CRISIS IN SPAIN.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12601, 5 September 1910, Page 8

CRISIS IN SPAIN.

(To 'tlw Editor.) Sir, —'" Observer* says " I should hardly think of going to Father Lemment's book for impartial historical views." Let us see, then what Balzac says in his blunt-way. It is a. complete answer to " Observer's" contention : " Historical independence of thought has been far less conspicuous among lay writers than, among the priesthood. The purest light thrown on history has come from the Benedictus. It is evident that historians are privileged liars t who lend their pens to popular beliefs, exactly as most of the newspapers of the day express nothing but the opinions of their readers." In the foregoing you have the opinion of a man who was no friend of the Catholic Church, but at least on this occasion he gave credit where credit was due. Because a man is a Rationalist who believes that the, Biblo 13 "pious fable," and the Christian teaching "superstition," it does not follow that the truth belongs to the Rationalist, and that, like the Almighty, he can neither deceive^ nor be deceived —"Brare humanum est." So "Observer's" Rationalist, may fall at times into the mire of one-sidedness, as "Observer" has fallen when he unblushingiy writes: "Her teachings (the Catholic 'Church) lias been responsible for all the'mental, degradation of past ages." Let us see whether we are to depend on Draper for our history. Mabillon observes, " th© monks not only copied rare manuscripts, but corrected them., and c;ave explanations for the. right understanding of them. We owe tho histories of England and of many other nations almost exclusively to the Benedictine monks. In the tenth century, supposed to be th# age of universal darkness and ignorance, there were many men of eminent sanctity and, learning" (MabiL, Praef. in V., Saec Benedic, 1). "Observer" recommends to me -Lecky's ""Rationalism,", hub 1 prefer to take great scientists' opinion on the existence of a God. Lord Kelvin was one of the greatest scientists of last century, and he says, in a. speech delivered by him at University Col-leger-London, in 1904, "Science positively affirmed creative power There ' was nothing between absolute scientific belief in creative power And the acceptance of the.theory of the. fortuitous ;coneurrence of atoms. But was there anything so absurd as to believe , that,-a number of atoms, by falling together of their own accord, could make a sprig of moss or a living animal? As for myself, I feel bound to com© to tho. conclusion that science is not antagonistic to religion, but a help to it." vA well-known expression of Galvani's was " Small draughts of. philosophy lead to atheism; but longer draughts bring a man back to God." In l>ke way thought and spoke most of the great leaders and discoverers in science—great medical men like Morgagni, Galvani, Joliann - Muller, Schwann. Pasteur, Claude, Bernard, Jenner, and Stokes; great •electricians and physicists like Franklin, Faraday, Ampere, George Ohm, Oersted, ClerkMaxwell ; great biologists like Lamarck, Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire, Van Beneden, Ehrenbey, and Mendel., All these men have been original thinkers; all have done original work. So I refer my Christian- belief to Lecky's "Rationalism;" With regard to the Catholic Church and -education. "It is an interesting fact that the Catholic Church had in various parts of Europe established no less than seventy-two' prominent universities prior to the Reformation." (Young, "Higher Education," p. 327). Yet "Observer" will tell us that the Catholic Church "has been responsible, for all th© mental degration of past; ages." Why, in past ages the Catholic Church alone was responsible for the progress made in learning, and it is to this fact that the people of Europe owe their present adyahcement ■and civilisation. The universities established by the Church brought together numerous students, the brightest intellects o vf all nations, who contributed powerfully to the development of arts and sciences. The Popes encouraged learning by providing for the maintenance of professors in the universities. They established bursaries to facilitate the pursuit of knowledge of poor students. The conferring of degrees was ■established by the Church and conferred on scholars by the Pope. These cie--1 grees —Bachelor, Master of Arts or ! Sciences, or that of Doctor are retained to the present time. The monks studied first theology, then philosophy, then ecclesiastical history, hagiography, and profane arts and sciences. If as | "Obseiver" contends their minds Mere j kept in narrow bounds, how is it that tho Church aave them permission to .study works of pagan philosophy? What about the immense libraries of the mon- | asteries, which contained millions of all j kinds of manuscripts and works, and to which not only the monks, but the ■ joor people, had access. What also or tho great Vatican library, which is one or the most important in the world, and to which even "Rationalists" have access. The great works promoted and fostered under the maternal care of the Church: are so numerous that, many col- ! umns of your paper could be filled with the mere enumeration of them. But let me correct some of the historical inuccurjvcies which "Observer" has set t before us. In dealing with Copernicus ho leads us to believe that the Catholic Church discouraged the efforts of this brilliant luminary of the astronomical I world. On the contrary, in the year 1500 Copernicus was already professor in the Pope's University, and was en-K-ased.in giving lectures to more than ; 2000 pupils. During his sojourn in ! Rome he enjoyed the friendship and confidence of the highest dignitaries of the Church, and was granted a pension by the Church >>n his return to Germany. It was Cardinal Schombero; who undertook the entire expense of the publication of this great work. No wonder, then, that the great work should have on its title-page a tender and grateful dedication to the reigning Pontiff Paul 111. The date on which tho work was "forbidden" by the congregation of the Index was sth of March, 1610, and not »sth of March, 1010, as "Observer" fn'ves it. The work was not. as "Observer" says, "condemned/ but "forbidden" only until corrected. For confirmation of my statements I would refer "Observer" to the* following: "Conernicus in Popular ■fk-ienoa Monthly" ( New York, June, 19.00, Costard, "History of Astrbn-

omy," London, 1767; Narrien, "Historical Account," etc. (London, 1833); Rothman, "History of Astronomy" in "Library of Useful Knowledge" (1884). With regard to .Bruno, he was not condemned at all for teaching the Copernican system. I notice that Mr "Observer" lias the questionable habit of giving us long extracts in inverted commas without quoting his authorities. Is he ashamed of them? For full and correct history of Bruno 1 can only refer "Observer" to Friths "Life of Giordano Bruno" (London and Boston, 1887), Adamson in "Development of Modern Philosophy," Hoffding's "History of Modern Philosophy (tr. Meyer) (London, 1900). "Observer" foolishly tries to make us believe that the learned Jesuit scientist, Father Wassman, is now advocating the Darwinian theory. The absurdity of this will be understood when we know that all scientists of standing have discarded the exploded Dwarinian theory, and it is no longer put forward in first-class scientific quarters.—l am, etc., CIVIS ROMANUS.

(A letter by F. D. Gaffaney, received yesterday, and which is crowded ou,t of this issue, will appear to-morrow. This will close the correspondence.— Ed. Chronicle.)