Part 14 (1/2)
[Footnote 397: s.h.i.+elds: 59. I have failed to find this reference in Bossuet's works.]
[Footnote 398: Fenelon: _Oeuvres_, I, 3 and 7.]
[Footnote 399: Pluche: _Histoire du Ciel_: viii, ix, xiii.]
The Jesuit order, still a power in Europe in the early 18th century, was bound to the support of the traditional view, which led them into some curious positions in connection with the discoveries made in astronomy during this period. Thus the famous Jesuit astronomer Boscovich (1711-1787) published in Rome in 1746 a study of the ellipticity of the orbits of planets which necessitated the use of the Copernican position; he stated he had a.s.sumed it as true merely to facilitate his labors. In the second edition (1785) published some years after the removal from the Index of the decree against books teaching the Copernican doctrine (at his instigation, it is claimed),[400] he added a note to this pa.s.sage asking the reader to remember the time and the place of its former publication.[401] Just at the end of the preceding century, one of the seminary fathers at Liege maintained that were the earth to move, being made up of so many and divers combustible materials, it would soon burst into flames and be reduced to ashes![402]
[Footnote 400: _Cath. Ency._: ”Boscovich.”]
[Footnote 401: _Opera_: III (1785).]
[Footnote 402: Cited in Monchamp: 335 note.]
During the 18th century at Louvain the Copernican doctrine was warmly supported, but as a theory. A MS. of a course given there in 1748 has come down to us, in which the professor, while affirming its hypothetical character, described it as a simple, clear and satisfactory explanation of the phenomena, then answered all the objections made against it by theologians, physicists, and astronomers.[403] A few years earlier, (1728) a Jesuit at Liege, though well acquainted with Newton's work, declared: ”For my part I do not doubt the least in the world that the earth is eternally fixed, for G.o.d has founded the terrestrial globe, and it will not be shaken.”[404] Another priest stated in the first chapter of his astronomy that the sun and the planets daily revolve around the earth; then later on, he explained the Copernican and the Tychonic schemes and the Cartesian theory of motion with evident sympathy.[405] Two others, one a Jesuit in 1682 at Naples,[406] the other in 1741 at Verona, frankly preferred the Tychonic system, and the latter called the system found by ”Tommaso Copernico” a mere fancy.[407] Still another priest, evidently well acquainted with Bradley's work, as late as in 1774 declared that there was nothing decisive on either side of the great controversy between the systems.[408] At this time, however, a father was teaching the Copernican system at Liege without differentiating between thesis and hypothesis.[409] And a Jesuit, while he denied (1772) universal gravitation, the earth's movement, and the plurality of inhabited worlds, declared that the Roman Congregation had done wrong in charging these as heretical suggestions. In fact, M. Monchamp, himself a Catholic priest at Louvain, declared that the Newtonian proofs were considered by many in the 18th century virtually to abrogate the condemnation of 1616 and 1633; hence the professors of the seminary at Liege had adopted the Copernican system.[410]
[Footnote 403: Ibid: 326.]
[Footnote 404: Ibid: 330.]
[Footnote 405: Fontana: _Inst.i.tutio_, II, 32-35.]
[Footnote 406: Ferramosca: _Positiones ..._: 19.]
[Footnote 407: Piccoli: _La Scienza_, 4, 7.]
[Footnote 408: Spagnio, _De Motu_, 81.]
[Footnote 409: Monchamp: 331.]
[Footnote 410: Monchamp: 345.]
The famous French astronomer Lalande, in Rome in 1757 when the Inquisition first modified its position, tried to persuade the authorities to remove Galileo's book also from the Index; but his efforts were unavailing, because of the sentence declared against its author.[411] In 1820 Canon Settele was not allowed by the Master of the Sacred Palace to publish his textbook because it dealt with the forbidden subject. His appeal to the Congregation itself resulted, as we have seen, in the decree of 1822 removing this as a cause for prohibition. Yet as late as in 1829, when a statue to Copernicus was being unveiled at Warsaw, and a great convocation had met in the church for the celebration of the ma.s.s as part of the ceremony, at the last moment the clergy refused in a body to attend a service in honor of a man whose book was on the Index.[412]
[Footnote 411: Bailly: II, 132, note.]
[Footnote 412: Flammarion: 196-198.]
Thus the Roman Catholic Church by reason of its organization and of its doctrine requiring obedience to its authority was more conspicuous for its opposition as a body to the Copernican doctrine, even though as individuals many of its members favored the new system. But the Protestant leaders were quite as emphatic in their denunciations, though less influential because of the Protestant idea of the right to individual belief and interpretation. Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Turrettin,[413] Owen, and Wesley are some of the notable opponents to it. And when the scientific objections had practically disappeared, those who interpreted the Scriptures literally were still troubled and hesitant down to the present day. Not many years ago, people flocked to hear a negro preacher of the South, Brother Jasper, uphold with all his ability that the sun stood still at Joshua's command, and that today ”the sun do move!” Far more surprising is this statement in the new _Catholic Encyclopedia_ under ”Faith,” written by an English Dominican:
”If, now, the will moves the intellect to consider some debatable point--_e.g._, the Copernican and Ptolemaic theories of the relations.h.i.+p between the sun and the earth--it is clear that the intellect can only a.s.sent to one of these views in proportion that it is convinced that the particular view is true. But neither view has, as far as we can know, more than probable truth, hence of itself the intellect can only give in its partial adherence to one of these views, it must always be precluded from absolute a.s.sent by the possibility that the other may be right. The fact that men hold more tenaciously to one of these than the arguments warrant can only be due to some extrinsic consideration, _e.g._, that it is absurd not to hold to what a vast majority of men hold.”
[Footnote 413: s.h.i.+elds: 60.]
In astronomical thought as in many another field, science and reason have had a hard struggle in men's minds to defeat tradition and the weight of verbal inspiration. Within the Roman Catholic Church opposition to this doctrine was officially weakened in 1757, but not completely ended till the publication of the Index in 1835--the first edition since the decrees of 1616 and 1619 which did not contain the works of Copernicus, Galileo, Foscarini, a Stunica and Kepler. Since then, Roman Catholic writers have been particularly active in defending and explaining the positions of the Church in these matters.
They have not agreed among themselves as to whether the infallibility of the Church had been involved in these condemnations, nor as to the reasons for them. As one writer has summarized these diverse positions,[414] they first claimed that Galileo was condemned not for upholding a heresy, but for attempting to reconcile these ideas with the Scriptures,--though in fact he was sentenced specifically for heresy. In their next defense they declared Galileo was not condemned for heresy, but for contumacy and want of respect to the Pope.[415]
This statement proving untenable, others held that it was the result of a persecution developing out of a quarrel between Aristotelian professors and those professors who favored experiment,--a still worse argument for the Church itself. Then some claimed that the condemnation was merely provisional,--a position hardly warranted by the wording of the decrees themselves and flatly contradicted by Father Riccioli, the spokesman of the Jesuit authorities.[416] More recently, Roman Catholics have held that Galileo was no more a victim of the Roman Church than of the Protestant--which fails to remove the blame of either. The most recent position is that the condemnation of the doctrine by the popes was not as popes but as men simply, and the Church was not committed to their decision since the popes had not signed the decrees. But two noted English Catholics, Roberts and Mivart, publicly stated in 1870 that the infallibility of the papacy was fully committed in these condemnations by what they termed incontrovertible evidence.[417]
[Footnote 414: White: I, 159-167.]