56
Secchi’s reflections are part of that tradition of natural theology that developed
mainly in the eighteenth century but without succumbing to the temptations of concordism and Physico-theology. Secchi’s path is that of a spontaneous philosophy.
From the observation of nature one can deduce the existence of the Creator: as the
cause that has drawn all things from nothing, giving them being, but also as
Intelligence responsible for the existence and coordination of the laws of nature. If
it is true that in the universe everything depends on matter and motion, it is also true
that matter and motion do not have the ultimate cause for their being and behaving
in themselves. Secchi affirms that God’s creative act is continuous and transcendent.
It is not limited to calling things into existence; creation and conservation in being
are the same act. The causality of God the Creator transcends the level of natural
causes, but makes those causes possible, just as an artist transcends the level of
mechanical causes that give rise to his work, a work, however, also present in his
mind (Secchi 1874: vol. 2, 369–380).
We know that Secchi’s scientific vision, based on a physics that was progressively understanding the structure and forces of matter, caused incomprehension
amongst those ecclesiastics who were not familiar with science. Secchi was charged
with atheism for his use of the atomic theory of elements (Chinnici 2019: 262-267).
A pamphlet authored by some traditionalist Catholics asked the Fathers of Vatican
Council I to close the Observatory of the Roman College, because they thought it
was a place dangerously prone to atheism (Altamore and Lay 2012: 291).
From 1870 onwards, this incomprehension became more acute. Secchi was challenged from opposite fronts: on the one hand, some Roman clergymen considered
Secchi a sort of betrayer, a collaborator with the Italian government, and a supporter
of modernism; on the other, anticlerical representatives of the scientific environment categorized him as a “retrograde priest.” Moreover, some politicians praised
Secchi as a free thinker, as Giovanni Bovio (1837–1903) did, who in a public speech
to the Chamber in January 1877 presented Secchi as an example of autonomy from
religious authority.
The Jesuit astronomer had to clarify his position. Writing a clear letter to the
Osservatore Romano’s director, he reaffirmed his fidelity to the Church (Viganò
1979: 451). In his reply to Bovio, we read:
While some see in my writings incredulity and atheism, others see exalted, instead, a theology that falsifies physics to support the Bible... Some complain of not finding in my writings the discoveries they were waiting for; others do not find there the physics of Thomas
Aquinas. To the latter complainants I will only say that physics certainly has progressed
since Aquinas, and that if St. Thomas lived in our time he would not have adopted the physics he adopted at his time, but would have taken the one now in use in the schools of our
time... However, notwithstanding its progress, science has not succeeded in denying God;
those who hoped that science would come to affirm this that have not achieved such a result,
nor will their successors ever achieve it (APUG 1877: 23, I, 5).
From Secchi’s letters we know that he also confided to Giovanni Virginio
Schiaparelli, a Catholic scientist and director of the Brera Observatory, some of the
misunderstandings he was experiencing (Buffoni et al. 1991) (Fig. 3.2).
G. Tanzella-Nitti
Secchi’s reflections are part of that tradition of natural theology that developed
mainly in the eighteenth century but without succumbing to the temptations of concordism and Physico-theology. Secchi’s path is that of a spontaneous philosophy.
From the observation of nature one can deduce the existence of the Creator: as the
cause that has drawn all things from nothing, giving them being, but also as
Intelligence responsible for the existence and coordination of the laws of nature. If
it is true that in the universe everything depends on matter and motion, it is also true
that matter and motion do not have the ultimate cause for their being and behaving
in themselves. Secchi affirms that God’s creative act is continuous and transcendent.
It is not limited to calling things into existence; creation and conservation in being
are the same act. The causality of God the Creator transcends the level of natural
causes, but makes those causes possible, just as an artist transcends the level of
mechanical causes that give rise to his work, a work, however, also present in his
mind (Secchi 1874: vol. 2, 369–380).
We know that Secchi’s scientific vision, based on a physics that was progressively understanding the structure and forces of matter, caused incomprehension
amongst those ecclesiastics who were not familiar with science. Secchi was charged
with atheism for his use of the atomic theory of elements (Chinnici 2019: 262-267).
A pamphlet authored by some traditionalist Catholics asked the Fathers of Vatican
Council I to close the Observatory of the Roman College, because they thought it
was a place dangerously prone to atheism (Altamore and Lay 2012: 291).
From 1870 onwards, this incomprehension became more acute. Secchi was challenged from opposite fronts: on the one hand, some Roman clergymen considered
Secchi a sort of betrayer, a collaborator with the Italian government, and a supporter
of modernism; on the other, anticlerical representatives of the scientific environment categorized him as a “retrograde priest.” Moreover, some politicians praised
Secchi as a free thinker, as Giovanni Bovio (1837–1903) did, who in a public speech
to the Chamber in January 1877 presented Secchi as an example of autonomy from
religious authority.
The Jesuit astronomer had to clarify his position. Writing a clear letter to the
Osservatore Romano’s director, he reaffirmed his fidelity to the Church (Viganò
1979: 451). In his reply to Bovio, we read:
While some see in my writings incredulity and atheism, others see exalted, instead, a theology that falsifies physics to support the Bible... Some complain of not finding in my writings the discoveries they were waiting for; others do not find there the physics of Thomas
Aquinas. To the latter complainants I will only say that physics certainly has progressed
since Aquinas, and that if St. Thomas lived in our time he would not have adopted the physics he adopted at his time, but would have taken the one now in use in the schools of our
time... However, notwithstanding its progress, science has not succeeded in denying God;
those who hoped that science would come to affirm this that have not achieved such a result,
nor will their successors ever achieve it (APUG 1877: 23, I, 5).
From Secchi’s letters we know that he also confided to Giovanni Virginio
Schiaparelli, a Catholic scientist and director of the Brera Observatory, some of the
misunderstandings he was experiencing (Buffoni et al. 1991) (Fig. 3.2).
G. Tanzella-Nitti