The Walrus
Canada's Best Magazine

Renew your subscription
Customer Care
Support The Walrus Foundation
Sign up for our e-newsletter

The Glad Scientist

A Vatican astronomer explains why science and religion are a match made in heaven

by Dan Falk
| illustrations by Mark Saunders
Profile | From the October 2009 issue of The Walrus

Print Version   Share 

Installed on the second floor of a small building on the summit of Arizona’s Mount Graham, Guy Consolmagno is multi-tasking. He’s checking email on his laptop and listening to the Penguin Cafe Orchestra on his iPod, all the while keeping an eye on a bank of computer monitors. One floor up, nestled in a silvery-white dome, a telescope is trained on a potato-shaped chunk of rock and ice known as Haumea, which orbits the sun some six billion kilometres from Earth. Thin clouds have been drifting overhead since sundown, but if they dissipate, the telescope’s digital camera will record changes in Haumea’s brightness as it tumbles through the outer reaches of the solar system, offering Consolmagno and fellow astronomers hints about the structure and evolution of our planetary family.

All this is typical fare for a scientist. What is perhaps surprising is that Consolmagno is also a Jesuit brother, that many of his colleagues are ordained priests, and that they’re scanning the heavens with the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope or, more affectionately, the “Pope scope.” The state-of-the-art facility is part of the Vatican Observatory, established behind St. Peter’s Basilica in 1891 by Pope Leo XIII at least partly to show that the Roman Catholic Church was not anti-science — an allegation that has persisted since Galileo was dragged before the Inquisition for claiming that the earth moves.

With his full, greying beard, Consolmagno bears at least a superficial resemblance to the great Italian astronomer. But while Consolmagno is humble and genial, Galileo was brash and argumentative, with an ego that was reportedly off the chart. Galileo’s personality surely played a part in the drama that became known as the “Galileo affair,” but if he was prone to pushing, the Church was even more prone to not bending. And now, 400 years after Galileo first aimed a telescope at the night sky, Consolmagno admits that the Vatican “screwed up.”

Many historians argue that the Galileo affair was, in fact, an anomaly, and that the Church, far from being hostile to science, has been one of its most ardent supporters. Throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance, the Church pressed for the most precise astronomical observations, to determine the date of Easter. The Church gave us the Gregorian calendar, used virtually across the globe today. And a glance at a modern moon map reveals some thirty-five craters named for Jesuit clergymen. The Vatican hasn’t just been interested in the heavens, either; early geneticist Gregor Mendel, for example, was an Augustinian monk. Even so, some people have a hard time imagining exactly what the Vatican is looking for from its mountaintop outpost.

There have been some bizarre guesses, often involving little green men. Consolmagno recalls that a British group calling itself the Catholic Truth Society once asked him if he would write a book about the official Church teaching on aliens. “But we’ve never found any,” he says. “How could we have any teaching about them?” (He did eventually write a forty-eight-page pamphlet for the society, in which he tackled the question “Is Jesus Christ’s redemptive sacrifice sufficient for the whole Universe?”) Another time, the Chicago Tribune referred to the Mount Graham astronomers as “Vatican astrologers.” Consolmagno jokes that he still isn’t sure if that was a typo, or if they really thought he and his colleagues were casting horoscopes for the Pope.

In reality, astronomers have used the VATT to study everything from the dynamics of globular clusters to the nature of dark matter, publishing their findings in leading peer-reviewed journals, such as The Astrophysical Journal, whose volumes fill the cramped shelves of the telescope’s control room. Meanwhile, the facility in Italy (moved to the Pope’s summer residence in Castel Gandolfo in the 1930s) houses a large array of meteorites; Consolmagno, who studied geophysics and astronomy at MIT and then at the University of Arizona, curates the collection.

“If you had told me way back when that I would spend my life studying rocks, I would have laughed,” he says. “I mean, what could be more boring than rocks?” Raised in the American Midwest in the ’50s and ’60s, he describes himself as a “classic Sputnik kid”; the summer before he graduated from his Jesuit-run high school, he watched Neil Armstrong walk on the moon. “But I discovered that some of these rocks are meteorites — rocks from the asteroid belt, rocks from outer space that you can hold in your hands, really cool rocks.”

Early in his academic career, though, he noticed that his colleagues, even the ones at the top of their game, seemed unhappy. “They were tremendously stressed about the need to get the grant money, to get the publications, to move up the academic ladder,” he recalls. “And that felt all wrong.” He joined the Peace Corps and taught astronomy at a university in Kenya. On weekends, he took his show on the road, and as impoverished villagers crowded around his telescope, peering excitedly at the moons of Jupiter, he decided that to be deprived of learning was just as tragic as being deprived of food or water.

Attracted to the Jesuit commitment to education and sense of being above the rat race, Consolmagno elected in 1991 to take the order’s vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. (“Poverty and chastity, I was used to — I had been a graduate student,” he says. “But obedience was a tough one.”) Two years later, he was assigned to the Vatican Observatory, where science and faith coexist seamlessly. “It’s hard for me to imagine why anybody would think there was a conflict between the two,” Consolmagno says. “Because I grew up with no sense that either of those things had to dominate over the other.”

Indeed, the Galileo affair may be seen as a historical relic; after all, no one argues about the mechanics of the solar system anymore. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, still faces fierce resistance in some circles, as it has ever since On the Origin of Species was published 150 years ago. Even in Canada, a 2008 poll found that only 58 percent of respondents accept evolution, a figure that drops to 37 percent in Alberta. The Vatican has also found itself caught up in the controversy. Pope John Paul II embraced evolution as “more than a hypothesis,” but the current pope, Benedict XVI, has referred to the universe as an “intelligent project,” leaving some people to wonder if he is less committed to science than his predecessor.

Home | Page 1 of 2 | Next
13 comment(s)

UnimpressedSeptember 27, 2009 03:12 EST
Giordano Bruno, if his tortured soul lives on, might be amused to hear that the Church's treatment of Galileo was an "anomaly".


MarkSeptember 27, 2009 05:48 EST
Bruno ran into problems over eight charges, only one of which had to to do with astronomy and where the centre of the universe is located. Bruno made statements that went against the core of Church theology with claims that Jesus was a magician. While it might be proper to criticize the Church for having executed someone for heresy, Bruno's greatest "sins" were not for "faith" in Copernicus.


h.hilbornSeptember 27, 2009 21:36 EST
Say, how did that geocentric theory turn out?


Jon JermeySeptember 28, 2009 00:31 EST
“But we’ve never found any,” he says. “How could we have any teaching about them?”

As if that ever stopped them before...


pherzenSeptember 28, 2009 09:02 EST
The Jesuits in particular were instrumental in fanning the early flames of what's generally acknowledged as the Scientific Revolution, beginning around 1600 (or post Copernicus and Harvey in any event.) The Jesuits were the only religious order to have actively sought out and even contributed to advancements in the natural philosophy of the day. They offered a notoriously thorough education. "If only they were ours," Francis Bacon wrote, but of course without their "sundry doctrines obnoxious." The list of luminary thinkers coming out of Jesuit institutions fills volumes of history and includes Galileo, Descartes and Mersenne. There are many excellent histories of that time, which show that much could be said about nature without causing the religious authorities to get too bothered.

The issue over religion and science is so predictably perennial, so yawn and shrug worthy in its framing and discussion that I dare say the above article contributes not a shred of new perspective. A brief mention of Galileo's persecution and an even briefer mention of Mendel, and we are expected to infer from this tenuous gossamer of a thread that the religious and scientific pose no inherent tension? I would say that while individuals may hold both religious and scientific perspectives, institutions tend to be exclusively biased either way. Insofar as both approaches to understanding presume to speak for all peoples, places and times, it should be no surprise that people will fundamentally disagree depending on what they've been taught and the extent of their curiosity and laziness. I come from Alberta, and I've had my share of idiotic conversations about evolution (why bother qualifying it with 'natural selection'?) where the trump card of my interlocutor is unfailingly "the fossil gap."

So a religious man also likes looking through telescopes? Amazing, will wonders never cease?


RogerSeptember 30, 2009 17:48 EST
The mechanism whereby the energy of the universe was created, out of nothing, is the basis to religion and the indictment of science.


Planetary ScientistOctober 04, 2009 08:26 EST
One bit this article fails to get across is that Guy is not only a religious scientist, he's a widely respected, world class scientist. The Vatican Observatory curates one of the most impressive meteorite collections in the world, and Guy has done some amazing work with them, helping to constrain the dynamics and origin of the solar system.


TimOctober 05, 2009 00:18 EST
I'm not a catholic but I am a historian. In 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. Galileo got in trouble for being disobedient not because of his science. Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic. It had little or nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology.


AnonymousOctober 05, 2009 16:48 EST
Of course, no topic about religion and science is complete without atheists like Jon Jeremy making snarky comments about the "inanity" of religion.

What he doesn't (or perheps refuses to) understand is that the "things that never stopped [religious people] before" often deal with things that science is currently (and may never) unable to observe.

Think of it like this: Science deals with HOW the universe works, and HOW it was formed. Religion, for the most part, deals with WHY the universe was formed, and WHY it works the way it does. That's why, ideally, the two should never clash.

Einstein said it best: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Science can and should inform religious decisions and opinions.

In response to pherzen: It's true that religious scientists are nothing new—but it seems that the world must be continually reminded of it, as we so easily forget.

The general opinion of the world—inflamed by extremists from both the religious and atheistic sides of the spectrum—is that religion can not coexist with science, and that one must either devote themselves to faith or reason.

We must hear more about our modern-day Gregor Mendels. They're out there, and despite science's reputation for atheism, there are many. More focus needs to be given to them to counterbalance the rants of Richard Dawkins and the mockery of Bill Murray.


KevinNovember 02, 2009 15:15 EST
I believe the author has left out the Galilean theory of our solar system being at the center of the universe. Today we know this is not true hence the Catholic Church didn't get it all wrong in censoring Galileo on the basis of his theories not being provable in his time.

Galileo wasn't completely correct food for thought


Bix12November 09, 2009 09:45 EST
I've been a big fan of Guy Consolmagno since first hearing him on BBC Radio 4 a few years ago.

After having put up with years of relentless assaults against my intellect by the I.D./Creationist extremists, (i.e, Earth is 6,000 years old, Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, evolution is just a "theory", etc., etc.), hearing Guy discuss science & religion in an intelligent, enlightened manner was like a breath of fresh air to me...or, perhaps more appropriately, manna from Heaven.


Peluang Usaha Ahasu GnaulepDecember 31, 2009 04:16 EST
Nice information, valuable and excellent design, as share good stuff with good ideas and concepts, lots of great information and inspiration, both of which we all need, thanks for all the enthusiasm to offer such helpful information here.



Affordable SEOJanuary 28, 2010 07:59 EST
I love collecting new brushes, and these were some of the better ones I've seen... thanks for sharing


Comment on this article
       
I agree to walrusmagazine.com’s comments policy.
TwitterFacebookRSS
On newsstands now
New Issue on Sale
September 2010
Subscribe online for less than $2.98 an issue. Visit The Walrus Store to buy a print of the cover
The Walrus Blog