"Pulled" from CompuServe. The events concerning Galileo Galilei pose difficulty in understanding. I hope to clear up some of that difficulty. I do not say "all"...that is unlikely and beyond my present hope. I have heard Galileo "thrown" up to the Church all my life. So, I have taken the time to investigate the cause; not in terms of finding out the facts of the case, but in trying to learn what the "rest of the world" was being told about him. Briefly what I have found is that the facts of the case are never presented. In a public school text the simple statements will be made that "The Church at the time forced him to silence...imprisoned him...condemned him for heresy...placed him under house arrest...etc. etc. etc." Of course I compile into a few words the gist of many texts; many speakers; many TV shows; and the idea that is in the mind of many people. Recently I have heard statements that "The Church is considering 'for- giving ' Galileo his heresy...removing the decree of excommunication... apologizing to Galileo...etc. etc.". There is probably no single event in history, other than the death and Resurrection of Christ, so replete with misunderstanding; with lack of actual investigation. Each generation seems to pass to the next the misunderstandings under which it labored, and the new generation accepts it in toto and passes it on. I faced it with my own son whose devotion to Catholicism was unshakeable and in whose faith I stand today in awe. He did receive his education in a public school and was subjected to the same 1/4 truths. I am not saying that what is told is a lie; only that the entire story is never told. So, to take problem today and use the perspective of history and Religion to resolve it we find: First, there is absolutely NO way that the Catholic Church can "forgive Galileo for his heresy" or "remove the decree of excommunication" or "remove its condemnation of his heresy". The simple fact is that Galileo did _not_ commit "heresy", was _not_ "excommunicated", and was not condemned of "heresy". There is nothing heretical to forgive...no erroneous judgment to remove. Even if there were, there is _no_ way that the Church could "forgive" him. HE IS DEAD, AND THE DEAD CANNOT BE "FORGIVEN" BY THE LIVING (in the sense of giving absolution). What Galileo did is between him and his God, and the Church cannot change it. But what did he do...really? Being "vehemently suspected of heresy" is not is not the same as heresy. About 30 yrs ago there was a case before the U.S. Supreme Court where a man had made the statement (paraphrase) "I think we should take over this country by force". He was overheard, caught, and convicted of treason. His attorney's contested that the man "did" nothing and was having his right to free speech violated. The Court ruled that openly advocating an action in such manner as to incite others to action constituted the same as committing the action. Called the "Advocacy to Action Test", the man went to prison. I am not saying that the Supreme Court was right; simply drawing a parallel. The answer to whether it is right or not lies in your own moral and political perspective. The fact remains that the action of the political Church with Galileo is acceptable in the U.S. legalism as a ruling of the Supreme Court defines such actions. Why? Today, by Papal decree, we are forbidden to speak of a "Church Spiritual" as distinct from the "Church Political". The intent is that there must be no such distinction. That was not true in 17th cent. Italy. To view the events of that nation from the perspective of the U.S. and its laws and courts can do nothing but confuse. Italy, up till the time of Garibaldi, was a loose nation of city states. Under Garibaldi's military influence and the Kingship of Victor Emmanuel, it evolved into a nation of provincial governments, which were little more than large areas dominated by the central city. The area where my father grew up, as an example, was ruled by the Duke of Abruzzi. Dad, and the others in the Province of Trapani, were little more than feudal serfs. It was not science that corrected this problem, or the Church. Much to the chagrin of many, it was a dictator named Benito Mussolini, who struck a concordat with the Vatican restricting its control to the 110 acres now known as the the Vatican City State. Prior to that time polictical domination of a large area was totally the realm of the "leaders of the Church". This was the setting for the Galileo problem politically. Spiritually speaking the situation is not clearer. The Church was still reeling from the excesses of the Reformation; from the shock of discovering that it was not impregnable; from a loss of confidence in its own ability to lead. The Council of Trent in 1546 had come too late by at least 100 yrs. Protectionism was the rule...a feeling that was not to leave till 1965, and, in some remains till today and probably tomorrow. Scientifically the world was being shaken apart. Aristotelian science had been found to have holes. Yet most were of that branch of science and its way of explaining everything. Thomism and its "explanation" were accepted then in much the same way as nuclear physics is today. One more mythology trying to explain reality; each approaching the final answer but not reaching it. Politically, "heresy" was "against the law". Intellectually, anything that seemed to dispute the Bible's answer (as it was seen then) was "heresy". Please note that I said "intellectually" and not "spiritually". I make no claim to the accuracy of the intellectual capability of the "leaders of the Church". There have been some stark raving nuts in high positions (and may still be). But here we deal with the fact that they were the dominant "political" force and were misled as to the true nature of the Universe. Galileo, contrary to today's relating, did not form his hypothesis because of his look thru a telescope at the heaven's. In 1597, he wrote to Johann Kepler acknowledging that he had discarded the Ptolomaic position and believed in the reality of the Copernican system. The telescope was not invented till 1608; Galileo did not use it till 1609. Copernicus himself feared to go contrary to the accepted hypothesis of the time, and as a result allowed a preface to "De revolutionibus" to indicate that he considered it only a mathematical hypothesis and not reality. Not so Galileo. He grabbed hold and developed a passion to demonstrate the truth of it. He made several discoveries pertinent to his point, but failed to prove it; probably because he would not use the findings of Kepler, who, in 1609, had destroyed the theory of epicycles and the dogma (lower case intended) of perfect circles. But, in 1610, the head of the Jesuit Roman College wrote to tell Galileo that the Jesuit astronomers had confirmed all his discoveries. Galileo went to Rome to see the Pope. He had a long audience in Mar. 1611, and concluded that he had the backing of the Holy See and P. Paul V. He returned to Florence confident and still without any proof of his theories. He became embroiled in 2 minor controversies; as to why things float or sink, and who discovered sunspots first. In order to maintain his discovery of sunspots he published "Letters on Sunspots" in 1613. For this he received the adulation of Pope Urban VII, then Cardinal Maffeo Barberini. But there was a problem. He had published in Italian, not Latin, and thus cast his theory into the public arena. And to add fuel to the fire he included in the paper his endorsement of the Copernician System...without proof. A storm of controversy broke out among the people. They wanted to know how, for ex. Joshua had commanded the sun to stand still if it never moved anyway; and why did the Bible say that God "fixed the earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever" Ps 103:5, and "the sun rises and the sun goes down: then it presses on to the place where it rises" Eccle 1:5. (As an aside, this controversy historically denies the proposition that Catholics did not read the Bible. Where else did they get their ideas? even if they were wrong.) Galileo next wrote to Father Benedetto Castelli giving his correct ideas as to the relation of the Bible to Science. The letter circulated freely and was given to the Holy Office for examination. Remember that "heresy" was "against the law" and the "leaders of the Church" were the "law". Paolo Antonio Foscarini published a book which attempted to reconcile the Copernician system with the Bible and sent it to Robert Bellarmine for his opinion. B. was the leading theologian in Rome. He admitted the the Cop. sys. was superior to the Ptolomaic but contended that it was theory and not a proven fact. He also pointed out that no one could interpret the Scripture contrary to the common agreement of the Fathers (historical) of the Church, and the Fathers seemed to interpret the Bible literally on these matters. Bellarmine was wrong on 3 counts. 1. Augustine and Aquinas (true Fathers) both had taught that the Bible was not intended to teach science. 2. Though many of the Fathers did interpret the Bible literally on this matter, not one held that this was to be believed as a revealed truth. 3. While the common interpretation of a Scripture by Theologians makes that interpretation highly probable, unless it is defined as Dogma (caps intended), alternatives may and do exist even if less likely. Bellarmine demanded that Galileo present demonstrable proof (scientific?) before he would allow the alternative exegesis of Scripture. Galileo responded by a revised "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina" in which he quite ably defended his contention on the Bible and Scripture. But (and who knows why) he included the statement that "As to the propositions which are stated but not rigorously demonstrated, anything contrary to the Bible involved in them must be considered undoubtedly false and should be proved so by every possible means". Galileo caught himself in a logic problem which simply confused the whole issue. He then went to Rome to defend his case personally. (At this same time Tommaso Campanella wrote "Apologia pro Galileo" which pled for scientific freedom and presented the best theological defense for Galileo at that time...and went virtually unheard.) Briefly, Galileo lost. The Holy Office condemned the propositions as "philosophically foolish and absurd and formally heretical...". This was not a trial but was an investigation of the propositions, thus no formal condemnation of Galileo himself was carried out. Bellarmine called G. before him and ordered him not to defend the Cop. system any longer. The commissary general of the Holy Office then, without authority, gave Galileo an injunction not to "hold, teach, or defend his opinion in any way, either verbally or in writing". This is found in the Vatican archives but no evidence exists that it was ever given to Galileo, or that if it was, Bellarmine, who knew it to be invalid did not tell Galileo to ignore it. G. did agree to follow Bellarmine's instructions. The case was closed. The Holy Office placed Copernicus' book "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" on the Index of Forbidden books until it could be rendered more hypothetical in thrust. Four yrs later it was removed from the Index. Further, the Holy Office condemned outright all books that attempted to reconcile the heliocentric system with Holy Scripture. The Holy Office is not "The Church". This action did not constitute or represent a committment of the infallible teaching authority of the Church. Yet, as an action of the H. Office, it did require external observance of Catholics, i.e. while they may disagree they may not teach that disagreement as factual. The Aristotilean scientists used the decree against Galileo. (A scientific dispute...not a religious one...and unfairly waged.) Galileo asked Bellarmine for support. B. issued a certificate in which he declared that Galileo had not abjured his opinion, had not been given a penance (thus no formal condemnation), but that he had been told not to hold or defend the Cop. system as true fact. After a series of bitter disputes, in 1623, G. went to Rome to see his friend Pope Urban VIII. Urban refused to lift the decree because of fear of undermining the authority of the Holy Office. This was still a political matter. But he told G. that he could write on the Cop. system so long as he did not attempt to prove it (not much sense in writing). Galileo decided to risk all and 6 yrs later wrote "Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems" in which he tried to use an erroneous theory of the tides as proof of the Cop. system. A second proof, sunspots, was also faulty. It was obvious to all that Galileo had attempted to prove the Cop. system and failed. P. Urban was convinced that Galileo had tried to make a fool out of him and had not intened to heed the Pope's instructions. A special commission charged Galileo with two counts. 1. That he had treated the Cop. sys. as absolute fact and not as hypothesis, and 2. that he had been fraudently silent about the command given by the commissary general in 1616. (Someone found this invalid decree in the files, and news of it came as a complete surprise to all, even the Pope.) Galileo went back to Rome where he was treated with kindness and given comfortable lodging; contrary to what some have claimed. During the "trial" he refused to admit that he had tried to prove the Cop. sys. in the "Dialogue...". He also "could not remember" any instruction given to him by the commissary general. He pointed out that the "Dialogue..." had the Imprimatur ("It may be printed"). He used the certificate of Bellarmine as proof that he had been instructed only "not to hold or defend the Cop. sys" as fact. Spiritually he defended himself ably...but, he had (politically) disobeyed Bellarmine, the Index, and the explicit wishes of the Pope. A token punishment was considered in order. Two factions arose in Rome. One, led by the Pope's nephew, wanted leniency. The other wished to humiliate G. completely and they prevailed. (Politics is politics, even in the Vatican). Galileo was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy"; made to kneel and abjure the Cop. sys., sentenced to prison, and given a "salutary penance" to recite. The prison sentence was never imposed though he remained under house arrest in Florence. He returned to the study of dynamics and in 1636 published his greatest work, "The Discourses concerning Two New Sciences". The action of the Holy Office was the act of a Roman Congregation and was in no way an infallible teaching of the Church. Strictly speaking it was the action of political and scientific circles that existed in the Italian world at that time and was perpetrated upon Galileo in order to maintain political stability and what then passed for scientific "truth". It may be truly said "...the theologians' treatment of Galileo was an unfortunate error; and, however it might be explained, it cannot be defended". ADDENDA & BIBLIOGRAPHY Galileo certainly showed by his observations that conditions are as we now know them. He failed to "prove" his conclusions only by Scripture & the "scientific method" which, as I understand it, includes demonstrability, repeatability, and contraries falsifiability. His "proof" consisted of tidal action to prove the motion of the earth, which we know is a result of lunar forces; and motion of sunspots which may show axial rotation of the sun but nothing with regard to the motion of the earth, at least as he analyzed it. The points made in the foregoing can be verified via Ency. Brit. articles (Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Astronomy:History, q.v.) where I verified them. The theological premises can be verified in "Galileo, the Church and Science", J.J. Langford, 1966. "Galileo and the Freedom of Thought", F.S. Taylor, 1938. "Le opere di Galileo Galilei", 20 v, A. Favaro, 1929-1939. New Catholic Ency., 1967, (art. Galilei, G.). A slightly prejudiced account also occurs in "The Crime of Galileo", Giorgio di Santillana, 1955. *************************************** This file originates from: Origins Talk RBBS * (314) 821-1078 Missouri Association for Creation, Inc. 405 North Sappington Road Glendale, MO 63122-4729 (314) 821-1234 Also call: Students for Origins Research CREVO BBS (719) 528-1363