Replies

This is the best info I have:

The Galileo Controversy

"And yet, it does move." These alleged words of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) conjure images of science's first "martyr": an aged man forced to recant his own correct beliefs for the incorrect views of the Catholic Church--or this is the common belief of many anti-Catholics.

Galileo, it is commonly and quite incorrectly believed, was persecuted by the Catholic Church 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The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, proves the Churches abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is clearly not infallible. For Catholics the episode is often a source of embarrassment and frustration. It shouldn't be either.

This tract will provide a brief explanation of what really happened to Galileo and will show that the Catholic Church was not "persecuting" him or making unreasonable demands on scientists in general.

"Anti-scientific"?

The Church is not anti-scientific. In fact, it has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. The Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists at the College in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church as well as from individual Church officials. The majority of scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.

Nicholai 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. This work was entrusted by Copernicus to Osiander, a staunch Protestant who knew the reaction of Protestants would be in line with Martin Luther's teaching of geocentrism and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander therefore wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory which would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did--something Copernicus did not intend.

Ten years piror to Galileo, Johannes Keppler published a heliocentric work which expanded on the work of Copernicus. As a result, Keppler was persecuted by Protestants, who deemed him a blasphemer, and he fled for protection to the Jesuits, who were commonly known to have great respect for science.

"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 dogmatically to a "tradition." What they fail to realize is 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. In fact, 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 are under the impression that Galileo proved heliocentricity, but he did not. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly 2000 years earlier by Aristotle and concerned the parallax shifts observed in the motion of the heavens.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the motions of the planets. 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 as much trouble if he had he chosen to stay within the realm of scientists and out of the realm of theologians.

But despite the warnings of his friends, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

Galileo: Theologian?

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain passages in scripture. Galileo's opponents pointed out that the Bible clearly states "the sun stood still, and the moon stayed" (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated passage. Psalms 103 and 92 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also indicate celestial motion and terrestrial stability. The literal sense of these passages would have to be abandoned if a heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this shouldn't have posed a problem. As St. 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."

Ignorance of history

Fundamentalist critics of the Catholic Church don't typically have a strong grasp of history, and some who do often ignore or conceal pertinent facts in their efforts to smear Catholicism. As you might expect, there is a lot of ignorance of the historical details surrounding the Galileo.

"Unfortunately, there are still today [as there were in Galileo's time] biblical [hyper-literalists], both Protestant and Catholic, who do not understand this simple point: The Bible is not a scientific treatise.

"When Christ said that the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds (and it is about the size of a speck of dust), he was not laying down a principle of botany. In fact botanists tell us that there are smaller seeds. He was simply talking to the men of his time in their own language, and with reference to their own experience" (Lay Witness, April 1993, p. 5).

To the hyper-literalists, this was unacceptable. In 1616, the year of Galileo's first trial, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

The theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on interpretation of a layman. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is no question that if he had kept the discussion in a purely scientific area the issue would not have escalated to the point it did.

Galileo "confronts" Rome

Galileo came to Rome to confront Pope Paul V. The pope, weary of the controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a stern condemnation of Galileo's theory.

This verdict was fortunately overruled under pressure of more cautious Cardinals and was not published until 1633, when Galileo forced a second showdown.

There is even a controversy about the genuineness of the document. At Galileo's request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, S.J.--one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day--issued a certificate which forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory. Years later when Galileo wrote his Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems, he was not in violation of Cardinal Bellamine's edict, but he was in violation of the Holy Office's controversial command,even though he was not aware of it until it was used against him in 1633.

The second trial, like the first, was a result of Galileo's lack of tact. In 1623 his long time friend Cardinal Barberini became Pope Urban VIII. Naturally, Galileo thought the ban of 1616 would be lifted, but he misjudged Urban's patience. His Dialogue made it clear that not only did he consider the defenders of Aristotelian thought fools, he named one of the characters in the Dialogue Simplicio ("Simpleton"), and made him a mouthpiece for Urban's personal views on cosmology. He mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long time supporters, the Jesuits, with violent attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous second 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 threat of torture nor after a harsh imprisonment. 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 back regular reports to the Court regarding the affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

In one letter, Nicolini reveals the actual 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 surely 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.

Having them displayed was a mere formality--sinister by our modern-day standards, perhaps, but certainly customary in those days. In fact, 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 the noted scientist and philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age which saw a large number "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." Though even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that the condemnation of Galileo was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo in penance for his mistreatment.

Infallibility

Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Keep in mind, though, that his conviction and later rehabilitation does not an any way "disprove" the Catholic teaching of papal infallibility, as is often claimed by critics.

The Church has never infallibly taught any system of astronomy. It doesn't for a moment try to evade or obscure the fact that Galileo's tribunal was wrong, but that doesn't injur the Catholic Church's claim to infallibility. The Church has never claimed its ordinary tribunals to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible. Only a pope or an ecumenical council is infallible, and then only in special circumstances.

While the Holy Office's condemnation was ratified by Urban VIII, there are three conditions which must be present in order to a pope exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter, (2) he must solemnly define a doctrine relating to faith or morals, and (3) he must indicate the doctrine is to be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo's case the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo's day was under-informed in the field of science, just like the rest of the world.

"And yet, it does move"

As to the quote with which we began, there is no historical evidence to support it. "It was a French writer, writing more than a century after Galileo's death, who first put the words in the great scientist's mouth" (Paul Boller & John George, They Never Said It [1989, 30]).

------------------------------------------------------------------------