When did the Catholic Church acknowledge Gallileo was right?

[the2112]

I of course know how the whole case with Galileo has been hugely misrepresented and is used as a weapon against the Church, but I’d still like to know when exactly did the Catholic Church acknowledge Galileo was right? A lot of people say it was very recent (a comment I saw from someone said it took 400 years, but of course that’d mean the Church acknowledged it within this decade, so of course that seems quite implausible)…

 

[Church_Militant]

You may find the following encyclopedia article helpful. Galileo Galilei

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You may find the following encyclopedia article helpful. Galileo Galilei

The article doesn’t answer the OP’s question.

Also any article that says:

Under the sentence of imprisonment Galileo remained till his death in 1642. It is, however, untrue to speak of him as in any proper sense a “prisoner”. As his Protestant biographer, von Gebler, tells us, “One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether twenty-two days in the buildings of the Holy Office (i.e. the Inquisition), and even then not in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition.” For the rest, he was allowed to use as his places of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and usually luxurious.

is in full-on whitewash mode. It somehow says a person can be imprisoned without being a prisoner. It claims that because his movement was limited most time to comfortable locales should make up for the fact that his movement was heavily restricted. House arrest in a nice house is still house arrest.

 

[gilliam]

I of course know how the whole case with Galileo has been hugely misrepresented and is used as a weapon against the Church, but I’d still like to know when exactly did the Catholic Church acknowledge Galileo was right? A lot of people say it was very recent (a comment I saw from someone said it took 400 years, but of course that’d mean the Church acknowledged it within this decade, so of course that seems quite implausible)…

Here is a secular source:

The Church’s ban on reprinting Galileo’s works was lifted in 1718 when permission was granted to publish an edition of his works (excluding the condemned Dialogue) in Florence. In 1741 Pope Benedict XIV authorized the publication of an edition of Galileo’s complete scientific works which included a mildly censored version of the Dialogue. In 1758 the general prohibition against works advocating heliocentrism was removed from the Index of prohibited books, although the specific ban on uncensored versions of the Dialogue and Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus remained. All traces of official opposition to heliocentrism by the Church disappeared in 1835 when these works were finally dropped from the Index.

Pope Urban VIII refused Galileo a stately burial upon his death, though later his bones were interned under a monument at the Church of Santa Croce in Florence. In 1980, Pope John Paul II ordered a re-examination of the evidence against Galileo and formally acquitted him in 1992.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Galileo_Galilei

Remember, the issues the Church had with Galeleo had a lot more to do with disobedience than it did with scientific or astronomical studies. As you can see the Church embraced heliocentrism by 1741.

 

[gilliam]

Here is a secular source:

The Church’s ban on reprinting Galileo’s works was lifted in 1718 when permission was granted to publish an edition of his works (excluding the condemned Dialogue) in Florence. In 1741 Pope Benedict XIV authorized the publication of an edition of Galileo’s complete scientific works which included a mildly censored version of the Dialogue. In 1758 the general prohibition against works advocating heliocentrism was removed from the Index of prohibited books, although the specific ban on uncensored versions of the Dialogue and Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus remained. All traces of official opposition to heliocentrism by the Church disappeared in 1835 when these works were finally dropped from the Index.

Pope Urban VIII refused Galileo a stately burial upon his death, though later his bones were interned under a monument at the Church of Santa Croce in Florence. In 1980, Pope John Paul II ordered a re-examination of the evidence against Galileo and formally acquitted him in 1992.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Galileo_Galilei

Remember, the issues the Church had with Galeleo had a lot more to do with disobedience and disrespect than it did with scientific or astronomical studies. As you can see the Church embraced heliocentrism by 1741.

 

[1ke]

when exactly did the Catholic Church acknowledge Galileo was right? .

Since Galileo was not right, the answer to that question is: never.

(Galileo and his heliocentric cohorts proposed that the sun is the center of the universe, which of course is not true.)

 

[MarcoPolo]

The Church doesn’t have any official position on the science espoused by Galileo because that is outside the Church’s purview.

 

[MarcoPolo]

(Galileo and his heliocentric cohorts proposed that the sun is the center of the universe, which of course is not true.)

I’ve heard this also. Do you happen to have source material? i.e. quotations from Galileo arguing for a heliocentric universe?

 

[Tomdstone]

Since Galileo was not right, the answer to that question is: never.

(Galileo and his heliocentric cohorts proposed that the sun is the center of the universe, which of course is not true.)

So was it OK to lock him up because his theory applied to the planetary system and not the universe as a whole? Should a scientist be locked up if his theory has a flaw? For example, should Newton have been locked up because his gravitational theory did not predict the precession of the perihelion of Mercury?

 

[Hans_W]

Since Galileo was not right, the answer to that question is: never.

(Galileo and his heliocentric cohorts proposed that the sun is the center of the universe, which of course is not true.)

What do you mean by “not right”? He said that the earth goes around the sun, and not the other way. You cannot expect him to inform us about the Milky Way and other galaxies.

 

[Memaw]

Interesting! God Bless, Memaw

 

[The_Wizard]

“Final proof of the heliocentric theory for the solar system came in 1838, when F.W. Bessel (1784-1846) determined the first firm trigonometric parallax for the two stars of 61 Cygni (Gliese 820). Their parallax (difference in apparent direction of an object as seen from two different points) ellipses were consistent with orbital motion of Earth around the Sun.”

Read more: Heliocentric Theory - The Triumph Of The Heliocentric Theory - Earth, Sun, Solar, and System - JRank Articles science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html#ixzz3l3xbKZCA

When will people stop telling the lie that Galileo was imprisoned because of he heliocentric theory.

 

[Tomdstone]

“Final proof of the heliocentric theory for the solar system came in 1838, when F.W. Bessel (1784-1846) determined the first firm trigonometric parallax for the two stars of 61 Cygni (Gliese 820). Their parallax (difference in apparent direction of an object as seen from two different points) ellipses were consistent with orbital motion of Earth around the Sun.”

Read more: Heliocentric Theory - The Triumph Of The Heliocentric Theory - Earth, Sun, Solar, and System - JRank Articles science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html#ixzz3l3xbKZCA

When will people stop telling the lie that Galileo was imprisoned because of he heliocentric theory.

Why was he locked up?

 

[1ke]

So was it OK to lock him up because his theory applied to the planetary system and not the universe as a whole? Should a scientist be locked up if his theory has a flaw? For example, should Newton have been locked up because his gravitational theory did not predict the precession of the perihelion of Mercury?

Logical fallacy. Galileo was not locked up due to his science, Kepler and Copernicus had no problems.

Galileo’s problems were theological and political, not scientific.

 

[Gorgias]

Logical fallacy. Galileo was not locked up due to his science, Kepler and Copernicus had no problems.

Galileo’s problems were theological and political, not scientific.

Yeah, but it sure makes for a good story to keep parroting the party line that the Church hates science and Galileo was science’s martyr…

 

[1ke]

What do you mean by “not right”? He said that the earth goes around the sun, and not the other way.

I mean, not right. The sun is not stationary at the center of the universe.

You cannot expect him to inform us about the Milky Way and other galaxies.

Well, Isaac Newton generalized Kepler’s Law within a hundred years. So, yeah, you can.

Advances in math and astronomical instrumentation continued to evolve these theories.

 

[1ke]

Why was he locked up?

Mainly because he was a hothead who picked a fight with the wrong Pope.

 

[meltzerboy]

So was it OK to lock him up because his theory applied to the planetary system and not the universe as a whole? Should a scientist be locked up if his theory has a flaw? For example, should Newton have been locked up because his gravitational theory did not predict the precession of the perihelion of Mercury?

Yes! I say lock them all up and throw away the key.

Seriously, you’re right of course. But consider the times and the fact the Church was not as backward scientifically as most of the common folk.

 

[Faith1960]

I mean, not right. The sun is not stationary at the center of the universe.

Well, Isaac Newton generalized Kepler’s Law within a hundred years. So, yeah, you can.

Advances in math and astronomical instrumentation continued to evolve these theories.

Do you agree or disagree that the earth circles the sun, not the other way around?

 

[Hans_W]

I mean, not right. The sun is not stationary at the center of the universe.

Well, Isaac Newton generalized Kepler’s Law within a hundred years. So, yeah, you can.

Advances in math and astronomical instrumentation continued to evolve these theories.

I am still not with you. The question at the time after Copernicus was whether the sun goes around the earth, or vice versa. As far as I know the question was not about the centre of the universe.

Newton didn’t “generalise” Kepler’s Laws but explained the elliptical movements of the planets by postulating an unknown force which could act over empty space - gravity.

Newton didn’t address the sun’s position in the universe. I am sure that the sun was fixed for him as well.