Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

to himself the right to pick and choose in all other teachings. He is bound-to restrict ourselves to the point we are dealing with-to give an intellectual assent to the teaching of subordinate authorities. The nature of this assent and the strictness of the obligation varies, of course, in proportion to the dignity of each authority. The Catholic scientist must remember, too, that the interests of faith and the spiritual welfare of the many are of more importance than the immediate diffusion of some scientific discovery, the hasty promulgation of which, in minds unprepared for it, might gravely injure their religious ideals; and the Church has been constituted to watch over, not science, but salvation. Hence the reasonableness of the right which the Church has exercised of controlling the publication of scientists and scholars. The natural law itself requires that knowledge shall be circulated with such precaution as the higher goods of morality and religion call for. Even agnostics recognize this principle as sound. Replying to an imaginary objector who asks why, if evolutionists believe in their view of religion, they do not go around and preach it, the late John Fiske replies: "Since men's theologies are narrowly implicated with their principles of action, the taking away of their theology by any other process than that of slowly supplanting it by a new system of conceptions equally adapted to furnish general principles of action, would be to leave men trivial and irreligious, with no rational motive but self-interest, no clearly conceived end save the pleasure of the moment. The evolutionist, therefore, believing that faith in some controlling idea is essential to right living, and that even an unscientific faith is infinitely better than aimless scepticism, does not go about pointing out to the orthodox the inconsistencies which he discerns in their system of beliefs." And shall the Church show herself less tender of the little ones and the unlearned than an agnostic? Is it her duty to turn herself into a scientific academy, and, even at the risk of hurting irreparably the minds of her children, be always on the alert to tear up every belief, however ancient and however innocuous, the moment it ceases to be in harmony with the latest bulletin from the Royal Society or the Musée Guimet? The question answers itself.

The justice of this claim is nowise impugned by the fact Cosmic Philosophy. Vol. II., p. 500.

that sometimes, through the fallibility of the agents engaged in its application, mistakes have been made, and individuals have been subjected to needless and useless suffering. Few pretend, to-day, to exonerate from all blame the extent to which hostility to the heliocentric theory, for example, was carried. No interests of religion required that books teaching it should be retained on the Index till the year 1835. A little more attention to science, a good deal less prejudice in favor of Aristotle and ancient wisdom, and that struggle would have been kept within such limits that nobody reasonably could have found fault with the part played [by authority. On the other hand, it is conceded by impartial non-Catholics that the ecclesiastical interference was justified in the initial stage of the episode. One citation, from a Protestant scientist and professor, will suffice to represent many similar admissions. A Harvard professor has written as follows regarding Galileo:* "He had many friends among the most influential of the clergy; and there can be no question that he would have been left to teach as he pleased, and even been honored for his innovations, if only he had avoided theological issues irstead of rushing into them. There was no need of forcing that greatly irritated lion caged at the Vatican to show its claws. Neither truth nor honor required it. And though one may not think that a scholar can honorably hold an equivocal position in regard to facts of demonstration, yet the distinction betweed 'ex hypothesi' and 'ex animo' was one which he avowedly accepted. And when he violated his pledges, and again revived the old issues, we cannot wonder that his conduct provoked censure; and it may be questioned whether he was treated any more harshly than is many a man at the present day for a much less departure from prescribed creeds."

The deference exacted by discipline for the rulings of noninfallible authorities is nowise incompatible with the intellectual honesty which, as the above writer affirms, no man may justly or honorably sacrifice. The religious obedience and respect due to such pronouncements do not require that a man should. abdicate his reason. Let me offer you from a conservative theologian a passage which will make this truth clear. Father Pesch, S.J., treating the question in his work intended as a

The Credentials of Science the Warrant of Faith. By Josiah Parsons Cooke, LL.D., Erving Professor of Chemistry and Mineralogy at Harvard University. New York, 1888, p. 77.

text-book for students, lays down the teaching: * "Just as we have already said that we must obey our bishops when they give orders in matters of faith and morals, so in similar wise we maintain that we must yield a religious assent to the decrees of Roman Congregations, that is to say, that supreme religious authority has spoken in these decrees, albeit not infallibly." Does it follow, then, that a scientist who has arrived at some solidly based conclusion incompatible with this or that decree of a Roman Congregation, or any other organ for which infallibility is not claimed, must, as misrepresentations of us pretend, make an act of faith in something that he knows to be false? By no means. "On the negative side," says Father Pesch, "we are not free to withhold assent to Congregational decisions just on the plea that they are not infallible; and, on the positive side, we must continue to assent to them"-Permanently? No; but "until we get clear proof that the Congregations have blundered in making the decisions. Because the Congregations do not, in themselves, confer absolute certainty on any doctrine, the reasons for the doctrine may, and, with due caution (respective), ought to be investigated. This will be done in order that either the doctrine shall be gradually accepted by the entire Church, and so raised to the region of infallibility, or else, the error which, possibly, it contains shall be detached. For the religious assent that we owe to Congregational rulings, founded as these are, not in absolute but in a looser moral certitude, does not exclude all apprehension of error, and therefore, when sufficient reason for doubt appears, a prudent suspension of assent is in order; but as long as there is no reasonable ground for doubt the authority of the Congregations is adequate to impose assent."

For an excellent brief exposition of Catholic doctrine and duty regarding religious teaching, I may refer you to an article published in the Ave Maria for January of the current year. The writer fortifies himself with copious extracts from a recent pastoral of the English bishops. They show how amply the liberty of the scientist is harmonized with the prudence which forbids rash and dangerous impatience:† "As points of discipline may be decreed at one time, and modified or set aside at another, so may novel theories and opinions, advanced * Prælectiones Dogmatice Auctore Christiano Pesch, S.J. I., p. 312. Ave Maria, January, 1905, p. 47.

even by learned men, be at one time censured by the Roman Congregations, and at a later time tolerated and even accepted. For instance, the Holy Office in a case of a disputed text of Scripture or any similar point, after careful consideration, customary in matters of this importance, may declare that the arguments brought forward do not warrant the conclusion claimed for them by certain students. Such a decision is not immutable, and does not prevent Catholic students continuing ' their research, and respectfully laying before the Holy See any fresh or more convincing arguments they may discover against the authority of the text. And thus it becomes possible that, in time, the tribunals of the Holy See may decide in the sense which the earlier students had suggested, but could not at first establish by satisfactory arguments as a safe conclusion. In such a case loyal Catholics should accept her decision by virtue of 'religious obedience' as one to be followed for the present. But while they gratefully accept such guidance in a matter that concerns religion, they will be careful to distinguish between this guidance and the Church's definition of faith."

These principles are not the result of mere abstract reasoning, but the formulated inductions drawn from the history of systematic Catholic thought. Numberless instances might be cited of congregational, conciliar, and papal non-infallible rulings that, after having been vigorously asserted for long periods, gradually began to be questioned; critical examination persisted; time furnished new arguments to the opposition. The upshot was that the doctrine was not indeed abruptly abandoned or formally rescinded, but was allowed to sink gently and silently into oblivion. There was no recantation of the old; but the new that was incompatible with it was, first tolerated, and next incorporated by authority. In many instances there were theologians, devoted to everything traditional, to argue that the infallible guarantee covered the teaching. But the outcome proved them to be mistaken. Frequently the process of transition was smoothed by the retention of old forms modified in meaning-you understand that I speak only of nondogmatic tenets. It is, probably, some of these cases which your professor had in mind when he spoke of the wrigglings of Rome. It is a common weakness of us all to let our prejudices dictate our selection of the words in which we clothe our judgments, and the opulence of the English language provides

us with terms of disparagement for which, in truth and justice, we might often substitute others less depreciatory. And Rome is a word which in polemics is often used to cover a multitude of logical sins. In one sentence it will stand for some theologian occupied in sweeping back the advancing tide of knowledge with his syllogistic besom; in the next, it will mean the highest authority in the exercise of its highest prerogative; and thus, by the perpetration of what logical pedantry calls the fallacy of undistributed middle, the ineptitudes of individuals are ascribed to the organization.

Are we to presume that the process of elimination, selection, and assimilation that has always gone on in the past is now at an end? To say so would be to assert that the development and growth of the Church have ceased; that her intellectual life has come to an end; and that the immanent vital principle which has enabled her to carry on her organic functions in victorious adaptation to an ever changing environment has at length reached the closing phase of exhausted senility. Never, on the contrary, has the work of adaptation been carried on with more vigor. Every one who examines the present attitude of authority and scholarship towards expert knowledge and criticism must admit that they are ready to listen to any representative of thought who speaks in the name of ascertained science. The dogmas of faith, resting on the authority of the Church, and, for the most part, consisting of truths transcending reason, are beyond the range of physical science. Criticism, fairly exercised, can but make them stand forth in more majestic outline, by clearing them of the faded human opinions which are hanging in tatters around them. The discoveries of the scientist or the scholar can come into collision only with the occasional, the accidental, the ephemeral. Authority, while treating with reverence all that is traditional, concedes that there are tares among the wheat. But it resists the arrogance of the irresponsible who in the name of science, of which they are seldom acknowledged spokesmen, insist upon rushing in to devastate wheat and cockle alike. "Give us," says authority to the exponents of science, history, and criticism, "your thoroughly ascertained facts, not your immature theories, your provisional guesses, or your unverifiable speculations, which you yourselves may be throwing aside to-morrow, and we shall cheerfully, nay gratefully, accept them. But leave us to make

« НазадПродовжити »