in less than a year; a second edition followed in 1901, and, like
the first, could be had at all booksellers, at a very moderate
price. In December, 1901, there appeared in the Anglo-American
weekly, “The Roman World,” an article which says that it is
difficult to obtain this list of notorious books forbidden to
Catholics, unless one be a Church official, since only a few
copies are printed and even these are not handled by general
book-dealers; hence that no details could be given about the
purchase of the copy referred to; but it was quite evident that it
had commanded a good price. “The copy in question, a model of fine
printing, might be worth about $40 to $50, but owing to its
rareness, it had undoubtedly cost $400. The history of this famous
Index is interesting. The one who first hit upon the idea was
_Charles V._ of Spain, about 1550. The first compilation of the
book-list was made by the university of Louvain in 1564, Pope
_Paul IV._ assuming the direction of the edition. It remained for
357 years in the hands of the Pope.” Every one of these statements
is false. And just as false is the statement that the “Syllabus
condemns not only a book written by a Pope, but by Pope _Leo
XIII._ himself.” Still it could not surprise us, since even
David’s psalter is on the Index! When the Index of _Leo XIII._ was
published, Dr. _Max Claar_ wrote from Rome to the “Neue Freie
Presse” of Vienna: “On the old Index we find among other things
the Psalms of King David and the Divina Commedia of _Dante_.” We
have already stated that the latter was never on the Index. But
how in the world could this man find Holy Scripture condemned on
the Index? Perhaps he found this passage: “Il salmista secondo la
biblia” and “Salmi (sessanta) di David.” The first is a
superstitious booklet, the second is a translation of sixty Psalms
of David by the heretic, _Giovanni Diodati_. The learned doctor in
all seriousness mistook them for the Psalms of David (_Hilgers_,
167, _seq._).
What then is the Index, and how is it to be judged?
Ever since the Apostle of the Nations had at Ephesus the superstitious
books burned under his eyes, the Holy Fathers, Bishops, and Councils since
the first centuries of Christianity have been careful to keep from the
faithful writings hurtful to faith and morals. Thus even in the olden time
we find several catalogues of forbidden books, then followed the Indices
of the Middle Ages. In the year 1571 a special Congregation of Cardinals
was formed, the “Congregation of the Index,” which has ever since had
charge of the ecclesiastical book-laws. The last edition of the Index,
obligatory for the whole Church, emanated from _Leo XIII._ The title of
the work now in force reads, “The Index of Forbidden Books, revised and
published by order of and in the name of Leo XIII. 1900.” It is divided
into two parts. The first and shorter part contains the general book
regulations, giving in short paragraphs the rules on various classes of
forbidden books, the permission required for reading them, the examination
to be made previous to the publication of certain books. The second part
enumerates the writings forbidden by special decree—the Index in the
particular sense, and the part most often considered. But it is second in
importance to the first, because by far not all books dangerous to faith
and morals are named in it. Most such books are forbidden by the general
laws contained in the first part, without mentioning the many which are
forbidden by mere common sense.
Ecclesiastical legislation on books is composed of two factors: first, the
previous censorship—certain books must be examined by ecclesiastical
authority before their publication. Second, the prohibition of books
already published.
The previous scrutiny in general is delegated to the Bishop; all books
dealing with morals and theology must be submitted. The license to print
the book is to be given if the book is in accord with the teaching of the
Church, in so far as determined by ecclesiastical authority, the decision
based on it rests solely with the censor; if the author of the book should
fail to see that the passages objected to need revision he may try to
clear himself by stating his reasons; however, he is also free to submit
his work to another Bishop and to look for a printer in the latter’s
diocese. If one looks over the numerous books bearing the ecclesiastical
imprimatur, he will readily notice how much freedom is given, if the
author keeps within the doctrine of the Church.
The _condemnation_ of a book never strikes at the person of the author,
nor at what he has intended to express by the passages objected to;
judgment is passed only upon what is actually expressed in them. Hence it
is not necessary to give to the author himself a hearing, or a chance to
explain. The reason is that the judgment is rendered on the sense of the
passages, not on the meaning of the author. In general those books and
periodicals are forbidden which are likely to do serious damage to faith
and morals. The isolated cases of indicting the works of Catholic authors
in the nineteenth century—we may mention _Lamennais_, _Hermes_,
_Guenther_, _Loisy_, and _Schell_—show that the Church proceeds but slowly
and with consideration against the author involved.
To appreciate the Index properly, one must try to grasp without prejudice
the _purpose_ the Church has in view. This purpose is to protect the
faithful from error and from moral contagion, and to preserve the faith
intact. “What is more precious than souls, what more precious than the
faith? But both suffer damage from such reading.” Such was the judgment of
the Council of Ephesus when it drew up its book-decrees; such was the
judgment of an _Augustine_, of _Leo the Great_, and of the Holy Fathers;
such is still the judgment of the Church. Books and writings that offend
against morals are a menace to her faithful. They become infected with
wrong ideas; they are as a rule not in a position to distinguish by
themselves the false from the true, and for the most part they are not
morally strong enough to resist the allurements of error. It may also
happen that certain thoughts are true in the abstract, yet for the time
being would be a danger for many. Now, it is the right and duty of any
social authority, beginning with the head of the family and up to the
government, to protect with strong hand the precious possessions of its
subjects.
The state keeps under control the sale of poison and dynamite, keeps out
contagious diseases from its boundaries—it protects the possessions of its
subjects. European states have for centuries claimed the right to censure
books, and have used it much more rigorously than the Church ever did, to
say nothing of the censures of the Protestant Church of former times (see
abundant proof apud _Hilgers_, 206-402). The modern state also, despite
the great freedom granted to the press, cannot entirely forego its sense
of responsibility. It restricts the freedom of the press by censorship,
and by preventive measures often not less drastic than the censure itself,
and it always regards the confiscation of particularly dangerous writings
to be a matter of course. It puts under censure school-books, political
posters, and theatrical plays, and does not tolerate any socialistic
literature in the soldiers’ barracks. And do we not take it as a matter of
course if a father forbids his child to associate with dangerous
playmates, and takes bad books from its hands? We cannot find fault with
the Church if she seeks to protect her children, if she represses the
promiscuous dissemination of false ideas and doctrines, and if she takes
dangerous books under her control. “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep,” was the
command given to the Church.
The objection should therefore not be made that “such precaution is proper
when dealing with children but not with men; especially since the thinking
elements among the Catholics of the Germanic tongue or origin are too
profound and firm in their faith to warrant a fear of the effects of
unrestricted free research” (from the petition of the so-called
“Index-league” of Muenster). This perusal may become dangerous even for
highly educated men, else how could Modernism break so forcefully into the
Church? Manifestly only because learned theologians did not possess that
firmness of Catholic faith and Catholic knowledge which would prevent them
from being deceived by the misleading ideas of modern philosophy, and of
the new Protestant theology. Moreover, all forbidden books may be read
upon obtaining the necessary permission.
“Preserve the deposit of faith,” the Church has been told. She cannot look
on silently when her doctrines are being falsified and denied, when the
most venerable sphere of theology is made the stamping ground for immature
minds and a laboratory for all kinds of experiments. When _Zola’s_ novel,
“Rome,” had been put on the Index, the atheistic literary critic,
_Sarcey_, made the following comment: “If my own criticisms of literature
are regarded by many people as highest decisions, why should a positive
criticism be looked upon as monstrous just because it comes from the Pope?
It is my aim to guard good taste in literature, and it is the aim of the
Pope to guard the true faith” (Allgemeine Rundschau, 1908, 828). Every
social authority must interfere when its foundations are attacked. A
church that tolerates false doctrines cannot be the teacher that Christ
sent to the nations. As a matter of fact the Index has from the first
helped in no small degree to keep the Catholic doctrine pure, to induce
caution in reading certain authors, and to keep awake in the faithful that
aversion against immoral and irreligious writings which is the
characteristic of Catholics, and which has rescued the faith for
thousands.
To judge the Index fairly one must be convinced that the preservation of
true Christian doctrine is its highest aim. Then the zeal of the Catholic
Church will be intelligible. Of course, he who thinks that the true weal
of mankind consists in the speedy emancipation from all Christian dogma,
he who holds the task of science to be the establishment of a new
“scientific view of the world,” he who no longer knows faith, will see in
the Index nothing but restraint. But, whoever is of a different view will
not take offence at the restriction of the freedom of writing and reading
when it is productive of higher good. Freedom of science cannot be
unrestricted, especially in regard to teaching; the welfare of humanity
must be considered. Moreover, the Index concerns almost exclusively
theology and some branches of philosophy, the rest of the profane sciences
but little or not at all; the scientific works prohibited, however, are
not removed from scientific perusal: only permission is necessary, and
this is granted without difficulty and without cost.
It is true, an error on the part of the Church authorities is not
impossible. We know of such a case, putting on the Index the writings of
_Copernicus_, in 1616. But just the circumstance that history knows of but
one such case of importance is a clear testimony to the Holy Ghost’s
direction of the teaching office even when it is rendering non-infallible
decisions. Besides, the damage that might result from a few mistakes would
not be so great as the damage resulting if everything were allowed to be
written and read.
The Catholic scientist who appreciates the supernatural mission of his
Church will _yield to her guidance in humble confidence_, he will practise
this submission to the Church by requesting permission for reading
forbidden books, and by this spirit he will obtain God’s blessing on his
work.
In doing so he may recall to mind the edifying words of _St.
Francis of Sales_, in the preface to his treatise on the errors of
the Lutherans and Calvinists, where he gives the assurance of
having conscientiously asked for and received permission to read
their writings. “We fervently request our Catholic readers,”
writes the Saint, “not to let an evil suspicion against us arise,
as if we had read the forbidden books in spite of the prohibition
of holy Church. We are able to assure them in all truth of having
done nothing forbidden to a good Christian, and of having taken
every precaution due in a matter of so vast importance, so as not
to incur in any way the very just censures of the Church, nor in
any manner to violate the profound reverence we owe to her.” The
permission granted him, dated July 16, 1608, is still extant;
likewise one asked by _St. Charles Borromeo_.
The Catholic scientist also will readily ask the ecclesiastical Imprimatur
for certain of his works. If a careful author before publishing a work
submits the proofs to a friend of his profession, taking his comment for a
guide, why should we deem it intellectual bondage if the Catholic
scientist, in matters of faith and morals, submits his work to the formal
approval of his Church, which to him is a higher authority than any other?
and does this willingly, as in consistency with his Catholic
conviction?(5)
_Via stulti recta in oculis ejus, qui autem sapiens est audit consilia_,
says the Wise Man. It is characteristic of the fool to be wise in his own
eyes, and stubbornly to cling to his own judgment; but the prudent man
seeks advice, and suffers his attention to be called to his mistakes.
The believing scientist, too, will submit to correction; should the rare
case fall to his lot to have the Church condemn his work, he will know how
to be generously obedient. Splendid examples are blazing the way for him.
“Were we to draw up a list of the scientists, who, in a similar critical
position as _Fénelon_, found strength in the virtue of obedience, and on
the other hand a list of all those whose subjective scientific views did
not allow them to submit, then we should perceive at a glance that their
proud persistence in their own opinion has been injurious to true wisdom
in the same degree as humble submission proved a benefit to science”
(_Hilgers_, 412). Finally, he who is convinced that the Christian faith is
the greatest heritance of truth from the past, which must be preserved in
him, he will take no offence if the Church is not impressed even by names
like _Kant_, _Spinoza_, _Schopenhauer_, _Strauss_, men much featured as
the captains of modern science and philosophy. In the eyes of the Church
nothing is genuine and true science that is contrary to the testimony of
God, and errors are errors even then when their perpetrator is receiving
cheers and applause. Just as the state prohibits the physician from
designedly assisting any one to commit suicide, even though the physician
be a noted scientist, just so the Church opposes any one who assaults
God’s truth, be he journalist or philosopher.
Frequently the _great number of forbidden books mentioned by the
Index_ is pointed out. The Index of 1900 contains about 5,000
titles belonging to the last three centuries; of these about 1,300
belong to the nineteenth century. Quite a small number,
considering the immense literature of the world. Yet it will look
even smaller when compared, for instance, with the censure of
books by the _Prussian state_.
In the year 1845 there appeared the following catalogue: “Index
_librorum prohibitorum_, Catalogue of the books forbidden in
Germany during 1844-1845, first volume.” The second volume was
issued in 1846. The list is not complete: it does not contain, for
instance, the names of prohibited newspapers and periodicals. Yet
it contains 437 writings, forbidden by 570 decrees, _i.e._, two or
three times as many as the entire number of German books of the
nineteenth century enumerated by name in the Roman Index. The
“Historisch-Politischen Blaetter” of 1840 contain an article
beginning thus: “_Veritas odium parit._ In Prussia there are now
prohibited nearly all Catholic journals and periodicals, and in
order to begin the matter _ab ovo_ they have grasped a welcome
opportunity to throw interdicts at wholesale against works not yet
published, or to render their circulation difficult to a degree
amounting to prohibition.”
How the Prussian censorship proceeded in those days may be
illustrated by another example. “At the time of the Vatican
Council a publisher, _Joseph Bachem_, came to Dr. _Westhoff_,
rector of the Seminary of Cologne, a man of venerable years, and
told him of his misgivings about the dogma of the infallibility.
In his youth he had been taught the maxim that that is Catholic
which has been taught always, everywhere, and by everybody; yet he
had until recently never found the doctrine of Papal Infallibility
taught, neither in schools nor in text-books. Then the reverend
old rector took the visitor by the hand and led him into the
library of the seminary, where he showed him not less than sixteen
catechisms that had been in use in the Archdiocese of Cologne
during the eighteenth century, and which stated without exception,
clearly and convincingly, the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in
matters of faith and morals. The publisher in utter astonishment
then asked how it was that this doctrine was not taught in later
editions. Dr. _Westhoff_ referred him to the Prussian censure,
enforced until 1848, which had expunged this doctrine from all
Catholic catechisms. From that moment _Bachem_ no longer wavered
in his opinions” (Koelnische Volkszeitung, September 7, 1893).
One may also remember _Bismarck’s_ press-campaign during the
_Kulturkampf_. Professor _Friedberg_, Prussian court canonist,
instigated this campaign, and in many ways devised the plan of
attack. This much-praised liberalism—how tyrannically it proceeded
against the Catholic press! The Frankfurter Zeitung in those days
took a census of convictions due to the press law. According to
the census, which “does not by far claim to be complete,” there
were of newspaper editors sentenced in 1875—21 in January, 35 in
February, 29 in March, 24 in April; in four months 137 newspaper
writers were either fined or sent to jail. During the same period
30 newspapers were confiscated (Staatslexikon, IV, 550). This is
not all. “We could mention at least three instances,” says _P.
Majunke_ in his History of the Kulturkampf, “where agents of the
Berlin secret police have succeeded in obtaining a position on the
editorial staff of Catholic papers, staying for a year or more.
Besides serving as spies these fellows had to perform the task of
_agents provocateurs_, viz., to incite the editors of Catholic
papers to extreme utterances, similar to the denunciations
suggested to correspondents of foreign Catholic organs for their
papers.” This happened in a civilized state, despite its
constitutional freedom of the press, by order of the same
liberalism which always pretends to be full of righteous
indignation when the Church prohibits books and puts them on the
Index.
Towards the end of the last century, again with the aid of
liberalism, laws against the socialists were drawn up. After they
had been passed war was waged against socialistic literature. In
the year 1886 there appeared a real Index Librorum Prohibitorum,
its title read, “Social Democratic publications and societies
prohibited by the imperial law against the dangerous designs of
Social Democracy,” which law had then been in force eight years. A
supplementary list was published two years later, in 1888.
_Hilgers_ makes this comment on it: “How many additional pamphlets
have been condemned in the time from March 28, 1888, to September
30, 1890, we cannot state.” According to the foregoing official
statement the average is 130 a year. Hence we assume that the
printed matter prohibited during the twelve years that the law was
in force amounted to between 15,000 and 16,000. This number of
social democratic pamphlets forbidden within twelve years exceeds
by far the number of all books prohibited by the Roman Index in
the course of the entire nineteenth century—books that are the
products of all countries in the world and dealing with all
branches; the number of these German prohibitions is ten times
that of Roman prohibitions. Indeed, in the course of a year and a
half the new German Empire prohibited more writings of Germans
than Rome had prohibited during the entire past century. We may
mention here _Goethe_. In the atheism dispute, at the end of the
eighteenth century, decision was rendered upon _Goethe’s_ advice
against the philosopher _Fichte_; _Fichte_ was discharged in spite
of petitions and mediations in his favour. The liberal Grand Duke
_Karl August of Saxony Weimar_ granted in 1816, after the French
conqueror had been overthrown, freedom of the press. Professor
_Oken_ of Jena availed himself of this privilege, and printed in
his “Isis” contributions complaining about the government.
_Goethe_ had to advise what should be done against it. He thought
that the paper should have been suppressed by the police at its
very first announcement; “the measure neglected at the beginning
is to be taken immediately and the paper is to be prohibited. By
prohibiting the ‘Isis’ the trouble will be stopped at once”
(Briefwechsel des Grossh. _Karl August v. Sax.-Weimar-Eisenach_
mit _Goethe_, II, 1863, 90). And this was done, in spite of the
freedom granted the press.
_Frederick II._ is called the Royal Free-thinker; and yet the
general introduction of the book censure into Prussia occurred
precisely during his reign. The first general censure edict was
issued in 1749 and remained in force till the death of the king.
All books, even those printed in foreign tongues, were subject to
the censure. Even all episcopal and Papal proclamations were
subjected to the royal censure. That the leaders in the
Reformation and their successors were not prevented by their
avowal of the principle of free research from exercising rigorous,
often tyrannical, censure, not only against the Catholics but also
against their fellow reformers, is well known.
_M. Lehmann_ writes in the Preuss. Jahrb. 1902: “It claims to be
infallible, this Papal Church, it wants to be to the faithful
everything, in science and even in nationality. It offends every
nation. The Index in the shape given it in 1900 by the present
Pope proscribes the ‘Oeuvres du Philosophe de Sanssouci,’ _Kant’s_
‘Critique of Pure Reason,’ _Ranke’s_ ‘History of the Popes,’ the
greatest German king, the greatest German philosopher, and the
greatest German historian” (1902, no. 8).
As to _Frederick II._, his own works appeared only after his death
in 1788, and even then only in part; later on there were other
editions. None of these is put on the Index. On this list we find
since 1760 the “Oeuvres du Philosophe de Sanssouci.” Under this
title appeared at first three volumes, in but a few copies,
intended for the most intimate friends of the king. The first
volume he soon withdrew and had it burned of his own accord; it
contained the “Palladion” an imitation of Voltaire’s “Pucelle,” a
salacious work throughout. In 1762 a new edition was issued. It
also contains a philosophical treatise denying the immortality of
the soul; this treatise was also published separately and
specially prohibited in 1767. A third work put on the Index is a
spurious attack on the Popes published by order of King _Frederick
II._, with a preface by him. Its author is said to have been the
French abbé _Jean Martin De Prades_, reader to the king. These are
the indicted works of _Frederick II._, all written in French and
in substance French Voltairianism. Thus came the greatest German
king on the Index!
_Ranke’s_ “Roemische Paepste” is on the Index, because the book
belittles the constitutions and doctrines of the Catholic Church:
not because of the true things the author says about Popes. _Von
Pastor’s_ “History of the Popes” is not on the Index,
notwithstanding the bitter truths he writes about Popes _Alexander
VI._ and _Leo X._
He who knows even the fundamental ideas of _Kant’s_ “Kritik der
reinen Vernunft” will see that not only the Catholic Church, but
every Christian denomination, might forfeit its existence if it
showed itself indifferent towards it. Heresies are especially
dangerous to the uneducated when they bear the names of authors of
scientific repute. But the Church willingly grants the permission
to read them when there is reason for it. Moreover, it was not
Rome alone that took steps against _Kant_. This was done by the
Prussian king _Frederick II._ also. One may recall his cabinet
order, under minister _Woellner_, against Kant’s “Religion
innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft.” Similarly the works
of _Spinoza_ were proceeded against, whereas his indictment by
Rome now calls forth protest because he has since been assigned a
prominent place among philosophers. _Freudenthal_ registers a list
of 500 sharp prohibitions issued against _Spinoza’s_ works during
the years 1556-1580: they were condemned by the states of Holland,
by the court, by synods and magistrates. Those judgments were
passed during a period when the competent authorities had views
different from those of to-day; when the state deemed it its duty
to oppose the undermining of Christianity. The state’s judgment
has changed in many ways, Rome’s judgment has remained the same.
But the works of _Kant_ and _Spinoza_ likewise have remained the
same, and so is Christianity, against which they occupy an
irreconcilable position, still the same.
“In the moral world nothing can support that cannot also resist” is a
truthful saying of _Treitschke_: it is also the principle of the Catholic
Church. Without ever surrendering to the unchristian tendency of a time,
she opposes error with unsubdued courage. If this be intolerance, it is
not intolerance towards erring men but towards their errors, it is the
intolerance that the gardener shows in uprooting harmful weeds, it is the
intolerance of the physician towards disease. Obedience to the Index makes
high moral demands upon the Catholic. But it has been characteristic of
the Christian religion and of its faithful children never to shrink before
any moral action where it appeared demanded. And if the preservation of
moral purity exacts conscientious discipline, this is also true of the
preservation of the pure faith, especially at a time when a neo-paganism
in league with an uncontrolled mania for reading is threatening in many
forms.
Galileo, and Other Topics.
_Galileo Galilei_—but few names have achieved equal fame. Men like
_Alexander_ and _Cæsar_, like _Homer_ and _Dante_, have scarcely succeeded
in writing their names with a sharper pencil on the tablet of history than
the astronomer of Pisa. His grand discoveries in natural science have done
little to crown his temples with the wreath of immortality—it was the fate
of his life that did it. And one may add: if this fate had been caused by
the French government, or by a Protestant General Assembly, he would never
have obtained his position in history; but since this lot came to him by
the human limitation of a Roman Church authority, his name is not only
entered on the calendar of the anti-Roman journalist, it also stands
surrounded with the halo of a Martyr in the esteem of serious scientists,
who see in _Galileo_ and in the consequent condemnation of the Copernican
system the proof that dogma and science cannot agree, that the Catholic
Church assumes a hostile attitude toward science. Whenever this theme is
mentioned, _Galileo’s_ ghost is paraded. For this reason we cannot pass by
this fact of history. To a son of the Church they are unpleasant
recollections, but this shall not keep us from looking history firmly in
the eye.
There are some other charges brought forth from history, but the _Galileo_
case overshadows them all. We shall touch upon them but briefly, and then
return to _Galileo_.
Attention is called to the Church’s condemnation of the _doctrine of
Antipodes_. The Priest _Vigilius_ was accused in Rome, in 747, of having
taught that there exists another world under the earth, and other people
also, or another sun and moon (_quod alius mundus et alii homines sub
terra sint seu sol et luna_). Such was his doctrine as stated by Pope
_Zacharias_ in his reply to _Boniface_, the Apostle of Germany, in which
he said that he had cited _Vigilius_ to Rome in order that his doctrine be
thoroughly investigated: if it should turn out that this had really been
taught by him, he would be condemned. Further particulars of his teaching
are unknown, because it is mentioned only in the above passage. The
assertion ascribed to him is that there is another world besides this one,
with other inhabitants and with another sun and moon—an assertion
scientifically absurd and dogmatically inadmissible, as this might call in
question the common descent of mankind from one pair of parents. The
anxiety and rebuke of the Pope is directed solely against the latter
point. The condemnation of _Vigilius_ has never taken place, for he
remained in his office, won great respect, was elevated to the bishopric
of Salzburg, and later canonized by _Gregory IX._ Had a condemnation of
his particular doctrine taken place, this would not have involved the
condemnation of the antipodean theory, in the sense that the side of the
globe opposite to us is also inhabited by human beings, a proposition
which does not conflict with any doctrine of faith. The doctrine described
above has another tendency. The entire case is hidden in obscurity
(_Hefele_, Conc. Gesch., 2d ed., III, 557 _seq._).
Furthermore, it has been said that at the time when the universities were
in close union with the Church, medical science could not advance because
the Church had prohibited human _anatomy_ (Prof. _J. H. van’t Hoff_, Neue
Freie Presse, December 29, 1907). In amplification it was said: “_Boniface
VIII._ had forbidden every anatomical dissection of a body” (_O.
Zoeckler_, Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, 1877, I, 342). What is true of
this assertion?
In the first place, _Boniface VIII._ did not forbid anatomy. He
merely prohibited in 1299 and 1300 the hideous custom then
prevailing regarding the bodies of noblemen who had died away from
home: they were disembowelled, dissected, and boiled, for the
purpose of removing the flesh from the bones so that the latter
could be transported the more easily. This process had nothing to
do with anatomy. The wish to possess the bones of the dead did not
seem to the Pope a sufficient reason for treating the human body
in such a way (Cfr. _Michael_, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes III,
1903, 433). Nor does history know of any other prohibition of
anatomy by the Church. It tells us, however, that _Frederick II._
in his excellent rules for the benefit of his Sicilian kingdom in
the regulation of medical science among other things emphasizes
the study of surgery: he ordered that no one be allowed to
practise surgery who could not show by attestation of his
professors that he had studied surgery for at least one year,
especially that he had learned at school how to dissect bodies; a
physician must be perfect in anatomy, else he may not undertake
operations (_Michael_, l. c. 430). This was done and practised
under the eyes of the Church. The accusers also seem ignorant of
the fact that bodies of those executed were given to universities
for dissection. In the year 1336 the medical students of
Montpellier, the famous medical school under the immediate
direction of the Church (see above, page 154) were granted the
privilege of obtaining once a year an executed criminal’s body for
dissection. The same privilege was extended to the medical
students of Lerida by King _Juan I._ on June 3, 1391, who decreed
that the delinquent should be drowned _pro speriencia seu anatomia
fienda_ (_Denifle_, Die Universitaeten des Mittelalters, I, 1885,
507).
The story is also circulated that the fourth Lateran Council in
1215 prohibited monks from studying natural sciences and medicine
(Deutschoester. Lehrerzeitung 15th Dec., 1909). It will suffice to
quote this particular decree of the Lateran Council: “No clergyman
is allowed to pronounce capital sentence, nor to execute it, nor
to be present at its execution. No clergyman is allowed to draw up
a document concerning a death sentence: at the courts this should
be done by laymen. No clergyman is allowed to assume command of
Rotarians (freebooters), of archers or any others who shed human
blood; no subdeacon, deacon, or priest is allowed to practise that
part of surgery by which cutting and burning is done, nor must any
one pronounce a benediction at an ordeal” (_Hefele_, Koncil.
Gesch., 2d ed., V, 1887, 887). This will thoroughly dispose of
that charge.
Just as briefly may we settle the story of _Columbus_ having been
excommunicated because of his intention to discover new lands. It
is said that the “Spanish clergy denounced his plans as against
the faith, and that the Council of Salamanca excommunicated him”
(_W. Draper_, ibid. 163). This is a fairy tale. The truth is, that
King _Ferdinand_ and Queen _Isabella_ referred the plans of the
bold Genoese to a council of scientists and ecclesiastical
dignitaries, which was held in the Dominican Monastery of
Salamanca, _Columbus_ being present. There never was a Council of
Salamanca. _Weiss_ writes in his “History of the World”: “Much has
been surmised concerning the objections and their refutation. It
is only certain that the majority rejected the plan as impossible
of execution, and that _Columbus_ won over a minority of them,
especially the priests, among whom the learned Dominican _Deza_
deserves mention” (Weltgesch. VII, 187). _Denthofen_, in his
biography of _Columbus_, says: “The Dominican Fathers supported
him during the long time the conference lasted, and even defrayed
the expenses of his journey. Father _Diego de Deza_, chief
professor of theology, was convinced by the reasons of _Columbus_,
and in turn convinced the more learned of his confrères. The
majority, however, thought the idea but a phantom, while others
deemed it impracticable. The conference adjourned without coming
to any definite decision” (Christof Columbus, Eine biographische
Skizze ..., 1878, 21). _Columbus_ found his warmest friend in the
learned Father _Juan Perez_, Guardian of the Franciscan Monastery
of St. Maria de la Rabida. Within the quiet walls of this cloister
_Columbus’_ plans were disclosed for the first time in Spain, and
admired and resolved upon. _Perez_ spoke untiringly to Isabella in
favour of the plan, and even aided _Columbus_ in gathering men for
his crew. This is the fact about the anathema the Church is paid
to have pronounced on _Columbus_.
But let us return to _Galileo_.(6)
_Galileo Galilei_, the great Italian physicist, was born in 1564, at Pisa.
At first he was professor in his native town, then at Padua, where he
taught the doctrine of _Ptolemy_, although at that time there was no
obstacle to accepting the Copernican system. In 1611 he became
mathematician at the court of _Cosimo II._ at Florence. His talents and
happy discoveries soon won fame. In general he was more of a physicist
than an astronomer; his astronomical discoveries were, almost without
exception, of a kind that did not presuppose a thorough astronomical
training. As is known, he was not the original inventor of the telescope,
though with its aid he achieved some of the most important of his
discoveries; for instance, that of the satellites of Jupiter. The
telescope was invented in Holland.
When he went to Rome, in 1611, he was received with great honour. In one
of his letters from there he wrote: “I have received marked favours from
many Cardinals and prelates here, and from several princes. They wanted to
hear of my inventions, and were all well pleased.” The Jesuits gave a
special reception in his honour at the Roman College. This shows in what
esteem science was then held at Rome. But five years later _Galileo_
returned to the Eternal City under quite different circumstances. What had
happened? In 1612 he had issued a treatise on “The History and Explanation
of the Sun-spots,” in which he declared unreservedly for the Copernican
system. And this caused the change. True, _Copernicus_ himself was a
Catholic Priest, and had dedicated his principal work to Pope _Paul III._
But it was generally supposed that he had brought forward the doctrine
only as an hypothesis, only to illustrate and facilitate calculations, not
claiming for it absolute certainty. This assumption was based on the
preface of the first edition of his book, containing assurance to that
effect. That preface, however, was not the work of _Copernicus_, but had
been smuggled into the book by the Protestant publisher _Osiander_,
without the author’s knowledge, because _Osiander_ feared _his own_ church
authorities.
_Galileo_ spoke in quite another tone. He defended the doctrine as true.
He soon aroused opposition. Men standing for the geocentric theory were
opposed by others, siding with _Galileo_ for the solar system, such as the
learned Benedictine, _Castelli_. _Galileo’s_ great bitterness and sarcasm
in dealing with his opponents aggravated the quarrel with the “partisans
of _Aristotle_.” Extreme irritability and love of praise were prominent
traits of _Galileo’s_ character.
It was the custom of that time to bring Scripture into controversies about
nature. This was done also in _Galileo’s_ case. Passages were quoted
against him, referring to the “rising and setting sun,” to the “earth that
never moves,” of _Joshua’s_ “commanding the sun to stand still.” This
prompted _Galileo_ to cross over into the field of theology himself. In a
letter to _Castelli_ in 1613 he says: “Holy Writ can never lie nor err; on
the contrary, its sayings are absolute and incontestable truth; but its
interpreters are liable to err in various ways, and it is a fatal and very
common mistake to stop always at the literal sense” (_Kepler_, even prior
to _Galileo_, had interpreted the respective passages of the Scriptures
properly and with surprising skill; especially in his introduction to his
“Astronomia nova.” Cfr. _Anschuetz_, Johannes Kepler als Exeget.
Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, XI, 1887, 1-24).
Correct as these arguments were, it was nevertheless imprudent for the
court mathematician to trespass upon grounds regarded by theologians as
their own, instead of furnishing natural scientific proofs. Thus the
matter was brought to Rome before the Congregation of the Inquisition.
_Galileo_, worrying about his case, went voluntarily to Rome, in 1615. He
failed to assuage the opposition against his theory, though he says he was
received favourably by the princes of the Church. Moreover, heedless of
the admonition of his friends, he pursued the matter with indiscreet zeal,
with vehemence and impetuosity, practically provoking a decision. Cardinal
_Bellarmin_ opposed the haste with which the matter was being pressed; the
Jesuit _Grienberger_ thought that _Galileo_ should first set forth his
proofs, and then speak about the Scriptures. Had scientific proofs been
brought forth, theological difficulties would have been easily cleared
away; but scientific proof was lacking, and what there perhaps was of it,
_Galileo_ failed to offer.
The right of the Congregation to take up the matter can hardly be denied,
for although the matter was one of natural sciences, yet, by introducing
theology and Scripture, it had assumed the character of theology and
exegesis. _Galileo_ personally was dealt with very leniently. During the
discussions of 1616 he was never cited before the bar of the Inquisition,
nor was his exterior freedom in any way restricted. Only one thing was
done: he was cautioned by Cardinal _Bellarmin_, “by order of the Holy
Congregation,” not to adhere to, nor teach any longer, the Copernican
theory. The documents of the case say that “_Galileo_ submitted to this
order and promised to obey.” The Congregation of the Index prohibited,
March 5, 1616, all books defending the Copernican theory, declaring the
doctrine to be against Holy Scripture. Even the work of _Copernicus_ was
prohibited _donec corrigatur_—until it be corrected. A decision of the
year 1620 declared which passages should be corrected. They are those in
which the author speaks of his theory not as an hypothesis but as of an
established truth: _non ex hypothesi, sed asserando_. The Protestant
_Kepler_, upon hearing this, wrote: “By their imprudent acts some have
caused the work of _Copernicus_ to be condemned, after it had been left
unmolested for nearly eighty years; and the prohibition will last at least
till the corrections are made. I have been assured, however, by competent
authority, both ecclesiastical and civil, that the decree was not intended
to put any hindrance in the way of astronomical research” (_A. Mueller_,
J. Kepler, 1903, 105). The reproach of imprudence was intended for
_Galileo_.
To teach the doctrine as an hypothesis was permitted even to _Galileo_,
and this left the way clear for the development of the hypothesis, because
whatever showed the usefulness of the hypothesis was sure to increase its
value as a truth, but _Galileo_ would not keep within these limits.
Instead of showing in a Christian spirit a submission to Providence, which
even an erring authority may demand, he openly violated his promise and
disobeyed the command he had received. In the spring of 1632 there
appeared at Florence his “_Dialogue on the two most important systems of
the world_.” It contained an open, though by no means victorious, defence
of the Copernican system—seeking to hide under a confidence-inspiring
mask. It contained many passages of caustic sarcasm, with the evident
intention of arousing public opinion against the attitude of the Roman
Congregations. It was a flagrant _violation of the command given him
personally_.
The Pope under whom the proceedings against _Galileo_ took place was
_Urban VIII._, who, when a Cardinal, had followed _Galileo’s_ discoveries
with enthusiasm, though never partial to the system of _Copernicus_, and,
in accord with the custom of the age, he had written an ode to _Galileo_.
Cited to Rome, _Galileo_ came only after repeated urging, on February 14,
1633. The story of his having been imprisoned and tortured on this second
visit to Rome is false. _Galileo_ wrote on April 16 of that year: “I live
in an apartment of three rooms, belonging to the Fiscal of the
Inquisition, and am free to move in many rooms. My health is good.” This
stay in the apartment belonging to the Inquisition lasted but twenty-two
days; after that _Galileo_ was allowed to live in the palace of the
Ambassador of Tuscany. During his whole life _Galileo_ was never even for
an hour in a real prison.
_Galileo’s_ demeanour before the Inquisition bespeaks little truthfulness
and manliness. It makes a painful impression. Many other events in his
life cast dark shades of insincerity upon his character, especially his
relations with _Kepler_. While in his dialogue he openly defended the
truth of the Copernican system, while he had written, time and again, that
the theory had been demonstrated by “forceful, convincing arguments,”
whereas nothing but insignificant reasons could be pleaded for the
contrary, he now assumes the attitude before the Inquisition of denying
that he had championed that theory, at least not consciously; that he had
never taught that doctrine otherwise than hypothetically. And this he
asserts although he had taken the oath to say nothing but the truth. We
even hear him declare that he considers the doctrine to be false, and that
he was ready to refute it at once.
The judges were convinced of the untruthfulness of the defendant. In those
times, in order to obtain further confessions, especially when the accused
had been previously convicted of guilt, torture was resorted to. This
regrettable practice was then in vogue at every European court; the
Inquisition, too, had adopted it, but strict rules were laid down to guard
against abuses. Very old persons were exempt from the rack; they were only
threatened with it. This happened also in _Galileo’s_ case, he was never
actually put on the rack. Moreover, one can safely presume that this
threat did not terrify him much. His reading must have enlightened him on
this point, and even without it he must have known the practice by his
active intercourse with those theologians of the Curia who were friendly
to him. In fact, he clung obstinately to his denial, to the very end of
the hearing, although it must be surmised that he would not have
aggravated his case by confession. The commissioner of Inquisition,
_Macolano_, at the first stages of the trial had expressed his hope that
in this event “it would be possible to show indulgence to the guilty, and
whatever the result might be, he would realize the benefit received, apart
from all other consequences to be expected from a desired mutual
satisfaction” (Letter to Cardinal _Fr. Barberini_, April 28, 1633).
On June 22 _the final verdict_ was rendered: it told the defendant: “Thou
art convicted by the Holy Congregation of being suspected of heresy, to
wit, to have held for true, and believed in, a false theory, contrary to
Holy Writ—which makes the sun the centre of the orbit of the earth,
without moving from east to west, and which lets the earth, on the other
hand, move outside the centre of the world, and to have believed that an
opinion may be considered probable and be defended, though it had been
expressly declared to be contrary to the Scripture.” _Galileo_ was
declared suspect of heresy, because, in the opinion of the judges, he had
assumed that a doctrine in contradiction to the Scriptures might be
defended. _Galileo_ retracted by oath. That upon retraction he arose and
exclaimed, stamping with his foot, “_Pur si muove!_” (“and yet it does
move!”) is a fable. He was sentenced to be jailed in the Holy Office. But
already the next day he was allowed to go to the palace of the Grand Duke
of Tuscany and to consider that palace his prison. Soon after he departed
for Siena, “in the best of health,” according to the report of the Tuscan
ambassador, _Niccolini_, and there took up his abode with his friend the
Archbishop _Piccolomini_. After a lapse of five months he was allowed to
return to his villa at Arcetri, near Florence, where he remained, with the
exception of occasional visits to Florence, till his death. Two of his
daughters were nuns in the nearby cloister of S. Matteo. His literary
activity was not suppressed by the surveillance of the Inquisition. His
lively and fertile mind, cut off from polemics, turned to the completion
of his researches in other directions. His lively intercourse with friends
and disciples, of whom many belonged to various Orders, proved beneficial
to him. In the year 1638 he published his “Dialogue on the New Sciences,”
which he rightly pronounced to be his best effort, and by which he became
the founder of dynamics. His productiveness continued until he became
blind.
We may say without fear of contradiction that, apart from their
theoretical error, the Roman Congregations had shown the greatest
indulgence towards one guilty of having broken his pledge, and doubtless
they would have been still more lenient had _Galileo_, confirmed by
flattering friends in his anger at the supposed intrigues of his enemies,
not himself made this impossible; if he had not continued to propagate
secretly his views, verbally and in writing, which was bound to be
discovered. Considering all this, Rome’s proceeding in the case appears to
be quite indulgent. Here the position was taken that the spread of the
doctrine would mean an imminent danger to the purity of the faith. The
unfortunate scientist died on January 8, 1642, at the age of seventy-eight
years, fortified by the holy Sacraments. _Urban VIII._ sent him his
blessing. Undoubtedly _Galileo_ had nothing in common with the champions
of that unbelieving freedom of science, which now tries to lift him upon
its shield; notwithstanding his later bitterness he remained to his death
steadfast in his Catholic faith.
Comments on the Galileo Case.
The above is a brief history of _Galileo’s_ conviction, and of the
occurrences leading to it. An event regrettable to all, a stumbling-block
for not a few; for others a welcome event to make the Church appear in the
light of an enemy of science. Let us now give more particulars of the
merits of the case.
We have before us two decisions of Roman Tribunals: the Index decree of
1616, announcing the rejection of the Copernican doctrine and prohibiting
books maintaining it, and the conviction of _Galileo_ in 1633 by the
Congregation of the Inquisition. It is freely admitted that these Roman
Tribunals committed an _error_ in advocating an interpretation of the
Bible which was false in itself, and is to-day recognized as false.
Well, _does this confute the infallibility of the Church?_ It does not.
The matter in point is merely an error of the Congregations, of bodies of
Cardinals, who were responsible for the transactions and decisions. The
Congregations, however, are not infallible organs. There is no Bull or
Papal decree designating the Copernican doctrine as false, much less is
there extant a decision ex cathedra. Neither in 1616 nor in 1633, nor at
any other time, has the Holy See ever manifested its intention of
declaring, by a peremptory, dogmatic decision, the new system to be
against Scripture.
It was thus the general understanding of that age that in the
present case there was no irrevocable dogmatic decision given. For
instance, the Jesuit _Riccioli_, wrote not long after the
decision: “Inasmuch as no dogmatic decision was rendered in this
case, neither on the part of the Pope nor on the part of a Council
ruled by the Pope and acknowledged by him, it is not made, by
virtue of that decree of the Congregation, a doctrine of faith
that the sun is moving and the earth standing still, but at most
it is a doctrine for those who by reason of Holy Writ seem to be
morally certain that God has so revealed it. Yet every Catholic is
bound by virtue of obedience to conform to the decree of the
Congregation, or at least not to teach what is directly opposed to
it” (Almagestum novum, 1651, 162). _Descartes_, _Gassendi_, and
others of that time expressed themselves similarly (_Grisar_, 165,
_seq._). There is an interesting letter of the Protestant
philosopher _Leibnitz_, written to the Landgrave _Ernest of
Hessia_, 1688, begging him to work for the repeal of the
condemnation of the Copernican theory, because of the growing
verification of this theory: “If the Congregation would change its
censure, or mitigate it, as one issued hastily at a time when the
proofs for the correctness of the Copernican theory were not yet
clear enough, this step could not detract from the authority of
the Congregation, much less of the Church, because the Pope had no
part in it. There is no judicial authority which has not at times
reformed its own decisions.”
But have we here not at least a _wilful attack on science_? or a
manifestation of the Congregation’s narrow-mindedness and ignorance, which
are bound to deprive it of all respect and confidence of sober-minded
people?
This harsh judgment overlooks two points. In the first place, the error of
the judges was quite _pardonable_. Could the liberal critics of to-day,
who so harshly denounce the Cardinals of the Congregation, be suddenly
changed into ecclesiastical prelates, and transferred back to the years of
1616-1633, and placed in the chairs of the tribunal which had to decide
those delicate questions, it may be feared that, did they carry into the
decision but a part of the animosity they now show, they would disgrace
themselves and compromise the Church even more than the judges of
_Galileo_ did. It is true that were we to judge the handling of the
question by the knowledge of to-day, we might be astonished at the
narrow-mindedness of the judges, trying to uphold their untenable views
against the established results of scientific research. But it would be
altogether unhistorical to look at the matter in that way. When the
Copernican theory entered upon the battlefield, it was _by no means
certain and demonstrated_.
The real arguments for the rotation of the earth were not then
known. There were no direct proofs for the progressive revolution
of the earth around the sun. _Galileo_ advanced three main
arguments for his theory. First, he advanced the argument from the
phenomenon of the tides, which, he said, could not be accounted
for but by the rotation of the earth: an argument rejected as
futile even at that time. Next he argued from certain observations
of the spots on the sun: another worthless argument, which others,
like _Scheiner_, looked upon as proof of the older theory. The
third argument was that the new theory simplified the explanation
of certain celestial phenomena; but the scope of this argument,
valid though it was in the abstract, could not be expressed or
grasped at the time, especially since the corrections of _Tycho de
Brahe_ had removed the greatest objections to the Ptolemaic
system. The Copernican theory could not be considered certain till
the end of the seventeenth century, after _Newton’s_ work on
gravitation.
Then there were difficulties, the greatest of which was probably
the old idea of inertia, which at that time meant only that all
bodies tend to a state of rest; hence it seemed impossible that
the earth could ceaselessly execute two movements at the same
time, around the sun and around its own axis. This notion of
inertia had not been doubted in 1616; even _Kepler_ adhered to it.
Later on _Galileo_ came very near to the new idea of inertia: that
bodies tended to retain their state of repose or motion. But this
new notion, like everything else new, gained ground but slowly.
Then it was only with great difficulty that he could dispose of
the objection that were the earth to speed through space, as the
new theory claimed, the atmosphere would take a stormlike motion.
Lastly, the philosophical objection had to be met: the sun and
other celestial bodies, as far as we can know by observation, are
moving; if they do not move, then we must admit that we can know
nothing by observation.
Thus the new doctrine was not at all proven at that time, as could
be easily shown by its opponents; although it cannot be denied
that they did not always enter into the discussion with
impartiality. The astronomer, _Secchi_, testifies that “none of
the real arguments for the rotary motion of the earth was known at
_Galileo’s_ time, also direct proofs for the progressive movement
of the earth around the sun were lacking at that time” (_Grisar_,
30). Another famous astronomer, _Schiaparelli_, writes: “In the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Ptolemaic as well as the
Copernican system could serve for the description of phenomena;
geometrically they were equivalent to each other and to _Tycho’s_
eclectic system” (_Schiaparelli_, Die Vorläufer des Copernicus im
Altertum (German, 1876), 86).
Hence no direct evidence could be pleaded against the decision of
the Congregation, not even _Galileo_ had that evidence. At any
rate no judge who observed his demeanour at the trial could have
suspected _Galileo_ of coming in conflict with his conscience by
swearing off the theory.
For this reason it would be wrong to call _Galileo_ a martyr for science,
because he did not suffer any martyrdom. He has seen neither rack nor
prison. But he was not a martyr chiefly for the reason that he could not
have had any scientific conviction, apart from the fact that he did not
claim any such conviction, even denied it expressly.
No wonder, then, that the heliocentric system had considerable opponents
at that time; no wonder the opposite view was even the prevalent one. _A.
Tanner_ wrote in 1626: “_Ita habet communis ac certa omnium theologorum ac
philosophorum naturalium sentia_” (Theol. Schol. I, disp. 6, q. 4., dub.
3). Had valid argument been brought forth there never would have been a
_Galileo_ case. In this respect a passage from a letter of _Bellarmin_
deserves attention: “If it could be really demonstrated that the sun be in
the centre of the world ... then we would have to proceed quite cautiously
in explaining the apparently opposite passages in the Scriptures, we would
rather have to say that we do not understand them, than to say of things
demonstrated that they are false” (to _Foscarini_, April 12, 1615). The
Cardinals of that time could not be expected to anticipate the knowledge
of a later period. They had to consult the judgment of their
contemporaneous savants. When seeing the majority of them sharply
rejecting the new theory and refuting the arguments of their opponents, it
is little wonder that the Cardinals could not overcome their theological
scruples.
The scruples arose from the opinion, then prevalent, that the Holy
Scripture taught that the earth stood still and the sun moved; that the
words of the Scripture must be taken literally till the contrary is
demonstrated. The unanimous explanation of the Christian centuries was
also cited. As a matter of fact, however, the Christian past had not
taught this to be the only true sense of the words, but at that time the
words were understood that way, because no one could arrive at any other
sense in those days.
Under these circumstances, an error was hardly avoidable, if a decision
was required. And a decision seemed to be urgent, and this is the second
point we must not overlook, if we wish to judge fairly. It was a time
eager for innovations, full of anti-religious ideas. A renaissance,
sidling off into false humanism, was combating religious convictions,
false notions were invading philosophy; in addition, Protestantism was
trying to invade Italy. All this caused suspicion of any innovation apt to
endanger the faith; interpretations of the Scriptures deviating from the
accustomed sense were particularly distrusted. The _Galileo_ quarrel
happened at an inopportune time. Indeed a sudden spread of the Copernican
theory might have been accompanied by great religious dangers. Even now,
after nearly three hundred years, the leaders of the anti-Christian
propaganda are still pointing out that the progress of natural science has
proved Holy Scripture to be erroneous, and many are impressed by the
argument; many thousands would have been confused in those days by the
sudden collapse of old astronomical views that were connected with
unclarified religious ideas—dreading that victorious science might shatter
all religious traditions. Now, if one is convinced that the damage to
religion is to be estimated greater than any other, then one may also have
the conviction that it was better for the nations of the new era to have
their scientific progress a little delayed, than to have their most sacred
possession endangered. Of course considerations of this kind will have no
weight with representatives of the naturalistic view of the world. Then it
can only be emphasized that a science that has no appreciation of the
supernatural character of the Catholic Church cannot be in a position to
render a fair judgment on many facts in the history of that Church.
What we have said shows sufficiently that the condemnation of _Galileo_
was not due to any hostility to science.
The idea that the Church’s attitude towards _Galileo_ and the
Copernican theory was a result of her antipathy to science is
entirely in contradiction with the character of that strenuous
period. In Catholic countries, especially in Italy, intellectual
life was zealously promoted by the Popes and their influence. It
was developing and flourishing even in the natural sciences. When
reading the correspondence of _Galileo_ one must be surprised to
see how popular astronomical, physical, and mathematical studies
were in the educated circles of the period. These studies belonged
to the curriculum of a general philosophical education, and it was
a matter of honour for many ecclesiastical dignitaries to remain
philosophers in that sense, notwithstanding their official duties.
We recall to mind the scientific discussion carried on with
_Galileo_ in Rome in 1611 and 1616, by Cardinals _Del Monte_,
_Farnese_, _Bonzi_, _Bemerio_, _Orsini_, and _Maffeo Baberini_,
and by clergymen like _Agucchi_, _Dini_, and _Campioli_. Similarly
in France we meet with names like _Mersenne_, _Gassendi_, and
_Descartes_. And in Italy, after _Galileo_ and at his time, we
meet with a long list of eminent naturalists like _Toricelli_,
_Cassini_, _Riccioli_, and others. In 1667 _Gemiani Montanari_
could write that in Italy there were continually forming new
societies of scientists. The advance in knowledge of truth was
made on safe grounds; at Naples, Rome, and elsewhere science was
enriched by a great variety of new experiences, inasmuch as the
scientists were making progress in the observation and the
investigation of nature. _Targioni-Tozzetti_ writes: “Astronomy
with us, about the middle of the sixteenth century, was a very
diligently cultivated branch of science” (Galileistudien (1882)
338 f.). The Church was by no means hostile to this newly awakened
life, not even holding aloof from it; on the contrary, it
flourished especially in ecclesiastical circles; a proof that
narrow-minded disappreciation of natural science did not prevail,
and that there was a different explanation for the _Galileo_ case.
Copernicus on the Index till 1835.
And what of the fact that _Copernicus_ remained on the Index until the
nineteenth century? Does it not show a rigid adherence to old, traditional
method and opposition to progress? The fact is true: The work of
_Copernicus_, and other Copernican writings, remained on the Index until
1835. But it is also true that a great deal connected with this fact is
not generally known or ignored. Let us mention here some of these facts.
To begin with, it must not be forgotten that we owe the new world
system, and with it the turning-point in astronomy, first of all
to representatives of the Catholic clergy. After the learned
Bishop _Nicholas Oresme_ had expressed with fullest certainty the
most important point of the Copernican system as early as 1377 (in
a manuscript hitherto unknown, discovered a short time ago by
_Pierre Duhem_ in the National Library at Paris. Cfr. Liter.
Zentralblatt (1909), page 1618), and after the learned Cardinal
_Nicholaus von Kues_ (d. 1474) adopted a rotary motion of the
earth in his cosmic system, it was _Copernicus_, a canon of the
diocese of Ermland, who became the father of the new theory, in
his work “De evolutionibus orbium coelestium.” He published it at
the urgent request of Cardinal _Nikolaus Schoenberg_. But the most
zealous promoter of his work was Bishop _Tiedemann Giese_ of Kulm.
Enthusiastic over the novel idea, he incessantly urged his friend
to publish his work, took care of its publication, and sent a copy
to Pope _Paul III._, who accepted its dedication. Again, it was a
prince of the Church, Bishop _Martin Kromer_, who, in 1851,
dedicated a tablet in the cathedral at Frauenberg to “The Great
Astronomer and Innovator of Astronomical Science.” All these men
knew that _Copernicus_ defended his work not as an hypothesis or
as fiction, but as true. Before _Copernicus_ issued his great
work, _Clement VIII._ showed a lively interest in his system and
had it explained to him by the learned _Johann Widmannstadt_ in
the Vatican Gardens (_Pastor_, Gesch. der Päpste, IV, 2 (1907)
550).
The first attack against the new system, as being contrary to Holy
Writ, came not from Catholic but from Protestant circles. Among
the latter the opposition against _Copernicus_ was being agitated,
while peaceful calm reigned among the former. Twelve Popes
succeeded _Paul III._, and not one interfered with this doctrine.
_Luther_, even in _Copernicus’_ time, hurled his anathema against
the “Frauenberg Fool,” and six years after the publication of
_Copernicus’_ chief work, _Melanchthon_ declared it a sin and a
scandal to publish such nonsensical opinions, contrary to the
divine testimony of the Scriptures. In fear of his religious
community the Protestant publisher _Osiander_ smuggled in the
spurious preface already mentioned, “On the hypothesis of this
work.” The Protestant _Rheticus_, a friend and pupil of
_Copernicus_, got into disfavour with _Melanchthon_ and had to
discontinue his lectures at Wittenberg. The genial _Kepler_,
finally, was prosecuted by his own congregation, because of his
defence of the theory. And when on the Catholic side the Index
decree of 1616 was already beginning to be regarded as obsolete,
Protestant theology still held to the old view even up to the
nineteenth century: a long list of names could be adduced in
proof.
Certainly no fair-minded person can see wilful hostility against
astronomy in this procedure. Likewise there should not be imputed
dishonourable intentions to Catholics, if in the course of history
they rendered tribute to human limitation.
But did not the decrees of 1616 and 1633 do _great harm to research_? Not
at all. That this was hardly the case with _Galileo_ himself we have shown
above. Soon after we find in Italy a goodly number of distinguished
scientists; the Church in no way opposed the newly awakened life, nor even
held aloof from it. _Galileo_ himself was honoured in ecclesiastical
circles. Soon after _Galileo’s_ conviction the Jesuit _Grimaldi_ named a
mountain on the moon after him.
Nor was there any considerable harm done to the development of the
Copernican theory. Although after _Galileo_ the occasions were not
lacking, still no further advocate of his theory was ever up for trial.
Nor was any other book on the subject prohibited. Freedom was quietly
granted more and more. In the edition of the Index of 1758, the general
prohibition of 1616 of Copernican writings was withdrawn; it was an
official withdrawal from the old position. But not until 1822 were the
special prohibitions repealed, although they had long since lost their
binding force. The occasion was given by an accidental occurrence. The
Magister S. Palatii of the time intended to deny the Imprimatur to a book
on the Copernican theory, on account of the obsolete prohibition. An
appeal was made, which brought about the formal repeal of the prohibition.
Of course there had been no hurry to revoke a decision once given. But
according to the astronomer _Lalande’s_ report of his interview with the
Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Index, in 1765, the removal
from the Index of _Galileo’s_ Dialogue had been postponed only on account
of extraneous difficulties. _Leibnitz_, while in Rome, worked for a repeal
of the decree. According to Eméry, there are extant statements of
_Leibnitz_ vouching for the fact that he very nearly succeeded (_Eméry_,
Pensées de Leibnitz, 1, 275). The name of _Copernicus_, too, was omitted
in the next edition of the Index, which appeared in 1835.
But even while the prohibition was still in force, the works of _Galileo_
and _Copernicus_ were read everywhere. As early as 1619 _John Remus_ wrote
from Vienna to _Kepler_ that the Copernican writings may be read by
scientific men who had received special permission, and that this was done
in all Italy and in Rome itself. Besides, it was allowed at any time to
make use of the doctrine as an hypothesis. Thus it advanced continually
nearer and nearer to the position of an established truth.
Soon after the publication of the decree, according to the report of
_Kepler_, it was the general conviction in ecclesiastical and civil
circles of Austria “that the censure was no obstacle to the freedom of
science in the investigation of God’s work.” In 1685 we are assured by the
Jesuit _Kochansky_, that any Catholic was free to “look for an
irrefutable, mathematical, and physical demonstration of the movement of
the earth.” It was also known that the condemnation of the theory had been
aided by the supposition that there were no valid arguments in support of
the new theory. Hence the Congregation’s decree had in the eighteenth
century for the most part lost its force. The Jesuit _Boscovich_, a
celebrated physicist and astronomer, wrote in 1755: “In consequence of the
extraordinary arguments offered by the consideration of _Kepler’s_ laws,
astronomers no longer look upon his theory as a mere hypothesis, but as an
established truth” (Grisar, 347, 350).
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Thus in the light of history the condemnation of the Copernican theory
appears quite differently from the picture presented by the superficial
accusation that Rome up to the nineteenth century condemned this theory.
There is no trace of callousness and oppression, but only submission to
legitimate authority, in so far and as long as one deemed himself obliged.
It was a science enlightened by Christianity, which, in questions not yet
clearly decided, laid down upon the altar of the Giver of all wisdom the
tribute of humble submission, for the sake of higher interests.
We shall have to class with _St. Augustine_ the uncertainty of human
judgments and tribunals among the “troubles of human life,” and say with
him: “It is also a misery that the judge is subject to the necessity of
not knowing many things, but to the wise man it is not a fault” (De Civ.
Dei, IX, 6). May we therefore infer that the teaching authority is an
evil? Were that true, we should have to abolish the authority of the state
and of parents, because they also make mistakes. We should have to
conclude that there had better be no authority at all on earth. Where men
live and rule, mistakes will certainly be made. The physician makes
mistakes in his important office, yet patients return to him with
confidence. Every pedagogue, every professor, has made mistakes, yet they
still command respect. The state government is subject to mistakes, yet
none but the anarchist will say that it must therefore be abolished. “That
the judge is subject to the necessity of not knowing many things, is a
misery, but to the wise man not a fault.”