The “Evolution” of the Roman Catholic Church’s Responses to Scientific Discovery
Introduction
Scientific discoveries constantly challenged the Roman Catholic doctrines, prompting the church to respond. These responses varied according to the different times and situations facing Roman Catholicism. During Galileo Galilei’s time in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the church adopted an authoritarian response. Sir Isaac Newton faced a moderate response while upon Charles Darwin’s discovery on evolution; the papacy went quiet for a long time before finally agreeing with science. This ‘evolution’ of the responses depicts a gradual change in the Church’s attitude towards science as well as an effort to remain relevant in the wake of the scientific revolution. The response of the Roman Catholic Church to science was also set in the background of ongoing tensions between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Hence, an array of factors should be considered when discussing the changes in the Vatican’s response to science.
Galileo and the Heliocentric Model
One of the earliest conflicts between the Roman Catholic Church and Science resulted from the work of Galilei (1564-1642). The topic at the center of this controversy was the heliocentric model, championed by Galilei (McGrath 18). This model originally developed by the Polish Polymath, Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), explained that the sun is at the center of the solar system instead of the earth. It, therefore, contradicted the geocentric model that had been advanced by the Greek scholar, Claudius Ptolemy, and accepted throughout the middle ages (McGrath 18). The geocentric model depicted the earth at the center of the universe. Furthermore, it was believed that all the heavenly bodies including the stars rotated in circular motions around the earth (McGrath 18). The Roman Catholic Church accepted this view since it was accommodated by the scripture. The idea of the earth being at the center was a false proof that the earth was at the center of the creation with the heavens above it, as depicted in creationism. Galilei’s advocacy for the heliocentric model was, hence, viewed as an opposition to the Church and condemned.
The Church had reasons for criticizing Galileo’s work. Among them is that the heliocentric model was found to be incompatible with the bible (McGrath 22). One of the commonly cited verses by the critics was Joshua 10: 12-13. In this verse, Joshua is said to have ordered the Sun to stand still so that he could defeat his enemies. This verse was interpreted literally as evidence that it is the sun that moves around the earth. Paolo Antonio Foscarini, a Carmelite friar, came to Galileo’s defense and argued that the heliocentric model was not necessarily incompatible with the bible (McGrath 22). According to the friar, there were three aspects of the bible that the Roman Catholic Church had not considered. The first aspect was the fact that the bible is not written literally, but rather metaphorically and with similitude. Secondly, the scripture was composed according to our understanding and level of knowledge. Finally, Foscarini argued that the writings of the bible are according to the common way of speaking at the time (McGrath 22). With this understanding, Foscarini explained that Joshua’s Bible story was written according to the common understanding of nature in those days and in the common language spoken at the time. Galileo also endorsed this explanation. However, the Church was quick to reply to Foscarini’s views, terming them as mere innovations without precedent in Christian thought (McGrath 23). Additionally, the Church maintained that the Bible was to be interpreted literary. New interpretations that defied the common understanding of the Holy fathers and theologians were unacceptable.
The other reason for the Church’s condemnation of Galileo’s work was due to an ongoing debate between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants. The thirty years war that lasted from 1618-1648 led to a split between the Roman Catholics who insisted upon Christian traditions and the Protestants who favored liberal thinking. Hence, amid that tension, the Roman Catholic Church rejected any new interpretations of the bible advanced by the Protestants. Submitting to Galilei’s thinking was, therefore, a risky move that would be translated as a concession to Protestant teachings. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church was that any new interpretation of the Bible was mere innovation, hence, erroneous (McGrath 24). As such, the heliocentric model was dismissed.
The conflict between Galileo and the church commonly referred to as the ‘Galileo Affair,’ was a series of events. It would, however, be erroneous to state that there was no dialogue between the two parties. Galilei made six trips to Rome, each trip lasting many days. During the trips, he had the privilege of meeting high ranking members of the Church including the pope, with whom he shared his work. The second trip, in 1611, was the beginning of Galilei’s opposition as he defended the heliocentric model in public (Shea and Artigas 19). His ideas were not only rejected by the church, but also by his fellow scientists who followed Aristotle on the geocentric model. The holy office denounced his ideas prompting Galilei to make a third trip to Rome in 1615 (Shea and Artigas 49). He intended to defend his views and avoid the rejection of the heliocentric model. His efforts, although brilliant, were unsuccessful leading to the banning of his works and an order not to teach it (Shea and Artigas 82). Galilei had no option but to go silent. Fortunately in 1623, Pope Urban VIII who was a friend of Galilei, as well as an admirer of his works, came to office. As a result of this change in the papacy, Galilei made a fourth trip to Rome where he was readily welcomed. Pope Urban VIII allowed Galilei to publish his work on the condition that it was to be presented as mere opinions and not facts. The next few years were successful for the scientist as he wrote several celebrated works (Shea and Artigas 96). In 1630, Galileo made a fifth trip to Rome where he requested permission to print his book. This request was not readily granted although eventually, he managed to print the book outside of Rome. This was followed by a public outcry against Galilei’s book forcing the Church to act. In 1633, the father of modern science was summoned to Rome and put to trial (Shea and Artigas 258). The result of the trial was a censoring of Galilei’s book and house arrest, where he spent the rest of his life until he died in 1642. Nevertheless, Galilei’s work had already spread across Europe.
Newton and the Watchmaker’s Analogy
A few decades after Galilei’s death, the Church was confronted again by science. In this case, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was at the center of the controversy due to his findings on the mechanics of the universe (McGrath 26). Upon discovery of the laws of physics that governed the universe, Newton was convinced that mechanical perfections were underlying the operation of the universe. Consequently, the watchmaker’s analogy was developed. This analogy compared the mechanics of the universe to that of a watch. This popular teleological argument considers the working of the universe. It can be observed how the earth revolves around the sun while rotating around its axis in coordinated harmony to bring about seasons, days, and nights. The moon revolves around the earth periodically lighting the nights and so on. Newton compared these mechanics to those of a watch with the hour, minute, and second hand moving in a coordinated fashion to determine the time. Such a watch does not appear out of thin air but is designed by a watchmaker for a purpose. Similarly, it could be deduced that the universe too, had a designer and a special purpose (McGrath 29). Hence, suggesting a creator.
Initially, Newton’s work was embraced by the Roman Catholic Church. The watchmaker’s analogy served as a confirmation for the existence of God (McGrath 29). Furthermore, the analogy implied that God is the creator of the universe. Also, the church favored the idea that the universe was created for a purpose as this was compatible with the doctrines of Christianity. However, further studies into the celestial mechanics uncovered additional facts that the Church found unacceptable. This was the beginning of the conflict between Newton’s scientific findings and religion.
Newton’s work on celestial mechanics appeared to suggest that the world was self-sustaining. The creator had defined the fixed laws upon which the universe would operate such as the laws of motion (McGrath 30). For instance, the earth does not need any interference to keep rotating. Hence, the sun rises and sets without any continuous meddling but due to the fixed laws set at the beginning. As such, according to Newton, there was no need for continued divine intervention. This implied that God has no continuing role to play in our world. This view was heavily criticized by the Roman Catholic Church. The common belief of the Church, which persists up to date, is that God is ever-present in our lives. Such beliefs are supported in the Bible with stories such as the flood during the time of Noah, where God made it rain leading to a catastrophic flood as described in the book of Genesis. Therefore, due to the literal interpretation of the Bible by Roman Catholicism, it was believed that the universe is sustained directly by God.
The effect of Newtonian physics on religion went beyond simply casting doubts onto people’s minds regarding accepted doctrines of the faith. The scientific discoveries were so revealing that they fuelled a new religious movement. The movement of Deism used Newton’s work to legitimize itself (McGrath 29). Deism maintains the role of God in creating the universe but denies God’s special presence in the creation. In the late seventeenth century, following Newton’s discovery, Deism gained a massive following as former Roman Catholic followers joined the movement (McGrath 29). The failure of the Church to accommodate major scientific views was seen as an intellectual weakness. Furthermore, the Church also took major hits from famous scholars such as John Locke and Matthew Tindal. In one of Locke’s essay regarding human understanding, he suggested that the idea of God is as a result of human rationality and the highly regarded moral qualities at their highest and purest form (McGrath 30). Tindal was motivated by Newton’s assertion that God could be understood through nature. Consequently, in 1730, he argued that the religion of Christianity is nothing but a republication of the religion of nature (McGrath 30). This was a huge blow to not only Roman Catholicism, but also the entire Christianity.
Unlike in Galilei’s case, Newton did not get involved in a one-on-one tussle with the Roman Catholic Church. While Galilei made personal efforts to visit Rome and argue his case with the Church, Newton made no such efforts. It should be noted that Newton was not a Roman Catholic but an Anglican. Despite his immense scientific discoveries, he was devoted to matters of religion and was in fact, a theologian. Iliffe states that the most important aspect of Newton’s life was his Christian faith (4). Surprisingly, behind his Christian faith was a deep resentment for the Roman Catholic Church that qualified for heresy. Newton was not happy with many of the Roman Catholic practices. He felt that the Roman Catholicism was the biggest political and religious threat during the time, terming it as satanic and anti-Christian (Illife 6). He accused the church of cruelty, idolatry, and persecution. However, he never spoke of these accusations publicly and they only came to be known openly after his death. The conflict between the Church and Newton was, therefore, not mainly as a result of him publicly defending his scientific findings, but due to other scholars advancing his work. Among them were Newton’s associate John Locke and later on, Matthew Tindal.
The Roman Catholic’s response to Newton and his supporters was not as strong as during the Galilei’s Affair. This corresponds to the change in the perception of the Church. Roman Catholicism was no longer valued by many in the late seventeenth century as it had during the persecution of Galileo in 1633. The thirty years war that ended in 1648 dealt a heavy blow to the Church. Many had left the Roman-based Church and moved to the much accommodating Protestantism and emerging movements such as Deism (Lucci 14). Therefore, the Church’s stand on scientific matters was no longer held in high regard. Instead, these views were considered outdated. The refusal of the church to embrace science was not working in their favor. It was a relief when Newton’s findings seemed to confirm a major Catholic belief in creation. However, this harmony between science and Roman Catholicism was short-lived.
Darwin and the Evolution Theory
In the 19th Century, the Roman Catholic Church received yet another huge blow. This time, the blow came from the scientific findings of Charles Darwin (1802-1882). Darwin closely studied the work of selective breeding among animals. He observed how a breeder could choose which characteristics were desirable and which were not. The desirable ones would then be passed on to future generations. Ultimately, this would bring in variations between past and future species (McGrath 36). Darwin extended this observation to nature. He noticed a peculiar similarity between selective breeding and nature’s mechanisms. Nature appeared to select the species that would survive. The strong and adaptive species survived while the weak ones perished. He labeled this as natural selection within the natural order (McGrath 36). In 1859, Darwin published his controversial findings in his book, ‘On the Origin of Species.’
Darwin’s findings were against Roman Catholic doctrines. His findings contradicted the foundation upon which Christianity was built. At the center of this tension between science and religion, was the creation story. Unlike Newton’s findings which supported the creation of the universe, Darwin’s work suggested no creator. According to him, all species resulted from a long and complex process of biological evolution (McGrath 37). Up to this point, the church had insisted on interpreting the Bible literally. Hence, it was believed according to Genesis, that God created the world in seven days including man, animals, and plants. Darwin contradicted this by stating that these species had evolved from other organisms over millions of years through a process of adaptation.
Darwin’s work not only challenged the creation story but also the importance of man. According to the Bible, it was believed that man has a special place in God’s creation. The Roman Catholic regarded humanity as having a special place in the world, set apart from the rest of nature (McGrath 37). Additionally, it was believed that man is created in the image of God. Darwin disputed these beliefs by stating that according to his findings, there were no fundamental distinctions between the origins of people and animals (McGrath 37). Hence, the biological processes that had led to people were similar to those that had resulted in animal species.
‘On the Origin of Species’ also dismissed the notion that man had a special purpose in the universe. Roman Catholic teaching was that man was created for a purpose. This belief had been supported by Newton in his watchmaker’s analogy. The Scientific revolutionist had argued that a perfect mechanical system such as the universe could not be designed without a special purpose. Newton’s natural selection suspended any sense of purpose within nature. Instead, he depicted nature as a random process. A close associate of Darwin, Richard Dawkins, further disputed the watchmaker’s analogy by stating that the blind forces of physics were responsible for the world (McGrath 37). The depiction of physics as blind in this case implies random processes with no specific purpose. The Bible story that man had purpose and dominion over all other creation was, therefore, challenged by Darwin.
In Darwin’s case, there was yet another change in the Roman Catholic’s response to science. This time, the Vatican went quiet (Artigas et al. 4). Although there was opposition to evolution from various church authorities, the papacy never offered official communication regarding Darwin’s work. According to Artigas et al., Rome was not eager to have another conflict with the natural sciences as it had been the case with Galilei (5). Although they had managed to censor Galilei, his discoveries had been widely embraced across Europe. The church was, therefore, cautious in engaging in yet another conflict and sought to avoid it. One of the major Roman Catholic’s unofficial opposition to Darwin was titled ‘La Civilta Cattolica.’ However, such works were never endorsed by the papacy. Some Catholic authors attempted to harmonize evolution with Christianity. Such authors were not condemned publicly by the Church authorities but would instead be asked to retract their ideas (Artigas et al. 6). The church was trying hard to avoid another Galileo Affair. It was not until 1950, almost a century later after the publication of ‘On the Origin of Species,’ that the Papacy commented on evolution. Pope Pius X11 stated that there was no apparent conflict between the evolution theory and matters of the church provided that Christians did not abandon important doctrines of the faith (Artigas et al. 1). Among the doctrines is the belief that people are created in the image and likeness of God and the recognition of the spiritual dimension. This was a great step towards creating harmony between religion and science. In 1996, another milestone was achieved when Pope John Paul II released an address stating that it was evident that evolution was not a mere hypothesis after conducting numerous independent studies.
Conclusion
Since the beginning of the scientific revolution, the Roman Catholic’s response to science has gradually changed. While studying these changes, various factors should be considered. The Galileo Affair was set up in the background of the thirty years war between the Roman Catholic and Protestants. The conflict with Newton happened during the rise of Protestantism and other movements such as Deism. Finally, in deciding how to respond to Darwin, a similar situation to the Galileo Affair had to be avoided. However, all the three scientist’s discoveries were mostly heretic and incompatible with the church’s doctrines at the various times they were made. Despite the conflict lasting for centuries, the Roman Catholic Church is gradually embracing science as shown by Pope John Paul II’s address regarding evolution.
Works Cited
Artigas, Mariano, et al. Negotiating Darwin: the Vatican confronts evolution, 1877–1902. JHU Press, 2006.
Iliffe, Rob. Priest of nature: the religious worlds of Isaac Newton. Oxford University Press, 2017.
Lucci, Diego. Scripture and deism: The biblical criticism of the eighteenth-century British deists. Vol. 3. Peter Lang, 2008.
McGrath, Alister E. Science & religion: a new introduction. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
Shea, William R., and Mariano Artigas. Galileo in Rome: The rise and fall of a troublesome genius. Oxford University Press, 2003.
