ANTIPODES. — Those who inhabit a part of the earth diametrically opposite a given place. Therefore, to admit the existence of the antipodes is, for us today, equivalent to admitting the sphericity of the earth. For the ancients, however, the antipodes were men who inhabited the regions situated beneath their feet and who, separated from them by an immense, insurmountable expanse of water, would have been of a different origin. Regarding their existence, as with the sphericity of the earth, the opinions of the Fathers of the Church were divided; more open to the idea of sphericity, but much less so regarding their actual habitability. Opponents of the Church take this as grounds to deduce that the Fathers condemned belief in the antipodes and, consequently, in the sphericity of the earth. They cite the case of Pope St. Zachary, who, in a letter to St. Boniface, bishop and apostle of Germany, allegedly declared it false and heretical. Further proof, they argue, that the Church’s mentality has always been backward in the face of scientific progress.
The answer is straightforward: 1) It cannot be held against the Fathers that, before the great discoveries of the 16th century and Magellan’s voyages—when no scientific argument demonstrated the earth’s sphericity—they remained in doubt (e.g., St. Augustine, *Confessions*, I, 16, 9) or rejected it as absurd (e.g., Lactantius, *Divinae Institutiones*, I, 3, 24). Opinion on the matter was free, and many other Fathers held it to be true (e.g., Pope St. Clement, *First Epistle to the Corinthians*, 20; St. Hilary of Poitiers, *Tract on Psalm 2*, n. 32: PL 9, 281). 2) On the other hand, the two questions—the sphericity of the earth and the existence of the antipodes—though they could be discussed separately, often overlapped, since they could lead to assertions contrary to the fundamental dogma of the universality of the human race and of redemption. For some deduced that the antipodes, being of a different race and not descended from Adam, would not have needed baptism or redemption, since they did not share in Adam’s sin. 3) As for the condemnation pronounced by Pope St. Zachary, we know very little historically. All that is known is contained in the pope’s letter (*Epist. I* n. 16, 9, May 748: PL 89, 946–47) to St. Boniface, from which we learn that Boniface had invoked papal censure against a certain Virgil, a missionary among the Germans, among other things for the theory he professed that “under the earth there was another world and other men, another sun and another moon.” If this were true, Boniface “ought to convene a council, excommunicate Virgil, and deprive him of the dignity of priest, if he was a priest.” The Pope continued: “Nevertheless, we also write to the aforementioned duke (of Bavaria, Otilo) that by virtue of our letter addressed to Virgil, he should present himself before us for a thorough examination, and if he is found to be infected with error, he shall be condemned with canonical sanctions.” Nothing more. If, in admitting the sphericity of the earth, Virgil had merely deduced the existence of the antipodes, he would have done no more than follow Hilary’s opinion and would certainly not have been condemned; especially since Boniface was an assiduous reader of the works of the Venerable Bede, who had also taught that opinion (*De rerum natura*, cap. 46). If, however, Virgil held that the antipodes belonged to a race different from that descended from Adam and thus would not have inherited original sin, he would rightly have been condemned, for this would have been contrary to the doctrine of the Church, which teaches that all men descend from Adam and all have been redeemed by Jesus Christ.
Who this Virgil actually was is not known with certainty; some would identify him with the Irish monk V. Ferghil, a missionary and later bishop of Salisbury in 760 and venerated as a saint; but this is far from proven (v. VIRGILIO). Nor is it known whether an inquisition or condemnation of Virgil ever took place, either at the council Boniface was to convene or at the supreme tribunal of the Pope. This, however, in no way diminishes the value of the response. The Church has therefore never condemned the theory of the sphericity of the earth or that of the antipodes, when properly understood.