History

[DerekTM]

The point is that Galileo made it more than a scientific theory. He brought theology into the mix. That was the issue. The Church actually had no problem with him presenting his position as theory only. We are discussing history and the various positions people take concerning the Church’s treatment of Galileo.

I was responding specifically to the points made about how Galileo was scientifically incorrect by stating he was still more scientifically correct than Church authorities. I accidentally omitted the word “scientifically” when I said he was more correct.

 

[Rohzek]

The point is that Galileo made it more than a scientific theory. He brought theology into the mix. That was the issue. The Church actually had no problem with him presenting his position as theory only. We are discussing history and the various positions people take concerning the Church’s treatment of Galileo.

I think we should give Galileo a break on this point. Considering the fact that scholasticism leaped into the realm of science so-to-speak, it is a bit difficult to fault Galileo for arguing his point. And in actuality, Galileo’s overall point was that there were two books to interpret God’s work and message: the Book of Nature and the Bible. He believed that they should not conflict. So when he observed some things that flew in the face of Aristotelian models, which had become deeply intertwined with Christian theology thanks to Thomas Aquinas, he naturally questioned the status quo. In many ways, he was similar to Origen of Alexandria, who argued that the earth could not have possibly been created in seven days, based mostly on some observable facts. And Origen then advocated a new allegorical interpretation of the Genesis story. Galileo more or less did the same. Galileo was forced to give new theological interpretations on the simple fact that if he didn’t, he would be accused of contradicting the scriptures. Galileo wanted to avoid those charges by advocating alternative interpretations. Too bad he was damned if he didn’t and damned if he did.

If people are going to blame Galileo for proclaiming something as absolutely true, then it must be remembered that the Church did the exact same thing with the geocentric model. They couldn’t separate the scientific model from the theology.

 

[GKC]

The facts are that there is profound ignorance about Galileo and his compeers, and the Catholic Church.
BTW, the Rationalist Society in England assigned one of its anti-Catholic journalist members, Sherwood Taylor, to write a book attacking the Church over Galileo. “After studying the case, Taylor was converted and received into the Catholic Church – grace sometimes works in strange ways!” The Six Days of Creation, Br Thomas Mary Sennott, Ravengate 1984, p 186]

Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley, “went to Rome and examined the Case, a little more thoroughly than the average humanist, probably intending to use it in his ongoing controversy with the Anglican bishop, Samuel Wilberforce. In a letter written to Mivart in 1885 he concluded, rather disappointedly, I presume – ‘I looked into the matter when I was in Italy and I arrived at the conclusion that the Pope and the College of Cardinals had rather the best of it.’ ”
[Arthur Koestler, *The Sleepwalkers

, MacMillan, 1959, p 353; cited in The Six Days of Creation, Br Thomas Mary Sennott, Ravengate, 1984, p185-6].

Galileo was, in the 1633 Decree of the Inquisition, censured as “vehemently suspected of heresy.” No papal declaration of heresy was made.

Galileo got in trouble for presenting heliocentrism as more than just a hypothesis, as absolute truth. Nicolaus Copernicus had no problems at all, and even dedicated his De Revolutionibus to the Holy Father.
The only statement was a theological opinion issued by the theologians of the Holy Office. Theological opinion does not represent the Magisterium (official teaching) of the Church – Copernicanism had never been declared heretical by either the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium of the Church.

In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not – as is commonly supposed – under torture nor after a harsh imprisonment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, “We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities.” Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.
catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

THE CRIMES OF GALILEO, by de Santillana, is my favorite book on the subject. Recommended. No one comes out of it looking good.

Heilbron’s GALILEO is also recommended.

GKC

 

[Gara3987]

My daughter attends a public school. Her history teacher is a Calvinist. She has chosen materials which seem to attack the Catholic Church frequently. She is teaching that the Catholic Church taught the sun revolved around the earth and if you questioned the teaching you were punished. How would you respond to her?

The Church never had an official teaching regarding this subject; though to my knowledge, there were many private opinions on the matter. Before Galileo, Copernicus dedicated his work ‘De revolutionibus orbium coelestium’ on heliocentrism to Pope Paul Ⅲ. There were several errors found in his work, which placed his work on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum; where it was later removed after the corrections were made.

With Galileo, he got himself in trouble with the way he went about doing things.
Tom Short does a good job explaining it ‘Truth about Galileo - Religion vs Science.’

 

[Selah_KY]

My daughter attends a public school. Her history teacher is a Calvinist. She has chosen materials which seem to attack the Catholic Church frequently. She is teaching that the Catholic Church taught the sun revolved around the earth and if you questioned the teaching you were punished. How would you respond to her?

Personally, I wouldn’t respond to the teacher, but I would discuss it with my daughter. Address the inaccuracy of the word “punishment” used by her teacher. But even more important, she should know that when the science was proven the Church did change. Just because they made a decision of heresy (for his proclamation of Truth, right?) based on the knowledge they had four hundred years ago, that doesn’t make Her “archaic” or “out of touch”.