You are still judging these men by the advantage of hindsight. That amounts to your personal judgment. And there are plenty of people who disagree with you. I have given you samples of a number of them. It doesn’t matter to me what you think your personal expertise might be, the men I have referenced are men who can think as well as you. And I have no reason to doubt them.
Yes, that is the article I linked. Don’t know how I connected Fr. Groeschel to it except perhaps they had a picture of Fr. Groeschel on the site which has since been removed.Where are you getting the name Fr. Groeschel? The article you quoted and linked says it’s by Thomas Lessel from the communication studies dept. at Georgia U.
It matters that none of them are qualified. We have no idea whether any of them know any more than those they and you criticize.
Lessl is a professor in communication studies. Just because he’s an educator, we wouldn’t trust him to perform brain surgery, and he’s not qualified to speak on history either. He’s probably a stand-up guy, life and soul of a party, but here he’s just blogging, and anyone can blog on anything.
This is supposed to be a thread about Gallileo, not More, so I will combine two responses.
Well, good. Thank you. But this isn’t a burning issue to me. The Church has judged Thomas More to have been a man of heroic virtue and declared him to be a saint. That weighs more heavily with me than any secular source.
O.K., pleaseAlso, a word seems to be missing from your lexicon: “please” could have so easily and so helpfully been added to your rather imperious demand above.
.
I’m not judging anyone.
From the article you referred me to. I have read it. And the issue of More’s involvement in the unjust punishment of heretics has always been a matter of debate ( opinion ). More himself always denied mistreating heretics. "The only part of my post you acknowledge is a question, one that you refuse to answer. What sources do I need to ask a question?
Rumours circulated during and after More’s lifetime regarding ill-treatment of heretics during his time as Lord Chancellor. The popular anti-Catholic polemicist John Foxe, who “placed Protestant sufferings against the background of… the Antichrist”[23] was instrumental in publicising accusations of torture in his famous Book of Martyrs, claiming that More had often personally used violence or torture while interrogating heretics. Later authors, such as Brian Moynahan and Michael Farris, cite Foxe when repeating these allegations.[24] More himself denied these allegations:
Stories of a similar nature were current even in More’s lifetime and he denied them forcefully. He admitted that he did imprison heretics in his house – ‘theyr sure kepynge’ – he called it – but he utterly rejected claims of torture and whipping… ‘so helpe me God.’[10]:298 "
Linus2nd
They have the same information we have. They are educated and can think. Why aren’t they capable of making reasonable judgments? Besides, William Wallace does happen to be a specialist on Galileo, having been a noted scholar on the subject.
What’s wrong with that? Nothing unusual in that. Does every enterprise have to have an office or suite of rooms on " Park Place? "
How in the world would you know whether or not they are a " regulated " company or not and what difference does that make to the " price of tea in China? " It has nothing to do with their ability to judge the truth of the matter. These " private " enterprises abound world wide, how could you be unaware of that?
The only parts I disagreed with was their judgment that the judges were wrong. That is a hind sight judgment and of no value, no matter who makes them. I also objected to the apology, per se. It was the wrong thing to do and accomplished nothing.As for me not accepting “anyone’s word on any of this except John Paul II” [and the Pontifical Commission], you’re Catholic and I’m not, so how come?
He is a PhD and an educator of wide experience. That qualifies him as much as anyone. Nothing wrong with blogging, it is a cheap way to get your message out, very democratic. And the News Establishment just hate it because it makes it more difficualt to make " political correctness " the rule of the land
. I’m all for blogging - that is what we are doing right now, its the democratic thing to do. It gives the unenfranchised, the man in the street a voice . Makes it tough for the establishment to shove their world view down our throats .Well, the reader is invited to read it for themselves then, why should she take your word for it? He never said Hawking’s book was a textbook, he cited it merely as an example of the kind of stuff one finds in textbooks. And who would know better than an educator?
Did I complain about this accolade? How great he was is certainly open to question.
He is not denying that Galileo used observation to try to discern the truth. What he says is that Galileo was obsessed with rubbing people’s noses " in it. " He made it an important goal in his life to embarrass anyone who disagreed with him. It was his " philosophy of life " to pounce on anyone who disagreed with him. You seem blind to his personality faults. He was a rather insensitive person, to put it mildly.
Did I link to it? No matter. You are giving your private opinion and I am giving mine, so is UMKC. There is nothing unusual in the language here. It was an age of faith, unlike our agnostic age, in which everything was viewed with an eye to the eternal. ( an aside, I attended UMKC for a year, part time, back in the late 50’s when it consisted of a mere two or three squatty stone buildings. It was called the University of Kansas City then. Nearby is the renowned Lindia Hall Library of Science and Technology for which I have a card, and in which I spent some six weeks last winter reading some of Wallace’s works.)
He doesn’t try to escape it. And neither do I. Neither of us defends the Inquisition by the way.
And I would fall out of my chair if you had any other opinion.
You put them forward as authorities in posts #124 and #125, you didn’t put Wallace in with them, and now you agree they have no qualifications, no expertise, so there’s no reason why we should care what they think.
One man and his cat.
You appear to have forgotten that earlier you cited exactly the same kind of unregulated internet company, which, you said, was not telling the truth. But now this one, you say, is telling the truth. Forgive me, is there any difference between them except you didn’t like one and you do like the another?
As that’s the heart of the Pontifical Commission’s report and JPII’s statement, it’s hardly “only”, it’s the whole shebang.
Nope, I understand that but it’s not relevant. What I don’t understand is why, as a Catholic who according to your OP is trying to defend the Church, you are saying the Pontifical Commission and JPII got it wrong while your self-selected bloggers got it right. What I don’t understand is why, as an intelligent person, you are saying the Pontifical Commission, full of experts who spent a number of years researching the subject, got it wrong, while a bunch of unqualified guys you found by trawling the web got it right. It doth not compute.
No it doesn’t! Qualifications in one field don’t make him an expert in every subject under the sun.
If the truth is now dictated by which side makes the most blogs then democracy is dead.*Nothing wrong with blogging, it is a cheap way to get your message out, very democratic. And the News Establishment just hate it because it makes it more difficualt to make " political correctness " the rule of the land
Que? His entire premise is "a student interrupted to ask why it was, if what I was saying were true, that “the Catholic Church killed all those scientists” and “The science textbooks our children read make free with accusations”. He implies the student and the children are being fed diabolic propaganda, but can only cite Hawking’s “Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science. His renowned conflict with the Catholic Church was central to his philosophy”.
I didn’t say you, I said “Lessl would strip even that honorary title away”.
I can’t find those quotes in Lessl’s article, where are you getting them from?
Sounds enjoyable. But the Papal Condemnation was done in the name of God. You happily cite ye olde stuff as absolute where you agree with it, you can’t just tell everyone which bits you do and don’t like and expect us to agree on your say so.
OK, but I’m not sure what you are defending. It’s not the Pontifical Commission or JPII as you’ve said you disagree. It’s not educators, as you like Lessl. It’s…
I rarely agree with Hawking, so perhaps you’re confusing me with someone else.
I hadn’t noticed but, yes, catholiceducation.org, aka one man and his cat, has a political agenda on a number of things. Just another wannabe pressure group’s bunch of opinions then.
I’m actually familair with your position, because I used to hold it. I.e. I used to believe that Galileo has simply failed to prove his case.
You have only cited a succession of non-expert bloggers, while weller has researched the primary documentation.
You have only cited a succession of non-expert bloggers, while weller has researched the primary documentation.
So on one side we have JPII’s Pontifical Commission, JPII’s statement, and the research of a CAF member who has gone back to the source documents.
And on the other we have bloggers you like.
You are certainly welcome to your opinions.
?
But do you not see the contradiction? How could “a man of heroic virtue” and “a saint” have had people (plural) killed in a deliberately agonising manner merely for having different religious views?
Well, late is slightly better than never!O.K., please
Sure you are. You started this thread by accusing a whole section of society of lying (not just being wrong), and have yet to produce any evidence, or even a specific claim, of the lies they are supposed to have made.
So far, the best you have done is the claim, in the same post, that “it is common knowledge among Catholic apologetic circles”
So you know that it backs up everything I said.
So why was Galileo not welcome to his opinions?
If there had been a longstanding and deeply entrenched warfare between the Catholic Church and science, you would be eager to bring up a lot more examples of such warfare than the case of Galileo. For example, you would have been quick to point out that the Church also persecuted Copernicus (a priest), that it later vilified Newton (a Bible scholar), and that it railed against Darwin for evolution, Mendel (a priest) for Genetics, Einstein for Relativity, and Lemaitre(a priest) for the Big Bang theory. All of which is utterly absurd.
I am quite aware that the principles of the reformation rewrote much of the history of those times to justify their own persecution of Catholics. That is why I do not accept secular judgment on these matters. More stedfastly denied any wrong doing of heretics. I’ll take his word for that and the that of the Church.You still ignore this question. Which is, in a way, an answer in itself!
Clever, even funny, but still opinion.In short, your objection is as naive as if you were surprised that the King’s Butler were involved in selecting his wine for the evening meal.
Explaned above, besides, even scholarly sources disagree.
So far, the best you have done is the claim, in the same post, that “it is common knowledge among Catholic apologetic circles”
But I don’t know that. I think you better read it again.So you know that it backs up everything I said.
Linus2nd
For the same reason that Henry VIII refused to allow Thomas More to have his own opinions. At least Galileo didn’t spend months and months locked in the tower of London and he was not beheaded.
Your serve.I am not defending what the Inquisition did, I’m not defending the Pope, and I’m not defending the judgment of the judges. I’m saying you cannot judge those people by today’s standards. Shall I tick off the truely monsterous crimes committed by our enligntened, modern society? We are half a step from the jungle now!
I agree that, judging from our vantage point, it seems immoral. However, it had nothing to do with science at all. That is an interpretation that has been perputuated and maintained by those wishing to give the Church a black eye. It is the modern equivalent of the Elders of Zion in another part of the world.
No, you gave me no sources, not one. From memory you sent me to an investment banker, a film maker, and a communication studies professor, all of whom you somehow confused with a priest.
As if the Inquisition was the high point of civilization.
Exactly. The Church got it wrong, JPII apologized, and the affair stands as a lesson on respect for freedom of speech which should be taught to all children.