35
geology. (It, too, was soon to be scientifically outdated; in some places it already
was so when it was published.)
This separation papered over, but did not eliminate, the underlying problem of
the “gap” between scientific and theological discourse, reinforced by Roothaan’s
decision to support both science and an adherence to the Thomistic doctrine in the
Ratio.
1
Metaphysics could give up speaking about natural phenomena, and scientists could scrupulously avoid using science to speak of metaphysics; each was conceived as a separate level of reality. However, the silence of scientists might denote
not only respect for the demarcation between disciplinary areas but also doubts
about the validity of the traditional discourse as a means for apologetics. When
Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio (1793–1862), first rector of the Collegio Romano after its
return to the Jesuits (1824–1829) and a decided supporter of ontology’s role in the
structure of learning, founded Civiltà Cattolica in 1850 as a tool for a Thomistic
restoration of the whole of knowledge, his immediate target was the partial marginalization of metaphysics and the reception of “neoteriche” (avant-garde) theses in
the philosophical teaching of the Roman College. The diverging reactions of those
college’s philosophers who shared his orientation from those of scientists clearly
showed that they felt the demarcation ran deeper than a mere convention for teaching purposes.
2.8 Secchi and the Scientific Tradition of the Society
Secchi was able to contribute to the advanced science of his times precisely because
certain philosophical constraints in ontology, cosmology, physics, and epistemology that historically were intrinsic to the Society had been moved into a different
area of discourse. If, however, the transformation of knowledge had been so profound as to pose problems of irreducibility or “immeasurability” between the former and the latter, and given that Secchi’s teachers in the individual disciplines had
been trained in schools with programs and epistemologies quite distinct from the
historical ones of the Society, a final question should be asked: If “tradition” means
more than just a biographical or educational connection with other members of the
order, in what sense can one say that Secchi fit into the scientific tradition of the
Society of Jesus?
Secchi’s most distinctive accomplishment as a scientist, the original combination
of physical and astronomical research, appears to be quite untraditional almost by
definition. In the Society of Jesus, physics and astronomy, and those who pursued
them, had always been separate, and still were at least partially during the years of
his studies. The scientific culture in which he was educated, apart from basic
mathematics and doctrines such as Newtonian dynamics, was immersed in ideas
1 “Sequantur nostri omnino in scholastica theologia doctrinam S. Thomae, eumque ut doctorem
proprium habeant”: [Overall, Ours follow the teachings of Saint Thomas in scholastic theology,
and regard him as their own teacher.] Ratio atque institutio studiorum Societatis Jesu 1832,
op. cit., p. 44.
2 The Scientific Tradition of the Society of Jesus and the Formation of Angelo Secchi
geology. (It, too, was soon to be scientifically outdated; in some places it already
was so when it was published.)
This separation papered over, but did not eliminate, the underlying problem of
the “gap” between scientific and theological discourse, reinforced by Roothaan’s
decision to support both science and an adherence to the Thomistic doctrine in the
Ratio.
1
Metaphysics could give up speaking about natural phenomena, and scientists could scrupulously avoid using science to speak of metaphysics; each was conceived as a separate level of reality. However, the silence of scientists might denote
not only respect for the demarcation between disciplinary areas but also doubts
about the validity of the traditional discourse as a means for apologetics. When
Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio (1793–1862), first rector of the Collegio Romano after its
return to the Jesuits (1824–1829) and a decided supporter of ontology’s role in the
structure of learning, founded Civiltà Cattolica in 1850 as a tool for a Thomistic
restoration of the whole of knowledge, his immediate target was the partial marginalization of metaphysics and the reception of “neoteriche” (avant-garde) theses in
the philosophical teaching of the Roman College. The diverging reactions of those
college’s philosophers who shared his orientation from those of scientists clearly
showed that they felt the demarcation ran deeper than a mere convention for teaching purposes.
2.8 Secchi and the Scientific Tradition of the Society
Secchi was able to contribute to the advanced science of his times precisely because
certain philosophical constraints in ontology, cosmology, physics, and epistemology that historically were intrinsic to the Society had been moved into a different
area of discourse. If, however, the transformation of knowledge had been so profound as to pose problems of irreducibility or “immeasurability” between the former and the latter, and given that Secchi’s teachers in the individual disciplines had
been trained in schools with programs and epistemologies quite distinct from the
historical ones of the Society, a final question should be asked: If “tradition” means
more than just a biographical or educational connection with other members of the
order, in what sense can one say that Secchi fit into the scientific tradition of the
Society of Jesus?
Secchi’s most distinctive accomplishment as a scientist, the original combination
of physical and astronomical research, appears to be quite untraditional almost by
definition. In the Society of Jesus, physics and astronomy, and those who pursued
them, had always been separate, and still were at least partially during the years of
his studies. The scientific culture in which he was educated, apart from basic
mathematics and doctrines such as Newtonian dynamics, was immersed in ideas
1 “Sequantur nostri omnino in scholastica theologia doctrinam S. Thomae, eumque ut doctorem
proprium habeant”: [Overall, Ours follow the teachings of Saint Thomas in scholastic theology,
and regard him as their own teacher.] Ratio atque institutio studiorum Societatis Jesu 1832,
op. cit., p. 44.
2 The Scientific Tradition of the Society of Jesus and the Formation of Angelo Secchi