Irish Catholicism and Science: From "Godless Colleges" to the Celtic Tiger

4. Commissions of Enquiry, 1901–1907

81 4. Commissions of Enquiry, 1901–1907 Restraining the Scientists The setting up of the Royal University had not satisfied Catholic demands for a satisfactory system of university education. On 1 July 1901 the Conservative government of Lord Salisbury (Robert Gascoyne Cecil) established the Royal Commission on University Education in Ireland under the chairmanship of Lord Robertson (James Patrick Bannerman). It was set up to put forward proposals on university education but its terms of reference explicitly excluded Trinity College Dublin. Edward Thomas O’Dwyer, Bishop of Limerick, gave oral evidence to the commission from 19 September to 21 September 1901. He informed the commission that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland had rejected the Queen’s Colleges ‘not because there would be secular Science taught there with an insufficient amount of Catholic doctrine’, but that ‘there was no security that the secular Science would be taught without infringing Catholic doctrine’.1 The concerns of the hierarchy about protecting the faith of Catholic students in colleges of higher education in Ireland raised the question of upholding intellectual freedom so essential for maintaining and promoting high academic standards. O’Dwyer’s attention was directed to a point made by Cardinal Newman in one of his lectures that professors of the physical sciences had the right to freely teach their subjects without interference from those motivated by theological considerations provided that the science professors kept within the boundaries of their discipline. O’Dwyer agreed with this in principle and played down the probability that any conflict would occur between theology and science. The church had very little to say about mathematics or the physical sciences. Indeed a man would have to be ‘very originallyminded ’ if he was to find conflict between Catholic doctrine and mathematics or the physical sciences.2 82 Irish Catholicism and Science O’Dwyer emphasised the importance of distinguishing between hypotheses and ascertained facts, and stressed the need to correctly identify and respect disciplinary boundaries. If these conditions were maintained then there would be no need for the church to seek the imposition of restrictions. The bishop referred to Thomas Henry Huxley, whom he acknowledged as an eminent biologist. There would have been no problem with Huxley teaching biology to Catholic students – if he confined himself strictly to that subject. But scientists sometimes ventured beyond their discipline to take on the role of philosophers. O’Dwyer would have let Huxley ‘go on as long as his Science did not come in collision with Revelation’. If Huxley had challenged doctrines about revelation or denied the supernatural in his lectures then O’Dwyer, if he had the power, would have taken action to prevent a recurrence.3 The defence of theology on the basis of strict adherence to one’s disciplinary domain was sustainable to some extent. Biologists, speaking only within the professional competence of their discipline, could not say anything meaningful about revelation or the supernatural. But enquiring minds did not so rigidly compartmentalise theology, philosophy and the sciences when addressing important questions of natural history. The implications of scientific theories for theology could not be simply ignored by constructing strictly defined impermeable boundaries between academic disciplines. This was acknowledged by O’Dwyer. He told the commission that the Catholic ideal of education was that religious and secular knowledge could not be separated. It was impossible to teach secular knowledge without it impacting on religious issues in some way.4 Therefore, in Catholic colleges the appropriate interdisciplinary connections would be made – but not by infidels such as Huxley. Some branches of science were not sources of worry for those concerned with the education of Catholics. William Delany, a Jesuit priest and president of University College Dublin, told the Robertson Commission that subjects such as electrical engineering, applied mathematics , and mathematics did not present any problems for adherence to Catholic doctrine. But biology and geology were in a different category – requiring vigilance – because it was in these subjects in particular that scientists tended to stray beyond their disciplinary boundaries and express opinions about the implications of their dicipline for religious doctrines.5 Delany gave an example of how this might occur. A professor might tell his students, on the basis of scientific evidence, that the Earth was 300,000 years old – much older than the several thousand years 4. Commissions of Enquiry, 1901–1907 83 indicated by a literal reading of...