THE POPES AND MEDICAL SCIENCE

New Zealand Tablet, 16 January 1913, Page 23

THE POPES AND MEDICAL SCIENCE

AN ANCIENT CALUMNY REFUTED The British Medical Journal in the course of a leading article on the new book, The Popes and Science, by Dr. James J. Walsh, of Fordham University, New York, says: There is a widespread belief, still generally accepted even by educated people, that the Church of Rome has always been opposed to the study of medicine, and that the supposed neglect of scientific research during the centuries which preceded the Reformation was entirely due to the ignorance and bigotry of medieval Churchmen. To refute this accusation that stout ‘ defender of the faith/ Dr. James J. Walsh, has published his striking-series of essays entitled The Popes and Science; and to those who still cling fondly to an exploded myth this most interesting and original book will .probably be something in the nature of a bombshell. It was high time that someone took up the cudgels in defence of the principal, and in many cases the only, patrons of learning during the Middle Ages; and Dr. Walsh produces a vast and solid array of evidence to show the unhistorical character of the old legends of the suppression of science by the monks. The origin of these legends is easily explained by the hostile attitude adopted by many of the early Reformers, who lost no opportunity of blackening the fair fame of the Church they had left their reckless accusations have been taken in all seriousness by those who came after them. Hence arose a mass of false tradition; and, as Dr. Walsh truly remarks, it is to ‘ this unfortunate state of affairs, and

not real opposition on the. part of the Popes to science,’, that we owe the persistent belief in-' the supposed opposition between the Church and science.’ How groundless this belief is may be seen from the most cursory survey of Papal history. Par from suppressing knowledge, the Popes fostered it by every means within their power; and the enlightened interest displayed by them ,in everything appertaining to the art of healing is proved by the fact that for centuries Italy offered unrivalled opportunities for the study of science in all its branches, and medical students from every part , of Europe flocked across the Alps to enjoy the freedom and educational advantages they could not hope to obtain at home. Dissection, generally supposed to be under the ban of the Church, was more practised in Italy than in any other country in Europe, and, says Dr. Walsh, the nearer to Rome the medical schools were, the more dissection was done in them.’ . It was most common of all in Rome itself, and the famous Bull of Pope Boniface VIII., far from forbidding dissection, as has so often been maintained, is here shown to have no bearing whatever upon the practice of cutting up the human body for anatomical purposes. As a matter of fact, it was directed solely against the popular but eminently unhygienic custom of boiling the bodies of dead Crusaders in order that the bones might be carried back from the Holy Land and buried at home.* .Pope Boniface surely merits praise rather than blame for his prompt recognition of what might have proved a menace to the . public health. This care for the temporal as well as the spiritual welfare -of those under their care was displayed by many, other Pontiffs besides Boniface VIII.; and it is a significant fact that the first city hospital in the whole of Christendom wjis founded in Rome by one of the Popes, whilst the modern hospital system owes its being to the practical charity of the same man, the famous Innocent 111. But this interest in manifested by so many of the Roman Pontiffs, ceases to be surprising when we remember what Dr. Walsh calls 'the most striking feature of the relation of the Popes to medicine.’

‘ It they really were the bitter opponents of things medical . . . then we should expect that either there were no such officials as Papal physicians, or else that the men who occupied these posts were the veriest charlatans, who knew very little of medicine, and certainly did nothing to develop, it. As a matter of fact, there is no list of physicians connected by any common bond in history who are so gloriously representative of scientific progress in medicine as the Papal physicians. The faculty of no medical school presents such a list of great names as those of the men who were chosen to be the official medical attendants of the Popes, and who were thus given a position of prominence whilst their discoveries in medicine had a vogue they otherwise could not have attained.’

With great justice? he continues: — ‘Could the Popes possibly have done anything more than thisjior medicine, or shown their interest in its progress, or made people realise better, that while prayer might bo of service, every possible human means must be taken to secure, maintain, and recover health? V

‘ The close connection which existed for centuries between science and the Papacy was no doubt partly due to the fact that, universities being ecclesiastical institutions, most of the teachers and nearly all of the students were clerics, whose scientific attainments, it is -worth noting, did not prevent many of them from reaching high preferment in the Church and enjoying the friendship of Popes and Cardinals. Two of the medieval Popes, Sylvester 11. and Victor 111., had distinguished themselves, before their elevation to the Papal throne, by their knowledge of science, including medicine, whilst the author of a remarkable little 'book on diseases of the eye, Peter of Spain, one of the most distinguished physicians and scientists of the thirteenth century, ended his days as Pope John XXI. These facts alone should be sufficient to prove the fallacy of tile popular belief in. the systematic persecution of science by the medieval Church, and Dr. Walsh deserves the gratitude of .all historians for his fearless exposition of an ancient and groundless calumny.’