The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-02-18
PRoF. wharf AND THE CARDINAL.
A Further Letter From the Man Of Science
Explanatory Of His Position.
From te London 7imes.
JANUARY u. 1900

JANUARY n. 1900
DEAR LORD CARDINAL: Had | not felt sure
our correspondence was at an end. | should
not. Of course. have sent IL to be published.
Should your Eminence wish 1t and The Times
consent. your last and this reply shall be
added.
Permit me. in replying to your kind letter OF
the 25th inst, to separate what i, personal
from what is doctrlnal.
!. As to the former, | am perfectly certain
that your Eminence has meant, and means.
most kindly to me. and. though | cannot but
think you were precipltate in addressing your
clergy SO quickly, | am none the less sure It
was done with regret and only from an impera-
tive sense Of duty. Nothing that has happened
can oblIterate thu impression made on me by
past kindness. 1entertain a warm and sincere
regard for your Eminenre, and say, most cor
daily, IA multos %annosl' ! feel no less inter-
est than | did in the progress OF the new cathe-
dral. and only wait 10 know It's interior is free
from scaNoltinC TO visit il for a careful survey.
.. AS 10 doctrine. ! have carefully read the
whole Of the Encyclical. and can find nothing
VIII ch negatives the very plain and decisive
u'irmationS quoted by me-. But were II other
wise it would only include tho Pope among the
ecclesias,icS who have so profoundly Disguised
mo bv simultaneous assertions and denials:
who Try 10 play fast and loose with what they
profess 20 regard "a most sacred, saying that
certain things must be believed. while yet they
may be disbelieyed that il Ia necessary for
aviation 70 hold with the fathers and doctors
Of the Church. and also that there Ia
really no occasion 50 to do; that the DEGREES
Of front and the Vatican must absolutely be
accepted n they were meant, and yet that they
may hr explained away
The act IS that all Catholic teachers about
Scr, r'uye are embarrassed 10y antecedent AFR
nation, which YOU cannot disown. glad as YOU
would b." 10 do 80. The Council Of Trent natu.
rally fell into error because then modern
science was but in its infancy; while that Of
the Vatican was 10 less mistaken because the
great majority OF its bishops neither knew
nor carol anything about natural science.
Eut these truths you are not free to affirm
because % the dogma OF "infallibility." which
c'ings to the Church ike the fatal carmen Of
NcssuS. and will surely eat away its su distance
and reduce II to a Wondering. repulsive
skeleton il that doctrine does not come TO be
explained away by deXtsrous Catholic theolo.
giyns.
As to the old worn-out saying. There can be
no discrepancy between science and religion"
It is quite true If religion is always careful 10
change its teaching In obedience to science.
bat not otherwise.
As TO 'accommodatIons"a md Biblical modes
Of speaking" it il true" or 1t Is mot true
that the animals went up to Adam to be named.
and so with respect to the story about Babel,
6c,
Very many men and women are now anxious
and distressed about their duty with regard
to the Bible. What good end can de served by
telling them it contains no errors" while yet
a multitude Of its statements are altogether
falsc2
BY such a method the very foundations Of
religion become tainted with insincerity. I'M
truth and dishonesty.
Believe ma, dear Lord Cardinal. yours. after
all. aflcctionatcly, ST. GfoRGE MIvART.
To HIS EMINENcE CARDINAL VAUGHAN.
Archbishop or WESTMINSTER. &c.