The Truth about the Gallileo affair - by an Atheist

[Charlemagne_III]

The Church did wrong, JPII apologized, the world has moved on, and a tiny minority on the internet who think otherwise won’t change that.

Let’s clarify what you just said.

Is the Church the Pope? He is the leader of the Church, but he is not the Church.

The Pope took on Galileo and Galileo was badly treated, but only after Galileo had badly treated the Pope, had made a point of insulting the Pope. Galileo did not insult the Church with his theory of heliocentrism. He insulted the Pope by referring to him as a Simpleton. The Pope insulted him right back with censure and imprisonment. Foolishness all around. John Paul II apologized for the treatment of Galileo. I’m not aware that Galileo ever apologized for his insult to the Pope. The myths still persist that the Church opposed science when two members of the Church, Copernicus (a priest) and Galileo (who remained a Catholic) both advanced the idea of heliocentrism against all opposition, including leaders of the Catholic Church and Protestantism (Martin Luther).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I still don’t remember anyone saying anything about your faith or the faith of Catholics.

You commented on how you thought Catholics were supposed to listen to the Pope. So I tried to explain to you when a Catholic is bound to adhere to what a Pope says and when he is not. You brought it up, not me.

Most of my neighbors have a picture of a pope on the kitchen wall. Most often it’s JPII. I think only a tiny number of Catholics don’t accept the word of JPII on this matter

.

He was a great man by any standard. But I am just as devoted to Benedict XVl.

But I think there are more Catholics than non-Catholics who don’t accept his word. Why this should be eludes me.

I don’t know the numbers, so I don’t know how you have special knowledge about it. But it is a fact that no Catholic is bound in conscience to accept the prudential judgments of the Pope, any Pope. This not neither a sign of being a bad Catholic nor is it a sign that the Pope is wrong. Now when the Pope speaks on matters of faith and morals that is when Catholics are bound in conscience.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You’re not even provided evidence of any lies from reputable sources of education on the internet. Not from one. It would seem that even simply rephrasing JPII or the Pontifical Commission gets branded a lie in your book.

Now really, did I ever say anything the Pope said or that the commission said was a lie. Just because I disagreed with certain things is not to say I thought they lied. I merely indicated that their judgment is different than my own. And I think the apology was pointless and fruitless. It is just a difference of opinion.

As to the sources I gave you, they are good in my opinion and they prove the point. So you disagree, that is your privilege.

Linus2nd

 

[weller2]

The Inquisition was run by people; the Cardinal Inquisitors. Cardinal Bellarmine was a Cardinal Inquisitor. Without much exaggeration one could claim Cardinal Bellarmine WAS the Inquisition. The Cardinal Inquisitor believed the Church was willing to change its exegesis if heliocentrism could be proven.

No, he wasn’t.

The idea that he was comes from quoting one phrase out of context. Here is the letter to Fontarini in its entiriety:

To the Very Reverend Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Provincial of the Carmelites in the Province of Calabria:

My Very Reverend Father ,I have read with interest the letter in Italian and the essay in Latin which Your Paternity sent me; I thank you for the one and for the other and confess that they are all full of intelligence and erudition. You ask for my opinion, and so I shall give it to you, but very briefly, since now you have little time for reading and I for writing. First, I say that it seems to me that Your Paternity and Mr. Galileo are proceeding prudently by limiting yourselves to speaking suppositionally and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For there is no danger in saying that, by assuming the earthmoves and the sun stands still, one saves all the appearances better thanby postulating eccentrics and epicycles; and that is sufficient for the mathematician. However, it is different to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth is in the third heaven and revolves with great speed around the sun; this is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false. For Your Paternity has well shown many ways of interpreting Holy Scripture, but has not applied them to particular cases; without a doubt you would have encountered very great difficulties if you had wanted to interpret all those passages you yourself cited.

Second, I say that, as you know, the Council prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center ofthe world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith “as regards the topic,” it is a matter of faith “as regards the speaker”; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the HolySpirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles.

 

[weller2]

(continued)

Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by assuming the sun to be at the center andthe earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers. I add that the one who wrote, “The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, andhasteth to his place where he arose,” was Solomon, who not only spoke inspired by God, but was a man above all others wise and learned in the human sciences and in the knowledge ofcreated things;he received all this wisdom from God; therefore it is not likely that he was affirming something that was contrary to truth already demonstrated or capable ofbeing demonstrated. Now, suppose you say that Solomon speaks in accordance with appearances, since it seems to us that the sun moves (while the earth does so), just as to someone who moves away from the seashore on a ship it looks likethe shore is moving. I shall answer that when someone moves away from the shore, although it appears to him that the shore is moving away from him, nevertheless he knows that this is an error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the shore; but in regard to the sun and the earth, no scientist has any need to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that the eye is not in error when it judges that the sun moves, as it also is not in error when it judges that the moon and the stars move. And this is enough for now.

With this I greet dearly Your Paternity, and I pray to God to grant you all your wishes.

At home, 12 April 1615.

To Your Reverend Paternity.

As a Brother,
Cardinal Bellarmine.

Let me walk you slowly through the letter:

• in the first paragraph, Bellarmine states that heliocentrism is a useful mathematical device, and can be taught as such; however, would one dare to state that Earth in fact moves, that would mean contradicting Scripture which is of course a big no-no.
• Bellarmine begins the second paragraph by saying that the Council of Trent forbids interpreting Scripture contrary to the Early Church Fathers, and ECFs uniformly agree that the Earth does not move. (One of modern geocentrists, Sungenis I think, did a great writeup on the subject, where he demonstrated that no other article of faith enjoys as uniform agreement of ECFs as geocentrism does!) For that reason alone, heliocentrism must be considered a heresy, as it cannot be reconciled with Tradition!
• In the same paragraph, Bellarmine states that (the lack of) Earth’s motion is in fact an article of faith, just like the number of children of Abraham is an article of faith – simply because the matter is discussed in the Scripture. Indeed, modern exegesis does not hold anymore that Abraham had exactly two children (nor that Earth is immobile), however, modern exegesis is largely built on textual criticism, which did not appear until 19th century. I posit that it was the heliocentric controversy which ultimately allowed the rise of modern exegesis, not the other way around. Therefore, the assertion that Bellarmine believed that heliocentrism is a purely scientific problem is false; his own letter explicitly states the contrary.
• The third paragraph opens with the widely (mis)quoted [should heliocentrism be demonstrated], one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. Here, Bellarmine gets the credit for laying the foundation of modern exegesis. However, it should be noted that he is discussing this as a hypothetical situation; the statement is immediately followed by a list of reasons why Bellarmine believes such demonstration is unlikely to ever occur.

Also, invoking Bellarmine’s statement about physical proof is a straw man because, as it is apparent from the proceedings, the tribunal was not interested in the proof at all!

 

[weller2]

Defense attorney: “Judge, the prosecution has brought no evidence whatsoever.”

Prosecution attorney: “Is it really your only problem?”

:whacky:

Imagine the following situation:

The city of Neverville lies in the valley between the mountains; on the top of one of these mountains lives a dragon. The dragon is believed to be awakened by singing. Hence, in the city of Neverville, singing is forbidden under the penalty of death. This is known to work, as the dragon was not seen for the last 412 years the ban has been in effect.

One day, a young boy named Galileo is found to be singing at the top of his lungs in the central square of the city. Due to the gravity of the matter, he is immediately arrested and brought before a judge.

Prosecution: This man here has put the entire city in danger by singing. Should the dragon awaken, everyone would be dead!

Judge: Does the accused admit to singing?

Defense: Yes, Your Honor, we admit that my client was indeed singing. However, my client believes that singing was safe, as he knows that there is no dragon.

Judge: And how does he know that there is no dragon?

Defense: Here is a wonderful invention of my client (produces a telescope) which allows one to see things which are normally too far to be seen. Using this wondrous device my client has inspected the top of the mountain where the suspected dragon lives and found no trace of it; there is only a pile of rubble.

Prosecution: Objection, Your Honor! The existence of the dragon has nothing to do with the case. The law is clear; we are not here to debate the accused’s philosophical views about the existence of dragons, but to answer a much simpler question: was he singing.

Judge: Sustained. Does the defence have anything to say about the facts of the case?

Defense: Your Honor, the existence of the dragon is the basic fact of the case. As we all know, the law was put in place to protect people from the dragon. If there is no dragon, the ban on singing has no merit. And may we ask what evidence does the prosecution have that the dragon in fact exists?

Judge: Indeed, a very good question. Please answer.

Prosecution: Your Honor, we have historical records…

Defense: Which last mention the dragon over 400 years ago. The dragon can be long dead – if he was there even at all. What evidence do you have that the dragon is there right now?

Prosecution: We have no proof of the dragon.

Defense: But if the dragon is not there, don’t you agree that the law has no merit?

Prosecution: Your Honor, please let me note that in this case prudence should be our first priority. The accused did not manage to prove that there is no dragon. All we know that his device shows no dragon. This can be for a number of reasons. Firstly, his device could be faulty…

Defense: A friend of my client was using the device to watch maidens bathing in the river. He swears that the image was perfect, although upside-down.

Prosecution: Secondly, the dragon could be not there when the accused was looking – it could have left to do some errands.

Defense: But we have witnesses who will testify that my client looked through the device immediately before singing. Therefore, even if the dragon, hypothetically, lives on the mountain, it was not present when my client was singing – so, the singing posed no danger.

Prosecution: Thirdly, the dragon could be invisible…

Defense: Ridiculous. Was it also pink?

Judge: Indeed, invisible pink dragons are definitely outside of the realm of possibility. Does the prosecution have any more arguments?

Procecution: Your honor! All that does no matter. The law does not require the dragon to exist. The law is the law; singing means death. Even if we agree that the dragon does not exist, that does not mean that the law will automatically cease to be. Writing laws is the job of the legislative; the job of the court is to uphold them. We may agree that – in absence of the dragon – the law has no merit, and should be changed. We may even agree that the lack of dragon makes the law fundamentally unjust. But it does not change the fact that today, the law still stands; and the accused has clearly violated it. He must be executed!

Judge: Indeed. The accused is guilty as changed, and he will be hanged tomorrow.

 

[Stephen168]

No, he wasn’t.
The idea that he was comes from quoting one phrase out of context. Here is the letter to Fontarini in its entiriety:

No, He wasn’t a Cardinal Inquisitor or no he wasn’t willing to change his exegesis if heliocentrism could be proven?
From your next post, I’ll assume the later.
But just in case: Cardinal Bellarmine was born in 1542. He was made a Cardinal Inquisitor in 1597 and died in 1621.

Let me walk you slowly through the letter:

Sure walk me through it. But first remember as I pointed out with quotes that the Catholic Church does not view Holy Scripture as a science book. It never has; ever. St. Augustine said if your exegesis conflicts with reason, your exegesis is wrong. The Church just needed a reason from Galileo.

• in the first paragraph, Bellarmine states that heliocentrism is a useful mathematical device, and can be taught as such; however, would one dare to state that Earth in fact moves, that would mean contradicting Scripture which is of course a big no-no.

OK

• Bellarmine begins the second paragraph by saying that the Council of Trent forbids interpreting Scripture contrary to the Early Church Fathers, and ECFs uniformly agree that the Earth does not move. …
• In the same paragraph, Bellarmine states that (the lack of) Earth’s motion is in fact an article of faith, just like the number of children of Abraham is an article of faith – simply because the matter is discussed in the Scripture.

Right and if your exegesis conflicts with reason, your exegesis is wrong. If reason (scientific/historical facts) proved Abraham did not have 12 children, the Church would be willing to accept that fact.

• The third paragraph opens with the widely (mis)quoted [should heliocentrism be demonstrated], one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. Here, Bellarmine gets the credit for laying the foundation of modern exegesis. However, it should be noted that he is discussing this as a hypothetical situation; the statement is immediately followed by a list of reasons why Bellarmine believes such demonstration is unlikely to ever occur.

In 1616, it was a hypothetical situation because Galileo had not proven Copernicus. Cardinal Bellarmine believing it never will be proven doesn’t mean the Church would not be willing to change its view. In fact, the Church did change right along with proven science.

Also, invoking Bellarmine’s statement about physical proof is a straw man because, as it is apparent from the proceedings, the tribunal was not interested in the proof at all!

What happened at the trial due to Galileo’s failure to prove Copernicus, does not mean the Church was not willing to change if he did. In fact, if he did prove it, there would never have been a trial. And again, the Church did change right along with proven science.

 

[DrTaffy]

Is the Church the Pope? He is the leader of the Church, but he is not the Church.

I have often seen, but never understood this excuse. The Pope, the Cardinals, the Inquisition and the whole mechanism of the Catholic Church took part in the persecution of Galileo, but then we are told that this was “not the Church” doing this.

What would count as ‘the Church’ doing something?

Galileo did not insult the Church with his theory of heliocentrism. He insulted the Pope by referring to him as a Simpleton. The Pope insulted him right back with censure and imprisonment.

You are comparing Galileo writing a dialogue in which a character called ‘Simpleton’ happens to agree with the Pope, with the Pope having Galileo dragged across Italy in the middle of winter, humiliated, threatened with torture, forced to renounce his life’s work, forced to espouse a view he believed correctly to be false, and then kept under house arrest for the rest of his life?

The first hardly counts as an insult. The second goes repulsively beyond mere insult.

 

[DrTaffy]

Admittedly this is not proof that the same bias is in textbooks,

Which is what you claimed. Do you now admit that this claim was baseless?

Only the Pope could condemn for heresy and he did not do so.

You have claimed this a couple of times - with a little confusion about whether you meant being a ‘heresiarch’ or just being guilty of heresy.

Could you back this up, please? Because a lot of people seem to have been condemned or even killed for heresy without the direct intervention of the Pope.

 

[DrTaffy]

But first remember as I pointed out with quotes that the Catholic Church does not view Holy Scripture as a science book. It never has; ever.

But that is exactly what the Pope, the Inquisition and the Church as a whole did in the Galileo case. They took an overly literal interpretation of the Bible as a science book. So you are wrong.

St. Augustine said if your exegesis conflicts with reason, your exegesis is wrong. The Church just needed a reason from Galileo.

No, the Church just needed to understand and accept what St Augustine knew a thousand years earlier.

So, on the the one hand, I freely admit that some members of the Church knew this a thousand years earlier. On the other hand, if St Augustine felt the need to warn against it, that implies that many christians at the time were falling foul of this principle. On the gripping hand, the Catholic establishment at the time of Galileo clearly had not learned St Augustine’s lesson, and this thread shows that many here today still have not done so.

In 1616, it was a hypothetical situation because Galileo had not proven Copernicus.

Had the Church proven geocentrism? Or at least disproven heliocentrism?

And yet Galileo only wanted to express his genuinely held opinion. The Church wanted not only to teach geocentrism as fact, but to force Galileo to do so.

You still have not addressed the question of whether a true statement can be heresy. If it can, that implies deeply troubling things about your religion. If not, then the Church was demonstrably wrong about a matter of faith, which naturally troubles me not at all but would be a point for you to get to grips with.

 

[Stephen168]

But that is exactly what the Pope, the Inquisition and the Church as a whole did in the Galileo case. They took an overly literal interpretation of the Bible as a science book. So you are wrong.

No, the Church just needed to understand and accept what St Augustine knew a thousand years earlier.

So, on the the one hand, I freely admit that some members of the Church knew this a thousand years earlier. On the other hand, if St Augustine felt the need to warn against it, that implies that many christians at the time were falling foul of this principle. On the gripping hand, the Catholic establishment at the time of Galileo clearly had not learned St Augustine’s lesson, and this thread shows that many here today still have not done so.

Had the Church proven geocentrism? Or at least disproven heliocentrism?

And yet Galileo only wanted to express his genuinely held opinion. The Church wanted not only to teach geocentrism as fact, but to force Galileo to do so.

You still have not addressed the question of whether a true statement can be heresy. If it can, that implies deeply troubling things about your religion. If not, then the Church was demonstrably wrong about a matter of faith, which naturally troubles me not at all but would be a point for you to get to grips with.

You have fallen for every myth listed in the OP and failed to prove they are not myths.

1. “Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around.”
   Actually, he did not.

1. “The Church rejected science, condemned heliocentrism and was ignorant of the science behind Copernicus’ theory.”
   This is also a myth. In fact, many of Galileo’s staunchest champions and defenders were churchmen and many of his attackers were fellow scientists.

1. “The Church condemned heliocentrism because it believed the Bible had to be interpreted literally.”
   The Catholic Church did not (and does not) teach that the Bible had to be interpreted literally

1. “Galileo was imprisoned in chains, tortured and threatened with being burned at the stake.”
   In fact, far from groaning in any dungeons, Galileo spent all of his 1633 trial as the honoured guest of various senior churchmen in several luxurious palaces and apartments in Rome.

1. Galileo was condemned simply for using science to question Church teachings, which was forbidden by the Church.

 

[DrTaffy]

Repeating lies about me is not a response to my points. Or can you show where I claim that Galileo was “imprisoned in chains” or “tortured”?

In the event that you are willing to address the topic rather than indulge in personal attacks: How do you defend heliocentrism being heresy other than a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Also:

You still have not addressed the question of whether a true statement can be heresy. If it can, that implies deeply troubling things about your religion. If not, then the Church was demonstrably wrong about a matter of faith, which naturally troubles me not at all but would be a point for you to get to grips with.

 

[Stephen168]

But first remember as I pointed out with quotes that the Catholic Church does not view Holy Scripture as a science book. It never has; ever. St. Augustine said if your exegesis conflicts with reason, your exegesis is wrong. The Church just needed a reason from Galileo.
DrTaffy;12523744:

But that is exactly what the Pope, the Inquisition and the Church as a whole did in the Galileo case. They took an overly literal interpretation of the Bible as a science book. So you are wrong.

No, I’m right

But first remember as I pointed out with quotes that the Catholic Church does not view Holy Scripture as a science book. It never has; ever. St. Augustine said if your exegesis conflicts with reason, your exegesis is wrong.** The Church just needed a reason from Galileo.**
DrTaffy;12523744:

No, the Church just needed to understand and accept what St Augustine knew a thousand years earlier.

Which myth have you proved is not a myth?

In 1616, it was a hypothetical situation because Galileo had not proven Copernicus. Cardinal Bellarmine believing it never will be proven doesn’t mean the Church would not be willing to change its view. In fact, the Church did change right along with proven science.
DrTaffy;12523744:

Had the Church proven geocentrism? Or at least disproven heliocentrism?

Had the Church proven geocentrism? Or at least disproven heliocentrism?

And yet Galileo only wanted to express his genuinely held opinion. The Church wanted not only to teach geocentrism as fact, but to force Galileo to do so.
You still have not addressed the question of whether a true statement can be heresy. If it can, that implies deeply troubling things about your religion. If not, then the Church was demonstrably wrong about a matter of faith, which naturally troubles me not at all but would be a point for you to get to grips with.

Which myth have you proved is not a myth?

1. “Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around.”
   Actually, he did not.

1. “The Church rejected science, condemned heliocentrism and was ignorant of the science behind Copernicus’ theory.”
   This is also a myth. In fact, many of Galileo’s staunchest champions and defenders were churchmen and many of his attackers were fellow scientists.

1. “The Church condemned heliocentrism because it believed the Bible had to be interpreted literally.”
   The Catholic Church did not (and does not) teach that the Bible had to be interpreted literally

1. “Galileo was imprisoned in chains, tortured and threatened with being burned at the stake.”
   In fact, far from groaning in any dungeons, Galileo spent all of his 1633 trial as the honoured guest of various senior churchmen in several luxurious palaces and apartments in Rome.

1. Galileo was condemned simply for using science to question Church teachings, which was forbidden by the Church.

 

[inocente]

Let’s clarify what you just said.

Is the Church the Pope? He is the leader of the Church, but he is not the Church.

The Pope took on Galileo and Galileo was badly treated, but only after Galileo had badly treated the Pope, had made a point of insulting the Pope. Galileo did not insult the Church with his theory of heliocentrism. He insulted the Pope by referring to him as a Simpleton. The Pope insulted him right back with censure and imprisonment. Foolishness all around. John Paul II apologized for the treatment of Galileo. I’m not aware that Galileo ever apologized for his insult to the Pope. The myths still persist that the Church opposed science when two members of the Church, Copernicus (a priest) and Galileo (who remained a Catholic) both advanced the idea of heliocentrism against all opposition, including leaders of the Catholic Church and Protestantism (Martin Luther).

The world sees leaders as leading, shepherds as shepherding.

If the Church is now claiming that JPII was not speaking in its behalf, then the same would apply to all his other apologies. That would stoke a huge amount of resentment against the Church from groups which believed the Church has apologized for: Catholics’ involvement with the African slave trade; the Church’s role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation; injustices committed against women, the violation of women’s rights and for the historical denigration of women; the inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust; the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating "the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions; the actions of the Crusader attack on Constantinople; the Catholic sex abuse cases; the Church-backed “Stolen Generations” of Aboriginal children in Australia; and to China for the behaviour of Catholic missionaries in colonial times (list taken verbatim from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II).

But I don’t believe for one moment that the Church ever would brush aside apologies made by its leaders. It’s only a few misguided souls on the internet who don’t see the big picture who claim sincere apologies can be discarded with legalistic excuses.

In the damning words of Pope John Paul II: “An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.”

 

[Stephen168]

Let’s clarify what you just said.

Is the Church the Pope? He is the leader of the Church, but he is not the Church.

The Pope took on Galileo and Galileo was badly treated, but only after Galileo had badly treated the Pope, had made a point of insulting the Pope. Galileo did not insult the Church with his theory of heliocentrism. He insulted the Pope by referring to him as a Simpleton. The Pope insulted him right back with censure and imprisonment. Foolishness all around. John Paul II apologized for the treatment of Galileo. I’m not aware that Galileo ever apologized for his insult to the Pope. The myths still persist that the Church opposed science when two members of the Church, Copernicus (a priest) and Galileo (who remained a Catholic) both advanced the idea of heliocentrism against all opposition, including leaders of the Catholic Church and Protestantism (Martin Luther).

The world sees leaders as leading, shepherds as shepherding.

If the Church is now claiming that JPII was not speaking in its behalf, then the same would apply to all his other apologies. That would stoke a huge amount of resentment against the Church from groups which believed the Church has apologized for: Catholics’ involvement with the African slave trade; the Church’s role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation; injustices committed against women, the violation of women’s rights and for the historical denigration of women; the inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust; the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating "the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions; the actions of the Crusader attack on Constantinople; the Catholic sex abuse cases; the Church-backed “Stolen Generations” of Aboriginal children in Australia; and to China for the behaviour of Catholic missionaries in colonial times (list taken verbatim from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II).

But I don’t believe for one moment that the Church ever would brush aside apologies made by its leaders. It’s only a few misguided souls on the internet who don’t see the big picture who claim sincere apologies can be discarded with legalistic excuses.

In the damning words of Pope John Paul II: “An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.”

Yes, the myths of the Galileo Affair do persist. But you have to find some way to bad mouth the Catholic Church even if you can’t prove the myths are not myths. That is your goal on this thread and the reason you can’t stay on topic.

 

[weller2]

Sure walk me through it. But first remember as I pointed out with quotes that the Catholic Church does not view Holy Scripture as a science book. It never has; ever.

You have it in writing from Bellarmine himself that Trent implicitly forbids heliocentrism as contrary to the consensus of ECFs.

The Church just needed a reason from Galileo.

Can you point me where exactly in the proceedings of the trial the issue of proof is discussed?

And again, the Church did change right along with proven science.

Yes, some 100 years after the science was established…

 

[weller2]

Repeating lies about me is not a response to my points. Or can you show where I claim that Galileo was “imprisoned in chains” or “tortured”?

For the record, Galileo was shown instruments of torture. (Not really shocking, it was a standard procedure). It is mentioned in the interrogation protocol.

 

[weller2]

Yes, the myths of the Galileo Affair do persist. But you have to find some way to bad mouth the Catholic Church even if you can’t prove the myths are not myths. That is your goal on this thread and the reason you can’t stay on topic.

You seriously believe that a matter involving:

• the Inquisition
• the Congregation of Index
• and the Pope himself

…was not an act of the Church, but an act of Pope’s personal vendetta?

 

[Stephen168]

You have it in writing from Bellarmine himself that Trent implicitly forbids heliocentrism as contrary to the consensus of ECFs.

Yes, Bellarmine himself saying we have to interpret scripture according to the Fathers and St. Augustine is a Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church. St. Augustine said if your exegesis conflicts with reason, your exegesis is wrong And we have Belarmine saying the Church will accept Copericanism if it can be proved.

Can you point me where exactly in the proceedings of the trial the issue of proof is discussed?

Can you show me where the Copernican Model was an established scientific fact before the trail. As I said, if Galileo had proved it there would not be a trial.

Yes, some 100 years after the science was established…

No, 16 years before science established the fact.

1582-the Church introduces the Gregorian calendar
1633-Trial of Galileo
1639 After correcting Kepler, Jeremiah Horrocks predicts and was the first to obverse a transit of venus across the sun.
1657 is the first chance to verify Kepler’s prediction of the location of Mars is better than Copernicus or Ptolemy.
1752-The British Empire adopts the Gregorian calendar
1758-The Catholic Church removes books relating to heliocentrism from the Index except De Revolutionibus and Dialogue Concerning two World Systems.
1822- The Church removes De Revolutionibus and Dialogue Concerning two World Systems from the Index
1838- Stellar parallax was first observed by Friedrich Bessel providing prove that the earth moves.

 

[Stephen168]

You seriously believe that a matter involving:

• the Inquisition
• the Congregation of Index
• and the Pope himself

…was not an act of the Church, but an act of Pope’s personal vendetta?

Which myth does this relate to?

1. “Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around.”
   Actually, he did not.

1. “The Church rejected science, condemned heliocentrism and was ignorant of the science behind Copernicus’ theory.”
   This is also a myth. In fact, many of Galileo’s staunchest champions and defenders were churchmen and many of his attackers were fellow scientists.

1. “The Church condemned heliocentrism because it believed the Bible had to be interpreted literally.”
   The Catholic Church did not (and does not) teach that the Bible had to be interpreted literally

1. “Galileo was imprisoned in chains, tortured and threatened with being burned at the stake.”
   In fact, far from groaning in any dungeons, Galileo spent all of his 1633 trial as the honoured guest of various senior churchmen in several luxurious palaces and apartments in Rome.

1. Galileo was condemned simply for using science to question Church teachings, which was forbidden by the Church.