Copernius, Galileo wrong. Church right. Any apologies?

[PRmerger]

hecd2;12088449I:

The criticism of what the Church did at the time of the Galileo affair is because it suppressed an opinion which it is not competent to judge - a matter of natural science.

My understanding is that it is actually the opposite of what you profess.
.
Galileo tried to posit as a religious view that which was only a scientific opinion.

The Church intervened. And rightly so.

 

[Seraphignatius]

My understanding is that it is actually the opposite of what you profess.
.
Galileo tried to posit as a religious view that which was only a scientific opinion.

The Church intervened. And rightly so.

The picture in your signature is very on topic.

 

[PRmerger]

The picture in your signature is very on topic.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Nothing in that article or in the science warrants the emphatic tone of the title of the thread or the emphatic rhetoric of the OP:
Nothing in the CMB data warrants such a claim.
The CMB data does not support geocentrism. There is no such thing as a standard *heliocentric *model - the standard model of cosmology does not support any centre for the universe at all nor any state of absolute rest.
It is impossible absolutely to prove anything in science. Science does not deal in proofs. The criticism of what the Church did at the time of the Galileo affair is because it suppressed an opinion which it is not competent to judge - a matter of natural science. Galileo’s opinion that the earth moves remains the scientific view and if you think that the CMB data says otherwise I should be very interested in hearing you explain exactly how the data supports that opinion.

The only thing it suppressed is the teaching of a theory as a proven fact. That seems reasonable considering the times in which the Church lived. What I am objecting to is that of the secular world’s condemnation of the Church over the affair is unjust, does not reflect the facts. And considering that the nature of the theory has since has required repeated modification the comdemnation of the Church seems gratuitous. You see it in these forums all the time and in extant textbooks of the day.

Linus2nd

 

[hecd2]

The only thing it suppressed is the teaching of a theory as a proven fact.

That is patently not true. The injunction of 1616 orders Galileo: “to relinquish altogether the said opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves; nor further to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing.” Subsequent events in 1633 and the fact that the works of both Copernicus and Galileo were placed on the Index for 200 years makes it an incontrovertible fact that what the Church sought to suppress at the time was the scientific idea, and that is the basis for the criticism.

What I am objecting to is that of the secular world’s condemnation of the Church over the affair is unjust, does not reflect the facts.

It seems from the above that you are rather confused about the facts.

And considering that the nature of the theory has since has required repeated modification the comdemnation of the Church seems gratuitous. You see it in these forums all the time and in extant textbooks of the day.

The reason that the Church’s actions have been criticised is because the Church was unwisely drawn into making what is a matter of science into a matter of faith and into suppressing ideas regarding that matter. Whether or not the ideas were wholly or partially right or wrong has no bearing on this.

But I didn’t originally post to get drawn into an argument about whether the Church was right or wrong to suppress the Copernican theory but to point out that your scientific claims in the title and OP are exaggerated and unwarranted.

 

[hecd2]

My understanding is that it is actually the opposite of what you profess.
.
Galileo tried to posit as a religious view that which was only a scientific opinion.

The Church intervened. And rightly so.

I think you are confused. It is true that Galileo, when suspected of heresy for holding and teaching the Copernican theory attempted to use biblical exegesis to counter that charge and to argue that there is nothing in the bible or tradition to prevent him holding and teaching Copernicanism; and you can argue that he was not competent to do so. But I don’t know of any evidence that Galileo posited the Copernican theory as a religious view.

And you can argue that Galileo was irascible, bombastic, arrogant and unwise in his dealing with Urban and with others of the Church hierarchy. You can also argue that Galileo was caught up in a bitter row between Dominicans and Jesuits. But it is also true that the result of all of this is that the Church was drawn into suppressing the idea of Copernicanism itself - something that it was not competent to do.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Do you think your blogger might be a naughty fifth-columnist?

Aristotelian physics, which was once the only game in town, was what we would today call highly speculative. It speculated that everything was made of four elements; that those elements were enchanted, each animated to move to its “natural place”; that the natural place for element earth was the center of planet Earth, which was the central sphere in the Celestial Spheres; and so on.

No one today gives much of that any credence. All we actually know about your blogger is he cherry-picked one bit of it and tried to match it to a single unexplained observation; he didn’t give his name or qualifications; he didn’t even pay for his free blog site; oh, and he claims to be Catholic.

Here’s what a real Catholic said:

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. 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.-
Pope John Paul II, L’Osservatore Romano, 4 Nov 1992 quoted here

Hey, don’t get het up. I agree, with some reservations. First the geocentric view was not universally held. Second Galileo was a brilliant scientest. but he did not " prove " the heliocentric theory as a fact, which is what he had claimed. He also had an insufferable personality which was the cause of most of his problems.

Linus2nd .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is patently not true. The injunction of 1616 orders Galileo: “to relinquish altogether the said opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves; nor further to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing.” Subsequent events in 1633 and the fact that the works of both Copernicus and Galileo were placed on the Index for 200 years makes it an incontrovertible fact that what the Church sought to suppress at the time was the scientific idea, and that is the basis for the criticism. It seems from the above that you are rather confused about the facts. The reason that the Church’s actions have been criticised is because the Church was unwisely drawn into making what is a matter of science into a matter of faith and into suppressing ideas regarding that matter. Whether or not the ideas were wholly or partially right or wrong has no bearing on this.

But I didn’t originally post to get drawn into an argument about whether the Church was right or wrong to suppress the Copernican theory but to point out that your scientific claims in the title and OP are exaggerated and unwarranted.

You are welcome to your opinions of course.

Linus2nd

 

[PRmerger]

It is true that Galileo, when suspected of heresy for holding and teaching the Copernican theory attempted to use biblical exegesis to counter that charge and to argue that there is nothing in the bible or tradition to prevent him holding and teaching Copernicanism; and you can argue that he was not competent to do so.

And you can argue that Galileo was irascible, bombastic, arrogant and unwise in his dealing with Urban and with others of the Church hierarchy. You can also argue that Galileo was caught up in a bitter row between Dominicans and Jesuits. But it is also true that the result of all of this is that the Church was drawn into suppressing the idea of Copernicanism itself - something that it was not competent to do.

I have no argument with any of the above.

All of it was catalyzed by G professing what was scientific opinion as religious doctrine.

Would that he had kept is findings to the world of academia.

 

[pnewton]

I think you are confused. It is true that Galileo, when suspected of heresy for holding and teaching the Copernican theory attempted to use biblical exegesis to counter that charge and to argue that there is nothing in the bible or tradition to prevent him holding and teaching Copernicanism; and you can argue that he was not competent to do so. But I don’t know of any evidence that Galileo posited the Copernican theory as a religious view.

That he argued from the Bible **is **evidence. Remember, he was not convicted of heresy. His failings were largely political, based in his lack of finesse with people. So little evidence is all that was needed to have him stand and answer the accusation made against him.

 

[rossum]

It would seem to be useful to post the documents from Galileo’s trial.

Here is his abjuration:

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.

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.

Nevertheless, wishing to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally all and every error and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church. And I swear that for the future I will neither say nor assert in speaking or writing such things as may bring upon me similar suspicion; and if I know any heretic, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor and Ordinary of the place in which I may be.

I also swear and promise to adopt and observe entirely all the penances which have been or may be by this Holy Office imposed on me. And if I contravene any of these said promises, protests, or oaths, (which God forbid!) I submit myself to all the pains and penalties which by the Sacred Canons and other Decrees general and particular are against such offenders imposed and promulgated. So help me God and the Holy Gospels, which I touch with my own hands.

I Galileo Galilei aforesaid have abjured, sworn, and promised, and hold myself bound as above; and in token of the truth, with my own hand have subscribed the present schedule of my abjuration, and have recited it word by word. In Rome, at the Convent della Minerva, this 22nd day of June, 1633.

I, GALILEO GALILEI, have abjured as above, with my own hand.

Source: The Crime of Galileo.

Other documents from the trial are at the same page.

From these documents, it does appear that the Church was trying to meddle in a scientific question; “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.”

rossum

 

[grannymh]

The reason that the Church’s actions have been criticised is because the Church was unwisely drawn into making what is a matter of science into a matter of faith and into suppressing ideas regarding that matter. Whether or not the ideas were wholly or partially right or wrong has no bearing on this.

But I didn’t originally post to get drawn into an argument about whether the Church was right or wrong to suppress the Copernican theory but to point out that your scientific claims in the title and OP are exaggerated and unwarranted.

May I gently clarify that the Catholic Church per se did not make a matter of science into a matter of faith. It would take an Ecumenical Council to properly prepare and duly proclaim a doctrine based on Divine Revelation. The Index of Citations, Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition lists the Ecumenical Councils in the era of Galileo. Examining the paragraphs pertaining to these Councils, one does not find a planet earth position doctrine. This is because the realm of the Catholic Church is faith and morals.

Note. It is a Catholic doctrine that God created planet earth. (Genesis 1: 1) The CCC has a “Catechesis on Creation” starting on page 73, plus cross-references in the margins. One will find information about our material/physical environment relating to our responsibility to be good stewards. Natural science per se is a gift from God which has benefited humanity especially in the medical arena. Our scientists deserve our deepest respect. Still, in this century, we need to realize that natural science is not the primary authority regarding human nature. When a science proposition intersects with a Catholic doctrine, Divine Revelation trumps.

As I recall, the 9,039 posts on this topic some years back had documents ranging from Papal Commissions to personal letters. None of which had the authority of an Ecumenical Council.

What needs to be clarified is that dedicated individuals, including high ranking clergy, can proclaim every scientific theory under the sun. The rank of a person does not automatically turn his words into Catholic doctrines. We would say today that Catholic individuals from the Pope to ordinary folk have the right to free speech. Another clarification is that Canon Law (CCC, Glossary, page 869) of that time and of our time is not Divine Revelation. The Code of Canon Law provides the norms for good order in the visible society of the Catholic Church.

Briefly. It was individuals, not the Catholic Church per se, who turned matters of science into matters of faith. Whether or not these actions were right or wrong does not change their status.

 

[hecd2]

May I gently clarify that the Catholic Church per se did not make a matter of science into a matter of faith. It would take an Ecumenical Council to properly prepare and duly proclaim a doctrine based on Divine Revelation. The Index of Citations, Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition lists the Ecumenical Councils in the era of Galileo. Examining the paragraphs pertaining to these Councils, one does not find a planet earth position doctrine. This is because the realm of the Catholic Church is faith and morals…Briefly. It was individuals, not the Catholic Church per se, who turned matters of science into matters of faith. Whether or not these actions were right or wrong does not change their status.

Thanks for this view. I acknowledge, on the basis of advice from those who know far more about the history, canon law and related aspects of the case than I do, that the Church has not made this issue a matter of dogma or infallibility.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Church as an institution acted against Galileo through the Holy Office, his works and those of Copernicus languished on the Index for 200 years and at least for 50 of those 200 years no Catholic dared to teach or promote the Copernican theory. The eventual removal of the banned works from the Index in 1820 was initiated by the refusal of an imprimatur to a book on cosmology and astronomy on the grounds that it was heretical. As late as 1820.

So whereas I accept that the Magisterium of the Church did not establish dogmata on this subject, nevertheless the responsibility goes wider than a few individuals and surely touches the Church as an institution.

 

[hecd2]

I have no argument with any of the above.

All of it was catalyzed by G professing what was scientific opinion as religious doctrine.

I can see why you would think that given that he did argue from the bible, but my understanding was that his argument was that the bible permitted Copernicanism (defending himself against charges of heresy), by proposing that outside faith and morals, Catholics are not compelled to take the bible literally if doing so conflicts with observation and reason. As far as I can see, Galileo’s attempt at hermeneutics has been adopted by the Church herself today. I would be really interested in a reference that shows he ever promoted his scientific opinion as religious doctrine.

 

[Stephen168]

I can see why you would think that given that he did argue from the bible, but my understanding was that his argument was that the bible permitted Copernicanism (defending himself against charges of heresy), by proposing that outside faith and morals, Catholics are not compelled to take the bible literally if doing so conflicts with observation and reason. As far as I can see, Galileo’s attempt at hermeneutics has been adopted by the Church herself today

Galileo’s hermeneutics go back to at least Augustine. He was just reminding the Church of its position. But the Church felt no need to reject the Tychonic system for the Copernican system without proof.

 

[hildegaard]

…it is … true that the result of all of this is that the Church was drawn into suppressing the idea of Copernicanism itself - something that it was not competent to do.

Sorry, hecd2, the Church is competent to state so. The Church represents Jesus on earth. Jesus is the son of God. God created the universe, science, you, all of us. To say what you are saying is patently false, and is basically saying that God is incompetent to speak for His creation. Come on Catholics, this is a Catholic forum, stand up a little for your Church! hecd2 has a right to his opinion for sure, but let’s not lose sight of the context here.

The CMB may not prove the earth is motionless in the center of the universe, but it poses so much problem for inflation, that scientists are moving towards a version of inflation that implies the multiverse, a totally unscientific opinion. Other scientists are moving to alternate theories that most likely challenge the Copernican Principle (such as the expanding wave of Temple and Smoller or the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi type models).

See here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12085377&postcount=15

 

[inocente]

Hey, don’t get het up. I agree, with some reservations. First the geocentric view was not universally held. Second Galileo was a brilliant scientest. but he did not " prove " the heliocentric theory as a fact, which is what he had claimed. He also had an insufferable personality which was the cause of most of his problems.

That’s OK, I too have an insufferable personality.

To clear up two points:

1. As we all know, the big bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, but nevertheless naughty scientists have amassed lots of observations confirming the theory. Those observations indicate beyond reasonable doubt that if the Earth is at the center of the universe as yon blogger claims, everything else is moving away from us as fast as it can.
2. There is no center to the universe. Without Aristotle’s Celestial Rings, everywhere has equal claim to be the center. This is not geocentrism, it’s not heliocentrism, it’s egocentrism . Well no, it’s Galilean relativity. Without Aristotle’s natural place, matter is not longer animated to get anywhere, it’s inert, which I think is where the term “inertial” comes from, as in “the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames”.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for this view. I acknowledge, on the basis of advice from those who know far more about the history, canon law and related aspects of the case than I do, that the Church has not made this issue a matter of dogma or infallibility.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Church as an institution acted against Galileo through the Holy Office, his works and those of Copernicus languished on the Index for 200 years and at least for 50 of those 200 years no Catholic dared to teach or promote the Copernican theory. The eventual removal of the banned works from the Index in 1820 was initiated by the refusal of an imprimatur to a book on cosmology and astronomy on the grounds that it was heretical. As late as 1820.

So whereas I accept that the Magisterium of the Church did not establish dogmata on this subject, nevertheless the responsibility goes wider than a few individuals and surely touches the Church as an institution.

I was counting the “individuals” in the Holy Office plus a future saint and probably a few popes present and past.

I totally agree that the whole mess “surely touches the Church as an institution” then and now.

However, from my experience years ago, I know the importance of clarifying that the institution known as the Catholic Church did not declare a planet earth doctrine based on Divine Revelation. Remember that the doctrine of geocentrism was one of the points presented years back. That was a bloody battle. While we have different world views, I do remember and appreciate your help. Thank you.

Even today, I find the same confusion about what the Catholic Church actually does when there is a scientific issue. :sad_yes: Only this time, instead of looking for Church doctrines as backup, some, not all, people prefer skipping doctrines or updating doctrines to comport with current science.

 

[grannymh]

Sorry, hecd2, the Church is competent to state so. The Church represents Jesus on earth. Jesus is the son of God. God created the universe, science, you, all of us. To say what you are saying is patently false, and is basically saying that God is incompetent to speak for His creation. Come on Catholics, this is a Catholic forum, stand up a little for your Church! hecd2 has a right to his opinion for sure, but let’s not lose sight of the context here.

The CMB may not prove the earth is motionless in the center of the universe, but it poses so much problem for inflation, that scientists are moving towards a version of inflation that implies the multiverse, a totally unscientific opinion. Other scientists are moving to alternate theories that most likely challenge the Copernican Principle (such as the expanding wave of Temple and Smoller or the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi type models).

See here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12085377&postcount=15

The point is not whether or not the Catholic Church per se is competent in natural science. The point revolves around the realm of faith and morals in which the Catholic Church per se is competent. The area of natural science is not part of the competency required in the realm of faith and morals.

Thus, Hecd2 is basically correct. I did respond with a clarification in post 52 and briefly defended my clarification in post 58.

 

[hildegaard]

The point is not whether or not the Catholic Church per se is competent in natural science. The point revolves around the realm of faith and morals in which the Catholic Church per se is competent. The area of natural science is not part of the competency required in the realm of faith and morals.

Thus, Hecd2 is basically correct. I did respond with a clarification in post 52 and briefly defended my clarification in post 58.

Abraham had 12 sons. Is the Church competent in mathematics? Did he actually have 11 or 13 or some other number?

And who ever said the Church is restricted to faith and morals?