OCR Text |
Show ! 1 Salt Lake City, Utah. Nov. 6, 1S99. Editor Inlermountain Catholic: Whilst being a member of many different dif-ferent churches since my boyhood, and at present not holding a certificate of membership with any one in particular, I would like to ask what 1 have been always taught and learned from books regarding the hostile attitude of the Church of Rome towards liberty and science. The condemnation of Galileo as a heretic and his imprisonment are sufficient proofs for the above charges. A LOVER OF TRUTH. P. S. I enclose card. The importance of the questions propounded pro-pounded cannot be lightly estimated; nor can full justice be done to the honest hon-est opinion of our esteemed correspondent correspond-ent in a newspaper article. We have heard in public lectures and read in books and magazines these and similar charges from our childhood days. Brought up in New England states, where allegiance to the spiritual authority au-thority of the Holy Father was treason, ' and where we have been hearing such stuff the greater part of our life, we can appreciate the honesty and good will of any "lover of truth." To the question, the Roman Church has been hostile to liberty: Liberty is a very broad term; may be applied to liberty of thought, freedom of the press, or liberty of action. Liberty of thought, if confined to the minor workings of the soul, could not be suppressed by any power, civil or ecclesiastical, not even by the thinker himself. If the thoughts, expressed in action, be contrary to the well being of society, so-ciety, they are suppressed by the civil authority. The anarchist, thinking honestly hon-estly that he has a right to. a part of his neighbor's property, may try to appropriate ap-propriate it, but the law will not respect re-spect his free thoughts and will soon suppress it. - The church opposes religious liberty by exalting obedience to religious authority, au-thority, thereby enslaving the mind. She does not oppose religious liberty. One oi me nrst instances or absolute civil liberty, as far as religious faith is concerned, con-cerned, was to be found in Maryland, which was a Catholic colony, and founded by Lord Baltimore, who was a Catholic. The Catholic church is a divine di-vine institution founded by a divine teacher, and authorized in his name to teach truth. This teaching of truth is confined to faith and morals, and is in no wise connected with scientific, political po-litical or mathematical truths. Only regarding the former does she teach positively and infallibly. In the latter she leaves the human mind free to: ! search and defend truth. Outside the j fundamental principles of religion and morals she does not express herself. Is more liberty needed? Has she opposed the liberty of the press? Not prior to the sixteenth century, cen-tury, for there was no press as we have it today. Before printing was invented, invent-ed, the only intimation or forerunner of the modern press was the pulpit, j and does not history bear witness to the fact that often some secluded and r. :m-ble :m-ble priest arraigned kings and emperors emper-ors for their tyranny, greed and otherwise other-wise sinful lives. They spoke as free, if not freer, than any press. j Printing was a Catholic invention, and the first printers were tpatrons of the Pope. In England, Caxton, w ho was the first printer, was enVouraged by the Bishop of Hereford, Thomas Milling, who was also Abbott of Westminster Abbey, where the first printing press was established. Into the frozen north it was introduced by a Catholic prelate, who invited and encouraged Mathieson with his printing press to come to Iceland. Ice-land. These facts and many more show that the Catholic church encouraged, rather than opposed, the spread of knowledge. The index is brought forward as a great bugbear of papal opposition to freedom of the press. It is a well known fact that the expurgatory indexes in-dexes are simply matters of discipline, not intended to encroach upon the freedom free-dom of the press; but to protect her children from the baneful influence of a licentious or immoral press. Would not prudent parents discriminate as to the books they wished their children to read. All religious denominations are equally strict in this matter, i. e., in expurgating ex-purgating from their catechism and other religious works any idea or sentiment sen-timent not conformable to their standard stand-ard of orthodoxy.' Had. not our correspondent. corre-spondent. J before he was affiliated to any of the churches to which he claimed membership, first to make a profession of faith? j The Church of Rome had its censor j of the press in the past. This sweeping charge is also denied. When the Pope reigned as temporal sovereign in Rome the Court of Rome, and not the Church of Rome, had its censorship. Being a temporal prince he could do so in his own territory with as much grace as thj ruler of Germany. Even in England, which boasts of absolute freedom, and no censor by Taw-, a former editor of the New York Herald George Houston was imprisoned in England for 2'.2 years for publishing an infidel ' work, known as "Eice Homo." In Boston nicy jears ago .a oner Kneeland was Imprisoned for writing a certain newspaper news-paper paragraph. In the Philippines the censorship of the press today is creating cre-ating no small share of criticism. All religions and all countries have their index and censorship. The rfiurch's hostility to science is substantiated by reference to Galileo's condemnation as a heretic, and his imprisonment im-prisonment The first charge is false. Galileo's leliocentric theory was taught in Rome by one of its Cardinals Nicholas Nich-olas Cusanus 100 years before Galileo was bom.. It was taught by Copernicus, Coperni-cus, a Catholic dignitary, and a professor pro-fessor of astronomy at Rome in the year-l'.OO. In the year 1510 Leonard de Vinci "connects the theory of the fall of bodies with the earth's motion, as a thing then generally received." Was Cusanus condemned for asserting that "the earth moves, the sun is at rest?" No, but was made . Cardinal by Pope Nicholas V. Copernic us received marked distinction, and was asked to assist in reforming the calendar, because of his scientific discoveries. There is no intimation in-timation of heresy in their case, and they taught Galileo's theory eigb'v years before his time. Why sht. these be protected, honored and respected respect-ed by Rome and Galileo condemned? Is it not reasonable to conclude if con-demned con-demned at all it must be for something in no way connected with the heliacen-tric heliacen-tric theory, which was taught and approved ap-proved of in Rome for eighty years before be-fore his time. Galileo's theory was not condemned, nor was he condemned nor imprisoned for his theory: but for his persistent efforts' in making the Scriptures Script-ures the basis of his theory he was summoned before the Inquisition in the year '161 5.- 'AT his trial there was no censure: he was simply asked not to be introducing into his arguments on be- ( half of science texts of Scripture. He should speak as a mathematician, and for his discoveries confine himself to j scientific argumeuts. This he refused, maintaing, first, that his theory was demonstrated, and, secondly, it was supported by Sacred Scripture. In 1616 he came to Rome of his own accord and asked that a decision be given on these two points. Persisting in his demand it was referred to the Inquisition, which decided against Galileo. There was no condemnation of himself or his theory. His friend, Cardinal Barberini, afterwards after-wards Pope Urban VIII, did not agree with the decision of the Inquisition. During Urban's reign he was encouraged, encour-aged, and being elated published, in 16:'3, his dialogues, in which, contrary to his own promises, and with contempt for authority,, he transcended all legitimate legit-imate bounds. For this he was condemned, con-demned, not for his theory. He was not imprisoned, but resided in the palace of hi-3 friend, the Tuscan Ambassador. His treatment by ecclesiastical authority author-ity and especially the Pope, was the very reverse of harshness and severity. |