Was Galileo threatened with torture by the Inquisiton?

[Petergee]

I love how everyone loves to minimize the the injustice against Galileo… And it turns out he was more than right…

I hope by the roll-eyes icon you mean that you are sarcastically saying the exact opposite of what you wrote.
Because to the best of my recollection I have never seen or heard anyone minimise the injustice against Galileo. On the contrary, almost everyone vastly exaggerates it. The anti-Catholic urban myth invented more than a century after Galileo’s death (and at which he would have been horrified) are still believed by most people as historical truth.

And he was very much less than right on this matter.
He claimed:

• the sun does not move;
• the planets orbit in perfect circles (not ellipses as Kepler had earlier proposed);
• the tides prove that the earth moves around the sun;
• other extant scientific evidence proved that the earth moves around the sun.

All these claims were absolutely wrong. Galileo was a great scientist, but his real achievements lie in mechanics and other branches of science, not in astronomy.

 

[yinekka]

It was not until over 100 years after Galileo’s claim that he was proved correct i.e. the earth revolves around the sun. Before this the instruments did not exist to confirm his theory.

 

[kubark]

Thanks,

MartyrForJesus.

If found this in *The Catholic Church and Science *by Benjamin Wiker:

"The notion that Galileo was actually tortured has now shown to be false, although he WAS threatened with torture…that having been said, we still might shudder at the thought that Galileo was arrested at all, that he was even remotely threatened with torture, and that he remained under arrest if even in his own house. How could this have happened and why? To understand, we must take a look at the much larger historical context, beginning with philosophy…

…In 1623 Galileo had published a book, The Assayer, in which he advocated quite openly the materialist position of the ancient pagan philsopher Democritus against the Aristotelianism of his day…

…We must emphasize the obvious: Christians were, from the very first, antagonistic to the materialist doctrines of Democritan atomism precisely because they were so intimately associated with the atheism and hedonism of the Epicureans. Thus during Christianity’s first four centuries we observe a storm of holy invective showered upon the names of Epicurus and his disciple Lucretius by such Christian luminaries as St. Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. Ambrose, and most influential of all, St. Augustine. This animus became the foundation for the Catholic suspicion of any attempt to base a physics on material atoms, and it was firmly in place in the early Renaissance when the ancient works of or about Epicurus and Lucretius were recovered and began to circulate around Europe. The predictable effect of this widespread circulation was a new interest in atomism - especially as defined against the natural philosophy of Aristotle - and even more important, a revival of atheism and hedonism. All of this happened in the time period leading right up to Galileo…

…Now, none of this is offered so that we might conclude that Galileo should have been jailed, tortured, or killed! The point, rather, is this: it is completely understandable that the assertion of Democritean atomism by Galileo woudl set off serious alarm bells among philosophers and theologians of the 17th century. They were, by intellectual training, rightly habituated to associate such atomism with the atheism and hedonism of Epicurus and Lucretius…

…Now here I offer an interesting conjecture, one that I think is well founded. If Galileo had only avowed Copernicanism (and done so with a little more humility and tact), he might have avoided any trouble at all. But the combination of the two - atomism and Copernicanism - tended to make his Copernicanism smell of Epicureanism. Why? What possible connection could there be between the two?

Again, Epicurus’s goal was to destroy any notion that we had an immortal soul that could be bothered in the afterlife by the gods. Materialism allowed him to be entirely this-worldly and live his brief life on Earth in peace and without worry. The notion that the random association of atoms brings about* everything *we know, including ourselves, was a double assurance that there is no creator who has any claims upon us…"

 

[petrel]

What most people don’t understand is that Galileo didn’t get in trouble for what he taught but how he went about it. He really shouldn’t have portrayed the Pope as feeble minded.

As for the Inquisitions, The Church limited the type of torture that could be used, i.e. they couldn’t draw blood, etc… The horror stories of torture was exercised by the state, not the Church. Both of these events were blown all out of proportion by the reformers later in history.

As a nation we are pretty hypocritical. Our own nation tortures inmates at guantanemo bay and yet we condemn the church of the mediaeval ages. As you rightly say the torture was very limited. There were strict rules applied and the torture was rigorously documented. The torture was no more destructive to the body or painful than the torture methods used at guantanemo bay. Perhaps even less painful I am not sure. What is certain is that the protestant reformation unleashed a wave of savagery perhaps never before seen in the West. King Henry VIIIth hung draw and quartered his religious enemies and the horrible torture methods like the Iron Maiden were innovations of the protestant nations such as Germany.

If it right to burn alive heretics (which I believe it is) then it is hard to argue that torture as a form of punishment to cause them to recant is wrong.

 

[kubark]

If it right to burn alive heretics (which I believe it is) then it is hard to argue that torture as a form of punishment to cause them to recant is wrong.

How do you figure it is “right” to burn alive heretics?

 

[petrel]

How do you figure it is “right” to burn alive heretics?

In the papal bull Exsurge Domini "http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm Pope Leo X condemned the following error

1. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

There is another thread running on this subject.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=630000&page=4

But I don’t think it is fair to burn alive heretics today because we live in a different society with different values, I just think it is unfair for us to judge people of mediaeval days with the values of our modern days.

 

[Petergee]

It was not until over 100 years after Galileo’s claim that he was proved correct i.e. the earth revolves around the sun.

And it was two Jesuit priests who were the first to prove it.

Jesuits btw take an oath of special personal loyalty to the Pope (and in those days all Jesuits took that seriously).

 

[Petergee]

If found this in *The Catholic Church and Science *by Benjamin Wiker:

"The notion that Galileo was actually tortured has now shown to be false, although he WAS threatened with torture

Only in the sense that when politicians go into Parliament and the Mace (big studded brass club) is sitting on the despatch table before them they are being “threatened” with being beaten to death if they do or say anything to displease the Queen.

There may (or may not) have been token instrument/s of torture on a table in the courtroom as a symbol of the Inquisition’s authority. Galileo would never have perceived himself as being in any danger of torture (unless he was foolish enough, as he never was, to travel into protestant-ruled countries, since ALL of the leading protestants at the time vehemently condemned heliocentrism and its proponents far more spitefully than any Catholic ever did.

 

[Petergee]

In the papal bull Exsurge Domini "http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm Pope Leo X condemned the following error

1. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

He didn’t say “alive”. Burning a dead person’s body was a custom intended to symbolise that as it had belonged to an unrepentant mortal sinner, the person’s body will not be raised from the tomb and gloriified in Heaven. Convicted heretics sentenced to death were nearly always garrotted (strangled quickly with a cord) and/or given a stupefying drug, before the fire was lit. Burning alive happened in a few irregular actions such as the illegallly constituted tribunal under the complete conmtrol of the English government and military which wiongly convicted St Joan of Arc.

A stark contrast to the terrible lingering deaths which were very common for a large number of civil crimes at the time, such as being hanged, drawn and quartered in England for “treason”. At that time in England even stealing a shrubbery was a capital offence. (Yes I know this sounds like a Mony Python joke but it’s true. The Monty Python sketch about a woman being “tortured” by the Inquisition with a “:comfy chair” is actually closer to teh truth than the usual picture which is claimed and presented as historical fact.)

By the way the country in history with the largest number (several hundred) of different crimes which were punishable by death, was Great Britain as recently as the early 19th century. And the first regime to execute scientists just for being scientists was the French atheist regime of the 1790s. What was that about the “Enlightenment”?

 

[petrel]

He didn’t say “alive”. Burning a dead person’s body was a custom intended to symbolise that as it had belonged to an unrepentant mortal sinner, the person’s body will not be raised from the tomb and gloriified in Heaven. Convicted heretics sentenced to death were nearly always garrotted (strangled quickly with a cord) and/or given a stupefying drug, before the fire was lit. Burning alive happened in a few irregular actions such as the illegallly constituted tribunal under the complete conmtrol of the English government and military which wiongly convicted St Joan of Arc.

A stark contrast to the terrible lingering deaths which were very common for a large number of civil crimes at the time, such as being hanged, drawn and quartered in England for “treason”. At that time in England even stealing a shrubbery was a capital offence. (Yes I know this sounds like a Mony Python joke but it’s true. The Monty Python sketch about a woman being “tortured” by the Inquisition with a “:comfy chair” is actually closer to teh truth than the usual picture which is claimed and presented as historical fact.)

By the way the country in history with the largest number (several hundred) of different crimes which were punishable by death, was Great Britain as recently as the early 19th century. And the first regime to execute scientists just for being scientists was the French atheist regime of the 1790s. What was that about the “Enlightenment”?

I think we are all agreed that the protestant nations and King Henry VIIIth England were far more brutal than were the Catholic nations and leaders. Nevertheless I think you have rose coloured glasses on regarding the burning of heretics. Please provide some evidence that heretics were customarily drugged or strangled before burning. I am fairly well read and have not come across this kind of information before so I am fairly certain that you are incorrect on this point.

 

[Petergee]

I think we are all agreed that the protestant nations and King Henry VIIIth England were far more brutal than were the Catholic nations and leaders. Nevertheless I think you have rose coloured glasses on regarding the burning of heretics. Please provide some evidence that heretics were customarily drugged or strangled before burning. I am fairly well read and have not come across this kind of information before so I am fairly certain that you are incorrect on this point.

Yes, “nearly always” may be overstating it a bit. But it is known that if the convicted unrepentant heretic, after being handed over to the State authorities (and therefore being no longer able to receive the Church’s mercy) showed some sign of remorse, a swift execution was given before burning the body.

In many other cases (which for obvious reasons are not officially recorded) the executioner or another person took pity on the condemned man and unofficially gave him the coup de grace by strangling or drugging. Another popular method was to give the condemned man a small packet of gunpowder which he would place near his heart, so when a spark reached it it would explode killing him instantly.

 

[Petergee]

So SOME civil governments executed SOME people they had convicted of heresy by burning them alive. However the Church did not TELL them to do this.

It is a fair criticism of some bishops, and perhaps some popes (not of the Church herself much less of her doctrines), that they knew this was happening and did not try to absolutely stop it.

Bearing in mand that the Church’s major purpose of setting up the inquisitions was to minimise and if possible prevent the suffering and execution of innocent people, especially those accused of heresy and “witchcraft”, and in this they were overwhelmingly successful.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

It is a fair criticism of some bishops, and perhaps some popes (not of the Church herself much less of her doctrines), that they knew this was happening and did not try to absolutely stop it.
.

I don’t agree with that statement at all. The state have the right to use execution.

 

[petrel]

Yes, “nearly always” may be overstating it a bit. But it is known that if the convicted unrepentant heretic, after being handed over to the State authorities (and therefore being no longer able to receive the Church’s mercy) showed some sign of remorse, a swift execution was given before burning the body.

In many other cases (which for obvious reasons are not officially recorded) the executioner or another person took pity on the condemned man and unofficially gave him the coup de grace by strangling or drugging. Another popular method was to give the condemned man a small packet of gunpowder which he would place near his heart, so when a spark reached it it would explode killing him instantly.

Do you have any references to support this? Or is this just something you heard?
Perhaps you would like to believe it but are unable to verify it because of the lack of official records.
I personally think you are wrong, but in any event it is a technicality. Officially, the Roman Catholic Church executed heretics by sentencing them to burning at the stake.

 

[petrel]

So SOME civil governments executed SOME people they had convicted of heresy by burning them alive. However the Church did not TELL them to do this.

This is incorrect. The Popes supported burning of heretics most notably Pope Leo X who rejected the error that the burning of heretics was against the will of the Holy Spirit. See error 33 ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/l10exdom.htm

am a little weary of all this political correctness which is merely an example of Catholics fawning to the sensibilities of modern society. It’s just unfair to blame the civil authority for everything we don’t like about our Church.

It is a fair criticism of some bishops, and perhaps some popes (not of the Church herself much less of her doctrines), that they knew this was happening and did not try to absolutely stop it.

Again this is just a construct designed to make things sound good. Actually the trials for heresy were meticulously recorded by the Church, as were the various tortures of the Inquisition and burnings at the stake. That the Church is merely a passive bystander too afraid to speak out against anything certainly was not the case in the middle ages when the church was incredibly powerful.

Could you please provide a reference to establish your claim that the Church knew what was happening, dissaproved, and said nothing?

IBearing in mand that the Church’s major purpose of setting up the inquisitions was to minimise and if possible prevent the suffering and execution of innocent people, especially those accused of heresy and “witchcraft”, and in this they were overwhelmingly successful.

This is certainly true. There were very strict regulations on how much torture was permissable. Limits on the duration of imprisonment. Limits on the number of sessions of torture. The body was never injured beyond repair. The Albigenses certainly got better treatment than suspected terrorists get at Guantanemo Bay today.

 

[Petergee]

I don’t agree with that statement at all. The state have the right to use execution.

It certainly does, as I said already. I was referring to people being burned to death (not just have their dead bodies burnt.)

 

[Petergee]

This is incorrect. The Popes supported burning of heretics most notably Pope Leo X who rejected the error that the burning of heretics was against the will of the Holy Spirit. See error 33 ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/l10exdom.htm

Yes. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit wants every, or any, heretic to be burned.

am a little weary of all this political correctness which is merely an example of Catholics fawning to the sensibilities of modern society. It’s just unfair to blame the civil authority for everything we don’t like about our Church.

I didn’t, nor was I being politically correct, perish the thought. I merely pointed out that the Church did not direct that convicted heretics (or anyone else) be burned** alive**.

Again this is just a construct designed to make things sound good. Actually the trials for heresy were meticulously recorded by the Church, as were the various tortures of the Inquisition and burnings at the stake. That the Church is merely a passive bystander too afraid to speak out against anything certainly was not the case in the middle ages when the church was incredibly powerful.

Could you please provide a reference to establish your claim that the Church knew what was happening, dissaproved, and said nothing?

I made no such claim, and my aim is not “to make things sound good” but to correct myths (pro-Catholic as well as anti-Catholic myths).

 

[Petergee]

Do you have any references to support this? Or is this just something you heard?
Perhaps you would like to believe it but are unable to verify it because of the lack of official records.

No, this is verified by the references which I have already given, and I’m sure there are others.

They also point out that even in those cases where the condemned man was burned alive, whereas in England the slow-burn method was used (where the convict was tied to a pole above the woodpile, which was then set on fire); however on the Continent, generally the convict was tied at ground level and had the wood heaped around him, or he was lowered, tied to a ladder, onto an already-blazing fire, eiether of which methods caused a much faster death.

I personally think you are wrong, but in any event it is a technicality. Officially, the Roman Catholic Church executed heretics by sentencing them to burning at the stake.

Absolutely not. Officially, the Catholic Church played no part in sentencing nor in execution of any death penalty. The Church inquisitions’ only role was to establish guilt or innocence. If a man was found guilty of a civil crime for which the State prescribed a penalty beyond those that the Church had the power to impose (prayers, almsgiving, pilgrimages, fasting, charitable works etc.) and there were no extenuating circumstances, the convict was handed to the State authorities. Beyond this point the Church had no power over what happened to the convict.

Additionally it should be pointed out that the Inquisitions were not purely an arm of the Church, but were generally a cooperative between the Church and the local State. This was particularly the case as far as the Spanish Inquisition was concerned, which after its first few years was completely controlled by the Spanish State and in fact sometimes acted directly contrary to the orders of the Holy See.

 

[petrel]

Yes. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit wants every, or any, heretic to be burned.

Of course not. Who ever said that. I certainly have not said that.

I didn’t, nor was I being politically correct, perish the thought. I merely pointed out that the Church did not direct that convicted heretics (or anyone else) be burned** alive**.
I made no such claim, and my aim is not “to make things sound good” but to correct myths (pro-Catholic as well as anti-Catholic myths).

Do you have any historical evidence to prove that nobody was burned alive for heresy or even that the vast majority were strangled or drugged.

 

[Petergee]

Of course not. Who ever said that. I certainly have not said that.

Good. Then we are basically agreed.

Do you have any historical evidence to prove that nobody was burned alive for heresy or even that the vast majority were strangled or drugged.

Again I refer you to the references I gave earlier. I never claimed that “nobody” was burned alive for heresy.