Inquisition question

[Bob_Magnuson]

I am enrolled in an astronomy class at my local community college. The professor seems very anti-religious, which I cannot control, but I would at least like to keep him honest. He made a statement in the last class which I do not believe is true, namely that during the time of Galileo, ‘people were burned at the stake’ for professing the belief that the earth revolved around the sun. He used this as an example of how ‘religious authorities’ react to new scientific knowledge. I have read extensively about the trial of Galileo, and I have never heard of anyone other than Galileo being tried for holding these beliefs, and of course, he was not burned at the stake.
Can anyone help me with resources or thoughts on this topic? I want to hold this professor to the truth, if nothing else, but I need information.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From Columbia Encyclopedia (non-Catholic), under the article “Galileo”:

Conflict with the ChurchIn 1611 [Galileo] visited Rome to display the telescope to the papal court. In 1616 the system of Copernicus was denounced as dangerous to faith, and Galileo, summoned to Rome, was warned not to uphold it or teach it. But in 1632 he published a work written for the nonspecialist, Dialogo … sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo [dialogue on the two chief systems of the world] (tr. 1661; rev. and ed. by Giorgio de Santillana, 1953; new tr. by Stillman Drake, 1953, rev. 1967); that work, which supported the Copernican System as opposed to the Ptolemaic, marked a turning point in scientific and philosophical thought. Again summoned to Rome, he was tried (1633) by the Inquisition and brought to the point of making an abjuration of all beliefs and writings that held the sun to be the central body and the earth a moving body revolving with the other planets about it. Since 1761, accounts of the trial have concluded with the statement that Galileo, as he arose from his knees, exclaimed sotto voce, “E pur si muove” [nevertheless it does move]. That statement was long considered legendary, but it was discovered written on a portrait of Galileo completed c.1640.

4After the Inquisition trial Galileo was sentenced to an enforced residence in Siena. He was later allowed to live in seclusion at Arcetri near Florence, and it is likely that Galileo’s statement of defiance was made as he left Siena for Arcetri. In spite of infirmities and, at the last, blindness, Galileo continued the pursuit of scientific truth until his death. His last book, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences (tr., 3d ed. 1939, repr. 1952), which contains most of his contributions to physics, appeared in 1638. In 1979 Pope John Paul II asked that the 1633 conviction be annulled. However, since teaching the Copernican theory had been banned in 1616, it was technically possible that a new trial could find Galileo guilty; thus it was suggested that the 1616 prohibition be reversed, and this happened in 1992. The pope concluded that while 17th-century theologians based their decision on the knowledge available to them at the time, they had wronged Galileo by not recognizing the difference between a question relating to scientific investigation and one falling into the realm of doctrine of the faith.

Regarding his claim…

during the time of Galileo, ‘people were burned at the stake’ for professing the belief that the earth revolved around the sun.

Ask him who. I would challenge him to support his claim with evidence, or retract it.

 

[hecd2]

Bob Magnuson:

I am enrolled in an astronomy class at my local community college. The professor seems very anti-religious, which I cannot control, but I would at least like to keep him honest. He made a statement in the last class which I do not believe is true, namely that during the time of Galileo, ‘people were burned at the stake’ for professing the belief that the earth revolved around the sun. He used this as an example of how ‘religious authorities’ react to new scientific knowledge. I have read extensively about the trial of Galileo, and I have never heard of anyone other than Galileo being tried for holding these beliefs, and of course, he was not burned at the stake.
Can anyone help me with resources or thoughts on this topic? I want to hold this professor to the truth, if nothing else, but I need information.

I doubt that at the time of Galileo, people were burned at the stake for professing heliocentrism. Galileo himself was shown the instruments of torture, but they were not used on him. I think he was shabbily treated, but the claim that at the time of Galileo, people were being burned for professing heliocentrism is, I believe, false.

However, a few decades before, Giardano Bruno, who professed a cosmology that is infinite in extent and that contains an infinite number of suns and worlds, that inherently denies geocentrism, was burned at the stake by the order of the Holy Office of the Inquisition in Rome in 1600 for his cosmology, the formal charge being ‘heresy in matters of dogmatic theology’. Ironically, the concept of a universe which is infinite in extent has become a valid cosmological hypothesis, and is becoming more likely, the closer that observations make space flat. See the work of Max Tegmark in particular here:
arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0302/0302131.pdf
See also Gariga and Vilenkin, ‘Many Worlds in one’, Phys. Rev. D 64, 043511 available on-line hre:
arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0102/0102010.pdf
Anyway, neither Tegmark, Gariga nor Vilekin are likely to be burned for their science, thankfully, but Bruno was.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[itsjustdave1988]

burned at the stake by the order of the Holy Office of the Inquisition in Rome in 1600 for his cosmology

Errrrr…no.

Bruno’s crimes were more profound than teaching an alternative cosmology. He taught a humanist, materialistic pantheism, which was rather incoherent. He was a defiant critic of many ecclesiastical doctrines. After rejecting Catholicism, he joined Calvinism, but was excommunicated by them and ejected from Geneva, appearantly because of his outspoken defiance of Church authority in Geneva too.

He was a humanist who published what he considered humorous works but others found them to be obscene. In 1584 he published “The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast”, which was not about cosmology, but an attack on the Catholic Church.

In 1587, he was excommunicated by the Lutherans in Germany. Seems this guy couldn’t get along with anybody.

In 1591, he went to Venice (not too bright, either), and was tried before the Inquisition (not for his Copernican views, however). He was (name removed by moderator)risoned for 6 years. After haven been given several terms in which to retract his heretical teachings, he was handed over to the secular authorities. They executed him.

“Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc. … his system of thought is an incoherent materialistic pantheism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol III - “Giordano Bruno”, 1908)

 

[Carl]

hecd2

I think your conclusion about the infinity of the universe is neither proven nor generally accepted. One of the authors you cited even admits there is no proof positive for the claim of an infinite universe. The dominant view is that the universe is finite but expanding. Therefore Bruno, unlike Galileo, was not persecuted for teaching a doctrine that turned out to be scientifically true. In fact, the Church was much closer to the truth than Bruno, as the Jesuit priest George LeMaitre demonstrated when he hypothesized a theory that Einstein tried to reject but that George Gamow later called the Big Bang.

 

[hecd2]

itsjustdave1988:

Bruno’s crimes were more profound than teaching an alternative cosmology. He taught a humanist, materialistic pantheism, which was rather incoherent. He was a defiant critic of many ecclesiastical doctrines. After rejecting Catholicism, he joined Calvinism, but was excommunicated by them and ejected from Geneva, appearantly because of his outspoken defiance of Church authority in Geneva too.

CRIMES! You call teaching a humanist, materialistic pantheism a crime!??? Misguided, perhaps, but a crime? Or maybe it was the enmity he showed to ecclesiatical doctrines. He was excommunicated by the Calvinisists mainly because of his cosmology.

He was a humanist who published what he considered humorous works but others found them to be obscene. In 1584 he published “The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast”, which was not about cosmology, but an attack on the Catholic Church.

Actually, lay people found them to be funny and profound. It was the clerics who found them obscene.

In 1587, he was excommunicated by the Lutherans in Germany. Seems this guy couldn’t get along with anybody.

GREAT!!! My kind of guy!

In 1591, he went to Venice (not too bright, either),

Going to Venice wasn’t too bright? Have you been to Venice? Were you arrested for heresy? What’s wrong with going to Venice? You forget about the Roman episode

and was tried before the Inquisition (not for his Copernican views, however). He was (name removed by moderator)risoned for 6 years. After haven been given several terms in which to retract his heretical teachings, he was handed over to the secular authorities. They executed him.

Hooray!! Church exonerated from this travesty of justice! Well, the fact is that they killed Giordano Bruno for his cosmology amongst other things.

“Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc. … his system of thought is an incoherent materialistic pantheism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol III - “Giordano Bruno”, 1908)

This is an absolutely biased apology. Sure Bruno was accused of things other than the plurality of worlds and Coperican cosmology, but to pretend that they had no influence on his conviction is disingenuous. And finally there is the fallacy that it is morally acceptable to burn someone alive for; ‘his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc. … [because] his system of thought is an incoherent materialistic pantheism’ PAH! Might as well burn someone alive for failing to believe in the Easter bunny.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[mjdonnelly]

Regarding the Inquisition:

crisismagazine.com/october2003/madden.htm

 

[hecd2]

Carl:

hecd2

I think your conclusion about the infinity of the universe is neither proven nor generally accepted. One of the authors you cited even admits there is no proof positive for the claim of an infinite universe. The dominant view is that the universe is finite but expanding. Therefore Bruno, unlike Galileo, was not persecuted for teaching a doctrine that turned out to be scientifically true. In fact, the Church was much closer to the truth than Bruno, as the Jesuit priest George LeMaitre demonstrated when he hypothesized a theory that Einstein tried to reject but that George Gamow later called the Big Bang.

I never claimed it was proven or even generally accepted. I merely pointed out that it is a viable scientific hypothesis gaining support (contrary to the church’s ridiculous prohibition against considering an infinite cosmos). Furthermore, I have never in this board or anywhere, denied the Big Bang which is supported by overwhelming evidence and which certainly occurred. However, you cannot sweep all the scientific opinions for the possibility of an infinite cosmos under the carpet, and you cannot simply ignore all the detailed papers on this subject if you want to be taken seriously. I have presented argument backed up with reference. You have presented assertion and prejudice.

In order to prevail, to prove that an infinite universe is not a possibility, you have to show the precise errors in Tegmark’s and Linde’s work which I posted in some detail an dt hat you have ignored in these posts:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=186720#post186720

#53
#56
#57
#58

I even gave extensive quotes from the papers that you have entirely ignored.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

hecd2:

CRIMES! You call teaching a humanist, materialistic pantheism a crime??? …
And finally there is the fallacy that it is morally acceptable to burn someone alive for; ‘his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc. … [because] his system of thought is an incoherent materialistic pantheism’ PAH! Might as well burn someone alive for failing to believe in the Easter bunny.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Well, like it or not, the secular legal code of the day listed heresy as a capital offense. Modern society has different ideas on the matter. So you can call it what you want, but the courts of his day called heresy a crime.

Secondly, you are far too dedicated to the notion that Bruno’s cosmology was the primary reason for his execution. Any one of the above-listed heresies in isolation could have brought a death sentence, especially in light of the fact that individuals had been burned for far more orthodox departures from the Truth.

If you are looking to have a discussion over the defensibility of such action you’ve come to the right place, but your figure of the Noble Seeker of Truth being oppressed by the Big Bad Church doesn’t convey much openness to discourse.

 

[hecd2]

Andreas Hofer:

Well, like it or not, the secular legal code of the day listed heresy as a capital offense. Modern society has different ideas on the matter. So you can call it what you want, but the courts of his day called heresy a crime.

So what? It doesn’t change the fact that burning people for their beliefs is a disgraceful, indefensible act in this society, that society or any society. Good heavens, Catholics on this list seem ready enough to take the relative moral stance when that is convenient for apologising for the Church’s sins of the past, but are first to condemn relative morality in others. Pure hypocrisy.

On this board with hundreds of Catholic subscribers, one, only one has had the decency to state without reservation that it is wrong to kill people for what they believe. That is very sad.

Secondly, you are far too dedicated to the notion that Bruno’s cosmology was the primary reason for his execution. Any one of the above-listed heresies in isolation could have brought a death sentence, especially in light of the fact that individuals had been burned for far more orthodox departures from the Truth.

And is that supposed to be a justification? The point is that NONE of those beliefs justify tying a man to a stake and lighting a fire at his feet - do they?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[mlchance]

Bob Magnuson:

I have read extensively about the trial of Galileo, and I have never heard of anyone other than Galileo being tried for holding these beliefs.

Galileo was not tried for believing heliocentrism versus geocentrism. He was tried because he advanced as fact his own pet theories about heliocentrism when he had not actually demonstrated their truthfulness. IOW, he was punished for teaching as true that which was not demonstrably true. (He also publicly insulted the Pope by putting the Pope’s own cosmological theories into the mouth of the fool in a dialogue, an act showing a profound lack of common sense on Galileo’s part.)

As future work in cosmology by a certain Catholic canon would show, Galileo’s pet theories were substantially wrong. Which means the Church was right to censure Galileo for making the claims he made. None of which, of course, means that the methods the Church chose to employ were justifiable.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[jeffreedy789]

hecd posted: ‘CRIMES! You call teaching a humanist, materialistic pantheism a crime!???’ and then : ‘So what? It doesn’t change the fact that burning people for their beliefs is a disgraceful, indefensible act in this society, that society or any society.’

if something is against the law, whatever law that might be, it’s a crime. whether or not you find that particular law ‘disgraceful or indefensible’ is a matter of your opinion.

hecd also posted: ‘Going to Venice wasn’t too bright?’ i’d say not, since he was capitally punished as a result.

where do you get the notion, hecd, that dying for your beliefs is a bad thing? by the way, don’t forget that we christians have done our share of it, too.

 

[Pax]

There is one other matter of no small import in the case of Galileo. While arguing against his theory, church representatives used some quotes from scripture. Rather than telling them that their understanding or interpretation was wrong, Galileo chose to say that the bible was wrong. Naturally, this did not sit well with the church nor would it be acceptable to any evangelical or fundamentalist of our day.

No one believes that it is Okay to kill people for their beliefs. At least no one would contend that such a proposition is tenable unless someone’s beliefs were sufficiently dangerous and that person intended to carry them out regardless of the consequences (like obtaining and using a nuclear weapon).

While this example might force us to take action in our time, we cannot see into the past with the same precision because we have absolutely no appreciation for those times. While executions for beliefs seem horrible in our eyes, and are objectively wrong, we are still using a form of hindsight that lacks sufficient data to fairly judge all that was going on.

When monarchies were the typical form of government, civil authorities wielded incredible power over incarceration as well as matters of life and death. In our egalitarian times this easily offends us, but earlier in man’s history there was no such sensitivity. We still see vestiges of this kind of thing in ultra strict Islamic countries or in dictatorial regimes. Even in our modern era evil dictators have murdered millions while much of the world sat idly by watching the evil before them.

During the time of the Inquisition, civil authorities were made up of Kings and Queens and they would put people death routinely. Any form of treasonous behavior, imagined or otherwise, was reason enough. In England if you were to poach a deer in the king’s forest, which was at least one third of the country, you would be put to death. There were myriad reasons for killing people.

Novel ideas were not tolerated by civil authorities because they were considered dangerous to society. Upsetting the status quo in any way was frequently considered treason. This was applied in the areas of religious belief as well because no king wanted anything upsetting the masses.

Now we can rant and criticize the Catholic Church as if somehow the Church is “the” villain, but this is ludicrous in light of history. All of the countries where the Protestants ruled had their own executions as well. By far the worst example of what happened to people for religious beliefs was found in England under Henry VIII. His lovely regime executed around 35,000 catholics within his realm, and divested every catholic of their property and businesses unless they converted to the Church of England.

Now, I make no excuses for anything that was done by Catholic Church authorities or Civil authorities during the course of the Inquisition. I do say, however, that the evils of the Inquisition have been greatly exaggerated, and that what did happen didn’t happen in a vacuum. Critics of the Church are welcome to point out the ills of the Inquisition or anything else, but it is not historically correct or honest to ignore the historical context in which “all” of aforementioned things occurred.

Please note that having said all of this, I do not approve of killing people for having novel ideas. Perish the thought.

 

[hecd2]

mlchance:

Galileo was not tried for believing heliocentrism versus geocentrism.
– Mark L. Chance.

Wrong. You follow a form of disingenuous Cathoic Apologetics that is broadly rejected outside the Church. This is the Indictment of 1633:

‘Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled “On the Sunspots,” wherein you developed the same doctrine as true…’

‘The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith…’

Galileo was condemned for heliocentrism, not for his admittedly wrong view on the source of the tides. He was wrong about the tides, but right about almost everything else. Every great man is allowed some leniency in holding incorrect opinions. Most scientists are not threatened with torture for it.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[hecd2]

jeffreedy789:

where do you get the notion, hecd, that dying for your beliefs is a bad thing? by the way, don’t forget that we christians have done our share of it, too.

Dying for your beliefs is not a bad thing and, provided one doesn’t have dependants to consider might even be a heroic thing.

However, killing people for their beliefs is entirely different and is unremittingly bad.

Get the difference? Dying and killing are not equivalent.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[Sarah_Jane]

The Papacy and Galileo, by Patrick Madrid

catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0033.html

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Galileo Galilei, by Bertrand Conway

catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0021.html

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This is the Indictment of 1633:

‘Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled “On the Sunspots,” wherein you developed the same doctrine as true…’

‘The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith…’

Would you mind terribly giving us a link to this “indictment” so that we can read it, in context, instead of just cutting and pasting a paragraph or two, boldly labeled–This is the indictment of 1633:

Disingenous apologetics? Of course, people could never have an honest opinion that disagrees with you–they can only have disingenous apologetics, it seems.

 

[hecd2]

Tantum ergo:

Would you mind terribly giving us a link to this “indictment” so that we can read it, in context, instead of just cutting and pasting a paragraph or two, boldly labeled–This is the indictment of 1633:

Disingenous apologetics? Of course, people could never have an honest opinion that disagrees with you–they can only have disingenous apologetics, it seems.

You speak as though it is somehow wrong to quote critical passages. Qouting,as I have done, is absolutely accepted practice. As you can see, I posted ellipses to indicate that this was not a complete reproduction of the entire document. Anyway there is no secret about the documents in the Galileo trial, all of which are well known to history. A tiny effort to find them would be successful. Go here:
law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileo.html
Click the ‘Papal Condemnation’ link. And for those who can’t be bothered, here is another quotation from the indictment:

‘We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture.’

Disingenuous apologetics: I absolutely stand by that claim. It is only those Catholics who are intent on excusing the inexcusable behaviour of the Roman Inquisition who pretend that Galileo was condemned for getting the cause of the tides wrong. Those apologists are even out of date as far as the Church goes, since there has been public papal regret for the Church’s treatment of Galileo.My point is that the Holy Office was incensed not by Galileo’s errors with regard to the cause of the tides (most of the cardinals would have been incapable of understanding the arguments) but by the simple fact that Galileo taught heliocentrism - and that view is absolutely supported by the text of the Papal Condemnation and by Galileo’s forced recantation.

I call things as I see them. Claiming that Galileo was condemned for his scientific error rather than his challenge to scriptural cosmology is not honest opinion; it is disingenuous apologetics. It is not an opinion that is known at all outside the Church and it does not accord with the current papal view.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[gsaccone]

Alec (hecd2),

Maybe you can help me answer a couple questions? What is the best estimate of the number of deaths attributed to the Spanish Inquisition during it’s 350 year history? Do you know what percentage of defendants were tortured or the methods and tactics used?

I am addressing this to Alec (hecd2) only, so please let him answer my question, thanks.

Greg