The Calvinist theologian John Owen also attacked Copernicus, writing that *“the late hypothesis, fixing the sun as in the centre of the world’ was 'built on fallible phenomena, and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions against evident testimonies of Scripture.” *
By contrast, although Copernicus was apparently concerned about the views the Catholic Church might have about his theory (enough that he dedicted his treatise to Pope Paul III), it was generally supportive. In 1536, the Archbishop of Capua, Cardinal Nikolaus von Schönberg, attended a series of lectures outlining Copernicus’ theory in Rome, along with Pope Clement VII and several other cardinals. The Cardinal wrote the following to Copernicus:
“Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you… For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe… Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject …”
This doesn’t sound very menacing to me.
The Dominicans Bartolomeo Spina (the Vatican censor) and Giovanni Tolosani (a noted astronomer) both opposed the Copernican theory, but neither proposed any actions against him - again, this was a scientific dispute as much as a theological one, as both members of the Church, especially Tolosani, didn’t agree with the science - Tolosani argued that Copernicus failed to offer any physical theory that would would permit him to deduce the motion of the Earth; that he used induction rather than deduction to make his case; and that the mathematics used to make his calculations had no concrete reality, and thus could not be used to make calculations about the physical world (an interesting theory in itself that in another form, is still discussed in philosophy today).
Again, I would argue that this was not an instance of religion intruding on science, but of two scientists (both of whom were staunch traditionalist Catholics) who differed in their views - part of the give and take of the peer review process we see today. And as in scholarly disputes today between headstrong individuals, the arguments could be quite heated and become quite personal, and there were strong proponents both for and against Copernicus in the Church.
It wasn’t until long after Copernicus’ death (circa 1616) that the Inquisition became involved, probably based on an increasing biblical literalism within the Church that arose to ascendancy in response to the Protestant Reformation and Protestant claims that the Catholic Church was not “biblical.” Despite this, voices within the Church echoed St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas in arguing that science should not be denied because of an apparent conflict with the Old Testament. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who delivered the papal order not to support or defend the heliocentric idea, stated:
“If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me.”
And, it should be viewed with the realization that at that time, theology and philosophy were considered to be sciences on an equal level with astronomy and cosmology and physics.
As for Galileo, many members of the Church welcomed and celebrated his theory, but sought additional sufficient evidence to support his arguments, and the Pope, who urged him to publish his theory, also instructed him to treat it as a hypothesis rather than an established truth. His personal relationship with Pope Urban VIII (as well as his theological pronouncements, which were seen as outside his scope of authority) was probably was as big a contributing factor as anything else, and whose desire to have his work published led him into publishing that piece that insulted the Pope (a former friend). I guess the equivalent in the modern academic world would be if you wished to see a revolutionary article published in a prestigious journal, were told to wait by the editor (a close personal friend) of the journal until the peer reviewers completed their review and decided whether the evidence supported your theory, and after promising to wait, you went ahead and published your theories and a mock interview with a character who is clearly modeled on the editor, but whom you gave the pseudonym “Mr. Simpleton.” (which is essentially what Galileo did, to the Pope’s chagrin.) Would you be surprised if the editor flipped out on you? Not fair, perhaps, but also not surprising to anyone who has been involved in academia.
As far as why Copernicus was so fearful, I’ve read that scholars disagree as to whether the issues were academic/scientific or theological. Maybe both, I won’t disagree that expressing views that run counter to prevailing scientific paradigms could be hazardous to your professional career and reputation (then and now - whatever your views are on Global Warming or Young Earth Creationism, expressing them in an academic environment could derail a promising faculty position pretty quickly. If you look at what happened to the authors of The Bell Curve, it makes Galileo’s punishment look pretty kind by comparison. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.)
For views that it was academic/scientific, see Lindberg, David C.; Numbers, Ronald L. (1986).* “Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science”. Church History* (Cambridge University Press) or Arthur Koestler’s The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe. New York, NY: Grosset & Dunlap.
For views that it was in fear of the religious fallout, see , Alexandre Koyré’s The Astronomical Revolution: Copernicus – Kepler – Borelli. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, and Edward Rosen’s Copernicus and his Successors. London: Hambledon Press.
