First, Galileo: Even after Galileo's first trial (1616) natural philosophers like Riceloll were well aware --- and openly declared--- that neither the pope nor any Church agency had made an anti-Copernican definition of doctrine. In other words, the geocentric theory was never "dogma," and the heliocentric theory per se was not heresy, let alone blasphemy. (After all, Copernicus, a Polish Catholic cleric, had taught it freely 80 years before Galileo.)
At the outset, the Church (meaning, in this instance, Card. Robert Bellarmine) said Galileo could teach any concept of the sun, planets and stars he wanted, as long as he presented it as a hypothesis supported by mathematical evidence; he was not to make claims of absolute philosophic or theological truth.
Since Galileo was teaching that the sun was the center of the Universe (not just of our solar system, but of the Universe) and that the ocean tides were caused by the rotation of the earth on its axis (tides are in fact caused by the gravitational pull of the Moon), from a scientific point of view, Bellarmine had the better of the argument.
There was a later trial (I think it was in the 1630's?) when Galileo was found "in vehement suspicion of heresy," but it was an unjust trial based apparently on intense academic rivalry and a fraudulent document --- for those peculiar people who are interested in the facts, it's in the court records --- and Galileo was unjustly sentenced to house arrest.
That's it. No reversal of doctrine.
Second, Darwin: similarly, the Church had never made a definition of doctrine declared that the creation of the World, "the origin of species and the descent of man", all happened in one 144-hour period and without God's use of secondary causes. I know you object to this, ZC, because we've been over this before, but the Church was always open to a symbolic reading of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, (possibly going back, St. Jerome says, to the St. Mark the Evangelist, and the Catechetical School of Alexandria, 1st century AD, but at least from the 4th century AD, St. Augustine, who argued against a literal reading of the early books of Genesis.)
The Catholic Church has no dogma supporting Genesis as literal astrophysics, geology, and fundamental biology --- therefore, no argument with Darwin --- except inasmuch as he may well have been wrong in his biological specifics (much as Galileo was wrong on the astrophysical specifics.) That's as far as science goes.
As for Darwin's philosophy, that's a different matter altogether. He held a materialistic and deterministic view with an exclusion of the Divine origin, guidance, plan and purpose of the world ---that, a totally materialistic view, is unacceptable to Catholicism.
I know very well that our views differ on this (are you a geocentrist, too?) (sincere question) but your point was that the Catholic Church had supposedly changed her dogmas with regard to Galileo and Darwin: and this is not the case.
Again, I appreciate the chance to explain these few salient points. Not interesting to many, for sure; but possibly interesting to some.
I’m interested, as ZC has claimed in the past the Church once taught a literalistic view of Genesis. He has even claimed some FR Catholics assert this too.
I’ve intended to determine the veracity of at least the former for a while now. I tend to disbelieve both assertions but that (my belief) means nothing of course as far as the truth is concerned.
But let’s see if ZC wishes to dive once again into this topic.
At the outset, the Church (meaning, in this instance, Card. Robert Bellarmine) said Galileo could teach any concept of the sun, planets and stars he wanted, as long as he presented it as a hypothesis supported by mathematical evidence; he was not to make claims of absolute philosophic or theological truth.
But this is exactly what has happened. Copernicanism is now accepted as an absolute philosophic and theological truth, and the factual veracity of the Bible has been destroyed in most minds. This is exactly what Bellermine feared. To claim that your religious beliefs are identical to and absolutely unchanged from those of Bellarmine is simply factually untrue, because his concern for the absolute factual truth of Biblical events no longer exists for Catholics.
Re. Darwin
Now here's where it really gets interesting. First of all, it must be understood that my argument is not against a consistent atheistic evolution based solely upon the "observations of science." Such people have the virtue of consistency to commend them. My objections are entirely to "theistic" evolution by people who otherwise seem willing to believe in absolutely anything.
No one has ever explained, or even attempted to explain (because they think the reasons are "self-evident") why this magical barrier stands precisely at the point where Genesis 11 ends and Genesis 12 begins. Really, what excuse is there? What in the first eleven chapters is substantially different from the rest of the Bible? I'm serious.
Really. People can believe in the miracles of the Exodus, the talking donkey, prophecies of the future, the alleged miracles of J*sus, the apostles, and saints, and even Mary's manipulation of the sun (an object Catholics insist could not have been created by G-d as described in Genesis) to such an extent that atheists converted on the spot. So what is the deal? What is so shameful, so horrible, about accepting that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are as factual as the rest?
I recall at one time a publicly viewable web page (I don't know if it's still there) by a Sefaradi rabbi with mystical inclinations who believed in the "gap theory," and who ridiculed literal creationists as bringing shame on religion. Then on another page on the same site he claimed the earth is hollow and that's where the demons live.
I kid you not.
Now I know you don't take me seriously, and you doubtless regard my mystification at this hypocrisy with a smirking amusement. But if my question is so outrageous, why is it that neither you nor anyone else dares to answer it?
Suppose a scientist were to tell you that the "virginal conception" simply could not have possibly happened because it violates everything we know about how the world works. You would reject him, cry "Miracle!" and glory in your "simple childlike faith." Yet when that same scientist tells you that the events of Genesis 1-11 could not have possibly happened because those events violate everything we know about how the world works and you fold like an accordion. Not only do you fold, but you rejoice in this inconsistent folding as though it were absolutely essential to your identity, as though it is an important distinctive that marks you out from those "other people" who don't fold.
You may regard this statement with amusement, but your inconsistency on this matter is absolutely infuriating to me. There is absolutely not logical justification for accepting what science says with regard to one group of miracles while rejecting what science says when it comes to every other group of miracles. And I notice no one to whom I have pointed out this groundless inconsistency has ever had the slightest inclination to defend it. I suppose, because its truth is "self-evident."
I do not expect science or scientists to deny facts before their eyes. I don't expect them to deny that evolution is going on right now if it is. That is not what this is about. This is about the integrity of the Book written by G-d. And this is about the madness of a human nature that will accept an impossible miracle in one case but then reject another as scientifically impossible.
To the doubter of the "virginal conception" (and perhaps even the talking donkey) you would probably point out that G-d is omnipotent, that He created the laws of nature in the first place, and that He can set them aside at will. Yet you insist on imposing on G-d the "fixed laws of nature" when it comes to the very event of ex-nihilation, when no natural laws even existed for G-d to overrule in the first place? G-d can make a donkey talk but He can't make a donkey without submitting to "natural laws" He otherwise is completely sovereign over?
And people with such a bizarre way of thinking think that creationists are "foolish?"
Tell me another one!
I have said this so many times that I grow tired of it, especially since no one here on FR, creationist or evolutionist refuses to discuss the subject, but I can see no reason whatsoever for Catholics or any other group to dogmatically reject one and only one set of miracles while uncritically accepting all others other than this: that this is a dogmatic component of the self-definition of one's group and the need to be "better than" all those "inbred, barefooted, toothless morons" who believe in the literal facticity of Genesis 1-11.
In other words, Catholics hold to this inconsistency because they don't want to be associated in anyone's mind with "those awful rednecks." What other reason could there be, other than maybe to use the Bible's "mistakes" to justify a rejection of sola scriptura? (And btw, a Bible with "mistakes" is not necessary in order to reject sola scriptura, which I also reject as you well know.
If you find the very idea of interpreting Genesis 1-11 so inherently declasse, then how can you stand living in the area of Nashville, Tn.?
Finally, one final question, which will doubtlessly be as ignored as everything else I have said: do creationists who become Catholics have to cease being creationists in order to join the Church? Do they have to have to acknowledge the "possibility" of evolution before they can enter the Church? Is it on a par with the dogmas in the Nicene Creed, or even the "private revelations" of Fatima? Because I was eventually forced out because I would do no such thing. I was following my conscience, which is supposed to be one's "guide" according to VII Catholics, but I suppose in this case conscience must yield to dogma. Too bad that doesn't apply to support of abortion or "gay marriage."