Faith and Science at Notre Dame: John Zahm, Evolution, and the Catholic Church by John P. Slattery

Abstract

Reviewed by: Faith and Science at Notre Dame: John Zahm, Evolution, and the Catholic Church by John P. Slattery David Mislin Faith and Science at Notre Dame: John Zahm, Evolution, and the Catholic Church. By John P. Slattery. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2019. 292 pp. $27.00. The priest and scientist John Zahm makes frequent appearances in studies of late nineteenth-century Catholicism. As a proponent of theistic evolution whose writing ran afoul of Vatican authorities, he has appeared in many works about the church and modern science. Zahm’s support of the Americanist movement has prompted his frequent inclusion in broader histories of Catholicism in the United States. Yet, despite his presence in a wide array of works, few studies exist that are solely or primarily about Zahm. John P. Slattery has ably provided one such study with this concise, lucidly written volume. Slattery begins with a chapter exploring the limits of previous scholarship. He notes that other scholars have tended to prioritize Zahm’s views on evolution, especially the controversy surrounding his 1896 book Evolution and Dogma. In his view, these studies have neglected other aspects of Zahm’s career and the broader issue of the church’s view on the nature of science. Slattery offers a corrective in two key chapters: the first is an aptly titled biographical survey, “The Rise and Fall of John Zahm, CSC,” and the second a focused examination of the development of Zahm’s ideas about science. A subsequent chapter provides context for Zahm’s difficulties with church officials by considering “the Vatican’s own conception of the intersection between faith, philosophy, and science in the nineteenth century” (2). Slattery examines four developments and publications that are key to understanding the Vatican’s conception of this relationship: the Syllabus of Modern Errors in 1864, Dei Filius and the loss of the church’s territorial power in 1869–1870, and Aeterni Patris in 1879. The final chapter explores how Zahm’s views on evolution were grounded in an understanding of science at odds with that of church authorities. Slattery’s book offers an additional contribution in the form of two valuable appendices. These contain new English translations of the Syllabus of Modern Errors, which Slattery argues represented a [End Page 103] “boundary document for future Catholic scholarly work,” (98) and the initial letter condemning Zahm’s Evolution and Dogma. Slattery’s most successful contributions are the chapters focused on Zahm’s biography. The chapter on Zahm’s intellectual development deftly analyzes the undergraduate curriculum and textbooks from the priest-scientist’s undergraduate education at Notre Dame to explore the sources of his ideas. More significantly, Slattery persuasively depicts Zahm as a “showman” who enjoyed “sensationalism” and who “did not realize the dangers of a bold approach to such a controversial topic” as evolution (38). This depiction makes clear that Zahm had a full life and career apart from his work on evolutionary theory. It also serves to make Zahm appear much less of a martyr in the aftermath of the condemnation of Evolution and Dogma. While Slattery’s biographical treatment of Zahm represents a significant scholarly contribution, other aspects of the book limit its effectiveness. The first chapter, which highlights the deficiencies of previous scholarship, contributes little to the book’s substantive arguments. The need for a study of Zahm’s life and work is readily apparent. Slattery’s decision to foreground historiographical debate rather than Zahm’s story might render the book less accessible to wide audiences who would otherwise have found it a compelling study. The repeated emphasis on the limits of previous scholarship also seems at odds with Slattery’s approach later in the book. In the final chapters, he relies quite heavily on the work of other scholars to explain and interpret the development of Catholic thought in the late nineteenth century. The forceful rejection of one body of scholarship, coupled with a heavy reliance on other related scholarship for interpretive work, at points feels discordant. Moreover, Slattery’s decision to situate Zahm in the broader intellectual history of Catholicism represents something of a double-edged sword. To be sure, there is value in understanding...