"Evolution and dogma: the erroneous information of an Englishman", he insisted once again that the books of Zahm and the French Dominican Dalmace Leroy had been condemned by the authority of "the Supreme Tribunal of the Holy See". He conceded that there had been no "public act" rejecting the evolutionary origin of the human body but this was only because "the Holy See, for the best of reasons, had not believed it opportune". (In fact, the Holy Office had not at any time become involved in the debate. The condemnation of the two books was the responsibility of the Congregation of the Index, whose authority extended only to the prohibition of books, not to the condemnation of specific doctrines.)

 

The significance of all this is that Brandi's two articles in Civiltà became a major source later for Catholic theologians who disseminated the view that the doctrine of evolution itself had been condemned by the Holy See. And it (almost) all began with a review in The Tablet ...

The story may be found in Negotiating Darwin. The opening in 1998 of the files of the Holy Office and the Index Congregations for this period gave these authors access to a trove of documents hitherto off limits to historians. They focus on six episodes in the second half of the nineteenth century when books or articles favouring evolution attracted unfavourable notice from the Roman authorities. And they note that when the English Catholic scientist St George Mivart published On the Genesis of Species in 1871, no one appears to have denounced it to Rome. On the contrary, Pope Pius IX conferred an honorary doctorate in philosophy on Mivart in 1876. Yet Mivart not only treated evolution more or less as given but quite explicitly proposed an evolutionary account of the origin of the human body, the claim most disputed by theologians. (Mivart later did fall foul of the Congregation of the Index, but for some articles questioning the eternity of hell, not for his views on evolution.)

La Civiltà Cattolica was led at this point to inaugurate a whole series of articles denouncing evolution in no uncertain terms. In the 1890s, this wholesale rejection of evolution on theological as well as scientific grounds was challenged by two widely publicised works, Leroy's in France and Zahm's in the United States. Leroy set out to show that the theory of evolution did not have the materialist and atheist consequences that some of its protagonists claimed for it. On the origin of Adam's body, he deferred to tradition. But for all other species, evolution could be seen as the mode of action chosen by the Creator. The decision was in the end to prohibit the book, to require Leroy to retract (which he did), but not to add the book to the published Index.

The Zahm case followed an even more convoluted path. Zahm had many prominent allies in Rome from his time there as procurator-general of his order but on the other hand, he had rendered himself vulnerable by claiming Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas as precursors of the theory of evolution. But most important was the outbreak in Rome and America of what came to be called the "Americanist" controversy. The "liberals" (among them Zahm) advocated a closer rapprochement between the Church and the modern world; the conservatives" sternly rejected this trend as destructive of Church tradition.

Once again, the debate within the Congregation was a long-drawn-out affair. In the end, it was decided to prohibit the book, require a retraction and publish the decree of prohibition once the retraction was received (which it never was). After agitated negotiations behind the scenes, the Pope himself, Leo XIII, intervened and instructed that the decree not be published.

What is evident from the reactions of the Roman theologians over this period is their conviction that the account in Genesis of the origin of Adam and Eve could not be superseded by an evolutionary alternative. Most were also convinced that the theory of evolution itself had to be rejected. It should be remembered, however, that the decade of the 1890s saw a loss of confidence in the credentials of the Darwinian hypothesis even among scientists themselves. This encouraged theologians to fall back on the exegetical principle that had played such a crucial role in the Galileo affair long before: when Scripture and science seem to conflict, one should depart from the literal reading of Scripture only when the "scientific" alternative is clearly shown to be true.

The most striking aspect of the story told here is that the Roman authorities displayed such caution. The Holy Office was never actively involved. Only one book was added to the Index and the reason for its prohibition was never made explicit. There was no move to dub Darwinism heretical or to announce that the evolutionary account of the origin of the first man was contrary to the faith. It would appear that there was a real reluctance on the part of wiser heads in Rome not to commit the Church publicly once more on a scientific issue in a way it might later have cause to regret.

Thanks to this book, we know that the name of Galileo came up in discussions (one might even speak of a "Galileo effect"). Might one hope that Galileo will not be forgotten when apparent conflicts arise once more?