St. George Jackson Mivart: The Pre-Modern Galileo

St. George Jackson Mivart was a man fiercely devoted to the compatibility of faith and reason, the compatibility of Catholic doctrine and physical science, and the compatibility of Divine Creation and evolutionary theory. A member of the Royal Society and a recipient of the Papal Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, St. George Jackson Mivart was a figure of tremendous academic aptitude, specifically with regard to biological sciences. Juxtaposed with Mivart’s towering intellect, though, was an equally towering Catholic faith. Thus, Mivart was a rather unique figure of the latter nineteenth century; a figure who decidedly rejected the contemporary temptation to forsake faith in favor of science, and the equal temptation to forsake science in favor of faith.

The rapid scientific developments of the mid-nineteenth century, however, spelled misfortune for figures such as Mivart. While the Church remained firm in tradition, a plethora of Her followers left Her in the midst of the rise of dogmatically contradictory science. The publication of On the Origin of Species indicates perhaps the instance at which this exodus is most concentrated. In 1859, Charles Darwin proposed the theory of natural selection: a gory, gruesome history of the origin of the Homo sapien. The ironclad scientific basis of such theories made it difficult for faithful Catholics to sympathize with the creationist belief that the Church defended as dogma. The Church, therefore, was put in a most precarious position: its ardent desire to remain modern was counterbalanced by its necessary obligation to remain true to the dogma of old. It appeared, at this point, that Catholics were separated into two categories: the first is characterized by those who would readily accept modern science that is contradictory to dogma and thus become inclined to exit the Church; the second is characterized by those whose faith would encourage them to reject the modern science as erroneous. However, there are figures who bridged the gap formed by these two categories: figures who refused to commit themselves wholly to either science or faith. St. George Jackson Mivart is one such figure.

In 1871, Mivart published On the Genesis of Species, the first full-length Catholic response to Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Through a reconciliation of evolutionary science and creationist dogma, Mivart provided a mechanism by which one could embrace both faith and science. Thus, Mivart’s disposition was defined as one that inhabited the spirit of both/and. He was an intellectual who sensibly embraced the empiricism of evolution, and he was a faithful Catholic who embraced the Hand of God at work in the creation of Homo sapiens. Unsurprisingly, Mivart’s both/and disposition invited fierce opposition from many of his ecclesiastical contemporaries, some even labeling him a heretic for proposing that Catholics may sympathize with Darwin’s science. Over the span of his life, Mivart was thus transformed from a hero of Catholic intellectuality to a fierce enemy of the Church—indeed, an accused heretic.

The transformation of Mivart from a revolutionary Catholic scientist to a target of ecclesiastical authority is deeply reminiscent of the case of Galileo Galilei. Galileo Galilei was a seventeenth-century Catholic astronomer whose publication The Sidereal Messenger invited its readers to accept the inflammatory teachings of Nicolas Copernicus that the Earth revolves around the sun; a teaching which was contradictory to the Church’s position of geocentrism. As such, Galileo was put on trial for heresy and Catholics were forbidden to read The Sidereal Messenger. Though Galileo and Mivart are figures who inhabited the spirit of both/and, and whose works bridged the pervasive gap between intellectuality and spiritually, it is irrefutable that the legacy of Galileo Galilei far outshines the legacy of St. George Jackson Mivart. Indeed, Mivart has been lost in the historical trenches, only sparingly remembered for his biological contributions. Thus, this essay intends to salvage Mivart from the wreck of history. By portraying Mivart as a modern-day Galileo, I hope to show that we ought not disregard the works, words, and spirit of St. George Jackson Mivart. Indeed, we shall raise him from the cemetery of those whom history has forgotten, uplifting him as a figure whose refusal to forsake either his intellect or his faith in favor of the other defines the spirit of both/and, a position that would eventually come to define the modern Church.

On the Genesis of Species, Mivart’s magnum opus, is recognized today as the “first book-length Catholic commentary on Darwin’s [On the Origin of Species],” which was published twelve years prior (Kemp). Appended to the predominantly scientific discussion of evolutionary theory is a forty-five-page chapter entitled “Theology and Evolution,” in which Mivart embarks to determine “whether [evolutionary theory] may have any bearing […] upon Christian belief” (On the Origin 243). Given the contemporary renown of Mivart as a fiercely religious scientist, such an appendage came as no surprise, and was indeed even invited by Catholic readers who sought guidance on the extent to which they could accept evolutionary theory in light of their faith. To determine the answer to such a paradigm-defining question, Mivart aptly distinguishes between two types of creation by God: “absolute” and “derivative creation” (253). “Absolute creation” is a “supernatural act” of God—that is, the creation by God from nothing—while “derivative creation” is the “formation [of anything] by God” through “preceding matter […] created with the potentiality to evolve” (253). This latter form of creation, therefore, reconciles the apparent conflict between the Divine creation of God and the evolution of species over time. As a result of these assertions and distinctions, Mivart concludes that “physical science and ‘evolution’ can have nothing whatsoever to do with absolute creation” and therefore that “Christian thinkers are perfectly free to accept the general evolution theory” (262).

The propositions set forth by Mivart in On the Genesis of Species are perhaps those that best define his both/and disposition toward faith and science. By refusing to subvert either his faith or his intellect, Mivart employed both in this magnificent work, extenuating Darwin’s theories and implementing the Hand of God in the workings of nature. Such a both/and disposition is hardly jarring to the modern reader; however, when considered in its contemporary intellectual and spiritual context, it was, indeed, a rather avant-garde position to inhabit. As such, it invited much ecclesiastical apprehension, as will now be analyzed.

Quite surprisingly, for the first fourteen years following the publication of Mivart’s On the Genesis of Species, no formal response was made by the Church or any of its affiliates. The Church’s silence indicated Her ambivalence toward the evolutionary issue: the Church knew it to be too dangerous to concede total assent to Mivart’s (and Darwin’s) theories but seemingly also knew of the dangers of conceding total denial. The silence of any authoritative figure within the Church was officially broken by Jeremiah Murphy C.C., a prominent Irish priest. Reverend Murphy published “Evolution and Faith,” an article that scathingly critiqued the forward-thinking ideas of Mivart with the overarching thesis that “no Catholic can admit the truth or the orthodoxy of the evolution theory as applied to man” (Murphy). With sources such as Dei Filius, a ratified Vatican Constitution, he defends the Catholic teaching that one must “assert with the most extraordinary unanimity the immediate formation of the bodies of our first parents” and says that such a requirement is, “according to the Vatican Council and Pius the Ninth, obligatory upon us” (Murphy). By citing a Vatican Council, Holy Scripture, and the words of Pope Emeritus Pius IX, Reverend Murphy directly contradicted Mivart’s thesis in On the Genesis of Species and indeed deemed it “obligatory” to accept God’s immediate creation of the human being, thereby leaving faithful Catholics no space with which to even consider a possible reconciliation between their faith and the modern science of evolution.

Furthermore, Reverend Murphy intended, in his scathing article, not only to comment upon the dogmatic issues he perceived to exist within Mivart’s theology, but also to comment upon the Church’s relationship with the developing intellectual environment of the age. Murphy accused scientists of being “blinded by excessive light” and attempting to coerce the faithful “to abandon the faith of all past ages” for, what he labeled, “the dreamings of a few would-be philosophers” (Murphy). The spirit of the church toward the ever-evolving intellectual revolution of the nineteenth-century was, then, one of contempt, one that labeled scientists “would-be philosophers” who were “dreaming” and “blinded by excessive light” (Murphy). Against a backdrop of such a polarization between the Church and modern scientists, Mivart’s both/and disposition shines more brightly. Indeed, amidst high ecclesiastical apprehension, Mivart doubled down on his position, showing ardent resolve to bridge the void between intellectuality and spirituality.

In response to the scathing critiques set forth by Murphy in “Evolution and Faith,” Mivart published “Modern Catholics and Scientific Freedom.” Riddled with historical allusion and formal indictments, Mivart provides a critique of the Church’s reception of and relationship to modern science, thereby cementing himself as a martyr, so to speak, for the compatibility between faith and science. Mivart labels ecclesiastical authority that prohibits one from contemplating modern science as “obstructive” and cites historical instances that make his current situation “only too familiar” (“Modern Catholics”). To illustrate the latter sentiment, Mivart refers primarily to the case of Galileo Galilei in the seventeenth century. Mivart introduces and expounds upon the indubitably apt comparison between himself and the figure of Galileo Galilei in an attempt to display the previous mistakes of the Church with regard to Her reception of modern science, and thus encourages Her to adopt his own sense of both/and, a sense that refuses to forthrightly reject science in favor of tradition of old.

In many respects, it is clear to see that between “the contest” of “the most competent biologists” and “theologians such as Jeremiah Murphy,” a “most instructive parallelism” can be drawn between the “ecclesiastical obstructives to evolution” and those similar obstructives to heliocentrism in the time of Galileo (“Modern Catholics”). Galileo Galilei was a famed astronomer of the early seventeenth century who promulgated numerous groundbreaking theories in his famed work Sidereal Messenger. Among them, the most well-known is his adherence to and proof of the heliocentric theory—that is, that the Earth and moon are indeed in motion and revolve around the sun, which is itself immobile (Galilei). The publication of this idea by Galileo was, like Mivart’s publication of On the Genesis of Species, incredibly instigative, as it contradicted the Catholic dogma of the time, geocentrism. Thus, like Mivart’s publication, Galileo’s Sidereal Messenger attracted extreme ecclesiastical reprimanding. In a striking similarity to the response of Murphy to Mivart, a Papal counsel responded to the teachings of Galileo, and indicted them for being “foolish and absurd,” even “formally heretical,” due to the fact that they “contradict[ed] […] Holy Scripture […] the Holy Fathers, and the doctors of theology” (“Consultant’s Report”). Thus, both Mivart’s and Galileo’s works were deemed heretical for the very fact that they contradicted Holy Scripture and the teachings of the Holy Fathers. Further, Galileo’s work was not only deemed to be contrary to Church teaching but was formally prohibited. The formal indictment read: “In order that [Heliocentrism] may not insinuate itself any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed that the [teachings of] Nicolous Copernicus […] and all other works likewise, be prohibited” (“Sacred Congregation”). In both the case of Mivart and Galileo, then, the Church declared the findings of scientific advancement to be dangerous, heretical, and factually incorrect, and as a result, labeled the promulgators of such advancements as heretics.

Thus, “these twin condemnations of the seventeenth and of the nineteenth centuries” by

“ecclesiastical authorities on the teachings of science” were made in the same spirit, promulgated by the Church’s desire to remain loyal to Holy Scripture (“Modern Catholics”). To complete this most apt comparison, it is important to consider the Church’s modern relationship to both of these figures. It is clearly known that the heliocentric teachings of Copernicus are fully embraced by the modern Church, and therefore that Her condemnation of Galileo following the publication of The Sidereal Messenger was completely unfounded. In the same likeness, the modern Church now embraces the theory of evolution put forth by Darwin and, to defend such embracement, uses schematically identical arguments to those which Mivart was condemned for in his time. One of the very few contemporary researchers to reevaluate the figure of Mivart agrees with the evaluation, stating that “Mivart’s theology can be” and, indeed, has been “vindicated” (Brown). Branches of Catholic theologians, specifically Thomists, “are making comparably similar” arguments concerning Catholic evolutionism to “Mivart’s theological position,” with regard to absolute and derivative creation.

It is thus clear that Galileo and Mivart are two figures whose ultimate denouncement was caused by the Church’s refusal to embrace scientific advancement in favor of embracing Holy Scripture and remaining loyal to theological traditions of old. Further, both figures, and their scientific teachings, have, in fact, been vindicated by the modern Church, showing the fallacy that has resulted through the Church’s seeming ignorance of empirical scientific advancement.

So it is, then, that Mivart’s ardent desire for the Church to modernize, embrace modern science, and embrace the spirit of both/and, was unfulfilled in his age, yet vindicated in the coming centuries. It is sensible to suggest, then, that Mivart was a fundamental figure in the eventual modernization of the Church, a figure who forced the Church to reevaluate Her relationship to the evolving science and intellectuality of the world. Though Mivart was rejected in his time, he indeed planted the seed of both/and that would eventually flower into a reorientation of the position of the Catholic Church toward modern science that would occur in the mid-twentieth century.

Though St. George Jackson Mivart and Galileo Galilei are strikingly similar when considered in the above light, they differ significantly in the intensity of the spotlight that history has decided to cast upon them. While Galileo is a towering figure that many scientists, faithful Catholics, and curious individuals reference with regularity, St. George Jackson Mivart could not be further from. His name has been lost in the flurry of history, and thus his contributions to Catholic science are grossly underappreciated. Aside from his contribution to science, his staunch refusal to give up his both/and disposition in light of ecclesiastical apprehension was perhaps that which signaled to the Church the necessity to reevaluate Her relationship with modern science, should She wish to survive in the coming centuries. The figure of Mivart is a shining personification of the harmony to be sought between faith and science, between spirituality and intellectuality. By balancing the merits of Darwin’s evolutionary theory and Catholic dogma simultaneously, Mivart displayed to his constituents the bridge that could be built in the void between faith and science, a void exasperated by the Church’s ardent desire to remain faithful to Holy Fathers, Holy Scripture, and traditions of old. So it shall be then, that the prediction that “the effect” of St. George Jackson Mivart will “not be very profound or lasting”—as one of his contemporaries predicted—will not bear truth (Carroll). Rather, St. George Jackson Mivart shall be recognized for what he indeed was, an indispensable force whose both/and disposition catalyzed the rise of a new age for the Catholic Church: an age in which She recognizes that the pursuits of natural science can and should be reconciled with tradition of old.

Author

Ty Harrington

Ty Harrington is a member of the class of 2026 pursuing a major in the Program of Liberal Studies with a minor in Philosophy & Theology. He is from Carmel, Indiana and lives in Knott Hall. Upon graduation, Ty hopes to attend graduate school to attain a PhD in the humanities and eventually become a professor. His essay “Saint George Jackson Mivart: The Pre Modern Galileo” explores the evolving relationship between Catholic faith and modern science with a focus on one of the earliest pioneers of their reconciliation. His essay was inspired by a University Seminar titled “Technology and Desire” in which the consequences of technological advancements are evaluated through their appearances in great works of literature and philosophy. Ty would like to thank Professor Kilbane for his guidance and support not only during the completion of this essay but also as he improves as a writer and a thinker.