Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 13.djvu/665

 SCIENCE

603

SCIENCE

of 1907. To begin with the first, the licence of sub- jective truth is the very hotbed of anarchistic theories, and the rebelhon against the teaching of Christ will end with the moral conditions of Greek and Roman paganism. As we are not concerned here with the relation between science and the State, it must sufiice to show how the alarm is beginning to sound. It seems to be a matter of course, and yet it sounds un- usual, when Count Apponyi as minister of education and worship in Hungary, on the occasion of an aca- demic promotion, recommends to teachers of science a moral and earnest conscientiousness. More re- markable is the warning of Virchow at the meeting of scientists at Munich (1877) against teaching personal views and speculations as estabhshed truths, and in particular, against replacing the dogmas of the Church by a rehgion of evolution.

The moral state of a youth growing up under such teaching could be anticipated in general from the his- tory of paganism. It was reserved to our anti- Christian age, however, to justify immorality with an appearance of science. The assertion has been made and circulated in journals and meetings, that a pure and moral life is detrimental from the point of view of medicine. The medical faculty of the Uni- versity of Christiania found it necessary to declare the assertion entirely false, and to state positively that "we know of no harm or weakness owing to chastity". The same protest was expressed by Dr. Raoult in the words: "There is no such thing as pathology of continency"; and by Dr. Vidal (see below) in the statement, that the commandments of God ar(legitimate from the standpoint of medicine, and that their obs<>rvance is not only possible but advantag(!ous. Warnings like these may be called forth by anticipated effects; but we hear others that prove the effects already existing. Such was the unanimous vote of the International Conference for the protection of Ilcaltli and Morals, held at Brussels (September, 1902): "Young men have to be taught that the virtues of chastity and continency are not only not hurtful but mtjst commendable from a purely medical and hygienic; j)int of view". The effects in educational institutions must have been appalling before scientific authorities dared to lift the veil by public warnings. They were given by Dr. Fleury (1899) in regard to French colleges, and were repeated by Dr. Fournier (190.")) and Dr. Francotte (1907). Even louder are the warnings of Paulsen, Fcirster, and especially Obermcdicinalrat Dr. Gruber regarding the German gymnasia and universities. Dr. Desplata (see bibliograi)hy) insists that in order to stay the current which is carrying the French along towards irremediable decadence, it is necessary to react against the doctrinal and i)ractical neo-paganism. No won- der that the liceiitious doctrines hiive found their way from books into journals and passed from the educated to the illiterate. Sosnosky, a literary au- thority, comi)ares the present moral ej)idemic to that of pagan Rome anil of the French Revolution, and protests, from a merelv natural point of view, against the hypocrisy of covering crude animalism with the cloak of art and science (see Allgemeine Zeitung, No. 3, 21 January, 1911).

What the State either will not or dare not do, the Church does always, by keeping men mindful of the object or end of their existence and this last end is not science. The catechism points it out under three heads: the knowledge of God; the observance of His commandments; and the use of His grace. Knowledge of nature is intended by God as a subordinate means to this end. And for that very reason there can never be a conflict between science and our final destiny. The Church does not teach natural sciences, but she helps to make their principles tributary to wis- dom, first by warning against error and then by point- ing to the ultimate cause of all things. When science

raises the cry against the guiding office of the Church, it is comparable to a system of navigation without any directions outside the ship itself and the surround- ing waves. The formal object of each particular sci- ence is certainly different from faith, just as the steering of a vessel is different from the knowledge of the stars; but the exclusion of all guiding fights beyond the biUows of scientific opinions and hypoth- eses is entirely arbitrary, unwise, and disastrous.

B. The Church. — The Church in her relation to science may be better understood by a division of the subject into the following parts: Opposite views; dis- tinction between the teaching body and the ecdesia discens; the holders of the teaching office; science of faith; pretended conflicts.

I. Opposite views. — On the relation of the Church to science there are two irreconcilable views: (1) Leo XIII in his Apostolic Letter of 22 January, 1899, calls attention to the dangers imminent at the present time to the minds of Catholics, and specifies them as a confusion between licence and freedom, as a passion for saying and reviling whatever one pleases, as a habit of thinking or printing without restraint. The shadows cast by these dangers on men's minds, he says, are so deep as to make the e.xercise of the teach- ing office of the Apostolic See more necessary now than ever. The pope strengthens his words by the author- ity of the Vatican Council, which claims Divine faith for all things proposed by the Church, whether in solemn decision or by the ordinary universal magis- terium.

(2) Not so those outside the Church. To them, spiritual restriction of thinking, speaking, writing is a remnant of the times when science was in fetters, a relic of the Dark Ages. Virchow, in discussing the appointment of professors of Protestant theology at Bonn and Marburg by the Prussian Government, made the following declaration in the Chamber (6 March, 1890): "If it is considered incumbent upon the theological faculties to preserve and to interpret a certain (lejjosit of so-called Divine and revealed trvitlis, then they do not fit into the framework of universiti(^s, they are in opposition to the scientific machinery prevailing there. The Reformers of the sixteenth century", he continued, "are to-day replaced b)^ free scientific criticism; consistently, instead of halting before the theological faculties, they should have abolished them, and the troubles ever arising from a certain class of men who claim to be holders of Divine truth, would have vanished" (reported by Hert- ling, see below, p. 49 sqq.). Such is the general voice of those who stand outside of any creed. There are others who wish to adhere to certain articles of faith established either by a congress of Reformers, or by a sovereign, or by Parhament. Although widely dif- fering among themselves as to the inspired Books, the Divinity of Christ, and even th(> existence of Revelation, they all agree in considering the papacy a usurpation, and Catholic obedience in matters of faith and morals, spiritual darkness and slavery.

(3) These conflicting views have existed from the very cradle of Christianity, and wiU last to the end of the world. St. Ambrose (397) speaking of the wise of the world (sapienles mundi) says: "Deviating from faith, they are implicated in the darkness of perpetual blindness, although they have the day of Christ and the light of the Church before them; while seeing noth- ing, they open their mouth as if they knew everything, keen for vain things and dull for things eternal" (Hexaemeron, V, xxiv, 86, in P. L., XIV, 240). Those who accept the teaching of Christ have always formed the smaller portion of mankind, and the mass of the small flock is not compo.sed of the rich or the mighty or the wise of the world. They maintain that the Church is a Divine institution, endowed with the triple power of priesthood, teaching, and government; hence their submission, firmness, and union in matters