Posted on 07/05/2015 8:46:51 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Some future historian, searching for the origins of a second Middle Ages, might fix on the summer of 2015 as its starting point. Here occurred the marriage of seemingly irreconcilable world views—that of the Catholic Church and official science—into one new green faith.
As Pope Francis has embraced the direst notions of climate change, one Canadian commentator compared Francis’s bleak take on the environment, technology, and the market system to that of the Unabomber. “Doomsday predictions,” the Pope wrote in his recent encyclical “Laudato Si,” “can no longer be met with irony or disdain.”
With Francis’s pontifical blessing , the greens have now found a spiritual hook that goes beyond the familiar bastions of the academy, bureaucracy, and the media and reaches right into the homes and hearts of more than a billion practicing Catholics. No potential coalition of interests threatened by a seeming tsunami of regulation—from suburban homeowners and energy firms to Main Street businesses—can hope to easily resist this alliance of the unlikely.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
It would seem the liberal infestation of colleges...
has invaded the college of cardinals too.
He’s the Watermelon Pope! Green on the outside and a Red on the inside!
I would have thought that the current Pope might have remembered Galileo as an example of what happens when the papacy gets involved with science.
An interesting choice of words
Rome, as always, the gift that keeps giving.
End up worshipping the Pope, not Jehovah.
It is indeed an interesting choice of words. It reveals a control freak world view.
It shows the ignorance of Rome as to what science even is. One lone man in a basement is a fully legitimate scientist. It’s a corrupt perversion of science to hold that only governments or universities can do “official science”.
“official science” indeed.
Filed under Galileo Galilei / Heretic
and check out the sunspot data...see any similarities with recent NASA sunspot data....
Hint:.... both are declining ....(expect another 400 year long ice age)
It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.
The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.
This tract provides a brief explanation of what really happened to Galileo.
Anti-scientific?
The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.
Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.
Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler
published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.
Clinging to Tradition?
Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a “tradition.” They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.
Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.
Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.
Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the “sensible demonstrations” needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.
Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.
In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this “new science” was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . .” (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, “One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.” Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.
Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called “phenomenological” language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.
The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.
During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.
Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.
Galileo “Confronts” Rome
Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.
At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.
Tortured for His Beliefs?
In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.
As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, “We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities.” Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.
Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.
Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s “imprisonment” when he reported to the Tuscan king: “The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another” (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); “ . . . he has a servant and every convenience” (letter, April 16); and “[i]n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible” (letter, June 18).
Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.
The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.
As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of “witches” subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, “the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof.” Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.
Infallibility
Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.
The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.
No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.
Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.
In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.
It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.
As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.
Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
He was much less wrong than they were.
The "greens" are merely practitioners of the religion of communists. They have no interest in actual science, but rather use fraudulent temperature tracking data and flawed computer models, which do not match up with climactic reality.
The Manchurian Pope - Peter the Roman.
Soon the Pope will declare homosexuality not a sin. Those damned souls who inhabit that level of Catholic hell populated by pederasts, adulterers and homosexuals will be emptied to make room for global warming deniers.
Actually, what was involved with Galileo was the “Truth”which the Catholic Church has to adopt ONLY if there is enough “proof”. Galileo had not been able to “prove” his theory-—as he thought orbits were not eliptical, etc. The Church had asked Galileo to say his “theory” was just that, but he refused (he was arrogant). When enough scientific “proof” was there, the Church ALWAYS would accept the Truth, and they did have a paradigm shift as did the whole world-—in science, in Reality, etc.
Paradigm shifts (refuting the old paradigm) takes a tremendous amount of effort, knowledge and time. It is never easy to “change” any worldview overnight and the Church was cautious, which was GOOD. Galileo was not tortured, he was put under “house” arrest, where he managed to publish great things and was visited by the greatest men of his time. All you have heard about Galileo and the “Dark” Ages were a Protestant vilification of the Catholic Church (C.S. Lewis) which was prevalent after the Reformation. The Protestants vilified Catholics in America, too and it was the Catholic colony of Maryland, which was the FIRST one in the US colonies to allow Freedom of Religion.
Our dramatic “paradigm shift” to total Marxism and paganism (sodomy) has been ongoing since Nietzsche declared the truth about the worldview of his intellectual, literally insane, comrades—that “God is Dead”.
That “filth (worldview) from the Rhine” which included “gender” theory and an invention of the word “homosexual” is just a recreation of Plato’s Cave for the masses for World domination. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. For total slavery, children have to be made so irrational they actually believe “snow is black”. They have to be removed from their biological parents or be formed by evil, vile people-—like the ones in Europe who are destroying Idenity formation in children by keeping Truth a secret-—even that they are male or female-—to warp their mind and emotions.
The Marxist worldview was implemented into Prussian curricula and into America by 1930-—but took years to corrupt the majority of children (Jimmy Carter). The curricula removed all of the Great Ideas of Western Civilization and warped them by putting everything through a Marxist lens (Zinn, Marcuse, Dewey, Count, Ruggs) to destroy the foundation of children, remove Common Sense and destroy Reason and Logic.
Without Reason, there is no “Just Law”. Without Just Law, civil society collapses. Without Reason, there is no Virtue. Without Virtue, there is no Freedom. Without Wisdom, the ability to discern Good and Evil, evil will prevail since it is the easiest path to power and the result of hate which is embedded in all curricula.....hate of “the Other”, of parents, of biological connections, of different races, of family, of EVERYTHING so that Unity is impossible and the State is Everything.....god, mommy, daddy, etc. and individualism is impossible-—thinking inside the box (one way) destroys Free Will and the ability to be human (use Reason).
Removing children from the Natural Family destroys individualism and Common Sense in children, puts them into a group think artificial (dehumanizing) system which will create a “Mind” like this “pope’s”——an irrational, incoherent one which bases truth on moral relativism, and the utopian Marxist bible.
He rejects Objective Truth, God, Natural Law, and God’s Laws. (Reality).
The Marxists have been forcing everyone into Political Correctness (making Lies into truth) and destroying the ability to “Know” anything. When your foundation is made up of Lies, Lies and more Lies—as all Liberation Theory is about (religion with no God-—just Earth Worship). You will get the irrational moral relativists like this pope, where Good is Evil and Evil is Good and Slavery is Freedom.
As Wittgenstein stated——when you can control Words and Language-—as this pope deliberately does to erase Truth—you can control the “perceptions” of the ignorant masses.
This “pope” is the devil’s tool. It is so obvious. You can judge by his “fruits”. Read Fr. Oko’s Report on Homoheresy. Nothing has been done about this infiltration of Marxist homosexuals inside the Catholic Church.
The CC was the only institution which condemned sterile, purposeless sex acts since the 1930s. Sex Acts which objectify women and men and remove dignity and the sacred from sex and reduces people to a “Means to an End”—just rutting, godless animals.-—(Marxism).
Sexual Liberation is the easiest way to enslave the masses: Libido Dominandi (Jones). It is the history of the world: where no sexual morality exists, complete tyranny or tribal cultures like the Afghani with the boy harems will be the result. Without Virtue, Freedom is impossible (Socrates/Founders). All Virtue is habituated and taught in childhood. (Aristotle).
He keeps this up and it will be the end of the Church.
For all the rhetorical sophistry, Rome still imprisoned Galileo.
A church, prosecuted a man, and took his freedom. This same bunch forbade people from reading the Bible too.
The goal of the papacy was not scientific truth, it was the suppression of something they saw as conflicting with their theology.
No sane person blames the Catholics of today for that outrage. Today’s RCC members are scientists, astronauts, astronomers and physicists. But pretending that the papacy 400 years ago was not a despotic ignorant entity makes people ignore the modern churches theology today.
The church loses, not advances, by defending them from that era. It would be like me as a protestant defending the murderers of Salem, or the religious murders of Calvin.
The only fact one needs know, and that is that Galileo was _not_ free to walk away, go where he wanted, publish what he would, and call it a theory, a fact, or whatever he pleased.
That is the discussion, not the merits of the theory. The problem was that a religion claimed such authority at all.
Petrus Romanus qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur et Iudex tremedus iudicabit populum suum. Finis
He is a Marxist ideologue and a Peronista. Read the article. American Catholics should withhold all contributions until this individual is removed from office and replaced with a traditional Christian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.