New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-02-12
THE CASE OF PROFESSOR M1TART.

THE CASE OF PROFESSOR MITART.
The correspondence between Cardinal Vaughan
of London and Professor St George Mivart
shows that the Roman Catholic Church has not
receded from It's traditional attitude Of hos
tility to all conclusions that contradict its
dOgmas, though such conclusions rest
upon indubitabe facts. 1t is only another illus
tration of the agelong conflict between author
ity and truth, or reason. if the term be pre-
ferred. AS Cardinal Vaughan puts it, Roman
Catholic must accept intellectually everything
that the Church teaches, even when such teach
ing appears to be contrary to history and fact
1t is this question of intellectual acceptance
that has brought about the rebellion of Pro
fessor Mivart. He declares himself to be a
loyal Catholic, answering in his devotion to the
fundamental principles of the Church. But he
says that his Investigations as a man of science
have convinced him that certain dogmas of the
Church are more or less erroneous. AS he ex-
presses it: When the question is a purely IN
"tellectual one of the utmost simplicity or like
"a proposition in Euclid then do not believe
lin the possibility of emotional deception. The
''falsehoOd of the historical narration about
Babel is a certainty practically as great as that
''of the equality of the angles at the base of
IAN isosceles triangle This is plain language,
and it puts the whole controversy between the
Church and science in nutshell The Church
insists on the acceptance of its dogmas, even If
they should be proved to be historically untrue,
or, more accurately, it denies the right of it's
members to investigate for themselves the ques-
ton of their truth or falsehoOd
Professor Mivart who Is n convert to Cathol-
icsm, has long been eminent In the world of
science, and Roman Catholics have frequently
pointed to him as proof that the Church does
not oppose science. Indeed, he himself made it
a point for many years 70 show how the con-
illusions Of science might be reconciled with the
creed Of the Church. But in 1893 came the en-
cyclical of Pope Leo XIII, "Providentissimus
Deus" like a bolt from the blue" as DR..
Mivart expresses it, declaring that "all the
books which the Church receives as sacred and
'canonical are written wholly and entirely, with
all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy
Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that
ANY error can coexist with inspiration, that in
SEPARATION not only is essentially incompatible
with error, but excludes and rejects it as abso-
''lutely and necessarily as it is impossible that
GOD himself, the supreme truth, can utter that
(which is not true"
For some time he hoped against hope that the
Church might so interpret this uttcrance as to
make it possible for intelligent men to accept It.
But at last he is forced to admit that "a vast
and impossible abyss yawns between Catholic
dogma and science, and no man with ordinary
knowledge can henceforth join the communion
"Of the Roman Catholic Church if he correctly
understands what its principles and its teaching
really are unless they are radically changed"
He is at one with Cardinal Vaughan in holding
that truth and revelation cannot be at variance
but he parts with him in denying that revela-
ton Is really revelation when it plainly contra
diets truth. Or, rather, he maintains that all
truth is divine, and that man owes his first
allegiance to ii wherever it is found. If for in
stance, he believes, the Bible is proved to
contain erroneous statements, the Church's
dogma that 1t is inerrant becomes null and void.
1t might we'll put forth a dogma that the
angles at the base of isosceles triangle are
unequal, or that two and two make five
OF course, Cardinal Vaughan refuses to be
drawn into any discussion of the issue thus
raised. He could not do it without thereby sur
rendering the position OF the Church that au-
thority is greater than reason What he did
was to require DR.. Miyart to sign profession
of faith in all the dogmas of the Church as
divinely true and incapable Of change at the
same time demanding that he specifically CON
denim and revoke all his recent utterances which
called in question the inerrancy OF the Bible
The penalty for refusing 10 sign this document
was to be inhibition from the sacraments OF
the Church. The prompt refusal Of DR.. Mivart
to sign what to him would have been a lie
could not have surprised the Cardinal Indeed
when an eminent scientist reaches conclusions
that seem TO him as self-evident as problem
In Euclid, the wisdom If not the morality Of
ordering him to say they are untrue is seri-
ously open 10 question. The right of the Church
TO impose such dogmas as it pleases Is, Of
course, unquestlonable. But with right must
always 90 responsibility. The attitude of the
Church, as explained by Cardinal Vaughan
VIII force out of its membership all who believe
that truth is greater than authority. And 1t will
have TO face the responsibility for this result In
the forum Of conscience If not also to Justify