Catholic Scientists

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CutlerB

Guest
As is often the case with others too, I was told “The Catholic Church is against science” by a friend. I told him that this was simply not the case, that she encouraged science, and that there had been many leading scientists who were Catholics and even priests.

He then came back and said “Well, not really. In those times, people were raised to and made to become a priest. That was just a coincidence, so they were rather scientists than religious people.”

Could you name important Catholic scientists and what they accomplished and respond to the above assertion? Thanks 🙂
 
Funny,
I just posted the following in a different thread:
St. Albert the Great - DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (EWTN) (click here)
Feast: November 15

Information:
Click to expand...
Feast Day: November 15
Born: 1206, Lauingen, Bavaria
Died: November 15, 1280, Cologne, Holy Roman Empire
Canonized: 1931 by Pius XI
Major Shrine: St. Andreas in Cologne
Patron of: medical technicians; natural sciences; philosophers; scientists; students

He was known as the “teacher of everything there is to know,” was a scientist long before the age of science, was considered a wizard and magician in his own lifetime, and became the teacher and mentor of that other remarkable mind of his time, St. Thomas Aquinas.(…)
Click to expand...
And our current Pontiff was a Chemist

Let’s see, I’m not famous; however, I am also a Chemist by trade…

Here’s an article that should give you a sound footing with this too, and it has at least 20 references sourced in the footer!
(click on the link at the top of the quote to goto the rest of the document)
The Church Opposes Science: The Myth of Catholic Irrationality (Click Here)
(…) Historically, Catholics are numbered among the most important scientists of all time, including Rene Descartes, who discovered analytic geometry and the laws of refraction; Blaise Pascal, inventor of the adding machine, hydraulic press, and the mathematical theory of probabilities; Augustinian priest Gregor Mendel, who founded modern genetics; Louis Pasteur, founder of microbiology and creator of the first vaccine for rabies and anthrax; and cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, who first developed scientifically the view that the earth rotated around the sun. Jesuit priests in particular have a long history of scientific achievement; they (…)
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps your friend would be interested in THIS or THIS place. He could maybe write to the folks who work there and ask if they are Catholic OR scientists…

He might also find THIS MAN to be an interesting study…
If the Church is against science…How is it that this man, a Catholic priest…was permitted to publish what became known as the “Big Bang” theory?

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
He might also find THIS MAN to be an interesting study…
If the Church is against science…How is it that this man, a Catholic priest…was permitted to publish what became known as the “Big Bang” theory?

Peace
James
Click to expand...
This is always my first argument when I come into contact with people who make the claim that the Church and science are somehow incompatible. Everytime, this argument is enough to convince them that they were wrong.
 
And in addition to the above, let’s not forget Belgian priest Georges Lemaître, who was the first person to propose the Big Bang theory. Or Gregor Mendel, the Augustinian friar who founded the modern science of genetics. 👍

To the OP: aside from enumerating the many Catholics who were/are scientists, I would ask your friend what he meant by “in those times”. Which times? I’ll grant that becoming a priest has been far more common and encouraged in the past than it is today (with the possible exception of the Reformation and Enlightenment Periods, respectively), but there’s never been a specific time period where men were “raised and made” to become priests; it’s a vocation, not a kind of father-to-son occupation. Thus, you can also tell your friend that the priests (and monks, clerics, etc. as well as the Catholic laywomen) who were/are also scientists is not something coincidental, but intentional.

I don’t claim to be very knowledgeable on the subject, however, so I hope someone more well-read than I will come along to elaborate further. :o
 
Yeah, ignoring our current Pontiff with a degree in Chemistry, I can think of two good examples:
  1. Msgr. Georges Lemaître, Big Bang theory.
  2. Gregor Mendel, father of genetics. He was a monk in the 1800s, when I think is recent enough to bypass his claim that being religious was a coincidence.
As a side note, I actually know a priest who worked at Fermi Lab.
 
My response would be “prove it”. Which of course he canot do. He is simply making unfounded assertions about these men.
 
The Catholic Church is as much against science as she is against reason. :whacky:

Here is a quote from Blessed John Paul II encyclical “Fides et Ratio”:

“Finally, I cannot fail to address a word to scientists, whose research offers an ever greater knowledge of the universe as a whole and of the incredibly rich array of its component parts, animate and inanimate, with their complex atomic and molecular structures. So far has science come, especially in this century, that its achievements never cease to amaze us. In expressing my admiration and in offering encouragement to these brave pioneers of scientific research, to whom humanity owes so much of its current development, I would urge them to continue their efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person. Scientists are well aware that “the search for truth, even when it concerns a finite reality of the world or of man, is never-ending, but always points beyond to something higher than the immediate object of study, to the questions which give access to Mystery”.”
 
Bradys_Dad said:
The Catholic Church is as much against science as she is against reason. :whacky:

Here is a quote from Blessed John Paul II encyclical “Fides et Ratio”:

“Finally, I cannot fail to address a word to scientists, whose research offers an ever greater knowledge of the universe as a whole and of the incredibly rich array of its component parts, animate and inanimate, with their complex atomic and molecular structures. So far has science come, especially in this century, that its achievements never cease to amaze us. In expressing my admiration and in offering encouragement to these brave pioneers of scientific research, to whom humanity owes so much of its current development, I would urge them to continue their efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person. Scientists are well aware that “the search for truth, even when it concerns a finite reality of the world or of man, is never-ending, but always points beyond to something higher than the immediate object of study, to the questions which give access to Mystery”.”
Click to expand...
I am Brady’s dad :eek:
 
I’ll just drop this anecdote right here…

More than a century ago a proud university student boarded a train in France and sat next to an older man who seemed to be a peasant of comfortable means. The brash student noticed that the older gentleman was slipping beads through his fingers. He was praying the rosary.

“Sir, do you still believe in such outdated things?”, the student inquired.

“Yes, I do. Don’t you?” the man responded. The student laughed and admitted, “I do not believe in such silly things. Take my advice. Throw the rosary out the window, and learn what science has to say about it.”

“Science? I do not understand this science. Perhaps you can explain it to me,” the man said humbly, tears welling in his eyes.

The university student noticed that the man was deeply moved. To avoid hurting further the older person’s feelings, he said, “Please give me your address and I will send you some literature to explain the matter to you.” The man fumbled in the inside pocket of his coat and pulled out his business card. On reading the card, the student lowered his head in shame and was speechless. The card read: “Louis Pasteur, Director of the Institute of Scientific Research, Paris.” The deluded science student encountered his country’s leading chemist and bacteriologist.

I don’t know the veracity of the above story, but many men of science were/are also men of faith.

"One of the most amazing deceptive practices relating to science has been the successful concealment, by the managers of science and science teaching, of the strong religious component shared by many of the greatest names in science:

Copernicus, Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin and many more. Even Galileo had no doubt about his faith in God… Newton’s Principia is unambiguous on this matter, saying “He must be blind who…cannot see the infinite wisdom and goodness of [the] Almighty Creator and he must be mad, or senseless, who refused to acknowledge [Him].”

source: johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/
 
CutlerB said:
(SNIP)

He then came back and said “Well, not really. In those times, people were raised to and made to become a priest. That was just a coincidence, so they were rather scientists than religious people.”
…
Click to expand...
VoiceofTruth said:
(SNIP)

To the OP: aside from enumerating the many Catholics who were/are scientists, I would ask your friend what he meant by “in those times”. Which times? I’ll grant that becoming a priest has been far more common and encouraged in the past than it is today (with the possible exception of the Reformation and Enlightenment Periods, respectively), but there’s never been a specific time period where men were “raised and made” to become priests; it’s a vocation, not a kind of father-to-son occupation. Thus, you can also tell your friend that the priests (and monks, clerics, etc. as well as the Catholic laywomen) who were/are also scientists is not something coincidental, but intentional.

I don’t claim to be very knowledgeable on the subject, however, so I hope someone more well-read than I will come along to elaborate further. :o
Click to expand...
With regards to “in those times”…Like you, I am not terribly knowledgeable on these matters but -

I believe that in centuries past - especially when the Church was much more politically active - there would be a desire, and even a practice, especially among more well to do families to dedicate at least one of their sons to the Church…Such a child would be trained from a young age to embrace the religious life in some manner.
Likewise if a child was seen to be particularly pious at a young age, he might be taken “under the wing” of a parish priest or religious order and raised up to become a religious.
Then too - orphanages were generally run by a religious order and again…children raised in such environments and who present with certain qualities would be singled out for training as a religious.

So - to an extent - “in past times” some WERE raised up to become priests or religious…and also, those who were in such vocations were often not just parish priests, but were teachers, professors, philosophers, researchers, scientists, politicians, diplomats and many other “trades” (vintners, bakers, etc.) in addition to being a member of a religious order.

Now I am not aware of anyone being “forced” to be a priest…though by today’s thinking one might say that taking a 10 or 11 year old child and “training them up” for this career path was “forcing” them…🤷

If I am grossly off base in any of the above…I hope someone will offer correction.

But - after all of that is said…the argument as put forth in the OP is so full of holes that it is easily refutable without resorting to this matter.

Peace
James
 
Thank you, James, for correcting me on this matter. I was not aware that such a practice had been applied in the past. While it does seem wrong, especially from our modern perspective, to “force” boys to become priests in addition to whatever other occupation they could pursue, I’m sure that at least in some of the cases they could decide not to join the priesthood. And for those who were, it was wrong indeed, but also not the worst thing that could happen to a man, IMO. Anyway, I agree with you that this is unnecessary to use to refute the friend’s claim.
 
VoiceofTruth said:
Thank you, James, for correcting me on this matter. I was not aware that such a practice had been applied in the past. While it does seem wrong, especially from our modern perspective, to “force” boys to become priests in addition to whatever other occupation they could pursue, I’m sure that at least in some of the cases they could decide not to join the priesthood. And for those who were, it was wrong indeed, but also not the worst thing that could happen to a man, IMO. Anyway, I agree with you that this is unnecessary to use to refute the friend’s claim.
Click to expand...
No problem…and as I say - I might be mistaken on some of this.

When looking at such practices the economies and the culture of the times needs to be considered.
In the case of a well to do family, the oldest male would stand to inherit the family fortune and any younger male children would receive lesser inheritances. If one (or more) of these younger boys entered the priesthood, not only could they have a good career but it could even turn out to be politically advantageous for the son and the family.
Not the best reason to become a priest…but there you are…

For others - children of less well to do families and orphans…It was normal for boys as young as 8 or 10 to be put into apprenticeships. Thus, from a very early age a young mans career path was already set.
It certainly doesn’t require any real imagination to think that - if a young boy could be apprenticed to a cobbler, a blacksmith or a tailor - there is no reason that a boy of that age could not be “apprenticed” to the Church to be trained, just as other boys were being trained, in a specific field of work.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
No problem…and as I say - I might be mistaken on some of this.

When looking at such practices the economies and the culture of the times needs to be considered.
In the case of a well to do family, the oldest male would stand to inherit the family fortune and any younger male children would receive lesser inheritances. If one (or more) of these younger boys entered the priesthood, not only could they have a good career but it could even turn out to be politically advantageous for the son and the family.
Not the best reason to become a priest…but there you are…

For others - children of less well to do families and orphans…It was normal for boys as young as 8 or 10 to be put into apprenticeships. Thus, from a very early age a young mans career path was already set.
It certainly doesn’t require any real imagination to think that - if a young boy could be apprenticed to a cobbler, a blacksmith or a tailor - there is no reason that a boy of that age could not be “apprenticed” to the Church to be trained, just as other boys were being trained, in a specific field of work.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Makes perfect sense. Indeed, it’s not the best reason to become a priest, but it’s understandable in that kind of context.

And now, carry on, everyone! I didn’t mean to hijack the thread… 😊
 
Alessandro Volta was Catholic, as was André-Marie Ampère. Georg Ohm (for whom Ohm’s law was named) was a Protestant; however the two other “legs” of this famous “stool” were Catholic.

Many of the great scientists of yesteryear were Christian, although I don’t have at hand which were specifically Catholic vs which others were Protestant. If you focus specifically on scientists who were Irish, French, Italian, Austrian, Polish, etc you are likely to come up with some more Catholics. If you focus on English, Scottish, German, American, etc you are likely to come up with a lot of non-Catholic Christians. There were also of course many great Jewish scientists, and many non-believers and atheists, and adherents of other religions as well.
 
There is the Vatican Observatory that has helped contribute to astronomy.
A Jesuit priest created the big Bang theory
Gregor Mendel founder of genetics.

Thomas Aquinas and Roger Bacon both religious life creates the scientific method
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top