Copernicus and Galileo

  • Thread starter Thread starter AmcB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AmcB

Guest
I am taking a science class and in my book I came across something that did not seem correct so I researched it. I came on Catholic Answer’s website and I found some help. I also researched some other sites about it. I wrote a five page letter to the author of the book quoting pages from Catholic Answers website and explaining my view to him. In my book there were quite a few accusatory things against the Catholic Church and things that didn’t seem to give the full story. I received a letter back from him explaining why I was wrong and that the sources I used are “unreliable sources.” He said in his research he used the book, “Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible” by Richard J.
Blackwell. which is from Roman Catholic University press so it is clearly not “anti-catholic.” I don’t think that CAtholic answers is an unreliable source but I want to know what really happened. Could you guys help me with this.

In my science book it says that Copernicus discovered the heliocentric view but the CAtholic Chrch would not change there view of geocentrism and when he wrote his book on heliocentrism it was placed on the banned book list. It says that the Church kept quoting Joshua 10:12-13 saying that the earth must be the center of the universe.

For Galileo it says:

“When Galileo, a well respected scientist, tried to publish a work showing all the evidence in favor of the Copernican system, the Catholic Church put him on trial. They were firmly in support of the geocentric view and they would not allow even a scientist such as Galileo to say otherwise…Galileo publicly recanted his beleif but was still put under house arrest for the rest of his life.”

Could someone help me to understand what really happened?

Thanks!

Blessings,

AmcB
 
The theological implications of heliocentrism were in challenging some biblical astronomical events – Joshua making the sun stand still and the Star of Bethlehem standing over the stable – points which Galilio had brought out.

Galilio’s offense was putting the Pope’s words in the mouth of the buffoon in his book. At the time he wrote, the heliocentric theory suffered two major problems – the first was lack of parallax in the stars and the second was inability to produce valid astronomical tables.

It should be pointed out that heliocentrism is no more “true” than geocentrism – neither the Earth nor the sun are at the center of the universe.
 
40.png
AmcB:
I am taking a science class and in my book I came across something that did not seem correct so I researched it. I came on Catholic Answer’s website and I found some help. I also researched some other sites about it. I wrote a five page letter to the author of the book quoting pages from Catholic Answers website and explaining my view to him. In my book there were quite a few accusatory things against the Catholic Church and things that didn’t seem to give the full story. I received a letter back from him explaining why I was wrong and that the sources I used are “unreliable sources.” He said in his research he used the book, “Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible” by Richard J.
Blackwell. which is from Roman Catholic University press so it is clearly not “anti-catholic.” I don’t think that CAtholic answers is an unreliable source but I want to know what really happened. Could you guys help me with this.

In my science book it says that Copernicus discovered the heliocentric view but the CAtholic Chrch would not change there view of geocentrism and when he wrote his book on heliocentrism it was placed on the banned book list. It says that the Church kept quoting Joshua 10:12-13 saying that the earth must be the center of the universe.

For Galileo it says:

“When Galileo, a well respected scientist, tried to publish a work showing all the evidence in favor of the Copernican system, the Catholic Church put him on trial. They were firmly in support of the geocentric view and they would not allow even a scientist such as Galileo to say otherwise…Galileo publicly recanted his beleif but was still put under house arrest for the rest of his life.”

Could someone help me to understand what really happened?

Thanks!

Blessings,

AmcB
Click to expand...
The facts you have stated are essentially correct. There is much that could be discussed about how Galileo tried to present his views in ways that insulted members of the Church heirarchy. The ways in which the heirarchy responded was not always in the spirit of Christ’s teachings.

I think JPII officially pardoned Galileo sometime when he was pope.

-Jim
 
40.png
trogiah:
The facts you have stated are essentially correct. There is much that could be discussed about how Galileo tried to present his views in ways that insulted members of the Church heirarchy. The ways in which the heirarchy responded was not always in the spirit of Christ’s teachings.

I think JPII officially pardoned Galileo sometime when he was pope.

-Jim
Click to expand...
Actually, John Paul the Great apologized for how Galileo was treated. No pardon was necessary because Galileo was not ever formally convicted.
 
What do you mean “never formally convicted”? It seems that the Church put him under house arrest for t5yhe remainder of his life, doesn’t that count? I want to know the actual facts of what happened in the situation. Where did catholic Answers get there info from? The man who wrote the book said he used primary sources for his book, but I don’t know for sure. Does anyone know where I can find good primary sources at? I want to know what happened for sure.

-AmcB
 
40.png
MezmerTheMage:
There are many books out there that may expand your understanding of what really happened:
Click to expand...
It never ceases to amaze me how some people expect everyone else to do their research for them.
 
vern humphrey:
No pardon was necessary because Galileo was not ever formally convicted.
Click to expand...
Galileo was actually convicted. He abjured, meaning he signed a sworn document admitting the charges against him, and was given the (relatively) light sentence of house arrest.
 
40.png
Loy:
Galileo was actually convicted. He abjured, meaning he signed a sworn document admitting the charges against him, and was given the (relatively) light sentence of house arrest.
Click to expand...
Yes. He admitted to what he was accused of.
 
40.png
AmcB:
Does anyone know where I can find good primary sources at?
Click to expand...
For you to find primary sources you would have to travel to Italy and be able to read Latin and Italian. I don’t think you want to do that.

You’ll need to read some well-researched secondary sources (i.e. texts by authors who have done the primary research themselves) or tertiary sources (i.e., texts by authors who use other histories as their source). The key is finding authors who are thorough and balanced.

This should get you started: Galileo and the Magisterium: a Second Look. My only reservation about the preceeding article is that it accuses Galileo of lying, whereas Pope John Paul II believed that the conviction was the result of a misunderstanding, which I believe is supported by ample evidence.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book: Sobel, Galileo’s Daughter: A Historical Memorir of Science, Faith, and Love (Penguin 2000). It not only discusses the life and discoveries of the great mathematician, but also his loving relationship with his daughter and their mutual love of the Church.

Good luck!
 
Pope John Paul II did NOT apologize.

That is a mainstream media myth.

In his the Speech of John Paul II to the Participants to the Plenary Session of the Papal Academy of Sciences, October 31, 1992, the Pope stated:

“Galileo made no distinction between the scientific approach to natural phenomena and a reflection on nature, of the philosophical order, which that approach generally calls for. That is why he rejected the suggestion made to him to present the Copernican system as a hypothesis, inasmuch as it had not been confirmed by irrefutable proof.”

He went on:

“The majority of theologians did not recognize the formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation, and this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.”

And in concluding said,

“. . . the Galileo case has been a sort of “myth”, in which the image fabricated out of the events was quite far removed from reality . . . A tragic mutual incomprehension has been interpreted as the reflection of a fundamental opposition between science and faith. The clarifications furnished by recent historical studies enable us to state that this sad misunderstanding now belongs to the past.”

Pope John Paul doesn’t mention Pope Urban VIII, and although Pope John Paul acknowledged that both Galileo and the theologians had erred (“The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture”), there is nothing in the speech that would rise to the level of an apology for the actions of the Church in general, or Pope Urban VIII in particular.

The Catholic Encyclopedia maintains that Galileo’s sentence, although implying a condemnation of Copernicanism, did not constitute an official declaration on the issue and did not receive the signature of Urban VIII. This position is held even by those above the charge of bias, with (the Protestant biographer) von Gebler stating, “The Church never condemned it [the Copernican system] at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church.” Even Galileo’s contemporaries, such as Riceloll, maintained that no definitive condemnation of Copernicanism as heretical was ever issued from the Pope.

Although recent scholars admit that the theologians should not have included the scientific theories in the condemnation, they have shown that Galileo was justly condemned for disobeying the injunction. Even Pope Benedict XVI, when Cardinal Ratzinger, stated, “At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just.”

Given that Galileo admitted to a personal friend, 2 years before he died, that the Church had been right (see Letter to Francesco Rinuccini, 1641), and that Pope John Paul, although admitting errors on both sides (statements of facts, not apologies), never mentioned Pope Urban, it is wrong to maintain, as does the mainstream media, that “Pope John Paul II apologized for the Galileo incident” in general, or that he apologized for the actions of Urban VIII in particular.

Hope this helps.
 
As I understand it, Galileo would have been fine if he had only discussed the ‘heliocentric’ solar system as a theory as did Copernicus. He stated it as a fact which at the time was unproven. His imperious and ego-centric manner caused rancor with the conservative (and likewise ego-centric) scientific heirarchy which caused them to go to the Church and have him censored.
Here is an excellent resource:
The Crime of Galileo
 
Joe’s exactly right.

Galileo had been assured by both Cardinal Bellarmine (the Vatican’s all-around theology guru) and Pope Urban VIII that he could consider heliocentrism hypothetically, but until he could prove it, he was not to promote it as fact and then use it to force the Church to change its interpretation of Scripture (Joshua 10:12-13), but he disobeyed; and for this disobedience (not his science), he was brought before the Inquisition again in 1632.

Interestingly, although the heliocentric theory was proven correct (200 years later), Galileo got the Scriptural interpretation wrong, which is funny since a Catholic priest named Nicole Oresme got it right 300 years *before * Galileo (i.e., that God merely stopped the earth’s rotation).
 
40.png
Batjacboy:
Joe’s exactly right.

Galileo had been assured by both Cardinal Bellarmine (the Vatican’s all-around theology guru) and Pope Urban VIII that he could consider heliocentrism hypothetically, but until he could prove it, he was not to promote it as fact and then use it to force the Church to change its interpretation of Scripture (Joshua 10:12-13), but he disobeyed; and for this disobedience (not his science), he was brought before the Inquisition again in 1632.

Interestingly, although the heliocentric theory was proven correct (200 years later), Galileo got the Scriptural interpretation wrong, which is funny since a Catholic priest named Nicole Oresme got it right 300 years *before *Galileo (i.e., that God merely stopped the earth’s rotation).
Click to expand...
Actually the heliocentric theory (which holds that the sun is the center of the universe and all heavenly bodies orbit the sun) was never proven correct – for a simple reason. It isn’t correct.

The sun is a fairly average star on the outer fringes of the Milky Way Galaxy and orbits the center of the galaxy.
 
Wow, hold on hree people, there is a great primary resource available through Fordham University…the actual Condemnation of Galileo and the Abjuration! Let history speak for itself.
GALILEO’S ABJURATION.
Click to expand...
I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged 70 years, tried personally by this court, and kneeling before You, the most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General throughout the Christian Republic against heretical depravity, having before my eyes the Most Holy Gospels, and laying on them my own hands; I swear that I have always believed, I believe now, and with God’s help I will in future believe all which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church doth hold, preach, and teach.
Click to expand...
But since I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun was the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth was not the centre of the same and that it moved, and that I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine; and after having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ, I did write and cause to be printed a book in which I treat of the said already condemned doctrine, and bring forward arguments of much efficacy in its favour, without arriving at any solution: I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the Sun is the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth is not the centre of the same, and that it does move.
Click to expand...
fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/1630galileo.html

Galileo might have been wrong about heliocentrism, but it is clear from the proceedings against him that not only did they condemn heliocentrism but deliberately promulgated geocentrism.
 
Galileo might have been wrong about heliocentrism, but it is clear from the proceedings against him that not only did they condemn heliocentrism but deliberately promulgated geocentrism.
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s not the case, for the following reasons:
  1. His trial dealt with the issue of his disobedience; the scientific validity of Copernicanism and the relation of science and Scripture did not surface at the trial (see Ferngren, Rowland, etc.). Therefore “the proceedings” did not condemn heliocentrism nor did they promote geocentrism. These issues were thrown into the condemnation as an afterthought, which is why I stated in my first post, “recent scholars admit that the theologians should not have included the scientific theories in the condemnation.”
  2. The “they” you mention (as in “not only did they condemn heliocentrism”) refers to the Inquisitors, not the Pope and not the Church; even the Protestant biographer von Gebler (no friend of the Church’s) stated:
“The Church never condemned it [the Copernican system] at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church.”

Galileo never saw Pope Urban or any of the cardinals during the proceedings. His sentence, although implying a condemnation of Copernicanism, did not constitute an official declaration on the issue and did not receive the signature of Urban VIII.

There is no question, and no one denies, that the science issue should not have been included in the abjuration, or made part of the condemnation, but that was not the reason for his being brought before the Inquisition (either time). If the Church had made the science the issue, he would have been found guilty of heresy, and not the much lesser charge of “vehemently suspected of heresy,” and the abjuration would not have dealt at length with the issue of his disobedience, which it did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top