l. The comet in due time disappeared, and the faithful were
comforted by the assurance that, as in previous instances relating to
eclipses, droughts, and rains, so also as regards this 'nefarious'
comet, victory had been vouchsafed to the Church.

Both Pythagoras and Copernicus had taught the heliocentric
doctrine--that the earth revolves round the sun. In the exercise of
her right to determine what true science is, the Church, in the
Pontificate of Paul V, stepped in, and by the mouth of the holy
Congregation of the Index, delivered, on March 5, 1616, the following
decree:

And whereas it hath also come to the knowledge of the said holy
congregation that the false Pythagorean doctrine of the mobility of
the earth and the immobility of the sun, entirely opposed to Holy
writ, which is taught by Nicolas Copernicus, is now published abroad
and received by many. In order that this opinion may not further
spread, to the damage of Catholic truth, it is ordered that this and
all other books teaching the like doctrine be suspended, and by this
decree they are all respectively suspended, forbidden, and condemned.

But why go back to 1456 and 1616? Far be it from me to charge bygone
sins upon Monsignor Capel, were it not for the practices he upholds
to-day. The most applauded dogmatist and champion of the Jesuits is,
I am informed, Perrone. No less than thirty editions of a work of his
have been scattered abroad for the healing of the nations. His
notions of physical astronomy are virtually those of 1456. He teaches
boldly that 'God does not rule by universal law... that when God
orders a given planet to stand still He does not detract from any law
passed by Himself, but orders that planet to move round the sun for
such and such a time, then to stand still, and then again to move, as
His pleasure may be.' Jesuitism proscribed Frohschammer for
questioning its favourite dogma, that every human soul was created by
a direct supernatural act of God, and for asserting that man, body and
soul, came from his parents. This is the system that now strives for
universal power; it is from it, as Monsignor Capel graciously informs
us, that we are to learn what is allowable in science, and what is
not!

In the face of such facts, which might be multiplied at will, it
requires extraordinary bravery of mind, or a reliance upon public
ignorance almost as extraordinary, to make the claims made by
Monsignor Capel for his Church.

Bef