SCIENCE
605
SCIENCE
by occasional solemn decisions. The former goes on
uninterruptedly; the latter are called forth in times
of great danger, especially of growing heresies. The
promise of Divine assistance provides for the integrity
of doctrine "all days, even to the consummation of
the world" (Matt., xxviii, 20). From the nature of
the case it follows that individual bishops may fall
into error, because ample provision is made when the
entire teaching body of the Church and the supreme
pastor in particular are protected by Providence.
The "Ecclesia docens", as a whole, can never fall into
error in matters of faith or morals, whether her teach-
ing be the ordinary or the solemn; nor can the pope
proclaim false doctrines in his capacity of supreme
pastor of the universal Church. Without this pre-
rogative, which is known by the name of Infallibihty
(q. v.), the Divine promise of assistance would be a
fallacy. To the right of teaching on the part of the
"Ecclesia docens" naturally corresponds the obhga-
tion of hearing on the part of the "Ecclesia discens".
Hearing is meant in the sense of submitting the un-
derstanding, and it is of a double nature, according
as the teaching is, or is not, done under the guarantee
of infallibility. The former submission is called assent
of faith, the latter assent of rehgious obedience.
(2) Submission of the understanding to other than Divine authority may appear objectionable, but is practised, in science as well as in daily life, in hun- dreds of ways. With regard to the Church submis- sion of the understanding is especially appropriate, no matter whether she speaks with infallible or with ad- ministrative authority, in other words, whether the submii5sion is one of faith or one of obedience. Even from a human point of view her authority is excep- tionally high and impartial. To the teaching that rests directly on the ruling authority only, without the prerogative of infallibility, belong the pastoral let- ters of bishops, particular diocesan catechisms, de- crees of provincial synods, the decisions of Roman Congregations, and many official acts of the pope, even such as are obhgatory on the universal Church. In each diocese the official authority in matters of faith and morals is the bishop. Without his (or higher) consent no professor of theology, no catcchist, no preacher can exercise his official function, and no publication that touches upon matters of faith and morals is permitted within the diocese. The appro- bation of teachers is known as canonical mission, while the approval or refusal of books is called censor- ship (q. v.). Above the diocesan tribunals stand the Roman Congregations (q. v.) to which certain matters are reserved and to which appeal can be made. Sci- ence, in particular, may come in contact with the Congregation of Rites, which examines miracles pro- posed in support of beatifications and canonizations. More frequently it is the Congregation of the Index, which officially examines and decides upon the dan- ger, to faith and morals, of books (not persons) de- nounced or under suspicion, and the Holy Office of the Inquisition, which decides questions of ortho- doxy, with the pope himself as prefect. All the ec- clesiastical authorities, mentioned in this paragraph, participate, either officially or by delegation, in the legislative, judicial, and executive powers of the Church, in support of their functions. It goes with- out saying that their decisions become endowed with the prerogative of infallibility, when the pope ap- proves them, not in an ordinary manner as, for in- stance, when he acts as prefect of a Congregation, but solemnly, or ex cathedra, with the obligation of ac- ceptance by the whole Church.
(.3) To men of science the Roman tribunals of the Index and the Inquisition are be.st known in connex- ion with the name of Galilei (q. v.) Here seems to be the place to speak about the attitude of non-Catholic scientists towards the case. It can be shown that it is not always in keeping with the principles of science,
from a triple point of view, (a) The error involved
in the condemnation of Galilei is used as an argument
against the right of the tribunals to exist. This is
illogical and partial. The error was purely acciden-
tal, just as the mi.searriages of justice in criminal
courts is often the unfortunate result of similar acci-
dental errors. If the argument does not hold in the
latter case, it holds much less in the former. The
error was a universal opinion tenaciously defended by
the Reformers of the sixteenth century. Besides, it is
about the only seriously erroneous decision of its kind
among the hundreds that issued from the Roman tri-
bunals in the course of centuries.
(b) ^Vhat is objected to in the Gahlei case is not so much the historical fact of the blunder, as the per- manent claim of the Church to be, by Divine right, the guardian of the Scripture; it is the principle by which she adheres to the literal sense of Holy Writ, as long as either the context or the nature of the case does not suggest a metaphorical interpretation. Granted that the evidences, which convinced Coper- nicus, Kepler, and Galilei, should also have convinced the theologians of the time, the latter committed a blunder. It cannot be this, however, that is continu- ally held up again.st the Church. Official blunders of the highest tribunals are easily and constantly par- doned, when they are committed in the exercise of an acknowledged right. Nobody condemns the admin- istration of justice when a disputed case, in its course of appeals, is reversed two or three times, although each reversal puts a juridical blunder on record. Hence, what is condemned in the case of Galilei, must be the riglit itself, viz., the claim and the principle be- fore mentioned. Evidently, however, they are in no way peculiar to the case of Gahlei; they are as old as the Church; they have been applied in our own days, e. g. in the Syllal)us of Pius IX (1S64), in the Vatican Council (1870) and recently in the Encyclical "Pas- cendi" of Pius X (1907); and they will be applied in all the future. To attack the claim of the Church as guardian of the Scripture, there is no apparent need for going back again and again to the old Galilei inci- dent. Nor is the legal procedure against Galilei in any way peculiar to his case. The historian judges it by the established laws of the seventeenth century and finds it unusually mild. What is it then that pre- vents the Galilei controversy from resting? It is hard to see any other motive in the agitation but the re- luctance to admit the Church's claim to be the inter- preter of the Scriptures.
(c) The vast Galilei literature shows a remarkable difference in the opposite points of view. Among CathoHcs httle importance is attached to the case, simply because Catholics knew before and after, that the Roman Congregations are liable to error, and only wonder that not more mistakes are recorded in history. Among the others the sympathy shown for Galilei is not easily intelligible from a scientific point of view. The whole process was an entirely internal affair of the Church: Galilei appeared before his own legal su- periors; for a time he was disobedient, but in the end submitted to his condemnation. The character which he displayed in the affair does not seem to call for the admiration paid to him. What then makes out- siders so sympathetic towards Gahlei, if not his dis- obedience to the command of 1616? It would seem so, judging from the praises given to his "immortal" dialogues.
IV. The Science of Faith. — Although faith is not science, yet there is a science of faith. The knowl- edge acquired by faith, on the one hand, rests upon science, and on the other lends itself to scientific methods.
(1) Faith is in many ways a parallel case to his- tory. Although historical knowledge is not directly scientific, yet there is a science of history. Scientific inquiries precede historical knowledge, and the re-
