and wishing to be faithful to our duty as well as to the
programme of this journal, we, the undersigned, responsible
editors of the _Osservatore Cattolico_, in our own behalf and
of all who have written in our columns on the question
aforesaid, intend to declare and do hereby declare in the most
docile and submissive manner possible, that
1. As to the silence now imposed we repeat and confirm what we
said on occasion of reproducing in this journal the letter of
the Master of the Sacred Palace to the editor of the
_Osservatore Romano_—viz., that it shall be observed.
2. The sentence _Dimittantur_, as used by the Sacred
Congregation of the Index was not rightly interpreted by us.
ENRICO MASSARA, Priest,
DAVIDE ALBERTARIO, Priest,
Editors of the _Osservatore Cattolico_.
MILAN, June 30, 1876.
Another and more recent instance is that of the controversy concerning
the constitution of bodies. A letter of the Pope to Dr. Travaligni,
president of a scientific society in Italy, commending the effort to
bring physical and medical science into harmony with the scholastic
philosophy, was interpreted as giving authoritative sanction to a
certain doctrine of the Thomist school. A professor in the University
of Lille wrote a letter to the Pope on the subject, setting forth the
differences of opinion and the continued controversies respecting the
constitution of bodies, and praying for a positive decision. In reply
to this the professor and all others interested in these questions were
instructed, in a letter written and published by order of the Holy
Father, that the Holy See had defined nothing in the premises, and that
a solution of difficulties should be sought for by scientific
investigation and discussion. We have not space for the publication of
this letter, but it may be found in one of the back numbers of the
_Catholic Review_ of Brooklyn (Sept. 22, 1877).
As for the Rosminian philosophy, we agree personally with Liberatore
and the Thomist school in rejecting it as scientifically untenable.
Nevertheless, we have heretofore distinctly avowed that in a dogmatic
aspect it is free from censure, and we are glad to see the matter
placed beyond question, and the controversy relegated to its proper
sphere as one debatable only on purely rational grounds. The other
question is one which has been extensively discussed in our pages, and
which we regard as extremely interesting and important.
The doctrine proposed and elaborately discussed in the articles
formerly published under the title “Principles of Real Being” has been
attacked by a very learned and able writer in a German periodical
published at St. Louis, on dogmatic as well as philosophical grounds.
This is a convenient opportunity to state that we have in manuscript a
very long and minute defence and vindication of the doctrine advocated
in these articles, written by their distinguished author, who is well
versed not only in scholastic theology and metaphysics, but also in
mathematical and physical science. We refrained from publishing his
reply to the attack of his antagonist, partly because the discussion
was too subtle and abstruse for our readers, and still more from
unwillingness to engage in dogmatic controversy when there is a risk of
perplexing pious minds. In matters really dogmatic and pertaining to
Catholic doctrine we want no compromise or attenuation. We desire only
the restriction of the argument from authority within its actual
limits, that the discussion of matters purely philosophical may be
carried on by rational arguments alone, without accusations of
heterodoxy on either side. In respect to the essence and integrity of
the scholastic philosophy according to the system of the two great
doctors, Aristotle and St. Thomas, we are in hearty concurrence with
the great intellectual movement of the revival and restoration of this
philosophy as the only true and scientific metaphysics to its ancient
dominating position. We do not, however, consider that a blind
submission to the authority even of St. Thomas is reasonable. An author
who, like Liberatore, professedly aims at nothing more than an exact
exposition of the doctrine of St. Thomas undoubtedly renders a service
to metaphysical science and its students. The writer of this article
esteems very highly all the philosophical works of this distinguished
Jesuit, and has used by preference, for several years, his
_Institutiones Philosophicæ ad triennium Accommodatæ_ as a text-book of
instruction. Yet we cannot approve of such a complete abdication of
original and independent investigation and reasoning as a rule to be
followed in philosophical teaching. We do not find that the system of
the strict Thomists is proved in a manner entirely satisfactory and
conclusive, in some of its details, particularly in that part which
relates to the harmony of physical with metaphysical science. There is
such a thing as progress and development in theology and philosophy.
The opinions of private doctors are not final. Neither St. Augustine in
dogmatic theology, St. Alphonsus in moral theology, nor St. Thomas in
both these sciences and metaphysics, though declared by the Holy See
doctors of the universal church, were competent to pronounce final
judgments; since they were not rendered infallible by the superiority
of their genius and wisdom, from which alone their authority is
derived. Their private doctrine, inasmuch as it passes beyond the line
of the Catholic doctrine contained in their works and having its own
intrinsic authority, has only a claim to a respectful consideration,
with a presumption in its favor. In the last analysis all its weight
consists in the rational evidence or proof sustaining it, which is
lessened or destroyed by probable or demonstrative proof to the
contrary. The Jesuit school has always insisted on these principles.
While recognizing St. Thomas as master, it has diverged from the
teaching of the Dominican commentators on St. Thomas, both in theology
and metaphysics. Whether Suarez and others diverged or not from the
genuine doctrine of St. Thomas, in their controversy with writers of
the Thomist school, is a matter of dispute. The question as to what is
the real sense and import of the doctrine of St. Thomas or of Aristotle
is distinct from the question of the material truth and evidence of any
controverted proposition. The latter is much the more important of the
two, and reason alone must decide it, so far as it can be decided, in
the absence of any authoritative definition. If philosophy, therefore,
is to make any progress, and if there is to be any real approximation
to unity in philosophical doctrine among Catholics, the authority of
reason and evidence must prevail over all human authority, and
exclusive devotion to systems or great names must be abandoned, that
truth may be investigated and brought to light.
The great motive urged by those who write in a specially irenical
spirit is to strengthen the combination of forces in the Catholic
intellectual army for the polemical contest against error and doubt.
That the sophists of heresy and infidelity may be confuted and
vanquished, that those who are erring and out of the way may be
reclaimed, that honest seekers after truth may be guided to a
successful discovery of this hidden treasure, is the great object of
Catholic polemics. The great field of contest is the philosophical
domain. It springs to view at once that agreement in philosophical
doctrine is of the utmost importance for the success of the Catholic
cause in this holy warfare. Among those who have labored most zealously
and successfully toward this end, the distinguished Jesuit Father
Ramière stands pre-eminent. In his most recent publication, _L’Accord
de la Philosophie de St. Thomas et de la Science moderne au sujet de la
composition des corps_, prepared with the aid of another Jesuit
specially versed in the physical sciences, he has made a deeply-studied
and masterly effort at harmonizing the peripatetic system with the
results of experiment and induction in modern chemical science. It is
the most subtile and acute piece of argumentation which has ever
proceeded from his pen. The doctrine of Aristotle and St. Thomas has
hitherto been generally supposed to be in a diametrical contradiction
to that of modern chemistry in respect to the combination of elements
in the compound substances. The peripatetic theory has been, on this
account, abandoned by most of our modern authors and professors in
philosophy. A few, however, among whom Liberatore and the editor of the
_Scienza Italiana_ are conspicuous, have exerted all their power of
subtile analysis to defend the Thomist opinion. Another recent writer,
Dr. Scheid of Eichstädt, has endeavored to maintain the same thesis in
the most exclusive sense, and attempts to prove that the Thomist theory
alone is either compatible with the dogmatic definitions of the church
or adequate to give a satisfactory explanation of the facts established
by chemical and physical experiments. On the contrary, Dr. Frédault,
who is a French physician and an advocate of the general doctrine of
the Thomist school on form and matter, maintains that it is
inadmissible in respect to the constituent elements of compound
substances. In order to facilitate the understanding of the subject of
controversy, we will cite from Father Ramière’s appendix a part of the
_Exposé parallèle des deux systèmes_ prepared by a distinguished
professor in a Catholic college of France at Father Ramière’s request.
_Peripatetic _Chemical School._
School._
I. WHAT IS A SIMPLE BODY?
It is a composition of It is a material
first matter and substance endowed with
substantial form. determinate forces.
II. WHAT IS A CHEMICAL BODY—FOR INSTANCE, WATER?
It is a composition of It is oxygen and hydrogen
first matter and the combined in the
aqueous substantial proportions of 88 to
form. 11. The forces of the
two components remain
identical in the
composition, although
in the state of
combination they do not
manifest all their
special
characteristics.
III. HOW ARE THE SIMPLE BODIES EXTRACTED FROM A CHEMICAL COMPOUND?
At the moment of The force of the chemical
decomposition the re-agent destroys the
substantial form of the combination and union
compound is destroyed of the simple bodies,
and replaced by the dies, which return to
substantial form of the their primitive state,
components, which are and manifest anew their
produced from their own proper forces in all
proper non-existence their integrity.
(_ex nihilo sui_); and
the simple bodies
recover their former
proportions.
IV. WHAT IS AN ANIMAL BODY—THE BODY OF A MAN, FOR EXAMPLE—OR A PART OF
SUCH A BODY, AS A BONE, ETC.?
This body is a The human body, like all
composition of first bodies, is a
matter and a composition of
substantial form. In molecules and of parts
man this substantial endowed with chemical
form is the rational forces which are united
soul, which gives to together by the mutual
the matter its action of these forces;
_corporeity_, or but, during life, these
corporeal being. In forces are subjected
such a way that a body, and subordinated to the
taken in the vital force of the
reduplicative soul, which penetrates
sense—that is, inasmuch them, dominates them,
as it is considered and unifies them in
simply as body—is a their vital functions,
composition of first and which gives to the
matter and the soul, entire body the form of
which latter gives to a human body, life, and
the body its specific sensibility.
material being. NOTE.—Form does not
mean _figure_ but the
determining principle
of the specific nature
which this organized
body possesses as a
human body.
V.—WHAT PRODUCES DEATH IN THE ANIMAL BODY AND THE HUMAN BODY?
At the moment when the Death consists simply in
soul departs from the the separation of the
body there is produced soul and body, and does
in it a new substantial not exact the
form, the _cadaverous_ production of any
form, which by its substantial form. The
union with the first chemical forces, which
matter constitutes the are no longer dominated
corpse. But when the by the soul, act
dissolution of the freely, and the
corpse proceeds dissolution of the
gradually by the effect corpse is nothing but
of corruption, the the natural result of
cadaverous form is their action.
succeeded by new
substantial forms,
produced from previous
non-existence (_ex
nihilo sui_), as
numerous and different
as are the substances
resulting from
corruption, the
mephitic particles
dispersed in the air
being included.
The theory here presented under the name of the peripatetic, and
claiming to be the genuine doctrine of Aristotle and St. Thomas, is
frequently called the theory of _substantial generations_. Under that
name it has been examined and opposed in the series of metaphysical
articles in this magazine already referred to. It is necessary to
explain, before proceeding further, that the term _matter_ in
scholastic philosophy denotes, not the complete material being or body,
whether simple or compound, such as oxygen, water, iron, etc., but
merely one element or component of the material substance—viz., the
common, indeterminate element, which is the same in all, having a
potency or receptivity for every possible determination, but no fixed
and necessary union with any. It is the principle of extension, but not
extended; the source of inertia and all that is passive, yet not a
solid atom; the subject of qualities and active forces, but itself
possessing no quiddity or quality, and not having existence, or the
possibility of existence, except as joined with its compart, the active
and determining element, joined with it in order to make any single
material substance. This active element is called the substantial form,
which is equally incapable of subsisting alone, and therefore has no
separate being, yet is capable of giving its first being to matter, and
thus constituting with it material substance. According to the
peripatetic theory, as stated above, in chemical combinations which
produce a new, compound substance, such as water, nothing remains of
the components except the material substratum or first matter. The
determining form which gave this matter its specific being as oxygen
and hydrogen are destroyed, and a new form, the aqueous, springs forth
to give the matter a new first being and constitute the substance
water. There is, consequently, in this and every similar case, the
generation of a new substance, in which the matter is pre-existent, but
the substantial form is educed from the passive potency of the matter,
[ex nihilo sui], or from utter previous non-existence.
Father Ramière maintains that this theory is the creation of the
commentators on Aristotle and St. Thomas, but does not properly belong
to the system of either, and can be refuted by arguments drawn from the
works of both these great doctors. This is rather startling and
contrary to the prevalent supposition. The Thomist writers, many of
whom are men of the most remarkably acute power of analysis and
thoroughly conversant with the works of these great masters, honest
also and candid withal, have certainly not imputed a theory to
Aristotle and St. Thomas which is a pure invention, or without
plausible grounds and apparent reasons. Father Ramière gives an
explanation which is at least ingenious and merits consideration. In
the first place, he argues that the two doctors of peripatetic
philosophy did not reason from _à priori_ principles respecting the
composition of bodies. They both taught that celestial bodies are
composed of what they called _materia quinta_, which is incorruptible
by reason of the inseparability of its form from the matter. The
separability of matter and form in earthly bodies, therefore, belongs
to them as a peculiar kind of bodies, composed from what were supposed
to be the four simple elements of earth, air, fire, and water. The fact
that these elements are transformed one into the other in the
transmutation of substances led to the conclusion that there was a
common substratum underlying all, which remained under different
substantial forms. But since chemistry has discovered the really simple
bodies which are not susceptible of mutual transmutation, and cannot be
resolved into other substances by mechanical or chemical agents, Father
Ramière argues that the very principles enunciated by Aristotle and St.
Thomas respecting _materia quinta_ require that oxygen, hydrogen, etc.,
should be placed with it under the same category. Moreover, he
maintains that the permanence of what we now know to be simple
substances and irresolvable in combination, was really taught under
another concept and with different terms by Aristotle and St. Thomas;
that is, that certain virtualities were recognized as remaining and
exercising an active force in the compound or transformed substance,
which is incompatible with the supposition that only nude matter
remains, acted upon by a wholly different and entirely new active
force. In regard to the human body, in particular, he shows an
incompatibility between the explanation of the cause of death which St.
Thomas gives and the peripatetic theory. The reason of death given by
St. Thomas is that contrary forces are combined in the human body which
are dominated by the vital force of the soul only to a limited extent
and with a limited duration. When, by the laws of nature, these
contrary forces begin to free themselves from the dominating vital
force, decay commences, and is continued until they have freed
themselves to such an extent that they destroy the aptitude of the body
for receiving the mode of being from the soul which is called sensitive
life. The soul then necessarily ceases to inform the body, and the two
comparts of the human substance or essence are separated. The soul,
being a self-subsisting, incorruptible form, an immortal spirit,
departs to the sphere of spirits, and the body is dissolved by the
force of natural decomposition. Now, according to the peripatetic
theory, the soul, being the only substantial form or active force in
the body, giving to the nude first matter of the body its first being
or physical, corporeal existence, must be itself the active cause of
decay and death. This is contrary to the teaching of St. Thomas that
the soul gives only life to the body, and, so far from ceasing of
itself the vital influx, would continue to exert it for all eternity,
and thus make the body immortal, if other and contrary forces did not
work within the body to make it incapable of receiving this influx, and
thus force the soul to abandon it to itself and to the power of death.
Father Ramière acknowledges that it is difficult to make all the texts
of Aristotle and of St. Thomas harmonize with each other, and to bring
out a completely distinct and finished theory from their writings. He
advances a conjecture, with some plausible appearance of probability,
that some texts found in the works of St. Thomas have been interpolated
by disciples who were more zealous than honest in their efforts to
maintain their own system. The same conjecture has been made heretofore
in regard to passages relating to the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception. Be this as it may, we think it is quite sufficient to
explain obscurities of any kind which are found in the dogmatic or
philosophical system of the Angelic Doctor, that he either had not time
or any pressing motive for a thorough investigation and elucidation of
the matters in question, or had not the requisite data before him for
the deductions and conclusions pertaining to the case. It is more to
the purpose to discuss the doctrine of the composition of bodies on its
own merits, using all the facts discovered by experiment, and rational
argumentation, aided by the light of all previous investigations, both
physical and metaphysical. Left to its own intrinsic probability, the
peripatetic theory is sustained by a kind of argumentation which seems
to be more ingenious than conclusive. Several of its ablest advocates
have acknowledged that it is incapable of demonstration. It rests its
claim to acceptance chiefly on _aliunde_ considerations. And on the
other side there are certain arguments which have not yet, so far as we
know, received a satisfactory answer.
Father Ramière advances some of these with his usual subtlety and
force, and at the same time with the most courteous moderation and
respect toward his opponents.
It is admitted—as it indeed must be, for there is no escape from
evident facts—that a chemical re-agent applied to a composite substance
like water brings back the component elements in their former
proportions. Water gives up its eighty-eight parts of oxygen and its
eleven parts of hydrogen. What is the producing cause of these
so-called new substantial forms which invariably make their appearance
_ex nihilo sui_? When the soul, which is said to be the only
substantial form of the body, leaves it in its nudity as first matter,
without first being, quiddity, or quality, and, as it would seem,
doomed to annihilation, what is the cause which produces the cadaverous
form, that suddenly appears to actuate the matter and give it being as
a corpse? Here Father Ramière has made one of his most dexterous
logical passes—one which it will require great dialectical skill to
parry. The editor of the _Scienza Italiana_ replies thus to the
question as to where these forms come from:
“Certain forms do not come to the subject from an extrinsic cause, but
spring up within the subject, by educing them (_traendole_) from the
potentiality of the same subject.” Father Ramière desires to be
informed “what is the object to which the active verb _traendole_ is
referred; what is that which educes these forms from the potentiality
of the subject?” If no sufficient cause can be assigned by which
substantial forms are educed, the theory becomes untenable.