What proof, in the case of More?
Where have I claimed any such thing? If anything I explicitly disavowed the assertion that the anti-science actions of the church were deliberately intended as such.
Darwin did get a lot of flack, and not just from Catholics, but he had the fortune to live in a Protestant country. And one thing the Anglicans did get right was to content themselves with presenting arguments as to why they thought he was wrong, as opposed to threats of torture.
Try to force feed yourself the idea that that is only one explanation of the Galileo affair, and not even one that is at odds with what I actually said.
What proof, in the case of More?
If you just choose to believe, without evidence, that he repented of his religious oppression, that is one possible answer to how such a man could be considered a saint. But I know of no evidence that he did so.
Where have I claimed any such thing? If anything I explicitly disavowed the assertion that the anti-science actions of the church were deliberately intended as such.
Darwin did get a lot of flack, and not just from Catholics, but he had the fortune to live in a Protestant country. And one thing the Anglicans did get right was to content themselves with presenting arguments as to why they thought he was wrong, as opposed to threats of torture.
Newton, of course, also lived in the UK, but more to the point nothing in his scientific ideas threatened christian beliefs, as far as I know. His ‘biblical scholarship’ may well have earned him pride of place at the next barbecue under Catholic rule, but not calculus or mechanics.
Copernicus was, according to many scholars, terrified of how his work might be received by the Church, despite being supported by clerics up to and including the Pope. This is one of the explanations given for his reluctance to publish, and would probably be the main example of how the church was, at times, explicitly anti-scientific, were it not for the far more evident Galileo affair.
The others were no threat to a Catholic dogma. You don’t get brownie points for not oppressing those who agree with you!
Try to force feed yourself the idea that that is only one explanation of the Galileo affair, and not even one that is at odds with what I actually said.
Same old tune.Please document the flack from the Catholic Church.
And you still ignore this question!DrTaffy;12479432:
You still ignore this question. Which is, in a way, an answer in itself!
So you just ignore the historical evidence? Even More’s own writings? Even though the More affair was public, witnessed and reported on by many writers, including Catholics? And yet, no doubt, you would have me accept the Catholic account of the trials of Galileo, trials held in privacy, only recorded by the Church, whose account has been questioned by scholars, as absolute truth? A double standard, methinks.
Opinion, but not just opinion, opinion backed up by evidence and argument. Unlike your opinions - unless and until you provide a little evidence to back up your assertions.DrTaffy;12479432:
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.
Not ‘explaned’ [sic] anywhere that I can see. Can you cite one ‘scholarly source’ that argues that More never had anything to do with those burned at the stake (or otherwise killed or punished) during his reign in office?
What source? Nowhere in this thread do you give any proof of the claim you make in the OP that “high school and university texts” lie about the Galileo affair. It is up to you to document your assertions, not others.
I think you need to read it - or just your own post. For example, I said that “He freely admitted imprisoning ‘heretics’ in his own house, and was indisputably accused of torturing ‘heretics’” and you quote More’s own words admitting exactly that. What do you claim I said that is not backed up by that Wikipedia entry?DrTaffy;12479432:
But I don’t know that. I think you better read it again.So you know that it backs up everything I said.
So are you arguing that both were immoral or that both were moral?
Yes you are. That is exactly what you are doing when you try to argue that what they did was neither immoral nor antiscientific.
No, it was and is both utterly immoral and antiscientific. You need to accept that your church has, in fact, been wrong. And not just once.
On the positive side you did say ‘please’, which is a pleasant change for this thread, but it would also be nice if you answered questions put to you from time to time as well as demanding answers of others.
If you examine the passage carefully, you see that it is not disputing evolution as a physical theory, but rather as an** entire explanation** for the origin of the human being. Much of the original fervor for evolution seemed to attract agnostics and atheists to the view that the entire human being (including what Christians call the soul) originated in a natural process without God directly involved in the creation of Adam and Eve. That is still the view of many of our present day evolutionists, and the Church continues to maintain (as did the German council of bishops) that God created the first parents with a soul who committed the first, or original, sin. It’s clear from Darwin’s theory of evolution that it deals exclusively with the evolution of bodies, but not of souls. There is no place in evolution theory for the human soul as an immortal entity that survives death. Nor is there a place in evolution theory for the idea of a first offense against God, or for the guilt that followed and was to be shared by all subsequent humanity.
More would have his sins to account for, as Henry had his. Henry betrayed his Church, More did not. More was brave enough to stand up against his king when his king was wrong. For that alone he deserved sainthood when everybody else who was anybody knew Henry was a nut case (as he eventually proved) and ran for the hills.
Why should I, you would only extrapolate that into some imagined guilt for Thomas More?And you still ignore this question!
More denied misstreating any heretic. Your so called evidence has been polluted by the defenders of the Reformation for 200 years, why should I trust any of them? I really don’t care what you ( or Inocente accept or don’t acceptSo you just ignore the historical evidence? Even More’s own writings? Even though the More affair was public, witnessed and reported on by many writers, including Catholics? And yet, no doubt, you would have me accept the Catholic account of the trials of Galileo, trials held in privacy, only recorded by the Church, whose account has been questioned by scholars, as absolute truth? A double standard, methinks.
). I just don’t worry about such things. I know well enough whom I am talking to. 
Oh well, I don’t have time to wade through all the " evidence " you claim to have. It wouldn’t matter any way, I have never seen you change you mind about anything. So why should I or anyone else even make the attempt. Ditto for other unnamed persons on this forum.
I certainly will never believe Thomas More misstreated anyone.
Not at the moment. Except the Church, who certainly knew the entire history of More.
The evidence is good enough for me, but not for you and someone else.
More denied misstreating any heretic. Yes, More said he held heretics in his house. He denied misstreating them. I don’t remember what Wilipedia said and don’t feel like going back again. Sorry.
Just to remind the reader, this was your original question, " So why was Galileo not welcome to his opinions, "
So you are saying that every act of a King is justified? Amazing! I am sure Henry VIII felt justified, he had done enough evil by this time to deaden his conscience.
Well, that is certainly open to many opinions.
You are welcome to your opinion.Galileo was right, the Pope was wrong.
You are just proving my point. Moderns won’t be satisfied until they can portray this whole incident as the Church being anti-scientific. But you know that is not true. And I do not judge the morality of the judges any more than I would judge your morality.
I understand that neither you nor others around here will be happy unless you can hang that around her neck. And with attitudes like that why should you doubt that the the Gallileo case has been used as a club to beat the Church over the head, in textbooks and in classes all over the world and in other venues as well.
Because he couldn’t prove (but support) Copernicanism true conclusively and he tried his pass his opinions as facts? He called Kepler and Brahe heretics and ignored their work to his detriment while clinging on to his circular orbits. There were other academicians with other theories who don’t take kindly to insults? Many of his attackers were fellow scientists and many of his supporters were actually churchmen. The Church is quite open to the idea of Copernicus actually. Do you know how many more years did it take for the revised Copernican view to become scientific fact because they couldn’t explain stellar parallax?
It was. It may not be now but it was then. All the books in its libraries were Aristotle’s wrong cosmology. All of its investment for over a thousand years was in them and, as JPII pointed out, in its fatally wrong literal interpretation of scripture. It was not understood then, just as some still do not understand today, that evidence rather than opinion is the final arbiter.
You have not provided one shred of evidence for that.And with attitudes like that why should you doubt that the the Gallileo case has been used as a club to beat the Church over the head, in textbooks and in classes all over the world and in other venues as well.
Agreed. It would be good if all Catholics joined the rest of us in accepting the word of Pope John Pail II.
We think we know the truth until we are proven otherwise; geocentricism was the accepted theory of Galileo’s day.
Are we reading the same excerpt?
It certainly seems, to me, to be rejecting physical evolution of our bodies. But that is in any case, not the point I was hoping to make here, which is rather that Darwin, in a Protestant country, was free to express his opinion. As others were free to mock him for doing so. There was no Inquisition to drag him (or his opponents) off to be threatened with torture just for holding an opinion.
This is the important point on which we differ. You seem to be implying that the Church and Science were regularly at loggerheads.
