SCIENCE
607
SCIENCE
contradiction with an infallible definition. In case
of an apparent difference between faith and science, he
takes the following logical position: When a religious
view is contradicted by a well-established scientific
fact, then the sources of revelation have to be re-
examined, and they will be found to leave the question
open. When a clearly-defined dogma contradicts a
scientific assertion, the latter has to be revised, and it
will be found premature. When both contradicting as-
sertions, the religious and the scientific, are nothing more
than prevailing theories, research will be stimulated
in both directions, until one of the theories appears un-
founded. The conflict about the heliocentric system
belonged, theoretically speaking, to the first case, and
Darwinism, in its gross form, to the second; practi-
cally, however, disputed questions generally turn up
in the third case, and so it was actually with the
heliocentric system at the time of Copernicus, Kepler,
and Galilei, (b) It is true, the believer is less free in
his knowledge than the unbeliever, but only be-
cause he knows more. The unbeliever has one source
of knowledge, the behever has two. Instead of barring
his mind against the supernatural stream of knowledge
by arbitrary postulates, man ought to be grateful to
his Creator for ever^' bit of knowledge, and, panting
for truth, drink from both streams that pour down
from heaven. Hence it is, that a well-in.structed
Christian child knows more of the important truths
than did Kant, Herbert Spencer, or Huxley. Believing
scientists do not wish to be free-thinkers just as re-
spectable peoi)le do not want to be vagabonds.
(2) Blind acceptance of dogmas and submission to non-scientific authority is said to be contrary to the dignity of science; hence the conflict between the Church and science. The answer is as follows: (a) The dignity of science consists in searching for and finding truth. What injures the dignity of science is error, sham theories, arbitrary postulates. None of these qualifications is found in faith. Infallible truth is guaranteed, and the assent is based on premises which are not blindly accepted but proved by reason, on the most scientific methods if desired. Unworthy of science are premises like the following: "Error can be removed only by science and scientific truth" (Lipps, 1908); or "The only authority is science" (Masaryk). Unworthy of science, again, is the in- consistency in not yielding to premises once reason- ably established. No scientist hesitates to accept results furnished by branches other than his own or even from .scientists within his own special line. Yet, many slirink from accepting faith, though the exist- ence of revelation is as reasonably established as any historical fact.
(b) When it comes to authority outside of science, the believing scientist knows that the authority to which he gives the assent of faith is Divine. The motive of his faith is not the Church, it is God. In God he sees the highest logical truth (infinite Wisdom), the highest ontological truth (the infinite Being), the highest moral truth (infinite Veracity). Bowing to such authority, infinitely beyond human science, is so much in harmony with sound reason, that science ought to be the first to say: "Ecce ancilla Domini". The dignity of science is indeed overshadowed by the dignity of faith, yet by no means degraded.
(c) More difficulty is perhaps found in the assent of religious obedience than in the assent of faith. Here it is not an infallible authority which science is asked to respect, but one that may err, like any human tribunal, even the highest. The phrase "dignity of science" means practically the dignity of man in his qualification as a scientist. Now, we put before him an alternative: If he is a member of the Catholic Church, submission to lawful authority, which he knows is established by Christ, is not only not undignified but honourable to him in all cases, because he considers obedience a higher boon than science. His case is
parallel to that of the law-abiding citizen in regard to
the supreme court of justice. The citizen may appeal
from lower tribunals to the highest, but should not
revolt against the latter. If convinced that injustice
has been done him, he will prefer the common good
of peaceful order to private interests, and feel the
more dignified for it as a citizen. But if the scientist
stands outside the Catholic Church, he most probably
feels quite unconcerned about her authority in regard
to himself. He might then as well let the Church take
care of her own internal affairs.
In general, all scientists may consider the remark made by the bishops of the Province of Westminster in their joint pastoral letter of 1901 (see below): "It has been a fashion to decry the Roman Congregations by persons who have little or no knowledge of their careful and elaborate methods, of their system of sifting and testing evidence, and of the pains taken by the Holy See to summon experts, even from distant parts of "the Church, to take part in their proceedings". As regards the Congregation of the Index in particular, its purpose is to shield the community from intellec- tual and moral poison. The prohibition of erroneous and dangerous publications is imposed by natural law upon the authorities of the family, of civil and reli- gious communities; and science ought to be the first in the rank of co-operators. Only then would its real dignity shine forth. The Catholic scientist sees fur- thermore a positive law in the exercise of this power, as derived from the Divine office of teaching all na- tions. And he sees this right made use of from the very beginning of the Church, although the Con- gregation of the Index was not founded until 1570, and the first Roman Index had appeared only in 1559. Before the art of printing was invented, it sufficed to burn a few manuscript copies to prevent the spreading of a doctrine. So it was done at Ephesus in presence of St. Paul (Acts, xix, 19). It is known that the other Apostles, the Fathers of the Church, and the Council of Nice (325) exercised the same authority. The enumeration of the various censures, prohibitions, and indexes issued by cities, universities, bishops, provin- cial councils, and popes, through the Christian cen- turies, may be seen in Hilgers, "Der Index der Ver- botenen Biicher" (Freiburg, 1904), 3-15.
The necessity of restricting the licence of all manner of publications may be illustrated by the following facts. As regards heretical books one might suppose men like St. Francis of Sales and Balmes i)roof against all danger. Yet, the former thanked CJod for having preserved him from reading infidel books and from losing his faith. The latter confessed that he could not read a forbidden book without feeling the neces- sity of regaining the proper tune of mind by recurring to the Scripture, the "Imitation of Christ", and Louis of Granada. As to immoral productions of htera- ture, the flood has now become so enormous and the criminal results are so alarming, that leagues for pub- lic morality are being formed, composed of men and women, comprising all the conservative elements and all religious denominations. Political and social dan- gers are not less to be feared than moral infection. For that reason there is hardly any country in the world where some censorship has not been exercised. The measures taken in England, in the Netherlands, Scandinavia, France, Switzerland, and Germany may be found in Hilgers, op. cit., 206-389. To say that all these measures of self-defence on the part of par- ents, of the State, and of the Church are against the dignity of science would be a very bold assertion.
(3) Those who maintain that faith is discredited by history are the very ones that discredit history by fal- sifications. It must suffice in this place to allude to some principal points, (a) If a believer cannot be a scientist, as is maintained, then all the great scien- tists must be unbelievers. In spite of its boldness the assertion is made, in order to save the appearance of
