ward was regular, still it may be fairly doubted whether it was for conscience sake that he left the mother of his children instead of marrying her. The whole tenor of his life must appear to an unpreju- diced mind as an eminently practical one, not only in a scienific sense but even as the word practical is taken by men of the world. He had no objection with his keen irony and sar- casm aided, as a rule, by powerful arguments, to 91 encounter inveterate prejudices, and thus win the applause of the world^ but he had not the sHghtest desire of exposing himself to ridicule and much less to the imaginary danger of loss of life or liberty for the sake of truth. Thus when the hour of trial came, when he was notified in 1616 that he should not hold, teach or defend the Copernician system because heret- ical, his previous habits had already predisposed him to fail to do his duty not only as a scientist but as a Catholic, he denied science and renounced through fear the most precious gift a man possesses — his reason and his religious convictions. It seems as if Providence wished to give Galileo another chance to retrieve his past error by openly testifying to the truth before the Inquisition, and, by appealing to the Pope, be the means of having the stupid decree of the Holy Ofhce repealed. Instead of profiting by this opportunity, like Peter he denied the truth and his religious and scientific convictions on oath .,and suffered the consequences of his apos- tacy for the remaining years of his life. Did the deci'ee of the Holy Office have any harm- ful influence toward retarding the progress of astron- o?ny among Catholics. We observe that from the moment the Copernican system was condemned as "absurd and false in philosophy," it was discouraged as a scientific hypothesis ; besides, having been condemned as heretical a Catholic could not conscientiously hold a heresy as an hypothesis. It is true that a Catholic scientist must know that the Holy Office is not a competent tribunal to judge about the ab- surdity and falsehood of a scientific proposition, it is 92 also true that a Catholic scientist must know that he is not bound to hold that a proposition is heretical because it is declared to be so by the Holy Office, still Catholic scientists might not have liked to have any dealings with the Inquisition, who after Galileo's condemnation sent a warning to many places of what had occurred in Rome for disregarding her decree and thus the progress of astronomy might indeed be retarded. On the other hand, the great criticism the treatment of Galileo provoked amiong Catholics might lead us to suppose that any other Catholic astronomer holding that system would not have been molested by the Inquisition, and the fact that we know of no other persons who had to recant for the sin of hold- ing such heretical system, would lead us to suppose that this decree had become harmless, having spent all its strength and power on Galileo. Howevc;, the right answer could only be given by a thorough astronomer after having made a careful study of Catholic astronomers subsequent to Galileo. Were not Paul V, Urdan VIII and all subsequent Popes, until the decree of the Holy Office condemn- ing the Copernican system was repealed, guilty of laxity in performing their duty as heads of the Church? It was in virtue of such decree of 1616 that Galileo was tried in 1633, and it looks rather anomalous to see that a Catholic could have been tried in Rome for an opinion which is not heretical and still be con- demned "as vehemently suspected of heresy" with the full knowledge and consent of the Pope. The fact that Galileo was never confined in dungeons or tortured has nothing to do with the question; there 93 are mental anxieties which are more painful than bodily sufferings, and the mere condemnation itself as being vehemently suspected of heresy, when he knew he was no heretic, must certainly have affected Galileo deeply. An intelligent Catholic, while deplor- ing this historical fact^ could not even conceive hov it is possible that this fact could be brought as a proof against the infallibility of the Church. Now it is but natural to ask the question : ''Would it not have been the duty of the Pope, Paul V, to ses* that the decree of 1616 of the Holy Office thus em- powering the Inquisition to proceed against anv Catholic as a heretic for disregarding it, should be in strict conformity with the formal teaching oi the Church?" The fact that the theologians of the Holy Office in their condemnation of the two propositions charac- terized them also as "absurd and false in philosophy/' was it not a sure sis^n that their minds were already biased by their preconceived philosophical notions? We readily admit that Paul V may have shared the prejudices of the theologians of the Holy Office, but this does not alter the question, which in this case may be thus asked : Was not Paul V in duty bound to see whether a personal conviction of his own was in strict accordance with the formal teach- ing of the Church before allowing that a Catholic could be tried for the crime of heresy for disregard- ing it? Of course we are convinced that any Catholic, not to speak of a man like Galileo, who would have de- fied the personal conviction of the Pope and the decree of the Holy Offfce, protesting at the same time 94 his willingness to submit, provided he was shown the formal teaching of the Church in this matter, or that the Pope acting in his official capacity would uphold such decree, such a Catholic, instead of being burned at the stake, as many writers fancy would have happened to Galileo had he not recanted, would have been the means of having such decree repealed. If Urban VIII had done what Paul V neglected to do, he would have conferred a far greater benefit on Galileo than by granting him a pension, and would have spared an untold amount of criticism to the Church, which, unfortunately, will last to the end of time. What we have said of these two Popes also applies to the subsequent Popes who did not repeal this decree, because the Inquisition had, theoreti- cally, the power of proceeding against any Catholic who disregarded it, until it was repealed. Therefore it would appear that these Popes were really guilty of neglecting a duty incumbent to their office; hov/- ever, we speak under correction."^' How Father Zahni's book, '^Catholic Science and Catholic Scientists, ^^ might he used in the future to dishonor the Church and hierarchy. If a writer should publish an article entitled "A further evidence of the bigotry and unscrupulous- ness of the Romish Church" and should endeavor to base his proof on ''Catholic Science and Catholic Scientists," a book published in 1893 by Father Zahm ''in response to numerous requests from distinguished representatives of the hierarchy," as stated in his *Tliis reasoning was submitted to a theologian of this country for the object of pointing out any mistalje. In answer he re- ferred us to another theologian for the special reason that he had made a study of the matter, who, however, did not reply to our inquiries. 95 preface, such an article would rightly be disregarded by the American public who could not believe that men like Cardinal Gibbons or Bishop Spalding would ever request Father Zahm to publish such a book or countenance the historical lies contained in it; how- ever, a hundred years hence a writer might publish such article and substantiate its title by the follow- ing reasons : First. Had Father Zahm lied when in his preface he stated he published his book "in response to numerous requests from distinguished representa- tives of the hierarchy," the hierarchy would have pro- tested, but there is no evidence of any protest on the part of the hierarchy, therefore his statement in his preface must be accepted. Second. Had the hierarchy protested. Father Zahm would not have become the head of his Order in this country, nor would he have been honored with the marked distinction of entertaining for a week, as his own personal guest. Cardinal Martinelli, then Papal Delegate, nor would other honors have been bestowed on him. Third. Only bigoted, narrow-minded and unscru- pulous persons could send numerous requests to Father Zahm to publish so many absurd claims of the Church — so many historical lies — therefore the fact that this priest received numerous requests from the distinguished representatives of the hierarchy to publish such a book tends to show that the archbish- ops and bishops of America toward the close of the nineteenth century must have been men utterly desti- tute of any love of truth. How could this charge be answered at a time AUG 171901 96 when the names of Gibbons and Spalding will not perhaps be so fresh in the memory of readers? Had Paul V made a thorough investigation of the two propositions condemned by the Holy Office in the decree of 1616, which warranted the Congrega- tion of the Index to forbid all books teaching the Copernican system, and in virtue of which the Inqui- sition was empowered to proceed against any Cath- olic holding such system, this Pope would have spared the Church the plausible pretext of her ene- mies that she is opposed to the progress of science. Had Urban VIII, instead of bestowing a pension on Galileo, made a thorough investigation of the decree of 1616 before summoning Gahleo to Rome to answer the charge of heresy, this Pope would have spared the Church the plausible pretext of her enemies that she was the enemy and persecutor of great scientists. Had the hierarchy of America promptly protested against Father Zahm's statement that he published his book, "Catholic Science and Catholic Scientists," ''in response to numerous requests from distinguished representatives of the hierarchy," the hierarchy might have spared the Church the plausible pretext of her future enemies that she is not only opposed to truth, that she not only countenances falsehoods, but what is far worse, that numerous distinguished archbish- ops or bishops requested a priest, a member of a religious Order, to publish in her glory and defense absurd claims and damnable historical lies. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 028 343 282 8